Loading...
1990-06-26 CC Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL PACKET - 6/26/90 #1 x fi . CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA T-: CITT COUNCIL pomm lRB'1'IMO lial *j., lOSADAY. m Ii. 1!x!0 CM CODMCIL CW Bl= 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 12, 1990, REGULAR MEETING AND THE JUNE 19, 1990 COMMITTEE OF THE 1BOLE MEETING. Pg. 1831 -1837 3v, EL DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS. Pg. 1832 -1839 4. ALM AMR TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TEMPORARY SEASONAL OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES AT 2281 CONNERCE BLVD. (BEN FRANKLIN) CASE #90 -915 PID #14 -- 117 -24 44 0036 Pg. 1840 -1853 5. COMMENTS i SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 6. RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE PLANS i SPECIFICATIONS AND ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO INSTALL A NEW ROOF, INSULATION AND ROOF EDGE AT THE ISLAND PARR GARAGE AND TO PREPARE PLANS TO OBTAIN QUOTATIONS ON DOING CERTAIN OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT THE ISLAND PARR GARAGE. Pg. 1854 -1857 7. REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR MIRE EDWARDS TO CONSTRUCT A STAIRWAY TO THE LAKESHORE AT HIGHLAND BLVD. /IDLEWOOD ROAD ON COOK'S BAY. Pg. 1858 -1862 S. REQUEST TO ERECT A FENCE AT TYRONE PARK FOR YOUTH BI:SEBALL - JERRY GIBBS. Pg. 1863 -1865 9. REQUEST TO ALTER LOCATION OF DOCK :ITE - BRAD i MELVIN SOHNS. Pg. 1866 -1892 10. APPROVAL OF SHORELAND GRANT AGREEMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE L.M.C.D. Pg. 1893 -1902 11. UPDATE ON WATER TREATMENT FACILITY - COMPUTER ANALYSIS. 12. RECYCLING UPDATE - JOYCE NELSON. Pg. 1903 13. LICENSE RENEWALS. Pg. 1904 14. PAYMENT OF BILLS. Pg. 1905 -1921 Page 1829 15. XVPOMMTIOM i YI8 CELL"zOU8 t., - 5 A. Planning Commission Mintues of June 11, 1990. Pg. 1922 -1 B. LMCD Mailing. Pg. 1924 -1936 C. May 1990 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. Pg. 1931 -1932 D. Resolution from the Cities of Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach regarding their positions on LMCD Long Term Management Plan. Pg. 1933 -1938 E. Memo dated June 13, 1990, from the Westonka Chamber of Commerce re: policy statement on itinerant merchants. Pg. 1939 F. Although we agreed not to have a COW meeting in July, we would like to request a special meeting in July to have the Downtown Study presented at a joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission. The suggested dates are either July 16 or July 17 in the evening. Please check your calednars and we will discuss this Tuesday evening. • G. Park Commission Minutes of June 14, 1990. Pg. 1940 -1945 H. Additional comments from the City of Orono regarding the LMCD 25 Year Comprehensive Plan. Pg. 1946 -1981 • Page 1830 • 88 June 12, 1990 MINOTEB - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 12, 1990 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session at 7:30 PM, on Tuesday, June 12, 1990, in the Coun Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Persons present: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Deputy Clerk Linda Strong, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Attorney Curt Pearson, and the following interested citizens: Frank Matachek, Sr., Brian Johnson, Wes Olsen, Susan DeMann, Joyce Nelson, Tom Casey, Greg and Jane Skinner, Pat Meisel, Bob Byrnes, Ray Barnard, Parker Lodges, Lori Hamm. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 M INUTES • MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of May 22, 1990 Reconvened Board of Review and Regular meeting and the June 4, 1990 Committee of the whole meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. • Y I Y I. • i .i_ : • c c l-I ij • • ilk. ,MOTION by Johnson, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to set June 26, 1990 for a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit to allow temporary outdoor seasonal outdoor retail sales at 2261 Commerce Blvd (Ben Franklin). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 CABE #87 -663: City Planner Mark Koegler reviewed this item, stating that the Planning Commission had reviewed this at their June 11th meeting and they recommended approval of the extension adding the condition to remove the existing cesspool. The applicant was present and agreed to remove the cesspool. 1 /d3/ 0 -1 89 June 12, 1990 Jensen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 90 -66 RE80LUTION TO EXTEND FOR 011E YEAR TEE EXPIRED RESOLUTION #87 -179, TO ALLOW AN ADDITION FOR PARTS OF LOTS 17 AND It BLOCK 26, SHADYWOOD POINT; PID i13 -117- Z4 11 0094 (4945 GLEN ELYN ROAD, P 6 _ 87 -663. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. _.. City Planner Mark Koegler summarized this item stating that no new proposal had been presented. The garage remains an illegal non - conforming structure. The evidence presented does not justify reversal of this decision. Council discussed this with the applicant. The house is currently for sale. MOTION by Je ssen, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to deny modification of Resolution #89 -179. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The garage is to be removed or relocated immediately. 1.6 SURMOUNTABLE CURB /DRIVEWAY APRONS - WOO+DCREST This item was pulled from the agenda as the petition had not been submitted. l.s COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITI8EN8 PREBENT There were none. 1.6 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID (HOW BTREETB_ City Engineer John Cameron stated this was a formality required by the state. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 90 -69 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STATE AID HIGHWAYS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. r� sk 'Q M 2 M ,. a 90 June 12, 1990 1.7 APPROVAL OF PORTABLE SIGN PERMIT FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAZE INCREDIBLE 7E82IVAL MOTION by Jesaen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to approve i portable signs for Our Lady of the Lake Incredible Festival to be erected from July 14th to August s, 1990. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST #2. CITY HALL ADDITION AND REMODELING - 857.297.34 City Engineer John Cameron stated this payment request was for the work done through May 31, 1990. NOTJON by Ahrens, seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously to approve payment request #2 in the amount of $57,297.34 for city hall addition and remodeling. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. • 1.9 APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER #2 - CITY HALL ADDITION AND REMODELING Acting City Manager Fran Clark presented a memo from the city manager regarding this item and explained it. There are three change orders to consider. Change order #4 proposes building out the two remaining overhang areas of city hall at the west end of the building. This would square off the entire building and would cost much more to do so at a later date. The price from Shingobee Builders for this is $13,500. In addition to this change order, if approved, should be added t following: projected cost of moving the electrical box - $3,8W0; moving the cooling unit - $550; and the cost of moving the gas meter which has yet to be determined. Change Order #2 is a deletion of $798 not to install reflectorized signs indicating city hall /fire station. Wooden signs will be used later, similar to the ones ordered for the entrances to Mound. Change Order #6 is a deletion of $300, not to install a construction project sign. Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 90 -70 RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS #2, #4 AND #` PERTAINING TO THE REMODELING AND ADDITION TO CITY HALL AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY MANAGER. 0 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3 /833 91 June 12, 1990 1. 10 PROPOSED NO SNOEINO POLICY The following citizens spoke on this issue: Tom Casey and Pat Heist'. Council discussed this issue. NOTION by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to include a designated, ventilated smoking area in the new area of city hall and to allow smoking in that area for two tears from the move -in date. After the two years, city hall will become smoke free. The fire station, liquor store, I.P. Hall, the Depot and city -owned vehicles are szoWt at this time. A committee consistinq of employees and councilmembers is to be formed to work out the details for a total smoking ban to be implemented in late 1992. The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Johnson voting nay. Motion carried. 1.11 Tom Casey of the Earth Day Committee and the Planning Commission, • along with Joyce Nelson, Mound's Recycling Coordinator approached the Council. Mr. Casey presented his petition to the Council regarding mandatory recycling. Council discussed this item. Council directed the Recycling Committee and the staff to prepare a report regarding other cities in Hennepin County listing their incentives and type of programs. 1.12 PAYKZNT 0! SILLS NOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to authorise the payment of bills as presented on the pre -list in the amount of =264,022.69, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. notion carried. FVFTIF;F,t =T A. Department Head Monthly reports for May 1990. B. LMCD Representative's May Report. C. Memo dated May 24, 1990, from Len Harrell, Police chief, on Physical Fitness Specialist Course. D. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 1990. 0 18 3y 4 3�a 74 92 June 12, 1990 E. Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 31, 1990. F. LMCD Mailings. G. Request from Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) to serve on Legislative Policy Committees. if you are interested, please let Fran know as soon as possible. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole seats on 14msday, June 19, 1990, 6 :30 PM, city hall. MOTION by Jesse &, seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. is trancene Clark, acting City Manager Linda Strong, Deputy Clerk 5 p3S MINUTES — COMMITTEE OF THE VHOLE — JUNE 19, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7:07 PM, following dinner. Members present: Councilmembers Skip Johnson, Liz Jensen, Andrea Ahrens and Mayor Smith (arrived at 7:15 PM). Absent and excused: Phyllis Jessen. Also present: John Cameron, City Engineer; Greg Skinner, Water and Sewer Superintendent; Ed Shukle, City Manager. Ed Shukle reviewed with the Council the direction that was given to the City Engineer in late 1989 regarding an engineering report on the water system for the City. The water system report included information on the existing distribution system as well as information on construction of a water treatment facility to remove iron and manganese. John reviewed the report and a discussion followed. Council consensus was to have the City Manager work with Financial Consultants and the Finance Director on a financial analysis and rate study of the water fund in relationship to the improvements proposed. In addition, the engineer was to contact cities regarding iron and manganese removal as well as softening of water by the lime soda method. The information on both the financial analysis /rate study and information from the other cities will be presents at the August 21st Committee of the Whole meeting. In additioi the engineer is to report back to the Council at the June 26, 1990 regular meeting, regarding a possible computer analysis of the distribution system in relationship to the proposed improvements in the preliminary engineering report. City Manager Ed Shukle then briefed the Council on the investigation of Anthony's site for the storage of public works materials. John Cameron reviewed the acreage:: involved with the property. Following those reports, the Council consensus was to schedule a field trip to the site as well as have the city manager check on the Hennepin County Assessor's values with regard to the properties owned by Anthony's. Island Park Garage improvements were discussed. The City Manager reviewed a letter written by the City's architect regarding the improvements that are needed at the Island Park Garage for the Park Department. Consensus was to go forward with this and have the City Manager draft a resolution directing the city engineer to prepare plans and specifications and advertise for bids on the replacement of the roof and to have the city engineer prepare plans to get individual quotations on the other items referencing the letter dated May 16 1990 items #1 the roof repair, items 2- 7 and 12, 13 and 14 would be done by quotation. Clarification of the smoking policy June 12, 1990 r•�gular meeting was Jessen was absent, it was agreed until the next regular meeting decision that was made at the discussed. Since Phyllis that the matter be continued on June 26th for further • 1836 clarification. Briefly, the proposed Environmental luality Amendment was discussed. It was continued to the August 21, 1990 Committee of the Whole meeting. Other business: There was a briefing on the condition of the property located at 2142 Belmont Lane. The C).ty Manager also reported on the comments he made to the LMCD per the discussions of the Council. The last item was that Ed had appointed Jon Sutherland of Minneapolis to replace Jan Bertrand as the Building Official effective July 9, 1990 It was noted that there is no Committee of the Whole meeting in July. The next Committee of the Whole meeting will be August 21, 1990 at 6:30 PM. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned 9:18 PM. Res pectfully submitted, { J� Ed Yhkle City Manager • 2 1 l3) 22 2320 302 22 2320 %53 22 2350 212 22 2350 333 22 2350 694 22 2350 752 22 2380 451 22 2380 481 22 2382 602 22 2470 031 22 2592 511 22 2620 751 22 2830 482 22 2860 152 22 2860 212 22 2860 481 22 2860 543 22 3010 392 22 3080 031 22 3100 513 22 3100 902 22 3102 397 22 3102 545 22 3130 092 22 3160 091 22 3240 24i Delinquent Water and Sewer $240.03 82.45 77.26 304.62 88.62 87.36 177.89 132.66 95.44 104.98 86.53 167.40 109.21 218.06 186.43 78.04 122.24 92.87 74.16 161.79 115.53 106.65 186.52 203.30 106.84 121.87 6/20/90 • • 138 2. 22 3430 242 $243.89 22 3670 123 93.54 22 3730 092 128.12 22 3730 151 192.99 22 3970 186 147.55 22 4040 483 151.22 $4491.06 • 183? Delinquent Water and Sewer 22 2320 302 Dave Klensaeh $240.03 2208 Fairview Ln. 22 2320 753 dob Longnecher Po. 410.00 82.45 2361 Fairview Ln. 22 2350 212 John Phillippi 77.26 2221 Chateau Ln. 22 2350 333 Patrick :talker 304.62 2314 Chateau Ln. 22 2350 694 Blair & Erickson Pd. 88,62 2401 Chateau Ln. 22 2350 752 Scott Hylander Pd. 87.36 2441 Chateau Ln. 22 2380 451 Burt Linquist Pd. 820.00 177,89 4879 Edgewater Dr. 22 2380 481 uan Sjoberg Pd. 132.66 4882 Edgewater Dr. 22 2382 602 John Uevorak Pd. 95.44 5028 Edgewater Dr. 22 2470 031 Sharon Webb 104.98 2130 Hickory Ln. 22 2592 511 Tom Grudnowski 86.53 5259 Bartlett Blvd. 22 2620 751 John Richards Pd. 167.40 3037 Highland Blvd. 22 2830 482 ray & Bumian 109.21 5967 kidgewood Kd. 22 2860 152 Tire: Bell 218.06 5915 Hawthorne Rd. 22 2860 212 Richard iBaas 186.43. 5926 Hawthorne Rd. 22 2860 481 C. Poikonen Pu. 78.04 5971 Hawthorne Rd. 22 2860 543 occupant 122.24 6013 Hawthorne Rd. 22 3010 392 oichael Bennett 92.87 2973 Hazelwood Rd. 22 3080 031 Steve Karvuld Pd. 74.16 6104 Sinclair Ct. 22 3100 513 Paula uronlanu 161.79 2668 Westedge Blvd. 22 3100 902 K - S - Johnson Pd. 115.53 2928 Westedge Blvd. 22 3102 397 Toi.i .iarlett 106.65 3120 Westedge Blvd. 22 3102 545 Greg Oakland 186.52 3148 Westedge Blvd. 22 3130 092 Noma i is i le 1 i s 208.30 6216 Bayr i dge Rd. 22 3160 091 106.84 2620 Halstead Ln. 22 3240 241 kicharu iiaw ;., P(J. 121.87 2640 Setter Circle 2. 22 3430 242 22 3670 123 22 3730 092 22 3730 151 22 3970 186 22 4040 483 David Morse Shanley & Hall Pd Uon Hastings Robert Blix Pd. Wes Olsen Eric Ormar. Pd. $243.89 1838 Commerce Blvd. 93.54 5259 Eden Rd. 128.12 5008 Woodridge Rd. 192.99 5028 Woodridge Rd. 147.55 2539 Emerald Ln. 151.22 5068 Shoreline Blvd. $4491.06 $3062.23 6 #: CIT) o N I( UND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA j. .: 1.10UNC. fh cNr a c¢ ' CASE NO. 90 - 915' �. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING 70 CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TEMPORARY SEASONAL OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES AT 2281 COMMERCE BLVD. (BEN FRANKLIN) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 26 , 1990 to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow Temporary Seasonal Outdoor Retail Sales at Ben Franklin, 2281 Commerce Blvd., legally descrbied as follows: That part of Lot 52, Lynwo?d Park, Lake Minnetonka, P.I.D. X114- 117 -24 -44 0036. THE HEARING PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1990 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given the opportunity to be heard. C.� _ Francere C. Clark, City Clerk Published in "The I.aker" June 11, 1990. Mailed to property owners within a 350 foot radius on June 15, 1990. 0 • / rjD ry4'i i 4r._ MIIM1IM W A NUTii1111 R� III)IN�'0 MWilt>1111 fLAIMtIt I�Nir�l01! Jlna 13. 11M City Planner, Mark Koegler. reviewed his recommendation to allow accessory outdoor retail sales for the ben Franklin store. After gathering conclusions from previous Planning Commission discus- sions and meeting with the owner, John Royer and the City Manager. Koegler recommended approval of the conditional use per - mit with the following co►dltlonst No merchandise of any kind shall be stored. displayed or Koegler confirmed for Mueller that the proposed outdoor sales area Is within the 20% of the floor area requirement. Jensen questioned if set -up and take -down dates should be established for the temporary structure. Royer agreed that a set -up date of March IS and a takedown date of September 1 was sufficient. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. There was discussion relating to the appearance of the front of the store. The sale of bagged goods on pallets was discussed. Welland and Thal were concerned about people using the sidewalk for the purpose of shopping. and therefore clogging the sidewalk with shoppers. Since there were no citizens present to speak on the issue. Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller to approve staff recommendat for approval of the Conditional Use Permit Including conditions 1. through 4. as stated above, and the followings S. Merchim Ise storage at the front of the store on private property shall be limited to 4 feet from the building wall to allow a 2 foot walkway for shoppers, and the sale of begged goods shall be al- lowed from the door southward only. All merchan- dise shall be kept In a neat and orderly manner. & 6. The temporary structure shall not be erected be- tween September 1 and March IS, respectively. Motion seconded by Thal. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 26, 1990. sold on, or from the public sidewalk area (right -of -way). 2. From October Ist through November 7th of each year. pumpkins are permitted to be displayed and sold along the front por- tion of the store on private property only. 3. From December 1st Through January 7th of each year, the parking lot on the south side Of building can be used for display and ;ales of Christmas trees. 4. A fence enclosure shall be constructed at the southwest cor- ner of the site In the vicinity of the existing tree and shrub sales area. All merchandise shall be displayed, sold and stored within the enclosed area. S. Merchandise storage at the front of the store on private property shall be limited to flowers and other plant materiels and a display of one example of each bagged good product (maximum ten products). All merchandise shat! be • kept In a neat and orderly manner. Koegler confirmed for Mueller that the proposed outdoor sales area Is within the 20% of the floor area requirement. Jensen questioned if set -up and take -down dates should be established for the temporary structure. Royer agreed that a set -up date of March IS and a takedown date of September 1 was sufficient. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. There was discussion relating to the appearance of the front of the store. The sale of bagged goods on pallets was discussed. Welland and Thal were concerned about people using the sidewalk for the purpose of shopping. and therefore clogging the sidewalk with shoppers. Since there were no citizens present to speak on the issue. Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller to approve staff recommendat for approval of the Conditional Use Permit Including conditions 1. through 4. as stated above, and the followings S. Merchim Ise storage at the front of the store on private property shall be limited to 4 feet from the building wall to allow a 2 foot walkway for shoppers, and the sale of begged goods shall be al- lowed from the door southward only. All merchan- dise shall be kept In a neat and orderly manner. & 6. The temporary structure shall not be erected be- tween September 1 and March IS, respectively. Motion seconded by Thal. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 26, 1990. 4 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner / DATE: May 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Outdoor Retail Sales APPLICANT: John Royer CASE NUMBER: 90 -915 • VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310-A13 -ZO LOCATION: 2281 Commerce Boulevard (Ben Franklin) EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B -1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial At the Planning Commission meeting on May 7, 1990, the Commission reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish an Accessory Outdoor Retail Sales area for Ben Franklin in downtown Mound. After discussion by the Commission during which concern was expressed regarding the appearance of goods stored in front of the store, the item was tabled and referred to staff for additional review. On May 22, 1990, Ed Schukle and I met with John Royer at Ben Franklin and reviewed the existing conditions on the site. At that time, Mr. poyer sold garden products and flowers from locations at the front and side of the store. The front contained primarily bagged goods such as top soil, potting soil and fertilizer stored on standard wooden pallets. Miscellaneous other items were also in front including two racks containing hanging flower baskets. • MY/ 3030 Harbor Lane Noun Bldg II, Suite 104 M.nnesDolls, MN. 55447 -2175 612/553-'350 �A Planning Report May 30, 1990 Page two Along the south side of the store, products are stored in two Y areas. The 10' by 60' temporary building houses bedding plants and hanging baskets. At the southwest corner of the site, small trees, shrubs and flowers were displayed on the ground separated from the parking lot by a few landscaping timbers. Of the areas now containing merchandise, only the temporary structure along the south side of the building meets the recently adopted Accessory Outdoor Retail Sales ordinance requirements pertaining to enclosure. At the meeting on May 7, Mr. Royer explained the nature of his business and reviewed the types of products that he sells. From that discussion and the comments by the Commission members at the last meetiny, staff has assembled suggested permit conditions for additional discussion and review by the Planning Commission. Suggested Permit Conditions 1. No merchandise of any kind shall be stored, displayed or sold on, or from the public sidewalk area (r lht -of -way). 2. From October 1st through November 7th of each year, pumpkins are permitted to be displayed and sold along the front portion of the store on private property only. 3. From December 1st through January 7th of each year, the parking got on the south side of building can be used for display and sales of Christmas trees. 4. A fence enclosure shall be constructed at the southwest corner of the site in the vicinity of the existing tree and shrub sales area. All merchandise shall be displayed, sold and stored within the enclosed area. 5. Merchandise storage at the front of the store on private property shall be limited to flowers and other plant materials and a display of one example of each bagged good product (maximum ten products). All merchandise shall be kept in a neat and orderly manner. • 114 MIMATES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADV i SORY FUMING COMMISSION May 7. 1990 F. b . Cpse No. 90-91 S s John Rovers Ban f rank t i n. 22A 1 fear City Planner. Mark Koegler. reviewed the history of seasonal out- door retail sales at the Ben Franklin store. Koegler explained that the zoning code requires seasonal merchandlte to be enclosed by walls, fencing or other suitable materials. The applicant's request. however. Is not consistent with these standards. Presently. and In the past, the store has had unenclosed open storage areas at the front of the store for bagged products and at the rear of the store for trees and shrubs which Is not In compliance with the zoning code standards. A variance could be issued to allow sales of these unenclosed items. or this request could be tabled to allow the applicant to modify his site plan to provide enclosed areas for these products. There Is also the issue of Christmas tree sales and pumpkin sales which are also displayed unenclosed. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission table this item and direct the applicant to meet with staff to see If this Issue can be resolved with a modification to the existing proposal. it Is possible to establish a phasing of future Improvements which would satisfy the enclosure requirements identified in the definition. The commissioners commented on the appearance of the store. The consensus of the Commission was that the bags In the front of the store do not look nice* and they preferred to table the request as suggested by the City Planner. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. Applicant. John Royer, commented that he has operated the store for 16 years, and admitted that every year the outdoor sales have grown. He has never heard any complaints from citizens on the appearance of his store. He also feels that the tree and shrub sales at the rear of the lot blend in with the background and look nice In that location. The Commissioners discussed the possibility of treating the pumpkin and Christmas tree sales as separate applications. MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Voss to approve staff recommendatlon to table the Conditional Use Permit request to allow staff and applicant the opportunity to further review the proposal. Motion carried unanlmr ously. This public hearing will be continued by the Planning Commlsslon1113 after staff and the applicant have had the opportunity to meet. { PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koeg1er, City Planner DATE: May 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Outdoor Retail Sales APPLICANT: John Royer CASE NUMBER: 90 -915 VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- A13 -ZO LOCATION: 2281 Commerce Boulevard (Ben Franklin) EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B -1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Com-ercial BACKGROUND: Within the past few months, the Mound Zoning Code was modified to allow accessory outdoor retail sales as conditional uses in the B -•1 zone. The ordinance defines such uses as: "Exterior retail sales that shall be enclosed by walls, fencing or other suitable material. Such uses shall be accessory to the principal retail structure and shall not exceed 20: of the floor area of the principal structure." For a number of years, Ben Franklin has offered seasonal merchandise for sale along the southern portion of the building. Plants are sold out of a 10'by 80' frame structure that is covered with translucent corrugated fiberglass panels. Seasonal merchandise (primarily bagged products) is also stored along the front entrance of the building and at the southwest corner, trees and shrubs are sold from an open tot with no enclosure or security . At two other times during the year, Ben Franklin offers seasonal goods. In December, Christmas trees are sold along the south side of the building. In October, pumpkins are displayed at the front of the store along Commerce Boulevard. 40 1%44 3030 Harbor Lane Ncrth Bjdg II, Suds 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447 -2175 612/553 -1050 Royer Planning Report May 1, 1990 • Page 2 As was mentioned above, the Mound Zoning Code requires that seasonal merchandise be enclosed by walls, fencing or other suitable material. Ben Franklin's proposed operation which is consistent with the operation in previous years is not consistent with these standards. The B -1 zone prohibits the open sale of merchandise. In order to permit businesses to offer expanded goods, the ordinance was modified to allow accessory seasonal outdoor sales by conditional use permit. Those sales areas are required to be enclosed as defined in the ordinance. The proposal offered by Ben Franklin encloses only some of the merchandise in the temporary structure along the south side of the building. The open storage in front of the store and the plant and shrub area at the southwest corner are not in compliance with the enclosure requirements. In previous years, the merchandise along the front of the store has encroached upon the sidewalk area. When this occurred, the Building Official notified Mr. Royer verbally or on one occasion, in written form. Although not a major problem in terms of frequency of occurrence, the storage of merchandise such as commercial fertilizer, manure and other bagged products presents a cluttered image of downtown Mound. Conditional use permits are granted on a case by case basis. In each, the Planning Commission and C i t y Council need to examine the specific details of the case before rendering their final actions. In this case, the proposed storage area is not in compliance with the recently enacted ordinance provisions. The unenclosed open storage areas are not consistent with overall spirit and intent of the B -1 zone which does not allow open sales lots. From the business owners perspective, the fact that the business has operated in the same manner in previous years will probably be cited as an argument for its continuation. The fact that an activity occurred previously is not germane to the decision at hand. The current decision needs to focus on the specific request to provide sales areas which are open in nature and not in compliance with the recently enacted zoning modifications. In order to resolve this issue, two courses of action are possible. If the Planning Commission finds that the past usage of the property is acceptable and in the long term best interests of the Mound's downtown area, a conditional use permit can be drafted including variances for the tree and shrub area and the goods located along the front of the store. If the open manner of storage of these materials is unacceptable, this item could be tabled to allow Mr. Royer to modify his site plan to provide enclosed areas for these products. • ,tv Royer Planning Report May 1, 1990 ?age 3 At the present time, the open sales area is an illegal use. Until a conditional use permit is issued or as long as the applicant is working with the City to bring the area into compliance with the zoning code, the operation should be allowed to continue in its present form. RECOMMENDATION: The open sales areas at the front and southwest corner of the Ben Franklin store are inconsistent with the provisions and intent of the section of the Mound Code of Ordinances regulating accessory seasonal outdoor sales. Staff further feels that the uncontrolled display of goods along the front of any existing business in the CBD is visually unattractive and inconsistent with the continued improvement of Mound's CBD area. At the same time, staff is not insensitive to the needs of the business owners. Mound has a limited retail base. It is in the best interests of everyone if existing businesses can be provided with an environment which promotes growth and does not contain unreasonable constraints. It is recommended that the Planning Commission table this item and direct the applicant to meet with staff to see if this issue can be resolved with a modification to the existing proposal. It is possible to establish a phasing of future improvements which would satisfy the enclosure requirements identified in the definition. 1844 rl 4 APR 1 2 W90 S7 z case No. 1 ' 9/S CITY OF MOUND PART II! Date F i 1 ed .._ Fee - - 5 200_00 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PLANNING it ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property �'� 4 ec G - � Lot I r Block , 1�'� _� /L!!D__ P I D No. ���17 Addition_ — r Owner's Name � cz Day Phone 4 /,2 - l 1. T� 0 / / t Owner's Address 7 � �1F'��� -=� �'t Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone _ Ex(sting Use of Property: ,4 - h� fir/ fFlSo ffNC L4 SCD 70D41 Zoning District - Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit. or other zoning procedure for this property? ors / X ^ If yes. list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.) I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitt ?d herewith are true and ac- curate. 1 consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official o the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintainin_ and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date J4 -Q. - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recortmendation_ - — Date 5' 1 ' IQ_ M Council Action: — Oate� Resolution (pre cc ot�� r 4 /817 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Case No. Page Two A. All information requested below. a site plan as described in Part I1. and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: I 1. Conditional Use (specify) OUT - Door CP 4g- _!!2L6 2. Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound : _ 1 C Development Schedule: t, 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this apolication providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the pro- posed development. .I�� 2. Estimated cost of the project: S /V D. Density (for residential developments only): I. Number of structures:_ 2. Dwelling units per structure: _ a. number per unit type: efficiency I bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 3. Lot area per dwelling unit:_ 4. Total lot area: _ E. Effect of the Propo U se_ List impacts the proposed use will have or. property in the vicinity. including, but not limited to traffic, noise. light. smoke /odor, parking. and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. t 1141 f M�, -. ll P)Rt of ::1:r, =e�• for Willard H. '.iilliwr in Lot 5, _,,tiv .ld Pnrk. Hennepin Ccu1:t./, ?'1:lttfsotn 1 -10, LF � t 1 ; I 1 • 1 f.r ran rA1 t i r• •I t ►�:S }. <. �., : r�rn'�t, r.: ,rprPnt�t. <_or, c•i n -, r. i,- t l)n ^t n° l,ct. 5' r Pnr% Lake !:!r,t,e- tc t.En r10-':r't1 100 A< ^1 �OW' . ; ', qt the :'rM,!t.O!%Pt rr`7R)er of •qiU 1..1 ,�. •' ^" :r.t cq tgc.t. tf,fnC� "apt. 1 .ir•• �' ` .1�� .�,. ,•te -.. Z �..� 1: "` r P. °L; lf. ^f. .'.ci;th on , her :r � ., nr }. r ., 1� Lo' to !h• ncin! of } r, : r•- 1 r1' S1;} '.<. q'. q.l ,. {'rj. : rt. � F► ^1�'1 •�ri 1 t�_�;�. ..'� r. !', ..,. crI (fir /I lJ LJ'a• 1!.11 " f1r.v �,r.v , 'rr^, r,r r, r - C ..'r, `1 ;:'�'k':or nnr;- P iz nno rko-r ^n ?nkr , P,i:lr,etc Lei 14SO r I h�.y cv w...••r 00 ±- 4 . Er.� d in y 6 ✓/.'o/..r9 .h ' � 4 I . m 1 u ,e ` Ikti i IT L 1 f�ww w•�rw • •r � 0 .. ✓� / �•.. -.P' ;/ CAPS w, !�.�ret1• �r�n � 1 22 -u" LF � t 1 ; I 1 • 1 f.r ran rA1 t i r• •I t ►�:S }. <. �., : r�rn'�t, r.: ,rprPnt�t. <_or, c•i n -, r. i,- t l)n ^t n° l,ct. 5' r Pnr% Lake !:!r,t,e- tc t.En r10-':r't1 100 A< ^1 �OW' . ; ', qt the :'rM,!t.O!%Pt rr`7R)er of •qiU 1..1 ,�. •' ^" :r.t cq tgc.t. tf,fnC� "apt. 1 .ir•• �' ` .1�� .�,. ,•te -.. Z �..� 1: "` r P. °L; lf. ^f. .'.ci;th on , her :r � ., nr }. r ., 1� Lo' to !h• ncin! of } r, : r•- 1 r1' S1;} '.<. q'. q.l ,. {'rj. : rt. � F► ^1�'1 •�ri 1 t�_�;�. ..'� r. !', ..,. crI (fir /I lJ LJ'a• 1!.11 " f1r.v �,r.v , 'rr^, r,r r, r - C ..'r, `1 ;:'�'k':or nnr;- P iz nno rko-r ^n ?nkr , P,i:lr,etc Lei 14SO p Z. SZ v 111. Pht of :survey • for Willard H. Hilliwr ' in Lot 5 Lyllwold Park Hennepin County, kinnesotn it 7J' Ea►i J�ing ial'a.n9 tl NJMr'�y NII1r/ 7 � ti ' C w lilhvY JI 7 f'pA Zi o _ ti 15 S lJ' ! � '.U1oc oD pit• DR�tti rti OtT , :. `c4..L %e "f •n tolr•w•ik D.II'!•e �i •..r�• � �r7 �rl,wylo1 o o- P,-t K I G 4 Re [,41 G rf :.urvPv: • I hcr'tr• ret•t.iry tJ ;nt this in 4 t.rup nnc', ecrr!rt representation of � �� t,i:� i,c ;:n:nri•t� of th-o. nnrt. of Lot 52, i.vnvold Per %, Lake Minna � \ tc rikot, d"Peri 9s foll rr„•im, ;nr qt the Southe st. corner of aid lot; tvc.r,�n ►:ort.h nlrn•r the Kist' 11n•- nc snt:l lot., 58 feet; thence 1 6est •� nrd -raryll•1 with thA "cr'h lino ni - • , t i.i lot, 125 feet; thenco South am.: ';Arnllrl w: +.n hr 4 :ir:t line c' : P', i lt tr the Soiit.h line of Seid lot; thenrn itlnn ;- LG«+ nutt line of Enid lot to th't point. of begir•- r.inp, sur in ^t to nr. alloy oR .e7r-T1t ( the ` ;nsterl_: 12 feat of th' Went. - erly 1' fFrt t`pn:rf: ttn:? or ttr, :nrntion or all t,,;ildini•s, if rinp, thhr. - or, , ^r -c n il vinii•1P sncrohri--n•tnc.::, if ^ny, from or on srild turd. Scale: 1" - 10 ' t;:.rdc n Tt, roffin F. . . o, FtOf,l, T to 5 - ir.tnd Surt•hyor ann- Planner • n : ` Jr( marker Lnnr Dike, Minnesota . ) SS/ 11 CITY of `■0U D MOUND MINNESOTAS`_3e+ 1612)472•>>S5 May 10. 1989 Mr. John Rover BEN FRANKLIN 2281 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear John: In recent years 1 have had comments from residents of Mound reoardIng the open seasonal sales operation at your retail store. 1 here been monitoring the progression of the seasonal sales at the site. The City Zoning Ordinance has a limited definition as to permitted "accessory" uses conducted with retail businesses. You will need to remove all materials "for sale" from the public • right -of -way as per our conversation. The Cite staff would be willing to meet with you to further review the continued opera- tion and the possible expansion of the open sales portion of your business. I would like to suggest that you initiate discussion with the City staff to resolve this issue of open sales by the Spring of 1990. Yours truly. tian-t. Jan Bertrand Building Official J8:pj 89/78 cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager • 1 jS;L (ZI) -- .. [ • (9t) M't i t N all :1l ON I _ _ � � - -� 'it to - -;� � � • ., a >Ea a - - _ aq f'tc _ _ — — oar [I•ICS R . oz 1991 . '09 Ob � _ t.91a o „ goo to lit ' - c• ut to ' 1) `� ,� • _ [• lit ). ; 9N : 19 OG — R 9• 11.1 - o>ti R ' a K a ='• r s lit) . �• _ �= t9 01 — >4T .p 0• _ 1 •. .p'•u •.t.i.. S S0 Gr .. Ir'S9• �. 1 •• ,�t,. ' 1l�1i' . a - SQIb�Z _ _ __ _ iritl�tw list : '� 00%, g �� •r ® KI) (of) .. N , li 001 it (W (lr, (01 ; (1 (Z1) .... �• . t r fit) tie) (•ct 6Z " E 16 0019: ,� a1 a a of It it t2 A as al fl 91 EI M • • Qz • i 1 1 — E9 1 001 f : "' U .•' ; ` ' 19 tl 11 M 1 001• . •• , ,.. , i i •� Ot �a 1 (19) ��+ _ (�, - (plr �� / OG OC 9N)M3A ►)11• CL a! L. M Doll •• - 1 .. _ •er • NI • � • • • ■ .. 1 00. .. _ ... 04 MI (691) ►s)o Vol OS at am Svc I'bV 1 ? 1 F 011 ►OYIMfJ 'i w- a ii '� 'Z •i v PS' ww a McCombs Frank Roo Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 May 16, 1990 Telephone Engineers 612 476 -6010 Planners 612 476 -8532 FAX Surveyors RECD MAY 2 1 1990 Mr. Ed Shukle City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Island Park Garage Improvements MFRA #8145 Dear Mr. Shukle: At your request, after looking at the existing facility with Jim Fackler and reviewing our report of March, 1987, we have compiled the attached list of possible improvements, which reflects the change in usage from a Public Works facility to a Parks-Department facility. The list is arranged in approximate order of priority, with the most important items being listed first. In our opinion, Items 1 through 5 should definitely be completed this year. Item 1 is crucial to the integrity of the entire building and was strongly recommended 3 years ago. Items 2 through 5 are required by code. Item 6 can be completed by the City. We recommend that Items 7, 8 and 9 also be completed this year, as they are not performi as they should be or could be hazardous. Item 9 is the cost for high efficiency lighting. If flourescent lighting is used, $3,000 could be deducted from the initial cost, but this amount would then be spent in 8 years for extra electricity and maintenance. Item 10 is recommended because, although the existing doors work fairly well, they are badly deteriorated. If Item 10 is performed, Item 11 should also be completed so the exterior is upgraded as a whole. The remainder of the items would improve working conditions and the function of the facility, but are not requirements: The prioritization of these can be tdjusted to meet the City's needs. We have listed approximate costs for each item, to assist in your review. US. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact cerely, McCOMDS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. i Steven W. Jantzen, P.E., A.I.A. SJ:aju Enclosure • r� 1Bsy Total Items 7 through 9 $ 10,000.00 10. ISLAND PARK GARAGE $ 10,500.00 . LISTING OF POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS $ 5,000.00 1. New roof, insulation and roof edge $ 22,000.00 2. Exit signs over service doors to exterior $ 50.00 3. Remove dead bolts on service doors $ 50.00 4. Replace water heater and mount on wall $ 500.00 5. Replace light fixture at toilet $ 200.00 6. Regrade back of building and clean up area $ By City 17. Total Items 1 through 6 $ 22,800.10 Z. Replace exterior receptacles $ 500.00 8. Replace exterior lights and put on timer $ 1,500.00 9. Upgrade lighting in entire building $ 8,000.00 Total Items 7 through 9 $ 10,000.00 10. New overhead doors $ 10,500.00 11. Sandblast and paint exterior $ 5,000.00 Total Items 10 and 11 $ 15,500.00 12. New toilet enclosure $ 1,000.00 -13. New toilet and sink $ 500.00 • 14. 15. Drinking fountain Construct fenced area at end of building with $ 300.00 barbed wire on top $ 4,000.00 16. Repair concrete under east service door and replace window $ 200.00 17. Construct chain link panels over interior window openings $ 500.00 18. Paint interior walls $ 5,000.00 19. Replace concrete apron $ 10,000.00 20. Replace west service door $ 500.00 Total Items 12 through 20 $ 22,000.00 Total Items 1 through 20 $ 70,300.00 is 'j$r RESOLUTION NO. 90 - RESOI "TION DIRECTING CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO INSTALL NEW ROOF, INSULATION AND ROOF EDGE AT THE ISLAND PARK GARAGE AND TO PREPARE PLANS TO OBTAIN QUOTATIONS ON DOING CERTAIN OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT THE ISLAND PARK GARAGE WHEREAS, the Island Park Garage was formerly the City of Mound Public Works facility, and; WHEREAS, during the process of preparing proposals with regard to a new Public Works facility, discussion by the City Council included making some repairs to the Island Park Garage due to the fact that the Parks department would be taking over the building, and; WHEREAS, when the new Public Works facility located at the corner of Belmont Lane and Lynwood Blvd., was constructed that due to the cost of the project, the improvements at the Island Park facility were deleted from the project, and; • WHEREAS, the Island park Garage still has improvements that need to be made to the structure, and; is WHEREAS, the City of Mound's architect in a letter dated May 16, 1990 has identified twenty items that total $70,300, and; WHEREAS, he has prioritized these 20 items into ones that are more critical than others, and; WHEREAS, he has indicated that items 1 -6 be done immediately, and; WHEREAS, others listed could be done over the next 2 to 3 years, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that items 1 -7 and items 12, 13 & 14 of the May 16, 1990 letter are critical and must be done immediately. THEREFORE, NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council, City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby directs the city engineer and architect to prepare plans and specifications and advertise for bids to install a new roof, insulation and roof edge at the Island Park facility. 0 /8654 • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council direct the City's architect and engineer to prepare plans to obtain individual quotations on items 2 -7 and 12, 13 & 14, of the May 16, 1990 letter. The following councilmembers voted in the positive The following councilmembers voted in the negative Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager C , C. Attest: City Clerk 2 /gS7 0 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK i OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1990 Maintenance Permit Application: Request from Mike Edwards to construct a stairway to the Lakeshore at Highland Blvd /Idlewood 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 teach. 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 will be cut other than what is necessary during construction. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Schmidt to approve the Park Director's recommendation to allow the walkway and stairway 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 accepted an amendment to his motion to include the condition that vegetation cutting not include cutting for purposes of Increased visibility or security. Schmidt seconded. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 16, 1990. • 171,519 • MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 1990 TO: Park & Open Space Commission ' FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director E SUBJECT: Maintenance Permit Application Mike Edwards, 2805 Halstead Lane • In reviewing the Maintenance Permit Application from Mike Edwards, my recommendation is to accept the need for a walkway and stairs subject to the following changes in design: 1. Use 6"x 6" treated timbers with c%Xushed rocks (3/4" to dust). 2. A temporary low water stairway be placed above the shoreline (929.4) to the beach. Dell Rudolph and myself will meet with Mr. Edwards at the site and determine p'acement of the walkway and stairs. JF:pj cc: Mike Edwards Del" Rudolph 0 R's? CITY OF MOUND (7/89) 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD W3UNO, MN 55364 472 -1155 MAINTENANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS OR USE OF A STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LANDS NAME! 011 K 6 L Ito kq pr- DATE: C� - q ` C ) D ADDRESS: �i US Nom' cS s� L t� DAY PHONE: SS 3 ( Sb NAME OF COMMONS: DOCKSITE ADDITION: LOT: BLOCK: DESCRIBE REQUEST: (CHECK ONE) REPAIR EXISTING STRUCTURE/ IMPROVEMENT _ REQUEST NEW CONSTRUCTION/ I MPROVMENT _Y_ TREE TRIMMING; UNDER -BRUSH TRIMMING CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF VEGETATION `XPL:.I;.: t 4_ r a ) i c [ j A n P-0 ` N Li s „(el— W(� <�1 /�ttllj "?, n, tlta !� SrA .-/r�4- -> 6 rrc> >-+- T�� n r' APPLICANT MUST FURN 1 SH THE FOLLOWING: �c ran TH,� STC= =s �j il• i ?C Y l /) r' o /z 5 H F, C P • rT c 1. One Pl P l a n drawn to scale showing dimensi an d , i 3 at i on of the existing or proposed structure/ improvement. 2. Type of chemical and method to be used. 3. Name, address, and phone number of contractor performing services. 4. One "set of plans and specifications of sufficient clarity and detail to indicate the nature and extent of the struc- ture or improvement. S. Photographs of the existing structure in need of repair, or of the affected area. - 77e - , n �/ 1rA 'l!C r �+.� �� Z : �n P�= S is [/ i �3� C. �t SF n uT , C, SIg ature of Applicant Dated (to i i I � � I i I t I l k x Ar L� � c� z � �o � S� �-� � a .44 - _ _ _ -_-- jj v - '� i3z 6 /NEWHOUSE BUILDERS App- 71 o 'joss 43 Z 3t 3a 55 !! °: = 10 p2 N�2�36�7f$LYV •� (�l - _ T5 (o 1 e eSe 7° ° ,ls o G •� 73 J ` 1 � C 1 o 72 m _ 2,0 a h (0r) Vasa WE s ,•- RD 41 83 �� 12 N � -- -N`- 1 r O _ - o 7e -^ s 0 J m T Q m • 11 - 13 O� . MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK I OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1990 Request from Jerry Gibbs to erect a fence at Tyrone Park for youth baseball. Rod Wilkens was present, on Jerry Gibbs behalf. Mr. Wilkens ex- plained that they would like to erect a permanent chain link fence between the park and wetlands to prevent the balls and kids from going into the wetlands. He explained that a charitable or- ganization, such as the Jaycees, will pay for the fence and in- stallation. Casey questioned why a temporary fence could not be used. Wilkens stated that he thought the City would prefer a permanent fence. Fackler commented that temporary fences are more subject to vandalism, they require more repairs, they are hard to store, and they are not as aesthetically pleasing. Fackler suggested that if a chain link fence is installed, that It be plastic coated, either green or black, to be more aestheti- cally pleasing. NOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Schmidt to recommend to the City Council that a chain link fence be allowed to be erected at the west side of Tyrone park to separate the park and wetlands for safety reasons. Mo- tion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 26, 1990. Ift3 W. Q A 1.-Yi June 13, 1990 TO: City of Mound and Park Board Subject: Tyrone Park (1 block north of Wilshire) on the Island Per discussion with Jim Fackler, I would like to ask permission for fencing to be put up on the south end and west side of park. Reason being we have Little League baseball practices for our Instructional League ages 6 -8 year olds, also neighborhood children going into the swamp and woods chasing baseballs that have rolled in there. I feel this is a need, for I have had parents in both the neighborhood and with children in the baseball program come to me telling of their concern on this subject. Financially: I have talked to Rodney Wilkens who is with the Mound Jay -Cees. I had mentioned orange fence to him, and wha` it would cost($650.00). He mentioned we should think about something more like cyclone fencing, he thought it would be better looking. He also mentioned that the orange snow fence is more apt to be vandalized (such as cutting and pulling down). Good example of this is the fencing at Shirley hills. If the Jay -cees are willing to pay for materials. Would the City of Mound or Park Department be willing to put the fence up. Thank you for taking time on this issue. Jerry Gibbs Resident'of / Tyrone Park Area Board Member cf Little League Program • ISLI R -25 Tyrone Park �'- rtirQ nN 0 I� i� 1aP((ox, loco -H#O of P�oposcd fcn� Existing Conditions Ball Field Play Equipment Open Field Parking /146f 11 CITY ot" etc A "N D June 18, 1990 Mr. Melvin Sohns 2155 Noble Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Sohns: After watching your presentation at the June 14th Parks and Open made the following observations: and listening to your comments Space Commission meeting, I have I think it was obvious to everyone present that you have three main areas of concern. They are the spacing between docks, the angle of your dock and the proximity to the storm drain. I share . these concerns also and have a suggestion that may be a solution to all of them. The dock space, 020550, that Jim Fackler mentioned he had offered you last winter was assigned earlier this year, but has now been given up. The person that had the spot decided to share a different site. It is six docks to the left (north) of your present site. There is 30' between docks on both sides, it is perpendicular to the shore, no storm drain and would handle two boats very adequately. You can have this site immediately by calling me at city hall. Your boating needs now and in the future would be met by this switch. The recent rains have increased the water depth so this whole Waterside area has become very navigable. It appears to be a good solution for all concerned. You mentioned several times that you thought my various correspondence on this matter was uncalled for and threatening. I assure you it was not meant to be that. The letters and memos were only meant to bring out information on what had gone on. As I read them over again, I believe that's what they do. It is not my nature to be hostile or threatening and if it appeared that way to you aiid your family, I do indeed apologize for that. I have never had and do not wish to have that kind of a reputation. I took this job because I enjoy people and love this area and Lake Minnetonka. It is unfortunate that we didn't get together 1100 h h Mr. Melvin Sohns June 18, 1990 earlier to solve the problem before it got out of hand. I hope you will seriously consider my offer of the available dock site near you, that would solve all of our problems. Respectively, .'&4 Dell Rudolph Dock Inspector cc: Mr. Brad Sohns Jim Fackler, Parks Director Ed Shukle, City Manager Parks and Open Space Commission City Council is DR:ls 1147 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE 40 MOUND ADVISORY PARK i OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1990 Clarification of Location and Angle of Dock Site 020700, Water side Comnons, Dock Holders: Brad and Melvin Sohns. Park Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed his recommendation that the Park and Open Space Commission recognize the location of Dock Site #20700 as outlined by the Dock inspector in the letter dated May 17, 1990 to Melvin Sohns and in the Memo to the Parks and Open Space Commission dated May 17, 1990. Fackler clarified that the Dock inspector has the authority to determine dock site loca- tions and angles as outlined in Mound City Code Sections 437:10, Subd. 8, 437:05, Subd. 3, and 437.156, Subd. 11. Weber questioned Brad Sohns if he was understanding the two issues of his request as being: 1) the location was staked in- correctly by the Dock inspector based on historical location of the dock, and 2) the Dock inspector should not dictate the angle of the dock if it does not correspond with the approved Dock Location Map. Sohns added that the City wants him to move his dock to the right to solve the problem, however, their dock would then be placed in front of the City's storm sewer exit which causes other problems. Weber surmised, that the question is, where is the 30 feet that belongs to dock site 207007 Weber question Sohns, "To solve the problem, what do you feel has to be done ?" Sohns suggested that official permanent makers be placed where they are missing, and that the markers are main- tained so everyone knows where their area is as the ordinance states. Also, that the Sohns family be allowed to use both sides of their dock in Its existing location. Sohns commented on the angle of their dock and stated that he received permission from the Park Director to place his dock at an angle. The Dock In- spector commented that It is okay to angle your dock, as long as you do not infringe on the neighboring dock site. Brad Sohns made the following points in his presentation: I. The Sohn's dock site has existed for the last 52 years. 2. They placed their new straight dock in the same historical location of their old 'U' dock. 3. The Sohn's family is requesting an explanation as to why two different stake settings were placed this year that do not match the historical concrete markers. 116% June 25, 1990 ('11' IN (A N RA , N 1) TO: MOUND CITY COUNCILMBMBERS FROM: DELL RUDOLPH, DOCK INSPECTOR RE: DOCK SITE #20700 - WATERSIDE COMMONS I am sorry I will not be able to attend the Council meeting on June 26, 1990. I have asked the City Manager or Parks Director to read these few comments at this meeting in order to give my views on the controversy at the above dock site. My letter of June, 1990, to you and the Park Commissicners explains all of the background on this matter and I won't go over that again. I sat through the one and one -half hour presentation by Brad Sohns to the Park Commission at their June meeting, co I am up -to -date on that. I also have a copy of the June 20, 1990 letter that all of you received from Brad Sohns. I will not respond to anything in that letter except paragraphs 6, 7, f, & 9 (attached) which I be'.ieve gets at the crux of the problem. Paragraph 6 Points out that the right side of their dock is near the stores, drain. This is correct and has caused them some sand build up under their dock in the past. I believe they are trying to avoid this by having their dock further to the left (north) than it was. T can understand this, but if this is allowed to happen, there will not be adequate space for all the 18 docks to their left. They will all have to be moved and one site eliminated If site #20700 is subject to the hazards stated in paragraph 6, let's eliminate this site and move the Sohns' to site #20550, as offered. Paragraph 7 is not a correct statement. During my only contact with the Sohns' and the City Manager, at the site, after listening to their explanation of how they measured from the "old" concrete marker (most of these markers are gone, have been moved or ate irrelevant), I told them hcw we measured the whole area. Tt Park Director and myself started at the presumed • property lane on the right (south) by site #20730 and measured off each of the 21 docks to the north. It is impossible to hit exactly 30 foot spacing on each site because of the shoreline 1 • variance, but they are all within a 3 foot tolerance of each other. ParagraRh 8 The comment on the willingness of the Dock Inspector and his supervisors to discuss the situation is uncalled for. Much time by myself, the Park Director and the City Manager has been spent trying to resolve this dispute. Had I been contacted before any docks were put in, for a ruling on positions, I do not think this prob- , would be here. Paragraph 9 I believe that there has been an honest attempt to carry out all Sections of the Dock Ordinance by myself, but there must be some flexibility for unusual circumstances (i.e. low water). Section 437:10 referred to is adhered to with the exception of the reference to the shoreline markers in (a.) & (b.) and it would be impossible to note on our dock map variations from perpendicular docks to shoreline configurations (h.). This would take too much detail on such a large area. I believe that a fair attempt has been made to see that the Sohns' needs are met. They have the choice of staying where they are and putting up with the storm drain or moving to the new site offered them, 6 dock sites away. DR;fc • 2 Mound City Code Section 437:10 Section 437110. • Subd. 1. nocti Location Mao Definition There shall be on file in the City Hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector shoving the approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. Such master plan shall contain the following information: official shoreline markers for purposes of establishing dock locations; Indication of approved dock location scaled to proximity with the shoreline markers; C. Types of docks permitted and any restrictions applicable to said locations; d. Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown; e. Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of licensees and addresses, aoi -tote same number shall apply tm the same location each year as far as PR"O 00 f. S lL." ,.phy, depth of water. soil conditions, • habitat, access, and other relevant information as is necessary to review dock locations and to allow the City Council and the Dock Inspector to protect the public lands and public waters; q. Shoreline areas designated "winter approved dock locations". © Variations from perpendicular dock to shoreline configurations. gam. 2. Annual ReViey of Mao Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between July 1 and December 1 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January IS. Maps shall contain ail. approved private dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of private dock licenses to be permitted shall be the • responsibility of the City Council. s on both sides present. No concerns were expressed. A second set of stakes were put in days later and Bob Johnson was allowed to move his dock and canopy within less than 2 feet of our dock, preventing us from using the left (north) side. With the perpendicular extension of the common boundary marker between the Johnson and the Sohns docksites (using either first staking, second staking, or historical concrete markers) we are still okay to store a boat on both sides of our dock. We were then told that our common boundary extension did not go perpendicular into the water, but at an angle cutting through our moored boat. Additionally, we were told that if we wanted to use both sides of our dock we would have to move our dock to the south. Besides the fact that it would take alot of time and expense to move the dock, 't would also subject us to the delta that forms straight out from the st,c,rm sewer. In addition, any boat moored to the right side would be blasted with the force of the water that comes out of the storm drain, along with sand, silt, bottles, cans and assorted other materials. Throughout the couple hours of discussion related to this, we never have been able to get the Dock Inspector to explain the measurements and the reference points that were used to arrive at the two separate sets of stakes. Our most important point is that this entire ordeal could have been prevented had the ruler and regulations in Section 437:10 of the Mound City Code (which I have attached) been followed by the city. Even without these rules, a willingness on the part of the Dock Inspector and his superiors to openly discuss this situation from the beginning and to work towards a fair solution for all would have avoided this lengthy • process and expense to the taxpayers. Changes could have been properly made before the current 11 of 21 docks were put into the water. Section 437:10 specifically indicates that the City Dock Inspector has the responsibility of maintaining a dock location map (master plan) with ' quite detailed information regarding docks constructed on public shorelands under the control of the city. Please review letters a thru h under subdivision 1. Additionally, subdivision 2 indicates the procedure for reviewing the master plan, recommending changes and gaining approval for such changes from the City Council. While trying to figure out what was going on with Waterside Commons, we officially requested a copy of the master plan, including the information as required under letters a thru h, and were given a very basic map that only showed where there is public land used for commons docks. Pursuing this further, we were told by the Parks Director that the information stated under 437:10, letters a thru h, did not exist. We believe that had the responsibilities of the Dock Inspector bean carried out as required, and had the approval procedure been followed, none of this would have happened regarding Waterside Commons. That is, the two separate stakings of docksite locations this spring would not 4ave been allowed. Neither stakings matches the city's historical concrete markers that they had used for decades to decide docksite • 2236 Southview Lane Mound, MN 55364 H 472 -1954 W 228 -5708 June 20, 1990 City Counoilmembers 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Counoilmembers: The intent of this letter is to indicate some of our concerns regarding the Waterside Commons doeksite *20700 case that you will be reviewing on Tuesday, June 26th, 1990. The Sohns family has used this doeksite for the pant 52 years. The dockowner is my father, Melvin Sohns. I am the docksharer. On June 19th, my father and I received a letter from Dell Rudolph which you were oopied on. A few comments. My father and I have no recollection of any conversation with Jim Fackler regarding the offering of dock space *20550 during last winter. We can't imagine why we would even be interested in another site, knowing that the commons area was to be dredged, including the area in front of our 52 year old site. We appreciate the offer, but find that our existing site offers what we need. A number of reasons come to mind immediately: 1) The doeksite is one of the best sites on Waterside Commons because it is just to the right (south) of what we have called for years the "sunken island" and sandbars; that is why my grandfather and father chose that site 52 years ago. 2) The shoreline area in front of our docksite is a nice, large area for our children to play on when down at the lake, for guests to sit on, and for picnicking; we have maintained that commons area, either solely, or in more recent years with Bob Johnson and Doug Coleman, for 52 years. 3) The flatness of the area in front of our docksite allows my parents, who are not in the best of health, to easily get to the dock when they have occasion to. 4) The navigability to the docksite is probably the least affected of those on the Waterside Commons during periods of low water. 5) After 52 years, the docksite is like a member of the family; it has served us well and we have taken good care of it. 6) I may be getting a larger boat in the near future and it allows me the navigability that the other sites along Waterside Commons do not. A brief description of the events that led to this follows. I called the Parks Director before putting our dock in to make sure I was clear on things. Bob Johnson and . put our docks in (literally standing in the water at the same time) such that we were within the stakes and no • conflicts existed. I put our dock in in good faith with the doekowners on both sides present. No concerns were expressed. A second set of stakes were put in days later and Bob Johnson was allowed to move his dock and canopy within less than 2 feet of our dock, preventing us from using the left (north) side. Wits the perpendicular extension of the common boundary marker between the Johnson and the Sohns docksites (using either first staking, second staking, or historical concrete markers) we are still okay to store a boat on both sides of our dock. We were then told that our common boundary extension did not go perpendicular into the water, but at an angle cutting through our moored boat. Additionally, we were told that if we wanted to use both sides of our dock we would have to move our dock to the south. Besides the fact that it would take alot of dock, it would also subject us to the delta the storm sewer. In addition, any boat moo; be blasted with the force of the water that drain, along with sand, silt, bottles, cans materials. time and expense to move the that forms straight out from red to the right side would comes out of the storm and assorted other Throughout the couple hours of discussion related to this, we never have been able to get the Dock Inspector to explain the measurements and the reference points that were used to arrive at the two separate sets of stakes. Our most important point is that this entire ordeal could have been prevented had the rules and regulations in Section 437:10 of the Mound City Code (which I have attached) been .followed by the city. Even without these rules, a willingness on +,he part of the Dock Inspector and his superiors to openly discuss this situation from the beginning and to work towards a fair solution for all would have avoided this lengthy process and expense to the taxpayers. Changes could have been properly made before the current 11 of 21 docks were put into the water. Section 437:10 specifically indicates that the City Dock Inspector has the responsibility of maintaining a dock location map (master plan) with quite detailed information regarding docks constructed on public shorelands under the control of the city. Please review letters a thru h under subdivision 1. Additionally, subdivision 2 indicates the procedure for reviewing the master plan, recommending changes and gaining approval for such changes from the City Council. while trying to figure out what was going on with waterside Commons, we officially requested a copy of the master plan, including the information as required under letters a thru h, and were given a very basic map that only showed where there is public land used for commons docks. Pursuing this further, we were told by the Parks Director that the information stated under 437:10, letters a thru h, did nit exist. We believe that had the responsibilities of the Dock Inspector been carried out as required, and had the approval procedure been followed, none of this would have happened regarding Waterside Commons. That is, the two separate stakings of docksite locations this spring would not have been allowed. Neither stakings matches the city's historical • concrete markers that they had used for decades to decide docksite locations. The second staking occured after Bob Johnson's, Doug Coleman's and my father's docks were in the water. The second staking . was followed by the city telling Bob Johnson to move his dock so close to my father's that it does not allow us to use the left side of our dock. That is when the first notice from the city of a perceived problem came in the form of a threat to impound our boat. In addition, the arbitrary, after - the -fact variations on perpendicular lines would not have been allowed (and applied only to the Sohns docksite) unless officially approved through the required procedure. I would have to believe that the rules and regulations regarding a master dock location map, along with the approval procedure, was setup to avoid such disputes and to provide the public with input during the process, "before" the beginning of each boating season (on or before January 15th is stated in subdivision 2). Since I was told 2 -3 years ago by the City Manager that this Waterside Commons dredging was scheduled for the spring of 1990, this surely left adequate time for the Dock Inspector to have the Waterside Commons properly planned for, and there wouldn't be this mess of trying to push aside a commons dock owner who has had a dock at site *20700 for the past 52 years. We respectfully request that the rules and regulations, and associated procedures be followed so that future problems can be avoided and so that no more citizens have to be put through what we have. We look forward to being able to provide input during the process. We feel strongly that we have been treated very unfairly from the beginning. We feel that we have been defamed in this process and that a written apology to my father and myself is appropriate from the Dock Inspector and the Parks Director. We would like to request that we be allowed to use both sides of our existing dock for the mooring of our boats and that the Waterside Commons area be properly laid out and maintained according to 437:10. To help understand this situation better, and the process - related problems associated with it, and to avoid us needing to give a long presentation at the City Council meeting, please consider meeting with us at the docksite to explain what has happened and to answer any questions that you might have. We will try to make ourselves available as much as possible, and can be reached at either phone number shown at the top of this letter. We appreciate you taking the time to review this situation. Siacer y, Brad Sohns 420700 Dock Sharer 0 cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director Dell Rudolph, Dock Inspector Parks and Open Space Commission f 11 Mound City Code a. official shoreline markers for purposes of establishing dock locations; b. In.iication of approved dock location scaled to proximity with the shoreline markers; C. TYP es of docks permitted and any restrictions applicable to said locations; Ifttiom 437810. There shall be on d. is • Subd. 1. file in the City Hal Gock Inspector showing f he n approved maintained by the be constructed on or locations of private docks that may abutting public s yell under the control of following information: minimum Such master plan s Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown; e. Dock location licensees and app1j tm the pile; Section 07:10 number shall be keyed to listing of addresses, an& - tde same r n umbe r tar all same location each y as 8ti�oz'�line topo4 =phyr &Pta of rater, soil conditions, f• a fiat, access, and other relevant information as is h the necessary to and ethe dock Dock locations nspector to the City Council ,iblie waters; public lands and p g. Shoreline areas designated "winter approved dock locations". h. Variations from Perpendicular dock to shoreline configurations. _____, ems., : pv of mmission at leas = . Approved dock location maps Ste• 2. tamed b the Dock Inspector and shall shall be kept and main Y be reviewed by the Park Cot once a year. The Park Advisory C shall review the dock location map between July 1 and December 1 before each new boating season so their rec ommended changes may b�t re Jana rY to 1S� considered by the City Maps shall contain C u n ceidl privAt u p o n h advice v i c e k locations and established by t Insector d Park Advisory recommendation of the DOrk Commission. Final aPP oval ottha dock location map and the number of private dockcsnsss to be permitted shall be the responsibility of the city <. Treatment received from the Dock Inspector. and indirectly from the Park Director and City Manager, has been im- plorable. S. They would like to see official permanent markers installed where they are missing and see that they are maintained. 6. The Sohn's family would like to have permission to moor a boat at both sides of the dock. 7. Brad and his father would like to receive a letter of apol- ogy from the City for the treatment that they received. 8. In 1975 permanent concrete markers were placed at each dock site to clarify the dock locations. 9. The only reason their original dock was removed was because of the dredging. 10. Brad stated that he asked Fackler prior to installing his dock, if he should angle his dock, and he claims that Fack- ler said he was familiar with the site at that it was okay to angle his dock, but it was not required. 11. if Sohns were to move his dock to the right as requested by the Dock Inspector, the right side of his dock would be unusable because of the storm sewer exit. Right now he is only able to use the right side because if a boat is moored on the left side, it would encroach into Johnson's 30 feet of dock space. The Dock Inspector argued that he would still be able to use the right side of his dock if the dock was moved. 12. The City has not followed their own City Codes. 13. He angled his dock to benefit Bob Johnson. Fackler commented that he did offer the Sohns' another dock site away from the storno sewer, however the Sohns' were not Inter- ested. Brad Sohn's denied ever receiving such an offer. Fackler suggested that the commons be surveyed to eliminate dis- pute over the placement of the stakes. and that an opinion letter be requested from the City Attorney to determine If the Dock in- spector has the authority to dictate the angle of a dork. MOTION made by Weber, to recommend to the City Council the following: the exact location of the south edge of Waterside Commions at the 92'_' elevation Is determined and from that point the 30 foot Intervals be measured to determine the exact dock location sites, and that the City Council request the C i t y Attorney to draft an opinion as to how the ordinance reads as to weather the Dock Inspector has the authority to set the angle of a dock based on the current conditions of the lake and shoreline on a year to year basis. Motion seconded by Bailey. Sohns commented that he would like some cons iderat ton -for the af- fect that the storm sewer has on their dock site. Fackler com- mented that It would be nice to have the storm sewer exists main- tained and cleaned on a rotating basis. Bailey confirmed that their dock will remain as presently situated, and Sohn's w i l l be a b l e to use the right s i d e of his dock only until this situation is resolved. Sohn's commented that If Bob Johnson would not erect his canopy and use the other side of his dock, then he would be able to use both sides. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 26, 1990. 1849 2236 Southview Lane Mound, MN 55364 H 472 -1954 W 228 -5708 June 4, 1990 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: The intent of this letter is to request that we be put on the June 14, 1990 agenda of the Park and Open Space Commission meeting. We wish to appeal the seemingly arbitrary placement of stakes and docks that has resuited in us being threatened with the impounding of my boat and told that we can only use the right side of the dock located at site #20700. We were appreciative of your willingness to visit the docksite on Monday, May i4th, so that we could explain the situation to you. The follow -up meeting at the docksite, with Del Rudolph, on Wednesday, May 16th, was totally frustrating, since we did not see any willingness on either of your parts to discuss the facts of the case. Hopefully the appeals process will generate a true discussion of what is really going on with the Waterside Commons situation. Please share this letter with the Park and Open Space Commission. To best understand this situation, we believe it is important that they visit the docksite for an onsite viewing and discussion. I will make myself availai- a after 5:30 PM each night during the week of June 11th. They can reach me at either phone number indicated at the top of this letter. Sincerely, Brad Sohns #20700 Dock Sharer / 4 1VI -1 / I � �' A, � - ��� I Melvin Sohns #20700 Dock Owner I Vo . / AL •�, tiC n' tiNESO'a _ c_64 June 1, 1990 TO: CITY MANAGER, PARK COMMISSION AND MOUND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEL RUDOLPH, DOCK INSPECTOR RE: DOCK LOCITIONS, WATERSIDE COMMONS This memo is intended to give a little background information and my position on the dispute over the dock positioning at Waterside Commons. As all of you are aware, this area was dredged during February of 1990 so all docks holders had been notified to remove their docks last fall. In April of this year, the Park Director and myself spend sometime staking out all 21 docks so that all docks would receive as close to even spacing as possible. There is a variance of not over 3 feet in any one site, due to the low water situation. We started measuring from the south end and worked towards the north. The end dock on the south end, Doug Coleman's, was the first dock in the water, positioned on the stake as requested. The second dock, the Sohns, and third dock, Bob Johnson's, were next to go in. My understanding is that all three parties had met in advance of putting in their docks and discussed what they were planning to do. Apparently, some misunderstanding developed from the conversation and I received a complaint from Mr. Johnson that his space on the right side of his dock was being used by the Sohns to moor a boat. I checked this out and agreed and sent Sohns a notice that the boat had to be moved and as their dock was positioned they could only use the right side of their dock. In order to use both sides, their dock had to be moved to the right. There is ample space to do this without interfering with Mr. Coleman's space to their right. The Sohns; Melvin, Brad and Bruce contacted the City Manager and met with him to protest this decision of mine. A day or so later, the same groap and myself met, on site, for another one . and one.-half hours to measure and discuss the problems. No solution was arrived at so the City Manager informed the Sohns they could appear before the Park Commission and the City Council to appeal. A second, registered mail, notice was sent to move 1 1 171 the boat and was complied with by the Sohns. At the request of Councilmember Skip Johnson, Bob Johnson has held off putting in the balance of his canopy on the right side. All three docks, as they are now positioned, are within their allotted space, nothing illegal. If Sohns' are only planning to use the right side of the dock, there is no problem. If they plan to use both sides, the dock must be moved to the right to accommodate a second boat. There is plenty of room to do this and is the simple solution to this problem. Allowing the Sohns' more space on the left side of their dock would mean moving all of the other 20 sites to accommodate this. There are other examples of disputes over spacing and have all been settled with cooperation from the parties involved and myself. I have been designated by the City to resolve these kind of disputes and have been doing so for the past 6 years. During this dispute, many other items have come up such as angles from the shoreline, storm sewer run -off, favoritism to city employee, length of docks in a given area, at what point is the measuring done from, etc. Some false accusations, by phone, have been made by an anonymous female caller refusing to identify herself and her purpose of the call. I applied for and received this position as the City Dock Inspector 6 years ago. I was hired because of my ability to lead, make decisions and deal with people. No one can please 100% of the people, but I feel I have a good track record in this area. I have tried to be firm and fair in all decisions without showing any partiality. I am not required to settle personality disputes between citizens. Only uphold the dock ordinance and in some cases make judgment decisions. I urge all Park Commission and City Council members to examine the site in question and I believe everyone will agree with the positioning of the docks in question. DR:ls i 117JL 2 M rl- vo sx%f0 uOSMMAo Z7 Qb -8l-S 06 -4Fi ,c May 17, 1990 TO: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FROM: DELL RUDOLPH, DOCK INSPECTOR RE: DOCK SITE #20700 We have a real problem with one of the shared docks at Waterside Commons held by Melvin and Brad Sohns. The correspondence sent on this disagreement is attached. There have been several on -spot meetings by`Jim Fackler and myself, Ed Shukle and the Sohns, and finally Ed Shukle, the Sohns' and myself. The Sohns disagree with how I have staked out the area for the 21 docks in this area. Their dock, as positioned now, is perfectly legal if they use the right side only. If they want to use both sides, the dock must be moved to the right, there is ample room to do this. If they are allowed to leave the dock where it is, and use both sides, all 19 docks to their left would have to be moved to accommodate their space. The last dock would be lost because of the extra space used for the Sohns' site. The site in question is 020700, near Waterside Lane and Tonkawood Road, near the storm drain. Please take the time to look at this spot so you can visualize how simple it would be to resolve this problem by moving the boat or the dock if they wish to moor two boats. The low water has created some space problems in certain areas and I am using my judgment as the Dock Inspector to try to satisfy the reeds of all site holders so some spaces may be less than the 30 feet available at normal water levels. My understanding is that the Sohns' plan to contest my placement and angle of their dock at the next Parks and Open Space Commis- • sion meeting. You will be asked to recommend a settlement to the City Council. R: s 1177 AL (;ITI " ( A N K A 7 NI ) May 17, 1990 Mr. Melvin Sohns 2155 Noble Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Sohns: YA-.. -C RCAD This letter is a follow -up of our meting at Waterside Commons on Wednesday, May 16, 1990. You and your sons, Brad and Bruce, Ed Shukle City Manager and myself met to discuss the position of your dock at site 020700. After one and one -half hours of discussion, measuring and reason- ing, it ended in an impasse. Your dock, in its present position, is perfectly legal, as long as you use the right side only to moor a boat. The left Ade is too close to the dock space next • to you to allow for a boat. There is ample room for you to move your dock to the right, staying within your allowable space, and moor a second boat on the left side. This also enables all the other 20 site holders to have their allowable space. The boat, now tied to the left side of the dock, is moored illegally and must be moved in the next 72 hours or it will be impounded. If you wish to appeal the rulings made here, you may appear before the Park and Open Space Commission on June 14, 1990, with your case. Your letter of appeal must be in to the City Manager by June 8, 1990. They will review the case and submit a recommendation to the City Council for their decision. The boat must be moved as stated above, even if this has not been resolved yet. Respectively, Dell Rudolph Dock Inspector cc: Brad Sohns, 2236 Southview Lane BEd Shukle, City Manager Park and Open Space Commission DR: Is /87s (11T)' ot MEMORANDUM DATE: May 9. 1990 TO: Ed Shukle, City Manager FROM: Dell Rudolph, Dock Inspector a It is unfortunate that all this hassle has come up over the Sohns /Johnson dock locations. As my notice to Mr. Sohns stated, he has no problem if he is only using the right side of the dock. Last year his dock was much further to the right, in front of the storm drain, probably why he moved it to the left this year. He stated that the stakes put in earlier this year have now been moved, not true. They were removed by whoever installed the dock and then when the problem arose, I measured again and re- staked in the same position. Sohn's boat is definitely infringing on Johnson's dock space, it must be moved to the right -hand side of the dock. If Sohns plans to use both sides of their dock, it must be moved to the right or all 21 sites will be off and the last site will be lost because of the move, not to mention 20 unhappy people having to move their docks. This Waterside area was the first area staked out this year (mid - April) because of the winter dredge. No docks had been installed at that time. Jim and I measured, very carefully, the whole area and staked out each of the 21 docks. If any one had any ques- tions it would only have taken a phone call to resolve any future problems. The second staking was done after the hassle started, the week of May 7. My understanding was that Coleman, Sohns and Johnson had talked over what they were doing with their docks prior to putting them in. 1 do riot think that any changes in my notice to Sohns would be fair to the rest of Waterside Commons dock holders. Please note the highlighted areas on the attached letters, dock ordinance, etc. 'hanks. DR : p,j Attachments • CITY of N IOU ND i Dear Dock Permit Holders Subject: 1990 Dock Site # i h each s 'W MAYWOOD ROAD MWhE507A 55364 61� 4"2-'155 a// Boating season is upon us once again, the dock site number listed above has been assigned to you for this boating season. If you need help locating this site, please call me and I will give you some assistance. Because of the low water situation, we are allowing some special dispensations this year to a! low you to put in your dock. We w i I I allow docks to be ex- tended out further than normal, in some locations, but proper spacing bet" them must be w1nolned, etc. You oust contact me before doing this or you my have to . woove the dock If It Is not correct. You will note your tag is not enclosed. I will personally attach your tag to the dock after I have inspected It to see that it conforms to the City Or- dinance in construction and placement. If your dock does not pass inspection, I will issue a notice listing the deficiency and you will have ten (10) days to correct it. If you neglect to do so, you could lose your dock site permit. 1 have dock construction guidelines, if needed. Please center your dock on the space allowed for It and call me if you have any questions at 472 -1155. Please read the information on the back of this letter regarding your respon- sibilitles as a dock holder and the Mound Dock Ordin3n #437. Thanks for your cooperation in making the public commons safe and attractive to help you have an enjoyable boating season. Sincerely, Deli Rudolph Dock Inspector DR:pj • 187f I . Put In your own dock that meets the Mound specifications for safety, size and materials. 2. Maintain the cleanliness of the commons area by your site, Including grass cutting and weed trimming. 3. Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other material cannot be stored on commons during the boating season. They must be In the water or removed from commons property by June 1. No tires will be allowed on docks. 4. Response to request to correct Infractions nwst be made during time sated or dock perm It wlII be In Jeopardy. 5. Only boats registered to your dock site may be kept moored there. Others are In danger of being Impounded. SECTION 26.437, SIED i V IS ION 13, OF THE MOLIPID DOCK ORDINANCE #437 "Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal In nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their household. No dock IIcensed by the City of Mound located on public streets, roads, parks or public capons may be rented, leased or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation, If the licensee or permit holder rents, leases or sublets or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of the dock, the license shell be revoked. • 1110 Mou city Code Section 437:10, Subd. 3 Subd. 3. i nd a approve the locatioN e each cora nq to tM specifications of the approved doclt m . Su bd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance Licensed private docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense. Subd. S. Suspension of Eligible Location The City Council may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property owners abutting on public streets or public commons. Subd. S. one Dock Per lamilys imartment suildina No more that one dock zhall be permitted for each resident family. An apartment building or multiple dwelling owner shall not apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to apply for an individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. Subd. 7. Construction Materialss Use of Car Tires All private docks shall be constructed of materials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved licensed private dock shall result in docks being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall bog hung or attached on dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. (ORD. /40 -1990, 1- 29 -90) Subd. d. Inspections - Notice of Non - Compliance - License Revocation T4! DwA lmsprator Or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, at . r+iisoea�ls tlss-�lmspsoi a - oawe to ss �IlmpiOtb any $*a ereoted or taistainsa upon abuttiny'*pom &W .public atsrst; — 4"p paft, at oos�o ,,' and if it shall appear that ti an�I such dock has not been constructed or is not being maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by e k' the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by him, 1 -29 -90 l�11 Nou" City Code Section 437 :10 Subd- 9 Serthvith **Iffy the owner tbereof In writing M ray or ways is v'hiob said dock does not With tlrola . a$ the City, after tibia~ said 1 4 to hove such dock or sake the 000-1y WV the twos of the City•s ordinances and the daces _01 the appiioatten and issuance of the license grante0 to .said licensee. In the event such owner shall tail, ft *"Gat, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same ' with the term of the City regulations within the �G er of tip days,. tbp It nge .tberefor shall be revoked b d .sans et the.C�tY Oounol! or the Dock Inspector and b� Y1 writing to the licensee, $ and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated p by his or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and G submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her consideration. subd. 9. Notice of Revocation 1111 notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Subd. 10. Minter Dock 3toracte Winter dock storage by permit holders: a. Docks may be left in the water during the winter months providing the following conditions are net: i. The required dock license for the following year must be applied for and paid by the tenth day of January. Z. Doc may be partially removed, provided that those sections left in public waters are complete. No poles, posts, stanchions or supports standing alone shall remain in public waters. 3. Docks must be brought up to the construction standards outlined in this Section 437 within 3 weeks after tt,h ice goes out in the spring of the year. If not, the procedures as specified in Subd. t of this Section 437 will apply. 4. Docks may not be left in the water or on public land if they conflict with the following uses as shown on the dock location map: a. slide area b. Snowmobile crossings c. skating rinks 1 -29.90 `��� Mound City Code Section 427:OS, Subd. 7 d. coat license number for each boat to be moored at said dock; G* sucb other information as may be required on the application form. Subd. 1. Tro RMLIAents may Share a Dock Subject to the ��*.w�ttoes Contained Herein. Where dock permits are shared OW issued to two residents entitled to permits of the first and second priority, then the following conditions shall apply: a. That duplicate information (including boat licenses) for each of the licensees be included on the license application; b, That each of the licensees retain: priority rights to individual dock permits as vacation occurs in the iamediate subdivision shoreline; CO That the fee for each licensee shall be one -half the fee as set by the Council in Section 510:00. Ste. 4. Aoolication Filing Applications for licenses shall be filed with the Dock Inspector at the City offices and he shall recommend to the City Council that the license be approved or denied. No license will be recommended or authorised until the Dock Inspector determines that the proposed dock complies substantially with the term of all City ordinances. Subd. S. No license shall be recommended by tV sock inspector until he or she shall have first dsderpined that the proposed dock is suitable for the spy .4a* location as identified on the official dock 1 map* Subd. `. Denial of Aonli_ cation If the applicant has not maintained a previously licensed dock, the Dock Inspector may recommend to the City Council that any existing license be revoked, and the applicants priorities under this Section 437 be forfeited for the current year and for the next boating season. Subd. 7. License priorities The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses and other dock locations: • 1 -29 -90 aj 1883 Mound City Code Section 437 :20 must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than '>> 24" wide or sore that 72 in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adiacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail constructio:l. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and M �LC constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by i nspector. All Soaps shall be built or placed with the A the anal axis thereof ndioular to the shoreline� 4— . pR� G in accordance with the dock �l � location map. Docks which are existence June 1, 1989, shall V be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. #38 - 1989 - 1 - 2 - 90) Seotioa 437120. Remelties Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. in addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license as required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to comply with the City Code will, be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for the present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities sot forth in this Section 437. Sobel. 437= 25. License lee The annual license fee shall be as set by the Council in Section 510:00. Residents of the City of Mound 65 years of age or older shall pay 50* of the required license fee for a straight dock. A full license fee shall be charged to all persons for all L, T, or 0 docks and boathouses. 1 -29 -90 0 Mound City Code Section 437:10 • ion 437t10. lutes and Rganlations Subd. I. pock 1ACation MAO Definition There shall be on file in the City Hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private decks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. Such master plan shall contain the following information: a* official shoreline markers for purposes of establishing dock locations; b. Indication of approved dock location scaled to proximity with the shoreline markers; C. Types of docks permitted and any restrictions applicable to said locations; d. Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown; e. Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of licensees and addresses, &R&. -te same number shall apply. t! the same location each year as far as p p f. lice topography, depth of ester, soil conditions, habitat, access, and other relorivant information as is l necessary to review dock locations and to allow the City Council and the Dock Inspector to protect the public lands and public waters; q. Shoreline areas designated "winter approved dock locations ". h. Variations from perpendicular dock to shoreline configurations. Ste. Z. annual Review of Mac Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between July 1 and December 1 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall, contain all approved private dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of private dock licenses to be permitted shall be the responsibility of the City Council. 1 -T9 -90 1885 l CITN"of MOUND MOUND MINNESOTA S:]it �6t2► aTZ -silo jr 'jawr Dear Dock Permit Folder: Subject: 1990 Dock Site / Sooting season is upon us once again, the dock site number listed above has been assigned to you for this boating season. if you need help locating this site, please call me and i will give you some assistance. Because of the low water situation, we are allowing some special dispensations this year to allow you to put in your dock. Me will allow docks to be ex- tended out further than norm 19 1n some locations, but proper spacing between then: must be maintained, etc. You must contact me before doing this or you may have to remove the dock If it Is not correct. t You will note your tag Is not enclosed. 1 will personally attach your tag to the dock after I have Inspected it to see that It conforms to the City Or- dinance in construction and placement. If your dock does not pass inspection, I will Issue a notice listing the deficiency and you will have ten (10) days to correct It. If you neglect to do so, you could lose your dock site permit. 1 have dock construction guidelines, If needed. Plaasa ya+r dodgy on the space al lewd for it and 0611 M if you hew any questions at 472-1 15S. Please read the Information on the back of this letter regarding your respon- sibilities as a dock holder and the Mound Dock Ordinance 5437. Thanks for your cooperation in making the public cannons safe and attractive to help you have an enjoyable boating season. Sincerely, Dell Rudolph Dock inspector DR :pJ • M/ ;} 10wiot IN]PONM►TIOM UM ON 111 MWND CO10W8 DOCK PROC.JJI Tbo City of Mouad is licensed by the lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) to operate 400 multiple docks and 6 mooring buoys. To be eligible to lease one of these sites, you meet be a permanent or summer resident of Mound. Applications are available at City Nall from January 3rd through February 28th this year for mew applicants, and are mailed to licensee from prior year during December each year. See dock application for •.rrest dock site and sailboat buoy fees. These fees are due with the completed application by February 28th. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock lieesses and sailboat buoys per the Mound City Code. A. FIRST ]P RIORITY An abutting os+ner has first priority for any location within his lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location up. D. INCWD ]PRIORITY A licensee or shared awder has second priority when applying for a donk permit for the same location held by the licensee or shared owner, the immediately proceeding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect. C. =RD ]P RIORITT A duly qualified applicant has third priority oa locations vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be so third priority where the first and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private frontage shall have the last priority sack year for a dock on public lands. D. ANMINISTRATION Of ]PRIORITY The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Coumc approval. All applications received after Feb. 28th, shall be subject to a late fee of $20.00, and will be placed in a third priority category. there will be no late fee charged to new residents who apply alter Feb. 28tb of the calendar year in which the resident" moves to the City. Residents of the City of Mound, 65 years cl age or older, shall pay SOI of the required license fee for a dock. ]PORTION Of ORDINANCR f437 00 RDLES AND RK :IONS OUBDIRSIO0 1. Dock Location Map Definitf i"aere shall be on file at the City Nall, a drawing of the City of Mound that is mainsL_.. ,,d by the Dock Inspector shoving the approved locations of docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. WIDIVIS145 2. Approved dock locution saps shall be kept and maintained by the Aock Iaspector and shall be reviewed by the ]Park Commission at IF26t once a year. The Park Adv:scty Commission small review the dock location map bttveen July 1 and December 1, before each new boating season so their recommended changes way be reterred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advise and recommendations of the Dock Inspector and Park Commission. Final approval of the duck location m►;p and the somber of dock licenses to be permitted shall be the responsibility of the City Council. S0IDITIS:O0 2. lha.11seti•tupDttor • sfsit detetmise sad &""eve "@ emNN01eK�N IM epeeificatiou of t "horObd dock location sip. 992DIVISICN 4. Licensed docks stall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his sole • expense. W7 May 7, 1990 Mr. Melvin Sohns 2155 Noble Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Sohns: CITY of MOU D MCjND Mrti E 55364 , 61214'2.1155 RE: Dock site #20700 It has been called to my attention that you disagree with the position allowed for your Mound Commons dock site 020700. As you are aware, each site holder at the Waterside Commons has a 30 foot space allowance at the norWai shoreline level. There was a dredge done last winter on Waterside Commons so this spring I measured and staked cut the whole area. Most docks are put in centered on their stake, giving them 15 feet each way. It is allowable to offset your dock to either side, as long as you stay within your 30 foot allowance. It appears you have chosen to Offset your dock to the left, making it p0331ble for you to only use the right side of your dock. You have registered two boats at this site. If you are planning to keep one on each side. the dock will hays be centered on the middle stake to do this. Yotir dock is perfectly legal the way it is installed, if you use the right hand side only. No boats will be allowed on the left hand side. The boat that is moored there now must be moved in the next 72 hours, or it is in danger of being impounded. I noticed that you had put a stake in at the waterline to indicate where you think the angle of your dock should be. I. is incorrect ac.: I moved it to the proper angle, which follows perfectly the angle that you installed your dock. The low water level has caused some areas to have _less space at the waterline than at the normal shoreline spacing, but this usually does not affect boat mooring. • loss Mr. Melvin Sohns May 7 1990 Aa you are aware, we have cleaned out the storm drain area and cemented it for better run -off control, so this should help your site in the future. Your cooperation with the comments above will be appreciated. If you have any questions, please call me or Jim Fackler at 472- 1155. Thank you zt L Dell Rudolph Dock Inspector cc: Bradley Sohns Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director 0 DR:ls • /W F C7 i �'■ �' l �t MOUND MOVN0 MINNESOT 55361 16121 4, May 17, 1990 Mr. Melvin Sohns 2155 Noble Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Sohns: This letter is a follow -up of our meting at Waterside Commons on Wednesday, May 16, 1990. You and your sons, Brad and Bruce, Ed Shukle City Manager and myself met to discuss the position of your dock at site 020700. After one and one -half hours of discussion, measuring and reason- ing, it ended in an impasse. Your dock, in its present position, is perfectly legal, as long as yl;u use the right side only to moor a boat. The left side is too close to the dock space next to you to allow for a boat. There is ample room for you to move your dock to the right, staying within your allowable space, and moor a second boat on the left side. This also enables all the other 20 site holders to have their allowable space. The boat, now tied to the left side of the dock, is moored illegally and must be moved in the next 72 hours or it will be impounded. If you Wish to appeal the rulings made here, you may appear before the Park and Open Space Commission on June 14, 1990, with your case. Your letter of appeal mint be in to the City Manager by June 8, 1990 They will review the case and submit a recommendation to the City Council for their decision. The boat must be moved as stated above, even if this has not been resolved yet. Respectively, Dell Rudolph Dock Inspector cc: Brad Sohns, 2236 Southview Lane Ed Shukle, City Manager Park and Open Space Commission OR:Is t TO: Mound Park .nd Open Space Commission and Advisory Committee From: Carolyn Schmidt Commissioner RE: Avalon Neighborhood and Dock Holders Meeting Date: June 7, 1990 On May 29, 1990, Avalon Neighbors and dock holders commenced our meeting regarding the future development of Avalon Park. Our conversation over the course of one hour prioritized 3 issues. The neighbors are hopeful that the first priority can be accomplished in the relatively near future. 1. Safety Concerns: a. the storm sewer have a grate placed across the front to prevent children from crawling into the pipe (which they did as we spoke) b. the manhole with the sheet of steel be covered with a manhole cover c. a walkway or a ramp be made through the riprap to the lakeshore 2. Asthetics and Landscaping: a. the grassy] area groomed b. the pilings at the street be improved to all matching c. evergreens and planting along the southside of the park and the southwest corner d. an edging placed along the riprap to avoid rocks in the grassy area e. the telephone poles and wires be moved to underground (this would increase the total feeling of size of the park) f. one additional picnic table and permanent backless benches be placed along the edge of the park - lakeside 3. Recreational Equipment: a. a volleyball court in a sand pit b. playground equipment including a playhouse spring rides and sand diggers As anticipated, the recreational equipment was a hot and controversial issue. After debate the 15 families represented made a democrated vote -one per family. 6 `_amilies were in favor of playground equipment and 9 families were not in favor of playground equipment. The 9 not in favor however did discuss the volleyball court and potential for adapting the say. y area of the volleyball court to children with digger toys. One neighbor suggested the well at the street be reactivated. The discussion regarding barriers along the north and south aspects of the park reveled that these neighbors did not care to have barriers placed. The neighbor to the north expressed no concern regarding balls or children crossing into his property. In/ -2- Later in the evening another neighbor requested further discussion regarding barriers along the north and south edges of the park. One suggestion to resolve the recreatiael equipment issue was to have a developer plot the ideas and the plan then be evaluated by the neighbors for final approval. There was a general feeling of satisfaction as we adjourned our meeting. I anticipate continuedeheighborhood interest in the Avalon Park. 0 • 144 ' v ♦` MINN� 1 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 6121473.7033 ��TIOM EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1110kHID MENURS David H. Cochran. Chair Grenwood e Al bert O . Foster. Vice Chair June 5, 1990 WT JUN 5 Deephaven Jan Boswinkel, Secretary Minnetonka Beach John Lawman. Treasurer Minnetrista Douglas E. Babcock s Park The Honorable Steve Smith Marvin Bjorkn Tonks Ba Mayor, City of Mound ,lames N. Grathwol Excelsior 2710 Clare Lane JoEllen L. Hurr Mound MN 55364 Orono John G. Malinke Victoria Thomas Martinson Dear Steve: Wrizata Robert K Pillsbury Minnetonka Robert Rescop Shorewood Tho VV Reese The MN DNR Statewide Standards for "Management of Shoreland d FiobeWoodla'd um Areas" were adopted July 3, 1989. These revised standards are expected to be adopted by all cities. As a special accommodation to the 14 Lake Minnetonka cities, the MN DNR invited your Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to facilitate the adoption of the shoreland standards among its member cities. Coincident to the development of the Long Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka, the Shoreland Rules study was the first to be conducted. Your city participated in this shoreland rules assessment in the winter of 1988 -89. Profressional staff and some elected official participation in this study resulted in the recommended Shoreland Management guide distributed with eight other study areas in November, 1989. Workshops sponsored by the MN DNR were held in late January, 1990. We believe all lake communities participated in these workshops. The process for each community's responsibility in adopting the revised Shoreland Rules was reviewed in detail. LMCD's role as the facilitating agency for the Lake Minnetonka communities was also explained by DNR officials. The Shoreland Grant Agreement is now ready after a careful review of its contents with the MN DNR. Your LMCD Board has reviewed and approved it for your subsequent review and, we trust, adoption. • 1193 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Municipalities DNR Shoreland Rules June 5, 1990 Page 2 Certain funding reimbursement for eligible costs is being provided by the HN DNR through LMCD as the facilitating agency. A provision to fund necessary consulting service to assist the cities in the adoption process is also included as part of the agreement. Eligibility for the matching funds is available through July 31, 1991. That is the deadline for all LMCD cities to complete their Shoreland rules adoption. This leaves just a year to accomplish this task upon your prompt review and signing of the agreement. May we count on you and your City Council to favorably adopt this Shoreland Grant Agreement in June so we may move ahead with the maximum time available? You may direct questions to me personally at 474 -4743, or to Executive Director Gene Strommen, 473 -7033. Thankyou for your positive and early response. Sincerely, • LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT David H. Cochran Chair DHC:am enc:agreement c:city administrator 0 Is1y 0 s STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SHORELAND GRANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting by and through the Commissioner of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the "State "; and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, hereinafter referred to as the "LNCD "; and, the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, found, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Wayzata and Woodland, hereinafter referred to as the "Cities ". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the State has been granted certain responsibility for regulation 40 of shoreland development, as provided by Minnesota Statutes 105.485 and Minnesota Rules parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900 pertaining to "Statewide Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas "; and WHEREAS, the State is authorized by the Laws of 1989, Chapter 335, Article 1, Section 21, Subdivision 3 to provide grant assistance for local governments to adopt a shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards, and to develop comprehensive lake management strategies and plans; and WHEREAS, the LMCD has prepared a Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive Lake Management Plan which includes a strategy for shoreland area management; and WHEREAS, a coordinated, comprehensive approach to shoreland standards for the shoreland areas of Lake Minnetonka will result in greater local consistency and acceptance of the controls, and WHEREAS, the LMCD acrd the Cities have submitted an application for grant assistance. /Its 1 1114 2 NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto: �= I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY A. CITIES' RESPONSIBILITY 1. Shereland Ordinance Adoption. After the official two year notice has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., and before July 31, 1991, the Cities agree to adopt a shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards and the Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive Management Plan. 2. The Cities shall document all eligible costs defined in Section II.A. v; this agreement, and report them to the LMCD for payment. B. LMCD RESPONSIBILITY 1. Local Government Coordinaticn. After the official two year notice has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., LMCO agrees to coordinate the shoreland ordinance adoption for the shoreland areas of Lake Minnetonka I.D. #27 -133) of the following local governments: City of Deephaven City of Orono City of Excelsior City of Shorewood City of Greenwood City of Spring Park City of Minnetonka City of Tonka Bay City of Minnetonka Beach City of Victoria City of Minnetrista City of Wayzata City of Mound City of Woodland 2. Ordinance Certification Checklist. Within the adoption schedule described in item A.I. above, the UACD also agrees to ensure completion of all the tasks and return the attached ordinance certification checklist for each City to the State. 1114 2 3. The LNCD shall pay to the Cities from funds received pursuant to Section II.A of this Agreement 50% of all reasonable ordinance adoption expenses (described in item 4, below) up to a maximum of: a) $2,500.00 for each of the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata and Woodland, and b) $5,000.00 for each of the Cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood and Victoria. 4. Documentation of Actual Costs. The LMCD agrees to provide to the State documentation of all actual eligible costs, defined below, in the adoption of shoreland ordinances for the Cities, and the coordination of shoreland ordinance adoption by the local governmEnts listed in item B.l., above. Examples of allowable costs are: a) Publishing costs for hearing notices and ordinance provisions; b) Consultants fees and /or legal fees involved in the ordinance adoption process; c) Mailing costs associated with ordinance adoption and publication; d) Education and training costs including, expenses for attending the DNR workshops; e) Costs of holding public information meetings; f) Costs of shoreland classification reviews, including map revisions and ordinance development; g) Costs for comprehensive plan development and revisions pertainilg to the shoreland district only, unless combined with the 14 Floodplaii and /or Wild and Scenic Rivers programs. h) Costs for upgrading zoning administration forms such as: permit application, permit certification, variances, conditional uses, special uses, zoning changes, amendments. i) Costs resulting from tasks performed by local appointed officials, employees or staff involved in the adoption process of a shoreland ordinance. /9f 3 j) Coordination costs of local government shoreland ordinance adoption relating to: meeting attendance, training and explanation of county codes and ordinances for compatibility, lake and stream classification review for county wide consistency, review and comments on local government controls and ordinances for county consistency and state compliance, and review and comments on local government administrative procedures for consistency and compatibility with the county. k) Office computerization relating to shoreland management. 5. The LMCD shall return to the State any grant funds advanced which are in excess of 50% of actual costs and which have not previously been paid to the Cities. Funds which have been previously paid to the Cities which are in excess of 50% of actual costs shall be returned to the State by the Cities. 6. If any City does not adopt a shoreland ordinance by July 31, 1991, then all grant funds for the purposes of adopting a shoreland ordinance for that City shall be returned to the state. 1. Each City shall provide to the Department for review a draft ordinance at least 60 days before the deadline date defined in item 6, above. II. GRANT A. The State shall pay to the LMCD up to a maximum of $45,000.00 for payment to the Cities of 50% of all reasonable ordinance adoption expenses for the services authorized hereunder. Invoices will( be submitted for double the requested payment amount to demonstrate both the local and state share. Final payment will be made after the Work has been completed and if costs and Work for which invoices are submitted are satisfactory to the Commissioner of Natural Resources. This also includes submittal of the Ordinance Certification Checklist. . III$ 4 Advance payments to the. LMCD by the State not to exceed 50% of the grant amount may be authorized if a listing of anticipated incurred expenses are submitted by the LMCD to the State. The LMCD and /or Cities agree to pay all expenses not paid for by the grant. B. The State shall pay $15,000.00 costs of coordinating the adoption of local controls up to a maximum of $15,000.00. Examples of allowable expense are describes in Section I.B.4. of this contract. III. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. The LMCD agrees that in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or sub - contract hereunder, neither it nor any contractor, material supplier or vendor shall engage in any discriminatory employment practices as such practices are defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and Chapter 363, or in any practices prohibited by Minnesota Statutes Sections 177.42 and 177.43 (1988). 0 2. The LMCD shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the State, its agents and employees from all claims or actions which may arise from performance of this Agreement. 3. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures, and practices of the L14CU relevant to this Agreement shall be subject to examination of the Department of Natural Resources and the Legislative Auditor. 4. The State agrees to provide technical and coordinative assistance to the LMCU and /or Cities for the adoption of shoreland controls for non -Lake Minnetonka shoreland areas within the Cities of Min,;etrista, Orono, Shorewood, and Victo,•ia. • lift 5 I 5. The State intends by this Agreement to eliminate unnecessary duplication of ordinance adoption procedures by requiring all ordinance standards re ared by the Cities to be coordinated with the LMCD prior to P P submittal to the State for approval. Failure by the Cities to coordinate with the LMCD will result in non - payment of eligible costs to the Cities by the L14CD. IV. TED1 This Agreement shall become effective when all signatures required have been obtained and when the funds have been encumbered by the Commissioner of Finance, and shall continue in effect until the agreed tasks are completed or until July 31, 1991, whichever is earlier. V. TER14INATION The State may terminate this Agreement "with cause ". "With cause" shall mean that the L14CD and /or Cities are riot performing the Work in accordance with the terms of the Agreement or the Work is n(t being performed to the satisfaction of the State. If this Agreement is so terminated, the State shall only be liable to pay for Work found acceptable. In the event of termination of this Agreement as heretofore pro% 1L..:d, the LMCD and /or Cities shall have seven (7) days prior written notice and if the Agreement is being terminated "with cause" the L14CD and /or Cities shall have until the date of termination to show cause why the Agreement should not be terminated. If it is determined by the State that the LMCD /Cities default was beyond its control or it was not otherwise in default, the Agreement shall not be terminated. live) 6 s • s CITY OF HOUND By: Wa r Date: By: Ue c Da to : CITY OF Oi: By: T a or Date: By: Clerk Date: CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Mayor Uate: By: ZTer.. Date: — CITE OF SPRING PARK By: M ayor Date: By: ( a — rT Date: CITY OF TUNKA BAY B y — -- ii� v�ir Date By: — - -- Clerk Da :e _ CITY OF VICTORIA By: Mayo Date: By . Date: CITY OF WAYZATA By: ay�or Date: By: Me—ry Date: CITY OF WOODLAND By: hayor Date: By Clerk a /1d/ ORD I WWCE WT I F I CAT I ON CHECKL I ST Once all the below listed tasks are completed, please sign and return the checklist and all required documents to the State. This must be returned before final payment will be authorized. I. Date of pubiished hearing notice. 2. Date of postmark of hearing notice to Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources /Area Hydrologist. 3. Date of hearing(s). 4. Date of ordinance adoption. 5. If ordinance is published in entirety, date and affidavit of newspaper publication of adopted ordinance. (Include three copies of ordinance) 6. _ If only ordinance summary published, date and affidavit of newspaper publication of ordinance title and summary alono with certified copy of adcnted ordinance in it- entirety from the Clerk. (Include three copies of ordinance) 7. _ Date of official filing of adopted ordinance with County Recorder ( record book number page number). 8. Board of Adjustment /Appeals has been established. *Note: Cit es under charter in,. :t also submit a list of any additional requirements for hearings, notices, etc. stated in their charter. Please specify: BY: Mayor DATE: CITY: 1102. CITY of NK VND June 21, 1990 TO: Ed Shukle City Manager FROM! Joyce Pelson Recvcling Coordieiatnr SUBJECT: Recycling .41 MAVVcOOD ROAD n.- -ND MINNESOTA 55364 6 2, 472-1155 The Recycling Committee feels that an incentive program would help in raising our parriciapation rates. The cities of Excelsior and Tonka Bay have reduced garabage rates for the homes that particapate in their recycling program. Tonka Bay has the bar code system and they have to have recyclables out at least twice a month. The City of Excelsior is also going to be installing the bar code system. The City of P'iymouth still has its $100.00 weekly drawing. Residents are to have their re:yclables on the curb by 7:00 a.m. in order to win. The City of Hopkins is also going to be starting some form of cash rebate. Participation rates for cities of Tonka Bay, Plymouth and Excelsior are about 65 %. Wayzata used to have a drawing also but they discontinued it. Their partic;apation rare is around 80 %. We the Recycling Committee feel that with an incentive program the particiaption rate in Mound would raise. We are very interested in using the Westonka Dollars. The Recycling Committee is meeting on Monday, June 25, we will be presenting our ideas to you on June 26. 1103 For June 26, 1990 Council Meeting June 21, 1990 LICENSE RENEWALS -- EXPIRE 6- 30 -90. New License Period 7 -1 -90 to 6- 30 -91. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being turned in, plus the approval of Police Chief Harrell and where necessary the appropriate department. Off -Sale Beer Al b Alma's Supper Club Brickley's Market PDQ Food Store #E0292 SuperAmerica /4194 n., -C.I. nee_ Al & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy rt..1, r t..e..ee American Legion +398 VFW #F5113 Sunday On -Sale Liquor VFW #5113 Set -Up Permit Al b Alma's Supper Club On -Sale Wine Al b Alma's Supper Club House of Moy , • • ItOy • • • BILLS - - - - -- -JUNE 26. 1990 BATCH 0061 BATCH 0062 66.579.34 58.170.19 TOTAL BILLS 124.749.53 Mor F�. 1 PURCHASE JOURNAL L !x"01 CITY w an VRARI INYDICE SU! WILD PAE -PAN 41. 011010E m SI SITE ITAIN ANONT DESCRI ACCm um ARM owe OIIM 11E - MID 3,708.00 CA GLUON 6/9 PR 01- 2040-0000 ¢ 6/15/90 6 /15/0 3,708.00 AL-0 1010 3708.00 3" 6110 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION VETADOR TOTAL 3708.00 CWA PRE -PAID 23.52 PETTY CASH-LIQ 71- 7100 -2200 6/15/90 6115M 23.52 JK-CD lul0 23.32 30619 6/00/0 PRE -PAID 61.21 PETTY CASH- POLICE 01- 4110 -2200 6/15190 6/15/ 61.21 JK-CD 1010 61.21 30621 6 /12/0 CITY OF NDUO VENDOR TOTAL 84.73 00999 PIE-PIUD 225.90 CON LIFE U6 6/14 PR 01- 2040-0000 6/13. 6/13/90 225.90 J K-CO 1010 ?25.90 W6 6/14/90 CONNEXIAL LIFE LID CO VENDOR TOTAL 225.90 01001 PRE-mo 2,432.03 SIT 6/9 PR 01- 3040.0000 6/13/90 6/15/0 2,432.03 JRNL-CO 1010 2432.03 30633 6/14/" PIE -AMID 105.63 NAT SALE'S TAX 73 -3992 -0000 6,613.32 ANY SALES TAX 71- 3992-0000 6/15/90 6115/90 6,719.17 JO L-CD 1010 6719.17 W9 6/14/90 PRE -PAID 51.00 1ST 1/2 JIE EST SALES TAX 73-3392 -0000 3,867.50 1ST 1/2 J IE EST SALES TAX 71- 3!92-0000 6/15/90 6/15190 3,918.10 JK-CD 1010 3918.50 30630 6/14 CO8IISSIOER OF REVENE VENDOR TOTAL 13069.70 16 01219 PRE -PAID 317.18 33.5 COTTAACT HOURS 81-4350-3100 6/15/90 6/15/90 317.58 J K-CO 1010 317.58 30629 6/13/90 OEM IADO.PH VENDOR TOTAL 317.58 D1320 PIE -PAID 350.00 ADV -STATE CON -0 BRYCE 22- 4170 -4110 6/15/0 6/15/90 390.00 JK-CD 1010 350.00 30603 6/011" DONId NRYCE YOM TOTAL 350.00 E1429 POE -PAID 665.25 LID 71- 7100 -9510 191.35 NINE 71-7100-9520 13.30- DISC 71- 7100 -9560 6/15/90 6/15/00 843.30 AL-CD 1010 843.30 30617 6/05/90 PRE -PAID 680.90 MINE 71-7100 -9520 6/15/90 6/15/90 680.90 JAIL -CD 1010 680.90 30624 6/12/90 ED PHILLIPS It 9045 %9W TCTAL 1524.20 01916 PREPAID 1,156.00 DEF COP 619 PR 01- 2040-0000 6/15/90 6115/90 1,155.00 JK -CD 1010 1155.00 30638 6/14. OOEAT NEST LIFE ASS11WU VENDW TOTAL 1155.00 0 041 .o G 03- 30 CS 1901 MR 2 PURCHASE JOURNAL AP-002-01 Cm OF an VENDOR INVOICE DUE ,O LO PRE-" M. WAICE NNOUR DATE DATE STATUS AM NT DESCRIPTION ACCa1Q Rum mm CIr 81971 PRE -PAID 268.87 GMUP HEALTH 6/14 PR 01- 2040.0000 6/15/90 6/15/90 268.07 JRNI -CD 1010 268.87 381+ OAa1- HEALTH PLAN VENDOR TOTAL 268.87 01972 PRE -PAID 223.96 LIMM 71- 7100-9510 768.53 MINE 71-7100 -9520 21.59- DISC 71-7100-9560 22.05 FRT 71-7100-9100 86.90 MIX 71-7100 -9540 6/15/90 6/15/90 1,079.SS AIL -CD 1010 1079.83 306: PRE -PAID 1,065.36 MINE 71-7100-9520 22.10- DISC 71-1100 -9310 17.15 FRT 71= 1100-9600 19.37 MIX 71-71004540 6 /15/90 6/15/90 1,099.78 JRNL-CD 1010 1099.78 3066 ORIOGS COOPER t COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 2179.63 41999 PREPAID 398.97 EIEROEICT LITE 22- 4170 -3830 6/15/90 6/15/90 398.97 Jill -CD 1010 398.97 306" PRE -PAID 168.90 LIGHT O1LE 22-4170 -3630 6/15/90 6/15/90 168.90 JiK-CD 1010 168.90 30t H i H INOMTRIES, INC VENDOR TOTAL 567.87 H2145 PREPAID 288.46 00 6/9 PR 01-2040-0000 6/15/90 6/15/90 288.46 At -CD 1010 288.46 30t NENN CO 511PPORT 6 COLLECT* VENDOR TOTAL 288.46 I2301 PREPAID 512.90 DEF COMP ICMA 6/9 PR 01 2040 6115/90 6/15/90 512.90 JRNL - CU 1010 512.90 30t ICMA RETIREMENT TW -457 VENDOR TOTAL 512.90 12304 PREPAID 91.98 ICMA 619 PR 01- 1940-0000 6/15/90 6 /15/90 91.98 JK-CD 1010 91.98 30t ICMA RETIREIVT. TRUST-401 VENDOR TOTAL 91.98 M71 PREPAID 485.28 72 CONTRACT HOLFS 01-4340 -3100 6/15/90 6/15/90 485.28 JRNL -CD 1010 485.26 306 JOHN TAFFE VENDOR TOTAL 485.28 J2579 PRE -PAID 1,302.74 LIG 71- 7100 -9510 860.79 MINE 71-7100.9520 34.68- DISC 71-7100-9560 6/15/90 6/15/90 2,128.85 JRNE -CD 1010 2126.85 30t PRE -PAID 991.73 1,052.89 LIO MINE 71-7100-9`10 71- 7100-520 �O 3x.68- D19C 71.7100.9'AO HE 3 PURCMAOE JOURNAL. R> -01 CITY OF 1piO -' VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 1010 10012.9 NO. INVOICE W DAZE DATE STATUS AIONT MUIMM 6/15/90 6/15/90 2,013.94 JAIL-CO JHHSOw1 BROS NO.ESALE LIO VENDOR TOTAL 4142.79 M3051 PREPAID 10,612.98 FIT 6/9 PR 6115/90 6/15/90 10,612.98 JHML -CD MARDRETTE BANK - MO1D VENDOR TOTAL 10612.98 mm PRE -PAID 1,316.56 FED CENTER 6/14 PR 6/15/90 6/15/90 1,316.56 J K-CD LED CENTER HEALTH PLAN YOM TOTAL 1316.56 M3170 PRE -PAID 1,188.00 MAY SAC 6/15/90 6115/90 1,188.00 JNL-0 METRO WASTE CONTROL CQMMI* VENDOR TOTAL 1188.00 M3268 PREPAID 173.50 MBA 6/14 PR 6/15/90 6/15/90 173.50 JK-CD MN BENEFIT ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 173.50 PO401 PRE -PAID 288.00 DEF COIF 6/9 PR 6/15/90 6/15/90 288.00 JOL-CD MN RETIREMENT SYSTEM VENDOR TOTAL 288.00 M3492 PRE -PAID 294.00 49 CITY DAYS T- SHIRTS 6/15/90 6115/90 294.00 JHIL -CD POW CITY HAYS VENDOR TOTAL 294.00 M3520 PRE -PAID 100.00 REPLEN POSTS DINE ACCOINT 100.00 REPLEN POSTS OLE ACCOM 6115/90 6/15/90 200.00 JRNL -CD VRE-PAID 19.40 REPL.EN POSTS PETER 56.65 REPLEN POSTS METER 28.10 REPLEN POSTS METER 2.30 REPLEN POSTS METER 85.80 REPLEN POSTS METER 15.80 REPLEN POSTS PETER 9.50 REPLEN POSTS PETER 45.55 REPLEII POSTS METER 33.55 REPLEN POSTS PETER 95.70 REPLEN POSTS METER 61.22 REPLEN POSTS METER 61.23 REPLEN POSTS PETER 73.50 REPLEN POSTS METER 2.30 REPLEN POSTS PETER .50 REPLEN POSTS FM 12.20 REPLEN POSTS METER � 20.25 REPLEN POSTS METER 23.55 REPLEN POSTS METER CM NM 0 1010 a ki" 01- 2040 -9000 1010 10012.9 01- 2040.0000 1010 1316.56 W 14.2304-0000 1010 1100.410 306. 01-2040.0000 1010 173.30 901 01- 2040 -0000 1010 280. 01 -4399 -4100 1010 73-7300-3210 78 -7800 -3210 1010 01- 4070 -3210 01- 4020 -3210 01- 4040 -3210 01- 4060-3210 01- 4090 -3210 22 -4170 -3210 71- 7100 -3210 01-4340-3210 81-4350 -3210 01- 4190-3210 73- 7300-3210 78-7800-3210 01- 4140 -3210 01-4280-3210 01-4270 -3210 01- 4090 -3210 01-4020-3210 01-4320 -3210 294.00 301 200.00 30t • 4 p § M COQ+Ot CITY 9 Nw MINAt IMYOICE ME HOLD IL ISUYOICE MMt DATE MBE SMUT RUM MERIPTION AIm11I NOW 6/13/90 6/13/90 600.00 JrL-CD 1010 !M/p POSTRASTER %Vw TOTAL 800.00 r . a M3631 P19-LAID 562.38 NIL 6114 PR 01- 2010.0000 ) 6/15/90 6/15/90 562.50 AL-0 1010 312.31 WRk BENEFIT LIFE VENDOR TOTAL 562.38 a P39% PIE -PAID 6,370.53 PERA 6/9 PR 01- 2040.0000 6 11S/" 6/15/90 6,570.53 AL-CD 1010 6wo.33 ; a•:fi P E R A VENDOR TOTAL 6310.53 P4030 PIE -PAID 7,389.08 PHP 6/9 PR 01- 201u-0000 299.50 PIP RETIREE 01- 4140.1010 6/15/90 6/13/90 7,689.30 JML-CO 1010 7Nl.38 3*'. PHYSICIANS OF M VENDOR TOTAL 7689.88 44171 PRE -PAID 2,399.82 LIQ 71-7100.9510 181.81 MINE 71- 7100-9520 52.11- DISC 70100 -9560 6/15/90 6/15/90 2,829.52 JOL-CD 1010 2829.52 306 PRE -PAID 1,421.61 LIQ 71-7100-9510 404.05 MINE 71- 7100-9520 32.49- DIE .. -7100.M 6/15/90 6/15/90 1,793.17 JK-CD 1010 1793.17 306 WALITY MINE i SPIRITS VENOOR TOTAL 4622.69 84259 PRE -PAID 602.56 56 CONTRACT HOURS 01- 4340-3100 6/15/90 6115/90 602.56 Jk-CD 1010 602.56 3k RODERT E JX SOM VENDOR TOTAL 602.56 54311 PRE -PAID 508.92 CR UNION 6/9 PR 01- 2040.0000 6/15/90 6/15/90 508.92 JINL -CD 1010 508.92 306 STATE CAPITOL CREDIT UNION VENDOR TOTAL 500.92 14615 PREPAID 20.28 CON HTG 6 -4 -90 01-4020 -4120 6/15/90 6/15/90 20.28 Jk -CD 1010 20.26 30E SUBWAY SANDWICHES WDOR TOTAL 20.28 M5431 PRE -PAID 36.13 SOLAR SALT 01 -4290 -2200 36.14 SOLAR SALT 01-4280-2200 36.14 SOLAR SALT 73- 7300.2200 36.14 SOLAR SALT 78- 7800 -2200 6 /15/90 6/15190 144.55 JINL -CD 1010 144.55 301., MATER SPECIALISTS, INE VOW TOTAL 144.55 !tor 115560 PRE -PAID 56.93 COOKIES 01- 4020-2200 cmran r. MI• m OA1E WE ilNill6 NOW IRIPTIOI RmR Rm 8.69 TOWELS 22-4170 -2E00 21.30 BMPPLIES 71-7800-2200 6/13/90 6/15/90 86.92 AL-0 1010 16.92 309 I6TWA FOOM Yom TOTAL 86.92 16063 PRE -PAID 350.00 AN -STATE COW -SIDUM 22-4170 -4110 6/15/90 6/15/90 350.00 JAN. -CD 1010 350.00 3061 STEVE via= VEMDDI TOTAL 350.00 16073 PRE-PAIO 350.00 AN STATE COW R MILLING 22. 4:70.4110 6/15/90 6/15/90 350.00 J K-CD 1010 350.00 3061 RICK MILLING VENODR TOTAL 350.00 16111 PRE -PAID 350.00 ADV STATE COW J ONNAID 22 -4170 -4110 6/15/90 6/15/90 360.00 JAIL -0 1010 350.00 3*. JERRY GAAVAIS VENBat TOTAL 350.00 16118 PIE -PAID 350.00 ADY STATE COW J IM 22-4170 -4110 6/15/90 6/15/90 350.00 JAIL -CD 1010 350.00 306 JEFFREY NNERM VENDOt TOTAL 350.00 is 26120 PRE -PAID 350.00 ADV STATE COW S BRTCE 22- 4170-4110 6/15/90 6/15/90 350.00 AL-0 1010 350.00 306 9CDTT BRTCE Yom TOTAL 350.00 16121 PRE -PAID 350.00 ADV £TATS COW M SWElft 22-4170 -4110 6/15/90 6/15/90 350.00 J K-CD 1010 350.00 W WILLIAM SWEM VEMB TOTAL 350.00 16125 PREPAID 25.00 RUM DEPOT DEPOSIT- BDFNTGO! 01-3820 -0000 6/13/90 6115/90 25.00 JANL-CD 1010 25.00 306 RAE BOENTOEN VENDOI TOTAL 25.00 TOTAL ALL VENDORS 66,579.34 • 1110 IMF 1 PURCHASE JOURNAL 9 6 0-01 CITY OF WA Vm INVOICE RE ILLD 109 INVOICE MIR 01 DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 40190 380.00 BLACKTOP 01- 4290 -2340 6 /21/90 6121/0 380.00 JK -CD 1010 ALLIED BJI" CO VENDOU TOTAL 380.00 A0371 289.23 COMOIETE 01- 4320 -3930 6/21/90 6 /21/90 289.25 J1K-CD 1010 APPLE VALLEY READY Nil VENDOR TOTAL 269.25 30521 30.00 JULY PARKING LEASE 01-4290-4200 30.00 JULY PARKING LEASE 73- 7300 -4200 30.00 JULY PARKING LEASE 78- 7800-4200 6/21/90 6 /21/90 90.00 AL-CD 1010 NALBOA MINNESOTA COMPANY YOM TOTAL 90.00 } 80677 6,560.00 MAT RECYCLE ME DICE 01- 4270-4200 6 /21/90 6/21/90 6,560.00 JOL-CD 1010 OFT RECYu.ING SYSTEMS OF M VENDOR TOTAL 6560.00 C0845 188.10 RANKER 01- 4280-2200 94.05 RANGER 01- 4340-2200 6121/90 6121/90 282.15 J1K-CD 1010 CENTWI SOTA CO-OP i C0937 VEIOOt TOTAL 282.15 32.40 CUPS 01_4020 -2200 6n1/90 6n1/90 32.40 J8L -CD 1010 CLAW FOOD SERVICE YOM TOTAL 32.40 00960 27.79 MATERIAL FOR BOOTH 01- 2300 -on 6121/90 6121/90 27.79 JiIL -CD 1010 COAST TO COAST YEIQ'1i TOTAL 27.70 C0990 907.00 COMPUTER LEASE 01- 4095-5000 545.25 COMPUTER MAINT 01-4095-3800 6/21/90 6/21/90 1,452.25 JAM& -CD 1010 CO RVTOSERVTCE INC YOM TOTAL 1452.25 C1024 11.38 FILTERS 73- 1300-2300 6 /21/90 6121190 11.38 J8L-CD 1010 CONCRETE SAWING, INC. YDW TOTAL 11.38 C1079 320.15 MAY TELE 01- 4320 -3220 3.51 MAY TELE 01-4190-3220 8.99 MAY TELE 01-4040 -32:0 .24 MAY TELE 01-4340 -?Z'?0 62.80 MAY TELE 01- 4280-32_0 118.65 31.42 MAY TELE MAY TELE 73- 7300 -'220 78- 7800 -32:0 DATE 6/21/0 TIME 14.36.36 PRE -PAIR CHECK AMOUNT CHECK t DATE 6)0 6 - 1- .S43 3 -aIL- 1 t // Cw 2 PURCHASE JOURNAL am 4" M-G02 -01 CITY OF N010 TOE 14.8&36 %am INVOICE DUE HOLD PIE -PAID on NO. INVOICE M DATE DATE STATUS MOUNT NT DESCRIPTION ACCCMNT NU EN AND NT CEO( 1 MR 63.38 MY TELE 01-4340 -3220 148.05 MY TELE 71-7100-3220 70.52 MY TELE 22-4170 -30 67.70 MY ME COMPUTER 22- 4170-3220 218.20 MY TEE 01-4140-3220 6 /21/90 6 /21/90 1,113.61 JRK-CD 1010 CONTINENTAL TELENK VENDOR TOTAL 1113.61 11150 84.00 CONC-BLAC)(TP WPM 73- 7300-4200 6/21/90 6/21/90 84.00 JNL -CD 1010 1 J EXCAVATING VEMR TOTAL 64.00 01360 3,965.00 ASPHALT STFIET REPAIR 73- 7300-4200 6/21190 6/21/90 3,965.00 NL -CD 1010 MGM ASN'HALT CONPW VENDOR TOTAL 3965.00 F1660 27.75 210 QTR SECURITY 01-4290 -3950 27.75 2ND QTR SECURITY 73- 7300 -3n3 27.75 2N0 QTR SECURITY 78-7800-3950 27.75 2N0 QTR SECURITY 01-4280 -3950 6 /21/90 6/21/90 111.00 JlK-CD 1010 FLOYD SECURITY VENOM TOTAL 111.00 F1710 8.00 NFALS 01-4060-4120 26.49 L C MTG,CHMW CRUISE 01-4040-4120 6/21/90 6121/90 34.49 JAL 1010 FRMCENE CLARK VENOM TOTAL 34.49 F1711 292.60 MY FRT 71-7100 -9600 6 /21/90 6121/90 292.60 JOL-CD 1010 FWAM TRUD(ING VENOM TOTAL 292.60 F1722 94.27 COVER-CLARK 01- 4040-2100 6 /21/90 6/21190 94.27 JAIL -CD 1010 FWNCLIN INTERNAT L INSTI• YOM TOTAL 94.27 61780 575.00 8AL DUE-KW SIGN 01-4320 -2200 6 /21190 6/21/90 575.00 JOL -CD 1010 CUANIEL SIIU15 VDIDOR TOTAL 575.00 61820 130.80 REPLACE MIKE 01-4340 -2300 6121/90 6 /21/90 130.80 JRNL-CD 1010 I MAL COWNICATIONS tA]M TOTAL 130.80 61905 420.50 MY ONE CALL SERV 73-7300-3100 6 /21/90 6/21/90 420.50 JUL-CD 1010 • • r' i� PAGE 3 PURCHASE JOURNAL all 6121/18 AP- CO2-01 CITY OF ON TIE 14.51.21 VETw INVOICE ME HOLD PRE -PAID am NO. INVOICE M DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT wvlr AINDUNT DWI DATE �GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, INC YOM TOTAL 420.50 H2120 6.60 MAT POSTAL VERIF 01-4060-3210 6/'11/90 6/21/90 6.60 JRNL-CD 1910 NEW 00 DEPT OF PROPERTY T YOM TOTAL 6.60 M2160 425.00 TRAFFIC TICKETS 01-4140-2200 6/:1/90 6/21/90 423.00 JRNL-CD 1010 HENN CO TREASM VENLJR TOTAL 425.00 12329 41.60 CALIPERS,BOMS,TAPE 01- 4140-4100 6121/90 6/21/90 41.60 JO L-CD 1010 INSTITUTE FOR AEROBICS RE# VFACR TOTAL 41.60 12910 35.OG SUBBCRIP-POLIM SCIENCE 01- 4140-4130 6/21/90 6121/90 33.00 JRNL-CD 1010 IMTERNATL ASSN CHIEFS PCLI YOM TOTAL 35.00 J2421 590.00 JUNE JANITOR SERVC 01- 4320-4210 50.66 JUNE JANITOR 5ERVC O1 -4280 -4200 50.67 JUNE JANITOR SERVC 73- 7300-4200 50.67 JUNE JANITOR SERVC 78- 7800 -4200 6121/90 6 /21/90 742.00 JlK-CD 1010 16 S CLEANING CO. VENDOR TOTAL 742.00 J2533 7.13 AMY MILEAGE 71- 7100-2200 6121/90 6 /21/90 7.13 JAIL-CD 1010 JOEL KMM VENDOR TOTAL 7.15 RMI 513.24 NUM i BOLTS 78- 7VAI-2300 6 /21/% 6 /21/90 513.24 JRNL-CD 1010 TUNA PFRUCTS VENWR TOTAL 513.24 X2652 1,350.00 CONCIRETE WORK 73- 7300-4200 6/21/90 6/21/90 1,550.00 JRNL-0 1010 KAMIDA VENOO R TOTAL 1550.00 K2720 345.50 HIM PARTS 01- 4340-3820 6121190 6/21/90 345.50 .NL-CD 1010 am CO. VOEQR TOTAL 345.50 L2911 206.11 WATER METER CARDS 73-7300-2120 6/21/90 6/21/90 206.11 JlK-CD 1010 LAWN PRINTING i GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL 206.11 L2880 39.00 CANINE BAMUIET 01-4140-4120 I T/3 4 PURCNA8E JOURNAL k� 4 CITY OF Ion r YID INVOICE ME 10.0 PRRE -lM1I :r W. I'MICE M!R BATE MITE STA11A NOW 8EOIPTION AMI MT UIOM NONE an # fAl� 141.99 PULL /01 SEMINAR-W REIND 01-4140 -NI0 6 /21N0 6/23/90 180.99 JRNL a 1010 uDm HAMwu VEIWOdlt TOTAL 180.99 L2940 400.00 TREE AEW&- K0IRD-A5SE55 01- 1190-0000 3,350.00 WE REVA 01- 4340-5110 263.00 00 i OWIS -L05T LAKE 01 -4280 -4200 263.00 FM i DENUS-LOST LAZE 73- 7300-4200 262.00 00 i OEM11S-LOST LAW 70- 7800-4200 } 262.00 WO i DEHgS-LOST LAKE 01-4340 -5110 330.00 NO11- M1110M- 1166E9S 01- 1190.4000 6/21/90 681 /90 5,150.00 AL-0 1010 LUTZ TREE SERVICE YOUR TOTAL 5150.00 113060 40.00 TON CIAROE 01- 4140 -4240 6121/90 6/21/90 40.00 AL-0 1010 MARTIN'S WA ME 66 V17AD!>it TOTAL. 40.00 83080 64.00 MY- SEALCOAT 27-5800-3100 320.00 MY-DFMMI01- EM 26- 1190-0000 880.00 MY -IBTM 01 -4190 -3100 879.00 KMY- INSP,PLNQDIO 01-4190 -3100 230.00 MY -LIABR PROPOTT 01- 4190.3100 311.00 MY -IP Oft REPAIR 01-4310-3100 94.00 MY-00 LOTS 60.6000 -3100 224.00 MY-ST MLE 60-6000-3100 ' 3,642.00 MT4 MM: LIFT STA,00 78- 7800-3100 32.01 MY -INTER 00 73- 7300 -3100 3,868.20 MIKITY KM11 AWN 30-6000-5000 %.00 MY-onw DEPT 01- 4280-3100 246.00 MY -CITY SIGN 01- 4320 -3100 MI-00 MY -DEPOT REHAB 60- 6000-3100 1,193.60 MY- W.Tuma 26- 5700-3100 :8.00 MY-MOE EVALUATION 30. 6000 -3100 681/90 6121/90 12,690.80 AL-0 1010 ICCQMS FRAM( RODS AGSMIi VENDOR TOTAL 12690.80 113171 1,815.38 FED -MAY INSPECTIONS 01- 4190-3100 6/21/90 6/21190 1,813.38 JOL-M 1010 PM WEST INSPECTION SER* VENDOR TOTAL 1815.38 10200 235.00 NDZZLE 01- 4280-2200 6/21 /90 6 /21/90 ?.33.00 AL-CD 1010 RID -CEP Ml, INC VEWOR TOTAL 235.00 FM 36.88 MY OA8 22- 4170 -3720 W.00 MY OAS 01- 4340 -3720 10.38 MY OAS 01- 4320-3720 8.91 MY OAS 71- 7100-3720 47.94 MY ON 01-4280 -3720 lily CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 6/26 #2 PAM 5 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 6/21/40 W- 0O2 - 01 CITY OF WAD TILE 14.36.26 YENS INVOICE DUE HOLD PREPAID DECK NO. INVOICE NNOR DATE DATE STAT'K A1 DESCRIPTION ACMJKT WIM ANWrT DWI DATE ob 56.39 MAY GAS 73-7300 -3720 36.65 MAY GAS 78-7800 -3720 6!21/ 6121/90 ?48.15 JNL-CD 1010 MINEGASCO VENDOR TOTAL 348.15 Nf3"89 204.90 FACE SHIELDS,2RAC(ETS,CHG E1'G 22-4170 -'200 6/21/90 6/21/90 204.90 JK-CD 1010 MN CONWAY FIRE 5 SAFETY VENDOR TOTAL 204.90 N3489 2,604.00 6 RADIOS 22-4170-3200 6/21190 6/21/90 2,604.00 JOt-CD 1010 NOTURO A INC VOW TOTAL 2601.00 M3610 153.64 REPAIR A/C 71-7100 -3820 621/90 6121/90 153.64 JK-CD 1010 NTKA REFRIGERATION VENDOR TOTAL 153.64 13710 92.48 ELEC MOTOR,GRASS WHIP 78-7800 -2300 9.58 ALUMINUM 01- 4290 -2300 621/90 621/90 102.06 JK -CD 1010 t VAfiRE HARMARE YENDO<t TOTAL 102.06 200.00 NO TRAILER PARK SIGNS 01-4020-2200 �M3740 30.25 GREEN SHEETING 01- 4290 -2360 621/90 621/90 280.25 JK-CD 1010 WWMN SIGNS VOa1i TOTAL 280.25 Km 291.25 MAY ELECTRICITY 01-42811-3710 85.50 MAY ELECTRICITY 01-4340 -3710 444.29 MAY ELECTRICITY 01- 4320 -3710 345.50 NAY ELECTRICITY 11.7100 -3710 202.72 MAY ELECTRICITY 22- 4170-3710 1,957.76 MAY ELECTRICITY 73-7300-3710 1, 745.59 MAY ELECTRICITY P8 -7800-3710 6/21!90 6/21/90 5,072.61 JK -CD 1010 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO VENDOR TOTAL 5M2.61 P4031 205.45 .ALT PHP-M THARALSON 01- 4140-151C 6/'' 1 /90 W21190 205.45 JK -CD 1010 PHYSICIANS OF MN VENDOR TOTAL 205.45 54347 280.60 REM FLASHERS 73- 7300-4200 6/21190 621190 280.60 JOk-ED 1010 SAFE T FLARE VENDOR TOTAL 280.60 SA - M )f.42 JJLY REV' 71-7100 -3920 621/90 621/90 2,305.42 JR.-CD 1010 19/5' POK 6 PURCHASE JOURNAL 1-002 -01 CITY OF ROAD TOE 14.&* VEIDat INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE -PAID Q�f NO. INVOICE 00 DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NINA AMOUNT am I DAIS SHORELINE PLAZA YEW TOTAL 230'5.42 54430 4.25 FAX 01-4040-2.!70 6!21/90 6/21/90 4.25 JRNL -CD 1010 SOS PRINTING Vow TOTAL 4.25 S" 82'1.00 SERVICE WElI t1 73- 7300-3800 6/-1/90 6/21/90 3 JR►L -CD 1010 STEVENS YQL COMPANY VEND TOTAL 821.00 54600 29,00 TARGETS 01-4140-2270 84.00 JACKET 01-4140-2240 6!11190 6121190 113.00 JK-0 1010 STREICiER'S VENDOR TOTAL 113.00 54630 12.85 APR-MY GASOLINE 01- 4040-2210 11.04 APR -NAT GASOLINE 01-4290 -2210 237.71 APR -HAT GASOLINE 01-4340 -2210 576.59 APR -HAY GASOLINE 01-4280-2210 223.73 APR -FAY GASOLINE 73- 7300 -2210 90.96 APR -NAT GASOLINE 78- 7800-2210 913.82 APR -HAY GASOLINE 01-4140-2210 681/90 6/21/90 2,066.70 JIX-CD 1010 SIPERMERICA VENDOR TOTAL 2066.70 T4716 29.75 TEM4P iELP 01- 4270 -1300 681/90 6121/90 29.75 JRNL -CD 1010 TEMPORARIES TO GD VENDOR TOTAL 29.75 V5160 36.95 MATCH BAND-LOTTEN 01-4140-7240 6/21/90 6/21/90 36.95 JRNL -0 1010 V t, S JEWElER4 YENDO i TOTAL 36.95 0430 175.00 18' HTD ENT- WILSHIRE 73- 7300.2300 6121190 6121 /90 175.00 JRNL -CD 1010 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 175.00 lux 68.00 IE11 34MTS 73- 7300-4200 6121 /90 6/21/90 68.00 JRNL-CD 1010 MI OHER INC VEWUR TOTAL 68.00 95670 25.00 GLOVES 22- 4170-2200 29.98 KNEE BOOTS 01- 4280 -2200 61 6!'. 54.98 Jtill -CD 1010 WILLIAMS STONE 'INC VEPW TOTAL 54.98 1&120 POM 7 AP- 002 -01 YEN= INVOICE OLE HOLD ND. INVOICE NO DATE DATE STATUS W W 6 /21 fqO 6121 /90 NMI SERVICES OF MN VENOUR TOTAL 85700 6/21100 6/2 M MRET- PEARSON- LARSON VEWOR TOTAL RS750 6121/ 6121/90 >EIR01 COLORATION VENDOR TOTAL 27850 6/21/90 6121/90 ZAC1('S INC VE1tdO+ TOTAL TOTAL ALL VENDORS • PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOOD AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 453.32 W -JUNE PORTABLE TOILETS 453.32 .M L -CD 453.32 2,164.00 MAY PROSECUTION 2,160.00 JW -CD 2160.00 262.27 MAY MAINT -5052 402.88 LEASE -5052 665.15 JRNL-CD 665.15 15.70 UNION 11.95 UNION 6.90 TAPE 34.15 JRIL -CD 34.15 58,170.19 DALE 6/21 /90 TINE 14.36.26 PIE-KID ow ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT DIECU t DATE 01- 4340 -3900 1010 01- 4110-3120 1010 01- 4320 -3800 01- 4320 -5000 1010 01 -4200 -2300 78- 7000 -2300 73- 7300 -2200 1010 DOG 11a?/ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 1990 Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Vice Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Thal, Bill Voss, and Ken Smith, Council Representative Liz Jensen. City Manager Ld Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were: Frank Weiland and Michael Mueller. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. The following citizens were present: Brian Johnson. City Manager, Ed Shukle, introduced the new Building Official, Jon Sutherland, to the Commission. Shukle breifly reviewed Mr. Sutherlands work history and stated that his first day with the City of Mound will be July 9, 1990. MINUTES: MOTION made by Smith, seconded by CIapsaddle, to approve the Planning Comte 1 ss 1 on Minutes of May 21, 1 990 as sub- mitted. Motion carried unanirnousiy. BOARD OF APPEALS: a. Case No. 87 -663: Brian i Maria Johnson, 4945 Glen Elyn Road, Rgrt of Lots 17 and 18, Block 24, Shedywood Point, PID 813 - 117 -24 -II 0049. Extension of Resolution 187 -179. This request was tabled at the May 21st meeting since the applicant's were not present. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his recommendation for approval of a one -year extension of Resolution 87 -179. The Commission questioned if the septic tank on the property Is going to be filled. The applicant stated that the footings for the addition will run through the existing septic tank, and therefore it will be filled. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Thal to reccmwnd ap- proval of the one -year extension of resolution #87 -179 with an amendment to the resolution that the septic tank In the yard be filled. Motion carried unanimou3ly. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 12, 1990. Final Review of Comprehensive Plans Set Public Hearin Date. City Planner, Mark Koegler, informed the commission of the minor changes the City Council madu to the Comprehensive Plan. Koegler Informed the Commission that the plan needs to be approved for public hearing purposes and a date for the public hearing needs to be set. Koegler confirmed that copies of the Comprehensive M22 /1 C7 June 26, 1990 TO: Ed Shukle City Manager FROM: Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator SUBJECT: Recycling Incentive MOUN D_RECYCLOTTO is the name the Earth Day and Recycling Committees came up with to start the incentive program. The way we would like the program to run is as follows: 1. Address would be drawn by City Council at Council meetings. 2. : would check address at 7:00 a.m. on the morning of Monday or Tuesday depending on the address. 3. If household has recycling out they receive $50.00 in Westonka Dollars. They will come to the Council meeting to receive their winnings. If the household doesn't have their recycling out the prize money will go to $100.00 next week and so on and so forth. Chic from the Chamber of Commerce suggested that the Westonka Dollars be used in the three grocery stores first. The City of Plymouth publishes the winner or in the case of a loser they just give the block number and street name. We would like to start this program in August, this will be 80% funded by Hennepin County. • At our next meeting of the Earth Day and Recycling Committee we are planning on getting the refuse haulers to attend and • talk over with them ways they can incourage people to recycle, (such as rates, same day pickup). Our meeting is the last Monday of the month at 7:30 at Public Works. • • SECTION 00030 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 1990 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Mound, Minnesota Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until July 20, 1990 at 11:00 A.M., at the Mound City Hall, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing of all labor and materials and all else necessary for the 1990 Lift Station Improvement Project. The work includes converting one dry well lift station to a submersible pump lift station and redoing another using submersible pumps in a dry condition, including new submersible pumps, electrical controls, interior piping, minor exterior piping and all incidentals connected therewith. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on July 24, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. All proposals shall be addressed to: Ms. Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 And shall be securely sealed and endorsed on the outside with the statement "1990 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" and shall be on the Proposal Form included in the plans and specifications for the project. Copies of the Plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates. Inc., 15050 2?.rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications fGr use in preparing bids may be obtained at the offices of the Engineer upon payaent of $25.00 per set, 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 of plans and twenty -five cents ($0.25) per page 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 after the bids are opened. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Steve Smith, Mayor ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk END OF SECTION 00030 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 00030 - 1 MFRA #8635 • �J OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT RECD JUN 2 2 Development Planning Unit HENNEPIN 822 South Third Street, Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 348 -6418 June 20, 1990 Mr. Edward J. Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: Every three years Hennepin County Housing and Urban Development as annual entitlement grant through The process to gain certification underway. The key element in the Cooperation Agreement between the to participate in the program and local activities with CDBG funds. must be certified by the U.S. Department of n urban county to continue to receive an he Community Development Blc Grant program. for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 . j 1993 is now process is the execution of a :pint County and each community therein that wishes therefore be eligible to undertake important The accompanying three copies of the Joint Cooperation Agreement for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993, Contract Number A04970, is provided for your execution should you elect to remain a participant in the Jrban Hennepin County CDBG program for the next three years. A sample resolution for your governing body to pass to authorize execution of the agreement is included for your convenience. A certified copy of the authorizing resolution must be returned with all three copies of the executed agreement by Friday, August 17, 1990 to: Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development 822 South 3rd Street Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 • That date is necessary to assure execution by the County Board and transmittal of a fully executed agreement to HUD by the imposed September 4, 1990 deadline. One will be returned to you by the same date. The new agreement incorporates the amendments that were appended to the last agreement. Also included are several changes to accommodate new requirements directed by HUD, such as emphasizing affirmative action to further fair housing and clarifying the relationship between cooperating communities and the County as subrecipient and recipient. HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunity employer r June 20, 1990 Page 2 Of most significance is the elimination of the discretionary account. The • unexpended funds which made up the account will now b!! added to the annual basic grant and programmed for use along with the development of the annual program. This change reflects the general improvement in expenditure rate and simplifies program administration. Should your community wish to remain in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993, it need only pass a facsimile of the sample resolution, execute the agreement and return them as instructed. Should it decide not to execute the agreement it would not receive CDBG funding through the Urban Hennepin County program beginning with Fiscal Year 1991. We look forward to your continued participation with us in the CDBG program. Sincerely, %� 6. / , Robert Isaacson Planning Supervisor Enclosure cc: HUD Ed Shukle • is June 26, 1990 0 RE8OLUTI0N NO. 90- 23BOLUTI0N APPROVING THE JOINT COOPERATION AOREENENT FOR FILL IMM 1991, 1992,6 1993, CONTRACT #A04970, TO REMAIN R PARTICIPANT IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM NEEREAS, the City of Mound, Minnesota, and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 70484, for the purposes of ghalifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and •MUMS, the City and the County wish to terminate the current Agreement and execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. A04970, to reconstitute Urban Hennepin County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant program. NIM, THEREFORE, BE IT RE8OLVED that the currect Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. 70484, be terminated effective September 30. 1990, and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. A04970, be executed effective October 1, 1990, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. • • Contract No. AM7,0 • JOIIIT COOPERATION AGREW14T THIS AGREEIG NI made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HEIMIEPIN, State of M nnesota, hereinafter referred to as 'COUNTY,' and the CITY OF m o , hereinafter referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT,' said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section OITNBSSETH; COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COUNTY secure Community Development Block Grant funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR Part 570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: • A. *Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 et.sea. B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United Sates Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Unit' means any city or town in Hennepin County which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party to each Agreement. E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant program. F. 'Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people. • II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake. or assist in undertaking. community renewal end lower income housing activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grants from Fiscal Years 1991. 1992 and 1993. III. AgLESM A. The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the effective date of October 1. 1990, terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 1993 as authorized by HUD subsequent to the effective date and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement. this Agree- ment shall be terminated at the end of the three -year program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. C. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of is COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than August 17, 1990. D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the urban county's certification required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Develop- ment Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and other applicable laws. IV. &CTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be use+ to under- take and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding wader the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agree- ment. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and /or Minnesota statutes or regulations. in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this • Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the develop- ment of the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds pursuant to 24 CFR 570.300 et.sea. A. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: 1. COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, an annual request for the use of Community Development Block Grant fluids consistent with this Agreement. program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. 2. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501 (b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Sub - recipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR 570.503. The Sub - recipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a fora prescribed by COUNTY. 3. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in 2. above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. 4. COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each annual program pursuant to this Agreement within eighteen (18) • months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. (a) Funds for all activities not implemented within eighteen (18) months shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. (b) Implementation period extensions may be granted upon request in cases where the authorized activity has been initiated and /or subject of a binding contract to proceed. 5. COOPERATING UNIT shall use funds provided pursuant to Section V. of this Agreement to undertake no more than three (3, grant funded activities administered by the COOPERATING UNIT. Each activity shall have a budget of at least seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500), or the total amount of the planning alloca- tion of COOPERATING UNIT if less than seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500). A COOPERATING UNIT may assign less than seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500) to an activity when the activity is one that is programmed by at least one other COOPERATING UNIT and administered by only one COOPERATING UNIT on behalf of the others, provided that the total activity budget is at least seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500). 91 11. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate review- ing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. 2. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of the request for funding. 3. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERAT- ING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD M for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. 4. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. 4 6. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary o accomplish omplish the community development program and housing assistance goals as contained in the Urban Hennepin.County Housing Assistance Plan. 7. a COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and /or activi- ties funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and woman. It shall in implementing all programs and /or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. S. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for activities. - 9. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process as established by COUNTY in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. 10. COOPERATING UNIT shall comply with all of the administrative guidelines of the COUNTY now in effect or as hereafter promul- gated. 11. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate review- ing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. 2. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of the request for funding. 3. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERAT- ING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD M for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. 4. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. 4 S. COUNTY say, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations and HUD administra- tive directives. !.., a ;:ZV i C elli ZV Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain ten percent (10 %) of the annual basic grant amount for the undertaking of eligible activities. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to make requests for the use of funds so apportioned. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. Each COOPERATING UNIT will use as a target for planning purposes an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of voverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERAT- ING UNITS. 4. In determini the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. D. It is the intent of this section that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in 24 CFR 570.4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. E. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request its planning alloca- tion, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. VI. FINANCIAL MATTERS A. Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form and Hennepin Co+inty Warrant Request, and supporting documentation. 5 B. All funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for • payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. C. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the County to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementa- tion. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall perform all audits as may be required of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. E. COOPERATING UNIT shall inform COUNTY of any income generated by the expenditure of CDBG funds it has received and shall pay to COUNTY all program income generated except as derived from activities with an approved revolving account. When program income is generated by an activity that is only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. 1. COUNTY will retain ten percent (101) of all program income pair. 6 to COUNTY to defray administration expenses. 2. The remaining ninety percent (901) of the program income paid to COUNTY shall be credited to the grant authority of COOPERAT- ING UNIT whose project generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent with this Agreement. 3. COOPERATING UNIT is authorized to retain program income derived from projects with an approved revolving account provided such income is used only for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG requirements as they may apply. 4. COOPERATING UNIT shall maintain appropriate records and make reports to COUNTY as may be needed to enable COUNTY to monitor and report to HUD on the use of any program income. S. Any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the closeout or change in status of COOPERATING UNIT shall be 1 paid to COUNTY. 6 F. Should an approved activity be determined to represent an ineligible expenditure of grant funds, the COOPERATING UNIT responsible shall reimburse the COUNTY for such ineligible expense. 1. All reimbursements for ineligible expenditures shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. 2. When it is determined by the COUNTY that grant funds have been expended on an eligible activity and through no fault of the COOPERATING UNIT the project fails or is no longer eligible, the return of grant funds shall be reallocated in the same manner as program income in Section VI.E. of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. 41•' e • • •; * •;• The following provisions shall apply to real property acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG :Funds. A. COOPERATING UNIT shall promptly notify COUNTY of any modification or change in the use of real property from that planned at the time of • acquisition. or improvement including disposition and comply with 24 CFR 570.505. B. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY the greater of the actual sale proceeds or an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. C. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the closeout, change of status or termination of this Agreement shall be treated as stipulated in Section VI, paragraph E of this Agreement. VIII. METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitle- ment status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. • 7 • ff Ky 0 ( ' A COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on 19_, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon Proper execution, this COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA Agreement will be legally valid and binding. By: Chairman of its County Board Deputy /Associate County Administrator 'Assistant County Attorney Attest: Date: -� ✓ _ Deputy County Auditor APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: CITY OF MOUN By: Assistant County Attorney • Date: Its Mayor And: Its City Manager CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: — Plan A _ Plan B _ Charter 8 i.. ti C, i N lit. GoN�Ac.L. • 7 0 o� loco' -t- 1 o©� Flo i D 6 _ q�coo�- f 1Jr--w C-,o c-4TT- *<-r Pt moyr r� -1e81-1`17 0 _7 V7, r igq- 0-9 - Ib Soil - 7 - 14- 1 61 9 ° T1 - 7 1 (0 - 13 • SHXNUUBEE BtrlZ -L00RS INN. CHANOM 0nDER 0 PROJECT: MOUND CITY HALL CIIANGE ORDER NO. 3 DA TE: June 6, 1990 TO: CITY OF MOUND PROJECT NO: _Q _ IOossrl Io ugh enes sith tN tares of this Cestroot, the tolloviog Changes are opproved: Substitute controls systemlother than those listed. Robert Shaw system was installed. DEDUCT $1,000.00 PROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS Origisel Project Costs x_ Previous Chenge Orders 11 thru TWO ADD __ — 4 -- _ -- This Change Order #_THREE DEDUCT 1 ,000.00 --------- - - - - -- by Project Costs S 766 999.00 -- --- - -- it VITIMS VIEW the geld Fettle@ have cou"d this a9reeeent to b@ executed av of the day and year signed below. SHINCOBE BUILDERS INC. Contractor 279 N. Medina Street Address Loretto MN 55357 BY: City of Mound Owner 5341 Maywood Road _ Address Momitd MN 55364 BY: DATE: DATE: AR APPROVAL: DATE: McCombs Franc Roos Assoc.. Inc. 1 �iCl`(1 2 3rd Avenue North PIyrr"ith MN 554!47 stt T NOC?Elzllr EfU t Lb�ttf9 t NC. PII1186 SIC11 NO 1lE1W = C3DH C}tAmaz onDwn PROJECT a lbrtnd City hall CIIANUE ORDER NO. 8 0 AT F r June 21, 1990 TOt City of Mound f'R0'1FCt NO2 90Q,&_ Is sawdo r: with the terms of this Centrsot. the fsllewlnq ehwV@ era gPrssedr Add stroking roan inside of roan #501 ADD $2,974.00 8' x 9' - includes: ceiling tile, drywall, electrical, WAC, painting, Carpet & base, and hollow metal door frame with wood door /hardware PROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS Of191nel Prel.et Colt• S_763 _00 Prerlese Change Order@ 11 We SEVEN_ _ - Z4,702.00 This Cheng• Order 1 EIGHT _ 2,97-4,00_ 1e9 ►ro)ect Costs ej 790,973.00 oc if /ITAESS VNEWO the said Parties here cawed brie sgreeseat to be erecated as of the day sad year signed b ` SNINGOBEE BUILDERS INC. Contractor 279 N. ..edi Street Address Loretto MN 55357 BY: SE /� Lc DATE: June 21, 1990 ARCHITEYJ APPROVAL: BY- DATE: McCarrbs Fran* Roos Assoc. Inc. 150% 23rd Avenue North Plyrrnuth MN 55447 City of Mound Owner 5341 Maywood Road Address Planning Commission Minutes June il, 1190 • Page 2 Plan will be available at the library and at city hall for citizens to review, and a capsule summary of the plan will be available at the public hearing. The City Manager will will pub- lish articles in the local paper prior to the hearing. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Clapsaddle to recom- 0 xi approval of the Comprehensive Plan Draft for public hearing -jurposes, and recommend that the public hearing be set for the Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. Sclera l Discussion Thal raised the issue of requiring bonds from citizens who apply for zoning applications to ensure that projects are completed. The Commission discussed this issue and questioned if there is another way to ensure a project is completed without bonding. it was recognized that bonds are expensive for applicants to obtain. KoegIer confirmed that the zoning code will be reviewed for up- dating in the near future. City Council Representative Report. Jensen reviewed the minutes of the May 22nd City Council meeting, and the agenda for the June 12th meeting. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Smith to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Bill Meyer Attest: 192.3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE CONKII1EE 0 A G E N D A 4:30 p.m., Monday, June 18, 1990 LMCD Office, Wayzata 1. Publication date of Personal Watercraft Ordinance: 6/13, effective 6/14 2. Summer rules amendment to incorporate Personal Watercraft rules and minor adjustments 3. Critique of June 9 Water Structures /Lake Environment Inspection 4. Progress report and update on Summer Olympics events scheduled for July 8 -12 on Lake Minnetonka, per Bert Foster S. Charter Boat renewal applications received in last 30 days: Al & Alma's XII, Choral "C ", Godfather II, Godfather III, Miss Minnetonka 6. Underwater Found Obstructions siting and buoy placement status 7. Special Event depo::it refunds: to James McNamee, Chair::an for Westonka M.D.A. fishing contest, Saturday, May 26 8. Water Patrol report: a. Citation incidents b. Observations on lake use density c. Charter Boat inspection results d. Additional reports 9. Additional business recommended by the committee 6/12/90 • 112y LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT NEWS RELEASE Contact: Gene Stro=en 473 -7033 June 6, 1990 SUBJECT: Personal Watercraft Ordinance for Lake Minnetonka adopted, effective June 14, 1990 The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has acted to bring a balance among personal watercraft (PWC) (jet ski) users and other persons enjoying the waters and shore of Lake Minnetonka, according to LMCD Chair Dave Cochran, Chair, Greenwood. A series of user group meetings and equipment noise level testing started in August, 1989. That was followed by a public hearing, public committee and board meetings. The final ordinance resulted from its adoption May 23 by the LMCD Board. DEFINITION. The ordinance defines a "personal watercraft" as a water- craft less than 14 feet in length which uses a motor powering a water jet pump, designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing or kneeling on, rather than the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside, the watercraft. HOURS. Hours of operation are limited to between sunrise and sunset. SPEED. Speed is limited to 5 miles per hour or a minimum wake within 150 feet of any shoreline, swimmer, anchored boat, person fishing, mooring, dock or other water structure. OPERATION WITHIN 300 FEET OF SHORELINE. Operation between 150 and 300 feet of the shoreline is also limited to 5 miles per hour or a minimum wake • (continued) 1925 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT unless the PWC is being driven perpendicular to the shoreline, and to or 0 from the nearest point of water 300 feet from the shoreline or parallel to the shoreline from one location to another in a scanner which is not repetitive. AUTOMATIC CUT -OFF DEVICE. Automatic cut off device provided by the manufacturer must be used. The device must not be altered, disabled or removed. WAKE JUMPING. Jumping wakes of another watercraft is not allowed within 150 feet of that watercraft. CARELESS OPERATION. A PWC must at all times be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner. Maneuvers which unreasonably or unnecessarily endanger life, limb or property, including, but not limited to weaving through congested boat trafficor swerving at the last possible moment to avoid collision shall constitute careless, reckless or grossly negligent operati -)n. RENTAL. Persons renting a PWC are subject to age and operator permit requirements. Minimum age for rental is 16 years. Rental agencies must provide summary of the laws governing the safe operation of PWC on Lake Minnetonka. PROLONGED OPERATION. No personal watercraft shall be operated in a single area for more than thirty consecutive minutes. A person in control of such watercraft shall be subject to citation. A single area is defined as an area of the lake which is so small that the noise emanating from personal watercraft operated continuously within it is liable to be a nuisance or cause substantial annoyance to residents of one or more shoreline properties during all of the time of such continuous operation. • (continued) 1121m LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4 PERSONAL FLOTATION DEVICE. A U.S. Coast Guard approved personal flotation device must be worn by all persons operating or riding on a AGE OF OPERATION. State of Minnesota statutes govern operator age for PVC operation. State statute requires that, except in case of an emergency, no person under the age of 13 years shall operate or be permitted to operate any personal watercraft over 24 horsepower unless there is present in the watercraft. in addition to the operator, at least one person of the age of 18 years or over. No person 13 years of age or over, but less than 18 years of age, may operate a PWC greater than 24 horsepower, without possessing a valid operators permit issued by the commissioner of Natural Resources. unless there is a person 18 years of so or over in the PWC. LMCD Lake Use Committee Chair Bob Pillsbury, Minnetonka, credits subcommittee chair Bert Foster. Deephaven, and the entire committee and board for their support of enacting this important regulation on behalf of maintaining a quality recreational experience on Lake Minnetonka. Complete copies of the ordinance are available through the LMCD, 402 E Lake St, Wayzata 55391. 473 -7033 X X X rI /141, 2. HoLmn & G RAvzi ceAtlTUM PAUL D. BAERTscmi 470 Fid"y Ceara. Miw zmp* . M:.e.rr ss�oa A„p at lam (612) 337 -9300 Dim D W (612) 337-92)0 June S, 1990 Eugene Strommen RKeeutive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Boating Guide Pamphlet Amendments Dear Mr. Strommen: Mr. LeFevere asked me to suggest some additions to the boating handbook based upon the personal watercraft ordinance. Following is a list of some suggested additions. In the paragraph entitled "Age Minimum for Operator of Watercraft" after the phrase "operate or be permitted to operate any watercraft," add "(including a personal watercraft)." At the end of that sentence, add the following sentence: "Persons at least 13 years of age, but less than 18 years of age may operate such watercraft with a valid watercraft operator's permit from MInnesota or the person's state of residence, or with a person 18 years of age or older In the watercraft." A new section entitled "Personal Watercraft" as follows: "Personal watercraft means a watercraft less than 14 feet in length powered by a water jet pump and which can be operated by persons sitting, standing or kneeling. ALL WATERCRAFT LAWS APPLY TO PERSONAL WATERCRAFT UNLESS THEY CONFLICT WITH PERSONAL WATERCRAFT LAWS, IN WHICH CASE THE PERSONAL WATERCRAFT RESTRICTIONS CONTROL. Speed Restrictions wo person shall operate a personal watercraft at a speed in excess of five miles per hour or at a speed which results in more than a minimum wake within 150 feet of any shoreline, swimmer, anchored boat, person fishing, mooring, dock or other water structure. Between 150 and 300 feet of shore, the five mile per hour and minimum wake restrictions apply unless the personal watercraft is being driven perpendicular to the shoreline and to or from the nearest point of water 300 feet from the shoreline or parallel to the shoreline in a non-repetitive manner. 11 941 Eugene Strom men . June 5, 1990 Page _ Other Restrictions. No person shall operate a personal watercraft with an altered, disabled or removed automatic cut -off device. Jumping the wake within 150 feet of another watercraft is prohibited. Careless or reckless operation of a personal watercraft, such as by weaving through congested boat traffic or swerving close to another watercraft, are prohibited. Operation of a personal watercraft in a single area for more than 30 consecutive minutes such as may cause annoyance to others is prohloited. Operation is prohibited between sunset and sunrise. U. S. Coast Word approved personal floatation devices must be worn at all times when on a personal watercraft. The minimum age provisions for watercraft operators apply to operators of personal watercraft as well. Rental of Personal Watercraft No person shall rent a personal watercraft of any kind to a person who is less than 16 years of age or who is age 16 to 18 and not in possession of an operator's permit required by law. Person renting personal watercraft must provide to renters a summary of laws and rules governing the operation of personal watercraft, instruction as to the actual operation of the personal watercraft, and a U.S. Coast Guard approved personal floatation device." 0/ Very truly yours, Paul D. Baertschi PDB:jes RECEIVED JUN 8 1990 Ar LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT -P=IC INFORMATIONAL MRSTINC LARZ >rMERTONRA Rl 110 POLICT Proposal for an Interagency Agreement 7e00 p.m., Wednesday, June 27, 1990 Tonks say City Hall DACKGROUNDo Minnesota Statutes Sec. 105.42, Subd. 1, requires a written permit from the MN DNA cosmissioner for excavating the beds of public waters. The MN DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regulate improvements by riparian land owners of the beds, banks and shores of lakes, streams and marshes in order to preserve them for beneficial use. The DNR's purposes in regulating dredging serve to limit excavation of materials through dredging in order toy 1. Preserve the natural character of Lake Minnetonka and its shore. 2. Minimize encroachment, change or damage to the environment, partic- ularly the ecosystem of the lake. 3. Control deposition of materials excavated from Lake Minnetonka. 4. Preserve the waters and adjacent lands from sedimentation and ether physical and biological effects. The MCWD's purpose in regulating dredging are to: 1. Preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas, recreational, wildlife and fisheries resources of the waters. 2. Prer.arve the water quality. The littoral zone of the lake (that part less than 15' deep) is most sensi- tive to being disturbed. It is the most biologically productive and sensitive portion of a lake. The sensitive ecosystem supports plant and animal life. Clay and muck bottom is known to retard seepage of water from the lake. Dredging policies have a direct impact on recreational and navigational Uses on Lake Minnetonka. Alternatives to dredging, such as dock extension, floating docks or alternative dock Locations require review and approval of the LMCD. This public informational meeting proposes to examine dredg"S 109048 effects and alternatives. Dredging Atpths presently allowed and proposed for the duration of low water lake level conditions will be evaluated. Your presence and comment with representatives of the above tt ee organisa- tions is encouraged and appreciated. 11 • 1130 b -12 -90 • 1131 CITY OF MOUND 1990 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT MAY 1990 41.67% MAY YTD PER CENT BUDGET - -- REVENUE -- - - - - -- REVENUE VARIANCF -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- RECEIVED -- - - - - -- GENERAL FUND -- - - - Taxes 1262190 0 2172 1260018 0.17% Intergovernmental 780860 5415 22567 758293 2.89% Business Licenses 9950 15 1518 8432 15.26% Non - Business Licenses and Permits 86700 9048 22798 63902 26.30% Charges for Services 34800 515 3770 31030 10.83% Court Fines 95000 6447 23205 71795 24.43% Charges to Other Departments 20000 1722 8175 11825 40.88% Other Revenue 49300 595 5398 43902 10.95% TOTAL REVENUE 2338800 - - 23757 - - 89603 2249197 - 3 83% LIQUOR FUND 900000 78510 338911 561089 37.66% WATER FUND 360000 25898 123346 236654 34.26% SEWER FUND 590000 46012 240122 349878 40.70% DOCKS FUND 62950 650 55755 7195 88.57% CEMETERY FUND 2000 200 3000 -1000 150.00% • 1131 r� CITY OF MOUND 1990 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES MAY 1990 41.67% Area Fire Service Fund 214290 MAY YTD 117362 PER CENT Liquor Fund BUDGET - - - - -- EXPENSE - - - - -- EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND 347930 41336 - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- Council 63890 3010 28872 35018 45.19% Cable TV 10150 286 9024 1126 88.91% City Manager /Clerk 166310 18070 79047 87263 47.53% Elections 11400 127 1637 9763 14.36% Assessing 43320 7 335 42985 0.77% Finance 162030 20517 69999 92031 43.20% Computer 22150 2212 13141 9009 59.33% Legal 80900 2529 23293 57607 28.79% Police 717850 86670 334780 383070 46.64% Civil Defense 2750 38 355 2395 12.91% Planning /Inspections 145000 8536 53828 91172 37.12% Recycling 60670 6970 25749 34921 42.44% Streets 382890 45962 167042 215848 43.63% Shop & Stores 61440 6906 30036 31404 48.89% City Property 84200 25606 38398 45802 45.60% Parks 148560 15681 401,95 107865 27.39% Summer Recreation 11310 0 0 11310 0.00% Contingencies 30000 452 3758 26242 12.53% Transfers 122270 - - - - -- 10048 - - - - -- 50240 - - - - -- 72030 - - - - -- 41.09% - - - - -- GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2327090 253627 970229 1356861 41.69% Area Fire Service Fund 214290 27004 96928 117362 45.23% Liquor Fund 163450 16515 71654 91796 43.84% Water Fund 347930 41336 167602 180328 48.17% Sewer Fund 771560 50292 248369 523191 32.19% Cemetery Fund 3680 31 837 2843 22.74% Docks Fund 62950 3258 55353 7597 87.93% Mot i Mayor Jerome P Rotkvam 471 -9515 Councilmembem Don Dill 471.8185 Ron Kr .emer 471.7339 Wm. 0. Weeks 471 -7285 RECD JUN 18 IM Cif 0t qpvng T(A P 0 BOX 452. SPRING PARK. MINNESOTA 55,384 0 Phone: 471.905, • ON AKE MINNETONKA June 12, 1990 Mr. Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation. District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Strommen: Carl Widmer Pursuant to the review process which has been established by the 471 -9429 LMCD, Spring Park has analyzed and evaluated the draft Lake Minnetonka Long -Term Management_ Program. on behalf of Spring Park, we are submitting a formal position paper which is attached outlining the City's concerns with the LMCD Plan. In summary, the LMCD Plan application within Spring Park is unacceptable with regard to its current form. There is great concern with the Plan's lack of attention to detail and spec- ifics as it relates to existing land use patterns in shoreland areas. If the LMCD Plar, is going to be an effective planning tool, it must specifically address the local exceptions includ- ing the high density residential, commercial, and industrial land uses found in 5pr1ng Park. In this regard, we fee- that the LMCD's present planning effort_ has fallen far short of a realistic land use treatment for all lake area communit.es. 3ased on the implementation schedule of the Plan, the _4CD would like all 14 lake communit.es to adopt the Appendix C Shcreland Regula *_ions within one year ^f the Plan adoction. The City of Spring Park cannot endorse or adopt an ordinance that would in effect maze much of its existing land uses non- conforming. Ano *_her matter to be emphasized is 'hat Sior_na Park is very mucn opposed to the LMC becoming a review authority in 3hore- land develooment matt,rs. There is no desire to see ma'cr Increases in LMCD staff, responsibi n t,es, or funding needs. We :eel the proposed :,Mr-"D review is a duplication of the City process t' p net will result in ada.t,ona- est- and delays. , rankly, we are also _ -nal the zr - ccsed adviscry role - the ..MC 7 ?u - hori - i -ne --t! �:___t'J -_�_ - -s ;wn :eve_'ccrner,�_- 1933 Mr. Eugene Strommen, LMCD June 12, 1990 Page 2 Spring Park is willing to work with the LMCD in the development of a Plan for Lake Minnetonka. This plan must be cognizant of the unique development characteristics of our community and communities like ours. Through a cooperative effort, we are hopeful a final plan can be realized. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF SPRING PARK Jerome P. Rbckvam MAYOR cc: City Council is 0 • 1934 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION N0. 90 -14 A RESOLUTION RESPONDIK^ TO THE PROPOSED LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT'S LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has )repared a long term management plan for Lake Minnetonka in an effort to attain goals set in the following areas: (1) Recreation Management; (2) User Exper- ience and Satisfaction; (3) Shoreland Protection; and (4) Environmental Protection, and WHEREAS, the City of Spring Park acknowledges the need for these concerns and the general protection of the Lake against pollution but feels the LMCO has over - stepped its bounds as set forth by MN Statutes in the fol- lowing areas: (1) Reducing local control of land use; (2) creating another level of government with the power to levy taxes without elected representation; (3) Reducing inherent property rights of riparian owners; (4) Failure to recognize the different natures of each of the 14 member communities; and (5) by diluting and surrendering local control of the LMCO by expanding the board to include State and County agencies WHEREAS, because of the differences in community structure and land use it is not feasible or realistic to apply a single set of guidelines for all cities on the lake, NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Spring Park hereby opposes the Management Plan as written, and submits the attached summary of concerns for the record. ADOPTED BY THE CIT! COUNCIL OF THE CITY SPRING PARK THIS DAY OF JUNE, 1990. APPROVED: ATTEST: MAYOR minis ra or er reasurer /I 3S VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETONKA BEACH, MINNESOTA 55361 RECD JUN 18 June 15, 1990 TO: Mayors of LMCD Participating Cities SUBJECT: LMCD's Long -Term Management Program Enclosed, please find for your information, a copy of the Resolution of the City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach with respect to the LMCD's Long -Term Management Program. This was adopted at the June 11, 1990 City Council Meeting. Yours very truly, A Robert P. Abdo Mayor /jls • 113E City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach June 11, 1990 Minnetonka Beach, having participated in LMCD's deliberations, appreciates the considerable efforts of the many people who have worked . hard to develop LMCD's Long -Term Management Program. Much valuable information has been compiled about the lake and itr, future. Many desirable suggestions have been made for its management. After considerable discussion regarding LMCD's Long -Term Management Program the following resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council held on June 11, 1990 upon motion by Councilman Melam ±d, seconded by Councilman Broderson: RESOLUTION NUMBER 1990 -7 WHBRM, Minnetonka Beach is located in the center of Lake Minnetonka, and virtually surrounded by its waters, and; WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is its principal resource and the reason most of its inhabitants have chosen to live in this residential community, and; WHZREA8, Minnetonka Beach and its residents have a vital interest in seeing that the lake is managed and preserved as a precious local as well as regional asset, and; WHEREAS, The Village of the City of Minnetor. %a Beach has an established Long Range Plan with a Mission statement which reads as follows: The Village of Minnetonka Beach officials, the mission to govern that will enable them to enjoy a comparable to the best available present Village land areas, and and regulations. has, through its elected and provide services to residents quality of life that is in Minnesota, consistent with the to do so with minimum ordinances Elected officials, employees and resident volunteers shall anticipate community needs, ensure that the Village lives within its means, and retain the confidence of the residents. WHEREAS, parts of LMCD's program appear to give LMCD authority over land use within 1,000 feet of the shoreline and over dock rights that extend into the lake from shore which conflicts with portions of the Mission statement that charge elected officials to govern and provide services to those who live within its boundaries and do so with minimum ordinances and regulations, and; WHEREAS, Minnetonka Beach recognizes that there are 14 municipalities whose lands adjoin the Lake and that the Metropolitan area, Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota have interests and that there is a need for cooperative efforts by these governmental bodies in conservation of e hake NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 0 1. That the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District is the logical entity to best suggest guidelines, to encourage cooperative efforts and to provide assistance as requested by individual municipalities with respect to use, maintenance and protection of Lake Minnetonka. let of 2 Pages 1157 2nd of 2 Pages 2. That LMCD should work through established lakeshore governments on matters over which such governments have responsibilities within their own boundaries such as: shoreland management; onshore facilities; private docks of lakeshore home owners; wetlands and upland environmental protection. 3. That since individual lakeshore governments lack powers to set uniform policies on the lake itself, LMCD needs powers beyond persuasion in matters such as: boat density; balance between various classes and sizes of boats; public access; public docks; marinas; condominium docks; navigational markers; noise levels; public safety; water quality; and fisheries. 4. That LMCD should work through and not duplicate but coordinate services provided by existing governmental bodies or agencies which have responsibilities and authority over matters concerning Lake Minnetonka. These include: law enforcement; pollution; licensing; navigational marking; etc. S. That the concept that those who use Lake Minnetonka should help bear the costs of maintaining and enhancing it is endorsed. • 6. That expanding the Board of LMCD from 14 to 18 members by the addition of one representative from each of the four governmental bodies, as suggested in the Long -Term Management Program, is not inconsistent with the objectives of Minnetonka Beach. 7. That, while it is impractical for Minnetonka Beach to critique each and every item in the proposed LaKe Minnetonka Long -Term Management Program, it requests the plan be revised to comply with the position of Minnetonka Beach as set forth herein. S. That the City Clerk is ins 1990, a certified copy of this Wayzata, Minnesota. The City Council voted unanimously Mayor tructed to file, resolution with in favor of the Attested by ,: ,L prior to June 18, the LMCD office in above resolution. :ity Clerk The above is a true copy of a resolution adopted at a regular council sleeting of the City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach at which a quorum was present held June 11, 1990. June 11, 1990 Date City Clerk 1130 RECD JUN 1 e No a Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce 5600 Linwood Boulevard. Mound. MN 55364 • -.72 -6780 June 13, 1990 To: Mayor Smith and City Council Members City of Mound From: Westcnka Area Chamber of Commerce 1990 OFFICERS President Chen I Smith 90 President Elect Gerry Smith '92 Sec Treas Man 10exander 92 Past Pres Fred Gunormson 92 E%ecut �e � P Chic Remren DIRECTO'S Mar� Pau,.% W Donna l�u,ales 9l• Gene 91 RE: Policy statement regarding itinerant merchants. Regarding the issue of itinerant merchants in Westonka, there are three major areas of concern that our membership would like to have you consider as you review and enforce your policies in this area. First - are these temporary neddlErs being made to live by the same set of rules that anv established business must? Secondly, do their business practices some times pose a threat to public safety? Finally are they esthetically appealing? Please be aware of the fact that much of Westonka's established business community, "..' pays takes and votes here, views these itinerant .`,' rch?nts as r�� �;' -': �. ^�5� r • ,t :_ siphon off vital incc:ic without contributing *: ^f community suppc . t that nermanant businesses routinely provide. It appears io us that they are seldom, in reality, required t^ abide by basic statutes regardina sianaa_e. parking etc. Safety is also a concern. Any permanent business is req:_rya by law to observe certa'_- established auidelines recardi. health, parking, etc. which presuniably have be_r_ to cT:Gurc Pudic Safety. Altt:, ,;gh, the- sa,.� .. ._' t:v}c�iliiy a t. :.erzhant QC,cS nit :o_L:, tv :.L th,. case. W , have ha— ac5tvi.ti� ::.cl c _`qty . ..:o t.a -.a - ' t� of I Iz . Y S a_ f c y c ignored by this type of busi.n,�ss. Esthetics may not appear to be as critical an issue as either of the first two are. However, in a community that needs to take every opportunity to improve its attention to physical appearance, we cannot allow any chance to address the of "how a, .s it log }` to pass by without scr'_t_..y. Finally, we understand that these less establ _s'..�_' typ, s peddlers, that sometimes seem to "pop - up" out of nowhere must pose a real headache for our area cities and we appreciate your dilemma! However, we still would like to urge you to review your ordinances and enforcement policies regardina itinerant merchants to be assured that the financial health. public safety, and esthetic concerns of our Community are being appropriately served. "Workinq T(-)q(,Ih(,r" MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK s OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1990 • Present were: Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Tom Casey, Cathy Bailey, Neil Weber, Shirley Andersen, Brian Asleson, and Carolyn Schmidt, Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were: Council Representative Phyllis Jessen, and Commissioner Steve Burke. Minutes MOTION made by • Weber , seconded by Casey to approve the Park Commission Minutes of May 10, 1990 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 1990 Park Improvements - Allocation of Funds. Park Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed his suggested park improve- ments for 1990. Fackler suggested a play structure for Chester Park valued at $4,415. Merritt Geyen and Jane Chiesl were present to represent Chester Park, and it was determined that they could discuss with Fackler the type of equipment they would like installed at the park. Andersen suggested that one baby swing be installed at each park where a swing set currently exists. 0 Casey questioned Fackler if the new playground equipment meets consumer product safety guidelines. Fackler will check into this. Commissioner Schmidt summarized her report on the Avalon Park Neighborhood Meeting and stated that the majority of the neigh- bors do not want playground equipment in the park. They would like, however, some changes done to the storm sewer and improve- ments made to the landscaping and aesthetics of the park. Fackler surmised that Doone Park. Edgewater Park, and Three Points Park could also use some new playground equipment. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Bailey, to recommend approval of the Park Director's suggested improvements and that the Park Director do the following: 1) meet with a Chester Park representative to choose playground equipment for the park, 2) Re- estimate improvements for Avalon Park taking the priorities from the neighborhood meeting under consideration, 3) install baby swings at each park that currently have swing sets, and 4) submit a recommendation at the next Park Commission Meeting suggesting what to do with the balance of funds avail- able. Fackler is also to confirm that the playground equipment being ordered meets consumer product safety guidelines. Motion carried unanimously. 114o 4 Park Commission Minutes June 14, 1990 • Page 2 Maintenance Permit Application: Request from Mike Edwards to construct a stairway to the Lakeshore at Hichland 131vd.lidlewood on Cook's 8ay. 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 Comm ission confirmed that the stairway will follow the exist- ing pathway and that no more vegetation will be cut other than what is necessary during construction. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Schmidt to approve the Park Director's recommendation to allow the walkway and stairway to be constructed. Casey commented that he would like the mot Ion•to include that vegetation cutting not include cutting for purposes of increased visibility or security. Weber accepted an amendment to his motion to include the condition that vegetation cutting not include cutting for purposes of increased visibility or security. Schmidt seconded. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 26, 1990. Request from Jerry Gibbs to erect a fence at Tyrone Park for youth baseball. Rod Wilkens was present, on Jerry Gibbs behalf. Mr. Wilkens ex- plained that they would like to erect a permanent chain link fence between the park and wetlands to prevent the balls and kids from going into the wetlands. He explained that a charitable or- ganization, such as the Jaycees, will pay for the fence and in- stallation. Casey questioned why a temporary fence could not be used. Wilkens stated that he thought the City would prefer a permanent fence. Fackler commented that temporary fences are more subject to vandalism, they require more repairs, they are hard to store, and they are not as aesthetically pleasing. i� Fackler suggested that if a chain link fence is installed, that it be plastic coated, either green or black, to be more aestheti- cally pleasing. !9 Y/ Park Commission Meeting June 14, 1990 Page 3 . MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Schmidt to recomwtnd to the City Council that a chain link fence be aliowad to be erected at the west side of Tyrone park to separate the park and wetlands for safety reasons. No- tion carried unanimously. This request_ will be heard by the City Council on June 26, 1990. Clarification of Location and Angle of Dock Site !20700, Water- side Commons, Dock Molders: Brad and Melvin Sohns. Park Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed his recommendation that the Park and Open Space Commission recognize the location of Dock Site #20700 as outlined by the Dock inspector in the letter dated May 17, 1990 to Melvin Sohns and in the Memo to the Parks and Open Space Commission dated May 17, 1990. Fackler clarified that the Dock Inspector has the authority to determine dock site loca- tions and angles as outlined in Mound City Code Sections 437:10, Subd. 8, 437:05, Subd. 3, and 437:156, Subd. 11. Weber questioned Brad Sohns if he was understanding the two issues of his request as being: 1) the location was staked in- correctly by the Dock Inspector based on historical location of the dock, and 2) the Dock Inspector should not dictate the angle of the dock if it does not correspond with the approved Dock Location Map. Sohns added that the City wants him to move his dock to the right to solve the problem, however, their dock would then be placed in front of the City's storm sewer exit which causes other problems. Weber surmised, that the question is, where is the 30 feet that belongs to dock site 20700? Weber question Sohns, "To solve the problem, what do you feel has to be done ?" Sohns suggested that official permanent makers be placed where they are missing, and that the markers are main- tained so everyone knows where their area is as the ordinance states. Also, that the Sohns family be allowed to use both sides of their dock in its existing location. Sohns commented on the angle of their dock and stated that he received permission from the Park Director to place his dock at an angle. The Dock In- spector commented that it is okay to angle your dock, as long as you do not infringe on the neighboring dock site. Brad Sohns made the following points in his presentation: I. The Sohn's dock site has existed for the last 52 years. 2. They placed their new straight dock in the same historical location of their old 'U' dock. • 3. The Sohn's family is requesting an explanation as to why two different stake settings were placed this year that do not match the historical concrete markers. 1142 • Park Commission Minutes June 14, 1990 Page 4 a • is 4. Treatment received from the Dock inspector, and indirectly from the Park Director and Cit Manager, has been Is- plorable. 5. They would like to see official permanent markers installed where they are missing and see that they are maintained. 6. The Sohn's family would like to have permission to moor a boat at both sides of the dock. 7. Brad and his father would like to receive a letter of apol- ogy from the City for the treatment that they received. S. In 1975 permanent concrete markers were placed at each deck site to clarify the dock locations. 9. The only reason their original dock was removed was because of the dredging. 10. Brad stated that he asked Fackler prior to installing his dock, if he should angle his dock, and he claims that Fack- ler said he was familiar with the site at that it was okay to angle his dock, but it was not required. 11. If Sohns were to move his dock to the right as requested by the Dock Inspector, the right side of his dock would be unusable because of the storm sewer exit. Right now he is only able to use the right side because if a boat is moored on the left side, it would encroach into Johnson's 30 feet of dock space. The Dock Inspector argued that he would still be able to use the right side of his dock if the dock was moved. 12. The City has not followed their own City Codes. 13. He angled his dock to benefit Bob Johnson. Fackler commented that he did offer the Sohns' another dock site away from the storm sewer, however the Sohns' were not inter- ested. Brad Sohn's denied ever receiving such an offer. Fackler suggested that the commons be surveyed to eliminate dis- pute over the placement of the stakes, and that an opinion letter be requested from the City Attorney to determine if the Dock In- spector has the authority to dictate the angle of a dock. MOTION male by Weber, to recommend to the City Counc i l the following: the exact location of the south edge of Waterside Commons at the 929.5 elevation Is determined and from that point the 30 foot intervals be measured to determine the exact dock location sites, and that the City Council request the City Attorney to draft an opinion as to how the ordinance reads as to weather the Dock Inspector has the authority to set the angle of a dock based on the current conditions of the lake and shoreline on a year to year basis. Motion seconded by Bailey. M3 Park Commission Minutes June 14, 1990 Page 5 Sohns co� that he would like some consideration for the af- fect that the storm sewer has on their dock site. Fackler com- mented that it would be nice to have the storm sewer exists main- tained and cleaned on a rotating basis. Bailey confirmed that their dock will remain as presently situated, and Sohn's will be able to use the right side of his dock only until this situation is resolved. Sohn's commented that if Bob Johnson would not erect his canopy and use the other side of his dock, then he would be able to use both sides. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 26, 1990. Discussions "Adopt a Park, Green Area, Planter, Approach or Street Right -of -Way." Since Jensen was not present, this item will be reviewed at the July meeting. Proposed Nat ive Plant Resolution. Byrnes suggested a designated area, such as an existing park or other City owned property to be used as a demonstration lot for native plants. It was determined that the Park Director and Tom Casey would visit potential sites before the Park Commission's tour in August and then submit their recommendation at that time. Weber suggested a long range plan with the first step being to locate a site, then do a plan, and then get cost estimates. Proposed Nature Conservation Area Resolution. Casey reviewed the intent of the resolution to the Commission. Casey wants the City to define what a Nature Conservation Area is, especially since the City has already dedicated such an area. The Commission discussed the intent of the resolution and the consensus was that they were not comfortable recommending ap- proval. Fackler informed the Commission that the City Manager has received an Opinion Letter from the City Attorney on the proposed resolution, however it was not available because the City Manager was out of town. It was suggested that Casey, As- leson and the Park Director identify some potential nature con- servation areas available within the City. Update on Summer Parks Program by Marilyn Byrnes and Cathy Bailey. Byrnes reported that they have, with the help of Grant Bergstrom, put together manuals for the Park Instructors to assist them in � their daily routines. They had a training session with all the Instructors and received a positive reaction. • • C7 Park Commission Minutes June 14, 1990 Page 6 Park Director's Report Fackler informed the Commission that the budget will be reviewed soon, and he questioned the amount of capital outlay that he should request, based on the planned park improvements for 1990. The Commission suggested potential improvements to different parks for 1991 and concluded that $25,000 would be a sufficient request for capital outlay. Bailey suggested to Fackler that a thank you letter be sent to Dr. pellet for donating plantings throughout the City of Mound. Dock Inspector's Report Dell Rudolph briefly reviewed the Sohn's case and suggested that City Cpde Section 437:10, Subd. 1. a. through h. be cleaned up. Dell requested approval from the Commission to allow Mr. Greg En- field to have a dock on his vacant lot next tc 4601 Island View Drive which abuts the Commons. Dell explained that City docks are not allowed to ba installed on vacant lots, however Mr. En- field presertly lives in Mound at 3115 Donald Drive, and will be building on the vacant lot next year. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Andersen, to allow Mr. Enfield to erect a dock at his vacant lot located next to 4601 Island View Drive under the condition that he constructs a dwelling on the vacant lot next year. No- tion carried unanimously. Motion made by Asleson, seconded by Weber to adj(xjrn the Park 3 Open Space Commission Meeting at 11 :35 p.m. Mo- tion carried unanimously. r] 1TyS CITYof 2tll N Pat Of ee Bo: W • Crystal Bay. MinnMOta pal offi$ On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 19, 1990 AEC'0 JUN 21 t9 Mayor Steve Smith City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Res LMCD 25 Year Comprehensive Plan. Dear Mayor Smith, C i behalf of the City of Orono, we appreciate the way you have helped your community by participating in the review process for the LM.CD's 25 Year Plan. As noted at the meetings, several issues were raised. The attached information is the City of Orono's additional submission as part of the public process. As mentloned previously in our preliminary draft, the City of Orono is concerned as to the LMCD's traditional role vs. the emphasis we see in the Plan. Additionally, in the attached letter, we have raised the concern as to the authority related to the 25 Year Plan objectives and its review process. It is our understanding that the LMCD Board will be meeting to discuss comments and direct a consultant to develop a final draft. We encourage you to undertake the following Steps: - Spend the time with your representative to ensure that he or she is reflecting your concerns in the final draft of the plans. (The Advisory Board is presently scheduled to meet at 7:00 P.M., Thursday, June 28, 1990 to discuss the comments received.) - If there are substantial changes, encourage your representatives to vote for another review period. If substantial changes have been made in response to the cities' comments, such a rehearing may gain critical support and stop submission to Metropolitan Council as a "comprehensive plan". L ' 1'144 SUILDING E ZONING - 473 -7357 a ADMINISTRATION i FINANCE - 473-7358 a PUKK WORKS -173 -7390 ASSESSING FAX - 4734510 Mayor Steve Smith City of Mound June 19, 1990 Page 2 - If submission is made to the Metropolitan Council as a comprehensive plan, continue to present your position for review, and together, we as cities, can then take further steps to protect our rights and the future of the lake. we appreciate your timely reviews of these documents and all the work that it entails. Again, we remain available for your comments. Sincerely' KI 4im s I t . Grabek Mayor • • 1917 CI ORONO Post Office Bo: 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota S53?30mwcipal Offim On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 18, 1990 Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 400 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Comments on Draft - LMCD 25 Year Plan Attachment: A. Commentary on Authority and Scope B. Commentary Response on Long Term Managerial Plan C. Lake Use Management Dated 5/7/90 Dear Board Members: On behalf of the City of Orono, we would like to thank you and all the volunteers who have spent so many hundreds of hours in developing the plan we see to date. As noted in our attachments, we think this draft is of considerably clearer value than the previous individual drafts and gives us a much better understanding of the proposed direction of the LMCD. *t has been no secret in our attachments and in our cimments on June 6th that this is not a direction that we feel is appropirate for the LMCD. We feel that the LMCD and its role with a strong environmental emphas-: is needed in the plan to fulfill its original statutory purpose. Its statutory powers are narrowly and carefully described in the enabling legislation. It is vital that the LMCD understand and perform this role in its dealings with other agencies and in carrying out the duties entrusted to it by the legislature. Confusion of roles with those of other agencies will cause serious unfortunate consequences to the Lake in the future. In the Attachment A, we have raised the concern as to the authority related to the 25 Year Plan review process. This issue relates to whether the appropriate statutory authority exists for the Metrpolitan Council to review the Plan. The question has a direct impact on the nature of Metropolitan Council's review. Is it intended to be just a review for comment, or in fact, a review as if the Plan were a comprehensive use plan like a comprehensive plan for the cities. If treated by LMCD as a comprehensive plan, LMCD by going through this process is giving up some of its statutory authority to, particularly, the Metropolitan Council. BUt i 1 6 NG _ �y7� • ADmiNLSmTioN • FINANCE - M-7M • FUBUC WORKS M7399 ASSESSING FAX - 173-0510 Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District June 18, 1990 Page 2 As you know, as with comprehensive land use plans for cities, any significant changes that reflect an impact on the metropolitan system would need to be treated by Metropolitan Council. The Plan to date leaves this area unaddressed, particularly in defining the LMCD's belief about the scope of future reviews of LMCD implementation or changes. But LMCD actions indicate it believes it is controlled by Metropolitan Council and needs its approval. Orono does not believe such control exists. Just as you have given careful thought and attention to the present plan, we know that you will likewise consider carefully the matters which we have mentioned. We also believe that an additional time for review and further comments period should be allowed to give the interested cities and other interested parties time to understand your responses and to consider any significant changes which you may make. On behalf of the City of Orono, J me G Mayor is IfIy1 June 18, 1990 CITY OF ORONO is COMMENTARY LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 25 YEAR PLAN AUTHORITY AND SCOPE AUTHORITY FOR PLANNING Planning is an activity that LMCD can undertake on its own statutory authority. Unless more specific statutory authority can be cited than that contained in page 8 of the plan, that authority does not come from the Metropolitan Council. The act of planning does not require the permission of the Metropolitan Council. The plan developed (provided it deals with matters on which LMCD is empowered to act) can neither be prevented by nor embellished upon by the Metropolitan Council. This is not to *ate that the Metropolitan Council cannot make plans of its own for its own purposes. And in fact, we understand that the Metropolitan Council has a committee about to engage in a repetition of the planning which you have attempted to complete in your own plan. With this in mind, we believe that the section on Authority beginning on page 7 of the draft and continuing through page 8 should be revised in its entirety and that any other areas of the draft purporting to rely upon the Metropolitan Council to give validity to actions of the LMCD should also be removed. If LMCD chooses to submit the plan to the Metropolitan Council as a courtesy, it should clearly state that it is only done with that in mind. What the LMCD chooses to ego with any comments it receives is up to the LMCD. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW While the City of Orono believes that LMCD's enabling legislation is its sole authority, if the LMCD believes that the authority or approval of the Metropolitan Council is required to give its plan force and effect, (and discussion with the members of the LMCD who were present at the public hearing on June 6th at 7:00 p.m. indicates that such a belief may exist in the minds of the LMCD,) it must follow that the LMCD believes that the Metropolitan Council has control of its actions in implementing the plan. The question then arises as to what portions of the plan will require the approval of the Metropolitan Council before a change can be made. Would such changes and additions in the opinion of the LMCD, require the approval of the Metropolitan Council and would the LMCD have to go through the lengthy and formal review process involved in obtaining such approval? If the approval is denied, would the LMCD be without aL -, ority to proceed in these matters? The City of Orono believes that it is beyond the power of the L9CD to submit itself to such control and we sug est that this draft not be submitted to the Metropolitan Counc ?l except as a Ito matter of information and courtesy. If it is submitted, we believe the plan should contain a clear statement that it is being sent as a matter of courtesy, and that the LMCD does not concede the right of the Metropolitan Council to regulate its affairs in connection with the matters in the plan. However, if the Board of the LMCD disagrees with the views of the City of Orono, on authority and nature of submission, we believe it is essential that the views which the Board does have on the ability of the Metropolitan Council to control it be explained to the interested public and the statement specifically included in the plan before submission. In particular, the LMCD should state in the plan both the legal and intended effects on future actions of the LMCD and the rights of other interested parties once the plan is submitted to Metropolitan Council's control. In this connection we believe the LHCD should also spell out what the compromise was that is referred to on page 5 of the report. What was LMCD's position before its position was compromised? Why did it compromise? PL AN FOCUS AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY in our original draft submission, we noted that we believe that the LMCD's plan is misdirected in focussing on the promotion of increased use of the lake and the establishment of new arc ess • points and recreational land destinations. Further review of the plan and further consideration of it leads the City of Orono to the belief that not only is the plan misdirected in those regards, but that in essence such actions as just referred to, are simply beyond the power of the LMCD. It is clear that the powers granted by S Chapter 907 are essentially powers of limitation, the power to regulate, the power to limit and the power to police. They are limited also, no doubt, by constitutional and common law rights of various persons. It is likewise clear that the words "recreational management, user enjoyment,' and even the word 'access" (except as part of a modifying phrase) are absent from the enabling legislation. Nowhere is the LMCD given power to spend money to reach the goal of 'rectifying past inequities and access growth'. Nor is there anything in the statute to suggest that it is an 'essential function of the LMCD to assure that other agencies have the resources to implement their programs'. Even the proposed extension of zoning and land use control is prohably not authorized. The City of Orono believes that the plan should be reconsidered and measured against the actual authority of the LMCD, clearly separating plans and activities related to its authorities and M function from those which it cannot perform but for which it may ultimately hope to seek some legislative approval. AS) 2 L.'!CD AS LOCAL IMPLEMENTER FOR OTHER AGENCIES • Finally, the City of Orono is more deeply concerned than before at the apparent desire and plan of the LMCD to give up its role of protection of the lake on behalf of the 14 member communities to serve the interest of other agencies. This again points to the fact that LMCD apparently believes that this plan is ultimately under the control of the Metropolitan Council so the LMCD implementation will be guided by the Metropolitan Council checks and balances. To illustrate its shift in roles the LMCD has applied to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) for planning monies to undertake a program to "develop an action program for public access to Lake Minnetonka ", while the 25 year plan is being reviewed and apparently may disregard what is ultimately adopted. This program is to have the DNR as the program manager and LMCD as the local or subservient organization. It was reported to LMCD that this was fully in accord with the management plan. We note that further credence to this fundamental shift and its ramifications were given by the representative of the DNR - Shoreline Management group at the 7:00 p.m. hearing on June 6th, explaining in substance that the DNR group he represented particularly favored the plan. He stated that by using the LMCD plan the DNR would be able to achieve control of the shoreline in a manner which it has been unable to accomp ish alone. Under the plan the DNR is going to effectively control the shoreline through its agent the LMCD, and control public access to the lake by being the supervisor of the LMCD, with the Metropolitan Council having ultimate control over the rest of the activities in the LMCD plan. If this scenario is correct what is it that the LMCD as an advocate of the lake intends to advocate on its own authority, except for increased taxation and watered -down local control of the Board? • 1952 A M(..IAOLeUr CITE' OF ORONO RRSPONSS TO LMCD LONG TERM MANAGERIAL PLAN • A. The City of Orono opposes the LMCD plan as 1) failing to focus on the purposes for which the LMCD was formed; 2) being inadequate in its concerns for environmental protection and conservation of the lake as a finite natural resource; 3) misdirected in focusing upon promoting and encouraging increased boat densities and additional access points; 4) unrealistically seeking to remove land use regulations from local control; 5) seeking to raise taxes, and lessen local control over them; 6) dilute or eliminate local control over the LMCD and surrender it to state and county agencies. 1. The LMCD was created to be the agency immediately concerned with the protection of the lake, as a natural resource, from environmental deterioration including aesthetic deterioration, and the preventing of pollution. This plan focuses on increasing recreational activities, rectifying past inequities in access growth and intends to implement environmental protection only after it accomplishes these goals. 2. The LMCD plan is inadequate in its concerns for conservation because it fails to recognize: a. That existing usage of the lake has already reached the average density of 10 acres per boat established by the DNR and other agencies (8 usable acres per boat); b. That peak density is nearly twice that; C. That planned for increases, e.g. Hennepin County Park at 168 -170 new boats - Minnetonka Boat Works 42 -48 new boats, etc., plus unplanned others will bring the average density to between 7 usable acres and `- usable acres per boat by 1991 if it is not there now; d. That the reports of current users indicate serious and dangerous conditions of near misses, dangerous acts of intoxicated boaters, high wakee, ignoring of navigational rules, etc.; e. The numerical majority of the bays are already drastically overused (Tables 6 and 8); f. That there are indicators sailing may be being crowded off the lake, etc.; U /is3 g. Some boats are more environmentally harmful than others - e.g. large power boats vs. sailfish= yet the LMCD plan does not consider the environmental effect of these conditions or establish a standard for density or even consider the possible necessity for numerical limitations on particular • types of boats. 3. The plan is misdirected in focusing on the promotion of increased use of the lake and the establishment of new access points and recreational land destinations for boaters particularly as a first priority, and as a precondition for future regulations. a. These matters have been the subject of several previous reports as stated in the plan, are the special concern of other agencies, and are not part of the mandate of the LMCD; b. While the implementation of those plans will have an effect upon the environment, an environmental plan is needed now, not afterwards C. The environmental question is not who should have access or pay for it, but how many and what types of watercraft are being or wi 11 be used, and how this affects the lake; d. So far as the environment is concerned, the LMCD should immediately: Is 1. Establish the permissabl density standards for optimum environmental protection and for purposes of boating safety; 2. Seek ircreased enforcement of existing regulations with emphasis on additional use of the water patrol, and consider methods of increased cooperation with and use of local police agencies (drunken boating, littering); 3. Require and encourage boat users education in right of way rules, etc., and in safe operation of their boats through licensing of boaters and certification requirements - e.g. power squadron certification is available; 4. Adopt appropriate rules relating to noise pollution, "quiet waters,' speed, wakes, etc., and ensure enforcement; 5. Give parallel consideration and regulation to the effects of wintertime use - ice houses, snowmobiles, cross country skiers, etc.; • 16164 6. Encourage parking in areas away from pub]Llo access points by the users...x Safety, a pollution free lake, an enjoyable user a experience, and aesthetic consideration affecting the lakeshore, and its roads, and the watershed are basic considerations. Milfoil is a distinct LMCD problem and LMCD should have control of it on the lake. 4. Land use regulation should remain under local control. Orono's land use controls are the most protective and restrictive ordinances on the lake. While it might be desireable to have all communities agree with our standards, we are not willing to part with local control of our lakeshore. Neither is it acceptable to us for the LMCD to make decisions regarding dockage or other lake utilization which in effect force Orono to depart from its land use standards to accommodate parking, tree removal or hardcover limitations. 5. As a city, we oppose creation of an additional tax or taxing authority as we believe that regulation and education /licensure can be implemented through assessments shared by the lakeshore cities and the county and through existing organizations already providing the training programs. 6. While the present makeup of the LMCD board has inequities built into it-which are readily apparent to the different communities, all members are essentially concerned with "preserving the lake," and that is the sole reason for LMCD. The suggestions that other agencies which are not directly and immediately affected by the lake and which have other purposes and priorities, plans for its future be given positions on this board, is unacceptable to Orono. • ISS 4390. . M M a � 7 TO= Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernbardson, City Administrator DATB: May 7, 1990 SUBJECT: Lake Use Management Attachment: A. Review of LMCD Public Hearing Draft Dated 5/7/90 B- Lake Use Management - General Philosophy C. Lake Use Management - On Shore Facilities D..Lake Use Management - Shoreland Management E. Lake Use Management Organization ISSUE 1. Presentation of ideas to Council regarding development for Policy leadership and local control of selected areas of interest as it relates to lake management particularly on Lake Minnetonka. A. Structure for development of policies. B. Scope of t1he group to study those policies. INTRODUCTION - Over the last few years Councilmembers and others have expressed concerns regarding lake use particularly as they relate marinas. work has Much of the City of Orono Council's focus and been on lake and lake related land use issues. The City's Comprehensive Plan is predicated on the lake. In both its ordinance adoption and interpretationithis Council generally has been as rigorous in protecting the lake, if not more so, on occasion or at least consistant with those past Councils. Because of the lowered lake levels, the increased use, the concerns regarding marinas and their economic viability together with the 25 year plan that the LMCD has been developing the last two years; the issue of lake use has been brought to the forefront at the City level raising concerns regarding the future use of the lake. With the request to look at the lake usage of the marinas together with reviewing the public review draft of LMCD it seemed appropriate to broaden the scope of both those assignments and present to you the concept of a Cit Managemen► Committee to develo Y established 'Lake Use _ deal with on its own and throu gh O heryagencies,� L CD _ to achievement of the City Y policy directions. such as the - 'SCUSSION - The idea of recvmmenaing a broader .look ,at_ the issue _ e� a strictly'-the limitations that historically :have been established "as a *function - of" or - scope of_ a Karina 'Committee - . , resulted because 'some of_the `isanes i ` -- , _ P ._ qued,.by� mar ina conce ' =" == -'•'R` : ny of these apply to lake use in genera.... Such concerns elude the amount of traffic generated t he elateutorthe a it relates to power craft. Additional sues impact on both land and lake use of facilities such as marinas may have on abutting and other lakeshore residents. The purpose of any committee formulated would be to determine if there is an appropriate policy direction that the City desires to undertake along with attendant strategies to achieve it. STRUCTURE - The possible development of a Lake Use Management C ommittee, whose primary focus is on Lake Minnetonka with an eye to other lake resources in the community, could be composed of three to seven persons including Councilmembers, Planning Commission, Park Commission members and other interested residents. SCOPE - The scope of the Committee could be broad enough to include all lake use management issues but the proposed areas for initial discussion (to some degree borrowing the format of LMCD's report) are as follows: A. Genera Philosophy - Cne of the keys to determining whether the policy directions formulated in the LMCD's plar are in concert or opposition to those of the City of Orono is to look at the general premise on which the plan is based. If such premises on the surface differ from those of the City, determine if there is a way to jointly achieve the objectives of each. B. On Shore Facilities - This is probably the area of largest concern at the present time because it is the one that most directly generates the amount of traffic on the lake.. This includes (perhaps in a broader definition than LMCD's) marinas, lake oriented parks, public access, residential docks, municipal docks, and homeowner docks. The fact that the plan does promote development of certain facilities that generate traffic, may well be of concern. C. Shoreland Regulations - These are the regulations whi generally apply to land use within 1,000 feet of the lakeshore. While in Orono not all the land within 1,000 feet is within our lakeshore district regulations, the vast majority of it is. These regulations generally _ set minimums and most of Orono's regulations are at or above ..those set forth in Attachment'A .of : LMCD "s _ regulations. It is •presently anticipated that each:_ community, is free to be more restrictive; but restrictive than the regulations. _� _ _ __ •, _ _� D. _Lake Use Management Organization - This is. the .issue as to what organizations •have jurisdiction, how = that's - - - coordinated; and how-.that key organization_ (if sherS.._^► =.; g=one) :is governed. and:unded. _Possibilitiesinclude. w Continuation of the present LMCD organization - LMCD as proposed in the draft - Alternative structure for LMCD or an alternative organization it is anticipated that a City Lake use Management Committee would be advisory to the Council on policy matters and that policy recommendations would be forwarded for working either with LMCD, develop into City ordinances where appropriate through Planning Commission and /or establish as operational priorities for the City. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Committee Structure a. Determine number of members b. Any categories of members c. Nominating people to the Committee d. Defining role of the Committee 2. Scope of Activity a. Range of issues to be addressed b. Recommendations as far as: Policy Objectives RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council review these eas and discuss any alternatives or modifications of these ideas they may whether they d go ahead or p the May 29, 1990 meeting PROPOSED MOTION - .loved by , seconded by that the Council and accept the information on the Lake use managem nt Committee a the table it until the May 29, 1990 meeting at which Committee, if 't is desired, would be established together with nominations for service on that Committee. Ayes _, Nays _- cc: JoEllen Burr, LMCD Representative Gabriel JaLbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, Long Lake Department Beads . • `. .. - .. rr . r —._.- � ...t — 5790.2 D - D CU 0 : Mayor and City Council rgoM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: may 7, 1990 S=ECT: Lake Minnetonka Long Term Management Program Public Review Draft Page By Page Commentary INTRODU - The public review draft was prepared by LMCD's consultant and is a compilation of the ideas from the initial reviews together with the commentary they received on those reviews. ass you will note several of the original discussion areas have been combined under related topics. The new Lm CD document is much more understandable leaving out many of the details in the initial individual area drafts. (The question of whether those drafts have any status in clarifying these issues s presently unclear.) It may be helpful to use the rresponding attachment from the Lake Use raemo in certain sections. (This review is done on a page by page basis) (The tenor of this review will be more critical than constructive.) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - RECREATION MANAGEMENT (ON SHORE FACILITIES) - Page VII - Comment on the Goal Section. It's a question of what constitutes past inequities. Additioal issues relate to how the additional parking for public access is to be established and how they plan to optimize winter access. p. VIII - _User Experience and Satisfaction - It is the premise of this document that growth will naturally increase and that regulation is the way to enhance limit the conflict caused by the growth. - SHORELAND (SEORELAND PROTECTION) This area _ originally of great concern is probably one - that at this Point ^` ` i` will probably most easily dealt with for the City of Orono. R lement that is more prominent here than in the original drafts .'s the use of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan. Through this having the communities would_ develop their r` -.individual storm water - management .plans .:as _the: means_ to - improve _ _ _ " JT" 1 the quality of stormwater runoff from the "upland areas." ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC - Essentially one paragraph, (with the second paragraph being duplicate of the first,) it is one that is prob ly the least controversial. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE LS, AKE MAN GOVERNANCE) - Page IX - While there may be no disagreement on LMCD becoming an advocate for lake programs more than they have been, there may be disagreement how promotional they should be for additional accesses on the lake. If taken at face value the shifting of funding from cities to the users to the greatest extent possible is laudable. That may be difficult to achieve. As the taxing lake service area in a manner that is independent of municipalities, represents the loss of an effective control by the cities and will additionally subject the cities property tax payers to a much higher rate. 'le inclusion of the four regional agencies as voting members to the extent that they bring along unding and cooperation is probably not a great dilution of Orono's vote authority, but there may be alternative ways of handling it. a BASE REPORT I. INTRODUCTION - Purpose Page 1. The only goal listed that could be of concern on the face is item C. A better definition of what open public access and use constitutes would be helpful. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Perspective - Page 2. This discusses the divergent management goals of various agencies that have an interest on the lake. It outlines the I shift in regional priorities that put a focus on the lake in the late 70's and indicates this has not been acknowledged to any _ cies involved.As discusspda gteit_degree_by any of the agen h oriairy sour ce of concern for = lake users bas - been the amount -of:.. _.. Moss. and how the number of parking spots 'is determined," together with 'discussion on what is an. appropriate - level -for - for 'that access.: =• public aciiss 'and what 'acceptable parking - - � f *age 7. This references the appendix A that specifies the authorities with each area. In those two there are, from the City's standpoint, two things not specifically addressed. 1. The City's ability under Minnesota Statutes 412.221 Subd 12 to manage and control docks and harbors within its own jurisdiction regardless of the LMCD or other potential subdivisions. 2. The fact that while the City's ability to do a joint powers agreement is precluded where there is a County established lake management district (MS459.20). LMCD is not a County established conservation district and as such the City's may not be precluded from doing that. REGIONAL SETTING - Page 10 /11. Physical Features - While discussing various aspects of the lake there is no discussion of the int=. between the _ake and the underlying aquifers (in part because there is no lear scientific evidence of it only best guesses by those s amiliar with the lake.) II. REC MANAGEMENT Page 17. Perspective - The discussion centers around the , expectation for growth and that there is a need for LMCD to convert from a passive to an active enforcement and this level of enforcement is going to increase as density increases. The expectation is that such regulation will rectify any conflicts. Although emphasized to a great degree in other parts of the report, the report states that without this regulation further access will need to be terminated. Page 19. Lake A and Use Management - This area is one of greatest concern because it relates to the growth. As noted on page 19 the program does not establish an upper limit be allowed on the lake and discusses the philosophical reasons for that. ' Page .21., His Patterns - It is interesting to note. that ^ -_ actual' amount -of storage by lakeshore owners has decreased since = -_ ---- — 1974 with a low being in 1980. The graph on boat storage - however "- d oes not relate boat storage to level of use at peak and off -peak Lr - times nor does it indicate the maximum amount t of potenial'loc storage, which in turn translates into use on the lake.' +There' is .,. .that - re ° what =is :classifie3 as - public r.L_ �xalso a concern lates to - _ _ ` _. access and what isn't. ( "Pure" public access or marina's etc.) It should also be noted on Page 21 that the stated goal of L14CD to preserve and promote Lake Minnetonka as a recreational natural resource is for all citizens of the State. If this is indeed the goal, then the direction of the current plan may be the appropriate route. Page 22 - 25. Lake Den Standards - The various standards are discussed as is the concept of useable acres. In Lake Minnetonka's case the useable acres has not been one with which DNR has been in.agreement. it comes however, from publications they put out for application in other areas and does make sense for use on Lake 14innetonka. From a DNR standpoint the appropriate density is one boat for 10 acres of total lake and that public access should have half of that, which does result in the 700 slots that is typically discussed. In other parts of the report they discuss public access to include marinas and other types of non - riparian access. The categorization scheme maybe some what questioned, but is not questioned by LHCD's document. Jne key to the discussion ono� use a having • direct impact on the amount P erson is able to make Canoes, row boats and to a degree sail craft take p a much smaller usage area than is needed for power boats, p a y Xarge ones. Water skiing takes up the most. it may be approrpaate to e ither regulate be allowed based on the amount of acerage nee ded to activities. Page 26. The graph discusses the number of active boats allowed under each of the densities each of the sectors in which the expected growth is to which it would be allowed. It would be very helpful to have one chart tie together the density regulations, allocations, "stora conversions of each of the catagories to. better understand the impace of the proposed density /access allocation scheme. TANG RAN_8 RECREATION MANAGE M - Page 29. The management objectives regulate- densities -that _ build__ frost the current 8 acres /unit down to 5. A. - There is a lack of definition as to the manner that the density &s to be measured - ie.. either peak - • :.average .peak; B. There is a question as to what happens when other things such a economic downturns lessen the number of boats on the lake. Then what will the rules revert to lower density rules and allowed access growth at the lower density? If so what happens when economic times again return and place even greater pressure on the lake because of increased sources of access under lower density rules. Page 32. Number 4. It is hoped that the remote parking and shuttle would apply not only to future access points, but to current access points in order to eliminate the parking on the street. One of the significant problems related to these access points are the on street parking which generate not only traffic problems but also engender some trespassing problems of private property. Additional concern is the zones in which these additional "parking spots" would be placed. (The report leaves this undefined. Earlier reports split it out by each of the 5 established zones.) *age 33. Number 6. L14CD is looking to expand further land use controls in the areas that require multiple dock licenses. Currently there is overlapping jurisidction between LMCD and the cities as it relates to marinas and this current land use overlap , would be extended to other multiple dock users. This is one area of grater on land ."intrusion." Page 34. Number 7. While exam".ning appropriate, it would be di fficult to expand thereby reduce the useable lake area and automatically increase the density of useage, so that a buffer should start off as restrictive as it is ever expected to be and subsequently work backwards. Page 35. Number 1. - Souses - This may be an issue without a solution, but any attempted regulation should be of assistance. III. USER- EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTION page 37. Peru active! - This wleduasdaalubliemsafety does not � nforceaeat and although billed p . en=ioa the 'ongoiiig�issues_of emergency medical services or fires - protection: These issues are of - particular note 'should further ■eat -b done =tor 'e .private_or� publi use._on :Big • :-- dev.eslop a ither t: :T .. . *'— :��� t. � .�..... � f � , .I nom• .. .�. s .. , � . . � ..r... a .. .. �j• island. - • page 39. Authority - While laudable in intent the assumption is still that the Water Patrol is the only law enforcement agency that will be allowed on the lake. The rationale for this assumption is not specifically stated. While the City of Orono does not necessarily desire to have any lake patrol, it would like to be able to contract to provide enforcement of violations that its officers sees on the water from the land and be able to enforce those regulations which the City currently is not able to do. Additionally it would like to, during the winter months, when it is frozen over, have the ability to deal with those types of violations when it is able to go out on the "water ". Additionally there are times that the Water Patrol has no one on duty at present in the summer from 11:00 o'clock at night to 8:00 in the morning, at which a workable solution for putting law enforcement presence on the lake would be beneficial. If there is a concern as to the amount of jurisdiction the City would obtain, it could be easily handled in the contract arrangement between LMCD and the cities. This contract enforcement would include addressing not only to enforcement of LMCD regulations generally handled by the Water Patrol but other types of regulations that LMCD's inspectors handle such as docks and related land use. The statement that the POST Board (police Officer Standards of Training) effectively determine the number of full and part time positions is not only substantially misleading but for the most part incorrect. The only thing that the POST Board does is indicate the credentials that someone must have to be employable and some restrictions on the number of part time postions that a unit can have in relationship to its full time posi *ions. The entire discussion still fails to come to grips with the land /water interface and enforcements within those zones. Presently there are problems t hat certain "parochial" inter s selected enforcement powers in selected circumstances -to the - cities IV. SHORELAND PROTECTION ' ,.._ •- •^ - "- Page ii.. active ,, -: Wbi le there seems to be common I. understanding of the LMCD's jurisdiction' at '929 4' on the lake, ; , discussion involves LMCD's control of wetlands below when the .. _ - - _. - • - � .� Vii. --..� ---- ±•-- -• ... _ . " �«:• --= ._.. - . ; • - - - ._ ' • ' . -r . _ AAU c .4 it would be helpful to have a map to illustrate how far k this may go particularly in bays such as Tanager etc. Page 50. The discussion regarding the busiest day on the lake of 2,256 active boats during peak hours (a density of 5.2 /acres per boat or 6.2 of total surface) again brings into question the issue of when and how the peak is measured to determine the implementation of various density restrictions usable. Page 53. Management Objections - Although LMCD's plan indicates that the shoreland regulations are to be adopted by the individual communities, LMCD is working to develop agreements for review of specific types of applications regarding building height and riparian parcel variances. Referral of each of these to LMCD for review could lethan burdensome but the other would probably less of p roblem for Orono cities. It is assumed these would be for variances that would be variances to LMCD's base line regulations. (If a community had more stringent codes; variances to its codes, which would not be ariances to LMCD's base line, would not need to be reviewed by Page 55. The discussion for neighborhood parks it says the responsibility is for by "owning" municipality. This questions whether in Hennepin County facility such as Noerenberg if the City would sti?i be able to exercise law enforcement abilities in that area. Page Sf. The encouragement o ; to pub at least devel o pme n t City Big island is something that s of Orono as to how extensive this may heeCi who is y would impl agency and what control, if y, expansion. (The Orono Comprehensive Plan howe does state such as that the best ownership of Big Island is by p ubli c Sennepin County Parks.) V. ENVIRONMENTAL P ECTION _ - � Apart from stormwater management, the City has little ase t h e control in this area. As you may recall in 1984 court t c case r th ty of Orono was not allowed jurisdiction in " a dredging case but .- 46 j - rested with the DNR and the Natersbed District. y R t urisdiction • - 0 ' %� .4 - that. the upgraded monitoring f pro9ras . w0uld j.... w It should be p .:. laudable goal^ luable resource.. _ a -;:.. _ At- l au ; for` this va . . r •-. '.=�. -a ..r � �M�!,�.� . • ,; Page 66. Management OS actives - A number of issues are addressed including getting communities to adopt storm water management plans plus any shoreline regulation related to environmental protection such as not exceeding 256 of the lot area for hardcover. This will become an issue as to what constitutes hardcover together with the fact that Orono has specified zones for 0/25/30/356 depending on the distance from the lake. Generally Orono's regulations on a lot would be more restrictive but there may be exceptions in particular cases. Additional recommendations deal with restricting use for fertilizer and pestic by homeowners particularly lakeshore homeowners and this will be an area of some controversy b perhaps an appropriate educational program may positively promote elimination of such substances that are of concern. Page 68. The City questions the need for the Watershed District to include the additional types of wetlands, if they are satisfactorily governed under City ordinance. Mlie area of designated wetlands have become a "hot" issue not only on the local but national basis.) IV. MANA GEMENT STRUCTURE of Page 72. management Areas writer ads conclusion the LMCD's reading to the Legislative history conclude that lake management is not to be conducted by one implementing agency. That does not necessarily mean that the Legislature intended it that way. It may only represent the way that it has occurred with various agencies being requested by and given to different authorities by the Legislature to handle specific catagories of situations. Page 76. Management Objectives - The creation of the special in the Lake taxing jurisdiction. In addition to issues noted LMCD Management Governance Structure addendum the plan recommends that gain the authority to assess the project t agreem it would be better to eratige atfwith coo ; have a p Cities to actually impose these costs. 77. This discusses a two tiered property tax levy for LMCD. Page result in upwards of 2 mills for people in Orono This could regardless of whether they are! on the lake or not This would be y 10 times approximately the current level of levy for LMCD. _ t9e 78. Term of Directors. It is assumed that under the resent scenario that the appointment would still be made by the city council. • .r •� � V l� � S .. . ♦ s - ♦ � � .. � � � !7 ..i• . f�f . �. 43090.7 MM A � V .o: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Derrhardson, City Administrator DM: May 8, 1990 gnminCT: Lake Use Management - General Philosophy DIVERGENT VIENPOINTS - The initial point of departure between the s gn cant nterest in i s the that The level of lake use and app following represents this writer's generalizations of those Interest groups: LMCD - As set forth in the plan the LMCD views the lake as an under utilized resource that is facing substantially increased pressure. They are proposing a plan to manage the pressure and limit the conflict between various types of uses. In addition to the premise of under - utilization is the fact that they anticipate the plan will satisfy the two divergant philosophies: A. Self Mana ment - The report identifies a group that fee=s - that as t. a use increases the lake will be self managing and people will not subject themselves to overuse. B. Regulation Will Be Needed to Mediate The Increased Tra c - This group fee 13 that if t5 increase tra c is to come that the regulation needs to be stepped up. While the management plan may well address these it does-not address perhaps a third constitutency which feels the lake is not self limiting and that as the demand for it, which is destined to come, will Increase, that the increased regulations will be only marginally effective and that the conflicts will continue to grow. . Pact of the premise of the LMCD report depends on how the density Is measured whether it is average density or peak density and what variations or changes will o will impact such as economics over a long p eriod and bow these the density regulation.- ` - .Lakeshore Cities _Most people,, -• ` at th ake and feel.it is generally =i'arily the sonnet on nice' weekends and •hol ih l d is and _ LMCD sr ma _ The difference between y - power. cr of t. = = .... • be the view of looking 'at *the 'peaks 'where ZMCD'nay be `= - looking at 'ore of an .average ; use _which an ,general _ ., _ pcoblem :� 'during . =the is riot iiitkdays ' _ _ �'. 7! 'as much =bf _a „ t�= Y: = :.=z:. �. Lakc Shore Residents - Probably even more so than the r Cat s try genera y feel that the lake is so over used that they are relagated to either look at a very busy lake or have their usage confined to off -peak hours. Their use of the lake is further reduced by the low water the last two to three years. Commercial 1 -the erators - This is the group whose business epee s on a e use. Their motivation is to do anything that needs to be done in order to ensure at least a decent, if not an increased level, of business. This is particularly driven by marinas whose acquisition cost in the last few years has well exceeded their ability to generate needed revenues at existing dockage levels and rental fees. Non - Resident users - (Particularly those living in non - L,KCD communiti s) - DNR /Metro Council - Their primary perspective is that the lake is a resource to be enjoyed whenever and wherever they choose and that anything that impeeds their access is deemed to be r:cochical interferences on the part of the lakeshore residents. o proceed past what seem to be differing views is to determine 46 he following: A. Is there a common view or goals B. Whether there is or not, can an agreeable strategy be developed to achieve agreeable results C. A related question is whether LMCD's density approachl,' (which is the primary vehicle proposed for handling increased useage) can be made workable to achieve both the City's and /or their objectives as it is currently presented or with some modification. If not, does something Entirely different need to be developed to accomplish those purposes. If a different approach needs to be taken what portion of that can the city itself undertake. The general challenge of a City Lake Use Committee of would be to determine if tt re is such common ground with l L14CD s d /or te results and build on it if there is. group could dfvelop independent policy directions that ..need to be undertaken. - :On the 'surface' the disagreements-between_-these current perceptions relate_ to the followings • .r _)egree of present use /overuse. _ • _ - i • _ -- ^ -- _...*� � A f :. •vim . ��... :`7 •+'W .iv -" -Faith -in the 'ability -to manage Sncreased use. == == �-'� = - -_ ": •��, _-.� ��, - - - - .. . _ - � .. - _ _. _ �. �� �ts1 'i • �S s Imo'.' %'�i %��'�'�� 2 _ _ Disagreement on where and on whom restrictions should be placed as increased use grows. (This is apportionment of the "pain'.) Who is in the best position to manage the lake. One could characterise LMCD's position as one that feels that the increased-pressure for use on the lake is inevitable and that "parochial resistance" by lakeshore communities will result in independent, uncoordinated development of public facilities on the lake by DNR, Metro Council /Hennepin Parks and /or Hennepin County. These groups have other interests than those of the ithouteany funds to dcommunities l wth the development w by it Y increased use. L.iCD's apparent compromise is that in order to retail a coordinated substantially loCal control it by allows /promotes selected facilities develop together with generating the funding for Lake Minnetonka to provide increased regulation as the pressure grows plus the promotion of facilites that will use incentives to remove "active" traffic from the lake. • 1 ..�� •1 �+(. _ �. .- ^• • — � •-1.4 _ -- ...•mow— : - =��� --..•� r �r_ — .•�..••Z �+ 43090.8 MM a ff V 0 : Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernharson, City Administrator DATE: May 8, 1990 SUBJECT: On Shore Facilities INTRODUCTION - Although billed as "on shore" facilities these are the facilities that interface between the land and the lake. They are the ones that cause substantial concern because of both the current activity level together with the potential for generating greater levels of activity. (This is particularily true of the larger powercraft activity, which seems to be the one of most concern to people. There seems to be a much lower level of concern related to sail boats, canoes and row boats.) The primary facilites that fall into this catagory are: Marinas - The concern here is not only the current regulation of these but more importantly what growth potential they have as it relates to; a.) new facilities, b.) increasing density of existing facilities and c.) expansion on either side of existing facilities. The primary expectation is that the economics, particularly the high sale prices in recent years will drive these commercial operators to perhaps undertake all three. (It should be remembered that the bulk of marina space in Orono is in very small area which is zoned for marinas with the comprehensive plan including. .some of the residential buildings in between. The balance of the marina activity is the area where the Minnetonka Boat Works and Windward Marine straddle County Road 15. The primary concerns besides the generation of potential traffic are the setbacks, and general impacts it has on abutting residential properties together with the distance of the marinas out into the lake. Public Access - In general this issue has related more to the par ing amount needed, location, share of access, lake issues such as n trespassing p than acc and r elated actual access iss themselves. Residential Docks - This includes both present single % _ f amily oc s, municipal docks (of which there are none in Orono) and homeowners associations /apartment docks. . Among the concerns for increase in this -is the 'illegal"' rental of these slips to off -lake residents in order to, ...among other things,._help. pay- taxes. for •the residents..-: _ Additional: concerns �are.the potential for redevelopment'- —.i of tnese properties which would intensify the use. othe racili.ties - These include further acquistion of park land, Ts piers, development of anchorages and the Big Island acquisition and increased utilization discussed in the plan. While some of the aspe:t of the plan are promoted to :educe the actdal lake usage by attracting persons and watercraft to an "inactive status" such as anchorages, they may however generate more total traffic on the lake as the lake will have more amenities to attract people. The primary issues are: 1. Specific concerns are that will increase traffic a.) By type of craft b.) By level of total usage c.) After effects of usage (litter, etc.) 2. What regulation will there be and how effective is it a. LMCD - Are there limitations of its ability to achieve its goals through regulation. b. Alternatives - 1. The city exercise the ximum authority it is allowed. 2. Joint powers of the cities which is possible if there is not a county estate " ;..hes lake improvement district. (LMCD is not a inty established lake improvement district.) 3. "Regulated" in a similar manze: to other lakes It w hich do not have conservation districts. should be remembered however that this was the situation prior to the LMCL's existence and was probably the rationale for LMCD.) SEeci�fic Bo lic' Concerns - The following represent concerns in specific areas: 1. Marinas a. Expansion and density of site and current rules that allow them to expand. b. Their ability marinas. c. impact on other . _ properties ' 0 tc.': .. to add additional property to the • 11 i issues such -as -hardcover, abutting he City though a combination of its land use regulations, icensing and /or maximizing its additional authority under increased ordinances could strengthen its authority on docks, setbacks and density. 2. Public Access - The issues are as follows: a. Totalshare of access given to the public accesses. b. Parking and how much is permitted to be on the street, if any. c. Associated trespassing. d. Payment for use of the lake. 3. Other Uses - Of primary concern is how mush adds ional traffic both on the lake and also on the shore that would be generated through these proposed increased points of access. • H r —L ^3 _ � �1 AYR'?! .w � 1c.. �_ —, ,�r,•ry�y,,�� r .�::r 43090.9 D Y TTO Ma or and City Council • F" Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: May 8, 1990 S=zCT: Lake Use Management - Shoreland Management Shoreline Re ulation - Concerns have been expressed about Orono's l eadership n t is area. The shoreland regulations in LMCD's plan have incorporated much of the leadership of Orono and the review of the attachment to this indicates where Orono is equal or more strict than and what areas that would need to amend if in there were to become m if Lt�iCD does this area are what pact plan that their is would s trictly for the present time it is local community to adopt and that LMCD will only act as a catalyst to encourage that together with have review and comment in two specific areas: A. Variances for height anywhere in the community g H. Hardcover regulations within 0 -75 foot setback • While laudable in general there are some concerns that this may be too the broad feet will h ei g ht ha ve little impac mile and a half from the lake itself shore that is 10 but still require review lakencouldmhave a (On vvery hand a 30 story highrise near on the perception of the lake and the lake experience.) of City regulation - The concern has also been Stringency express A that the City's regulation could be strengtened. This aspplies to three areas: A. Leadership in adopting more stringent ordinances B. Concern regarding how stringent the current rules are interpretated. C. The tests used in determining for variances to those regulations. past Councils have been relatively consistent Generally this and p being as granted. :- ral case in what they have d. With this Council actually _ consistent, if not tiShte, in the while specific n i individual variances than past Councils. ractice has peen variances may not be as stringent the general p o do such. -- Examples of increased stringentneess_tbe actual _.:.;accessory. ,buildings._.structure ordinan�:, _ = quant of hardcover- lculations . an often- .requ. r.inq: :t ti ' ification_ ca the:0 - 75 to Leaove it; -they - =_ _ -,., have done- .=DFti' �-:-� peopi+e'r+ho build i -: _ _:.�.�y . _ •- -- 7-r-- ,r.�-- 0 t without City permission. Areas for work by the Lake Use Committee for development policy include: A. Determining what policies should be further adopted into ordinance either individually as a City or enhancements from the LMCD work. B. Clarify areas where interpretations is not always deemed to be consiutent undertaking the desired policy direction of the City. C. Be cognizant in granting variances and any recommendations relative to variance tests over and above those normally used for shoreline. • J __,_ i •'. - �(�'.• _ ' '_. �'I•N• �� —•i: _���:�r_� :f .` 1 JifTI ;'tld. �+!s K� Al 01 � � xi r - `� � Z:� ! � .. - ice. .... ._i+i� Ls..�+. r. ..- _.�ri -� Da)bilu � 7 5190.1 !o= Mayor and City Council MM: Mark E. Hernhardaon, City Administrator DUR: May 8, 1990 SuW CT: Lake Use Management Lake Management Governance INTRODUCTION - The LMCD has been the primary agency for governance on the lake since its conception in 1967. The proposed 25 year plan indicates a new posture for L:1CD of being the catalyst or lead agency to coordinate the work of other agencies who have rights, interest or responsibility on the lake. They see themselves as orchestrating joint efforts for improvement of the lake. In recapping the alternatives available as outlined in the General Philosophy area there are as follows: 1. LMCD as presently situated 2. LMCD as proposed in the 25 year plan 3. Allow the County to create a Lake Management District 4. save a joint powers agreement among the cities to handle management. S. Let DNR "do as they want' along with the other independent agencies without there being an overall agency for managing of the lake. • • Alternate Arrangements for LMCD - Currently LMCD is governed by a 14 memb board with one board member representing each of the 14 cities. As such, although Orono has 30 or - 408 of the r eceives only about a 7 1/2% share f the vote. _- J O _... on .the _lake,': r • _ - f .:. .,..... f l►lternative schemes to, this that `have been 'advanced . 'or :could be . utilised .are :., • = ...i��... ,t Board ._ _ :.. _ _ 3 _ .. .►�- .�••'w the . .. �- .A Espaesion o! the from 14 "to, 18 'members = with R olitan agen additional cies _ 4 .seats_goinq ;getiop _ t ._., ��-�:- -�" -=j "r " • • 1..... : ' � ..} ....:. .�.� - -- w - - - - :, • ;�- ''r'.. . ". -• .� ..�...- jam„ •• , a. Creation of a nine member Board composed of one repr9sentative from each of the 5 zones on the lake, of which Orono is in 3 of them. The balance would be representatives of the 4 Metropolitan agencies. C. Composition similar to the present one, but allowing for proportional voting based on either percentage of lakeshore or share of contribution. The present 25 year plan recommends Alternative A. This results in a further dilution of the City of Orono's power. The second proposal while making it possible for Orono to have up to three members out of the nine member Board becomes a question of who those appointments are made by (or in the alternative, if they are elected from each of those zones) and would leave the lake communities with having a bare majority over the Metropolitan agencies. Alternative C would perhaps give Orono, depending on how it is decided, a more substantial voice in the affairs without having to necessarily alter the Board conpostion. D Funding - Presently the LMCD receives all its tax funds through the 14 communities together with user funds primarily from the marinas. The additional work done on the Eurasian .lilfoil has been a special program composed of private donations, the cities and other interested agencies. The 25 year plan anticipated a need for a much broader funding base and as such proposes the following elements: Local prop ert y Tax - Continuation of the tax on local communities 1 ••t removed fro6 the approval of the 14 municipaliti Presently without the milfoil program Orono would day about $18,000 to this. Using the millage formula of 1 ®ill that could leave the citizens of Orono at risk for over $100,000 in taxes to LMCD. (It should be noted that this sillage would have to be converted to tax capacity and such should M be_reflected . "in the review 'doaumerlt.) _This tas' would ever one in the community, whether they ark 1 =kesho =e o 4 5 not (a lthough theoretically persons oa'•lakeshore are , .0 aying higher rates because of the lakeshore values) p • but'_ -�. -» _ ,person in Plymouth could be closer to 'the lake than - �som eo aw In Orono,. • yet.not t. have to�'.pay_ this tax.. " • - -'`':advaa.tige is7tbe '.City- `lrould4`gatnT�a _ _ _ =: ..� additionally allowed tax levy if LMCD .levied its revenue separate "from the City. S. Area q_ �_ Le_vy - This proposal would be to take up to a mill from the entire county based on the rationale that 91% of the users come from Hennepin County together with 601 of the users coming from the 14 surrounding communities. This scheme at the level proposed would subject people in Orono to an additional $100,000 tax so that they are liable for over $200,000 from the current under $20,000. This does not mean that LMCD will raise this amount but the authority to do so is there on their own volition without any control from the Cities as it presently exists. C, p_ Fees - In addition to the marinas the LMCD would be promoting the creation of a Metropolitan Boat sticker as a Lake Minnetonka Boat sticker is "not saleable" but the LMCD would then receive a share of the funds generated from these sticker sales and that people would not be able to use the lake without such stickers. Additional potentials for user fees could be charging selected fees for operation of public accesses. D. Grants /Donations - These would be used for special projects. E. Gr_ ant /donations - The LMCD desires the power to specially assess select properties on the lake for items such as removals by LMCD of delipated buildings. • • If the LMCD is to continue kestandpoint plan the user need fee additional funding. Fr om Orono's approach would be the most could be gauged on the horsepower particularly a boat sticker horsepower of the boat, as the larger boats and larger horsepowera are the one that bring to bear the most conflict among users on the lake. The proposed levy maximums are. however a ; concern and should be looked at. without some City input tLa rate maximums. • ahoudl .be substantially less. landin f Non-L_ MCD End r .a f ollows ' For other entities funding would be County Lake Management Dis t - Their budget would be subject to the approval of the County Hoard C� F its own Progress or a Joint Po_ wers - The cities, some of which are over 2,500 would be subject to levy limitations to accomodate any more funding within their current levy limits would be difficult. (It should, be noted that levy limits are anticipated to come off for payable 1993.) Metro Agencies /DNR - Funding for the lake from these sources would be dwpendent on annual political decisions and priorities not only on Lake Minnetonka, but on other lakes through the state. In addition which LMCD would not be out promoting increased facilities on the lake, independant agencies may on their own motivation indep promote separate facilities which may be done in a way that brings that agency into conflict with the City and property owners. • e one upside of removing any direct regulatory body on the lake is to determine whether tr:p self limiting. If it is then government regulation may in fact be a waste of time. If it is not, reinstitution of some format may take a long time and require remaking compromises already made in the past. It would seem to•make sense that the appropriate shares for funding should bear some relation to those who benefit from the actual use on the lake. No comparison as such has been directly made in portioning out these funding sources. If the funding is to be apportioned to various group the argument follows to a degree, that governance should be proportioned on the same basis. Finally the issue of governance relates to selection of the representatives. Presently it is based on nomination by the Council and they have put in provisions for recall of the person short of their three year term. Alternatives would be either election by community or election by zone. Such however may be a key as to how such control the City Council has in its -input -to Lm= if it continues. U i 1 A AY managgeedd to maintain the lake's regional role as a general bating lake . . . including fishing. 2. Amomut b udgeted : (10.000 3. Product time live July Jan July -4n July 1991 1992 1992 _'"•7 1993 40110101 ipral rM title: Aerel% ai Action Prop for Public Access to Lake Miuumotanka ' ' 0161 Teal: Ntci�oet T 11 Pbone: (612) 296 -64I3 Address: Bepartment of Natural Resources Trails and Waterways Unit Boa 52 -500 Lafayette Road Saint Paul. Minnesota SSISS -4052 Local Manag Eugene R. Stromeau Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, Miocusota 55341 i.r This action program will develop a plan for public access and enhanced there use on Lake Minnetonka. 1. Narrative: The 1990 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) ManaWment Plan for Lake Minnetonka, projecting a set of management objectives fer the next 2S years. calls for developing a public access plan. The Minnasota Department of Natural Resources will participate in its development. The outcome is to achieve 700 car /trailer public parking spaces in formally identified locations. This program will also address a balanced distribution of access points to accemo date small fishing and recreation boats, determining specific access locations. Shore access through identified and improved shore fishing, walkways. pedestrian lookouts and fishing piers will also be determined. I1,. Objectives: A. ''.1. Narrative: Establish an action plan with state, regional an ocsl agencies fulfilling a L14CstManagement Plan gas ur l n lake use . he public use . . . 4. Benefits: a. TrTn'g implementing agencies together to assure cooperative action. b. Analyze alternatives to reach the desired action play while resolving differences. c. Establish site specific locations and size criteria. B. 1. Narrative: Conduct a site specific analysis of needed free o�T parking /ramped boat accesses in arras of the lake not now being adequately served. and replacing sub - standard accesses. 2. Amount budget $40,000 3. Froductct timeline July Jan July Jan July 1991 1992 1992 1993 1993 4. Benefits: amide state. regional and local managers with a statement of need for access to specific lake areas. b. Forge a cooperative program for determining location. size, priority of future public access acquisition. c. Develop the Mtn base needed for the Action Program of Public Access. C. 1. Narrative: Survey shore areas for passive recreational opportunities involving fishing. walkways. pedestrian lookouts and piers. 2. Amount budeeted: $15.000 J. Product time line July Jan July Jan July 1991 - 1992 1992 1993 1993 Q M Or . , IMA, t . • . �1+ • V�.�i: +..a.••.A..M :w. red: . bison pub1In no f tow the above for passive lake `. Emma a � am Model f4 hise aestwtic Co too to an pNemtlal geode to the 1= . relieving ' rater outface use density. IL L nerntivg: Smiap on Action plan with re4sived budgets. any reapensibility and scheduled bwpleaentatiem for romped beat access and shore access to lake Mlmnetewka Involving public/prlvate partnerships. 2. AM mt budgeted: $M eM0 . 3. n July "a July ismi July 1"3 Im 4. kaefl abllsAes a Model for agreenents on access to other heavily used lakes to the state. b. 0e■omstrates Means to enlist publiciprivate supported Action ►rogue■ for access to Minnesota lakes. C. Identifies the location and extent of access to the Ube. • d. Mininbtes controversy, prevents legal action. tit. Content-. the above issues have been at the ferefroat of Lake Mimnetooka's public interest for close to a decade. Aewloo■ent of the Labe ilimmatsnka Conservation district's iomprohraxVe Aaeegeoent plan. a ectien. has acbioved conaenoae the 14 lake p amore ties and Involved regional and state agencies. The specific plan for achieving the significant &toss objectives will be started thromgb this proposal. 1ho i redo pregraw for Lake Minnetonka establishes eraall object ve of one car /trailer parking space for each 20 sores of gross lahe serfaee. As parkin= to formal, controlled lets iotremsas, em- straot parking will be rt aced. PUk An 1 agtoo�owt m■Mg the se�micipalltt rptemal{ M W state agencies will be included as an outcewe N this strs- Tbo plan most be acceptable to these stakeholders in the lake. ]J6 the sane time it rat fulfill the public policy piled for to tine, Managomoat plan for lake access. The loplomentatton is Intend@ to involve private interests r presentiag com jai licensed deck facilities IN partan"b" with the municipalities. With impleweatatiem of this plan. the tow -pear history of conflict over ramped boat access to Lake Minmetonka will be settled. MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472 -3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 5449511 EMERGENCY 911 TO: Ed Shukle IRON: Len Harrell SUBJECT: Drug Task Force June 25, 1990 The Drug Task Force will be having a meeting in which your presence and the presence of the mayor and council are requested. The meeting will discuss future concerns for the Drug Task Force and representatives from each of the eight communities repre- sented on the task force are being requested to attend. The meeting will be held at the Carver County Sheriff's office in Chaska. The meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on July 18, 1990, and should take no longer than one hour to 1 1/2 hours. Please extend thi.s invitation to the mayor and council. ijen krrell, Chief LH/ sh • Sot ' APAO&IOR A4 everyone know4, there ate p4obtem4 that at.ise in t.i6e where there 46 no pen6ect 4otut.ion. 16 a ptobtem i4 perpte-xing enough, and aster many po44ate 4otut.i,on4 have been tt.ied, one may have to 4ettte on the one that proves Most workabte. Ocea4.ionatty however, thi6 te44 than pe46ect 4otut.i.on can cau4e unexpected tuutt4. Two weeks ago .in th.it paper, a Mound to i.dent voiced hi-6 anger about an appa4ent pot.icy dec.i4.ion by city emptoyee4 concetn.i.ng the wood 6tom ttee4 removed U Mound. Hii attack on those involved 4eemed logical and t6 h.i.4 <aet4 were eotteet, one might beet h.is anger 1ust.i6.ied. At this point, a bit o6 explaining .L4 tequ.ited to cottect the me44 eau4ed by a Less than .i,deat sotution to a ptobtem I've 6aeed Got many year4. The ptobtem has been dealing with te4.ident4 who want the wood 6tom ttee4 cut in Mound. Thete i4 mote to the ptobtem than one might initially 4u6peet. Fot a number o6 yeat4 in the late 70 and Batty 80 I wa4 giving wood 6rom . ttee4 to to i.dent4 who a4ked Got it. At a later date, however, I wa4 Batted back to pick up the flame wood. t bound that about *'0% o6 the peopte who 4o eatnestty de the wood bound it to be too much work Got them. So theAe it would 44,t totting untdt city halt tece.ived a call, u4uatty 64om a neighbot, about the eye note next door. 06ten t.i.me4 it wa4 put that 1 wa4 the cau4e o6 the eye cote Got leaving the wood in the 6.i44t place. The ne.ighboti weten't pteased, and city hatt de6.initety wasn't pteased Got they had to pay me Got picking up the same wood twice. A policy dec.us.ion wa4 made iii about 1987 - no mote leaving wood 6tom city ttee4 - haut it all away. Now the ptobtem atone; what to Lett those tuident4 who Stitt asked Got .it. I'm sure one can i.mag.ine the tupon4e I got when I ttied to ex- plain the new pct.icy. Long den.i,ats that they weten't going to let it sit unused. A hew times I t4ied explaining to them what 1 did with the good wood, Got it wa4 r.evet wasted. 14otd it to neighbo4i.ng 6atme46 out where I live Got the cost o6 the 6uet it took to haul it. That explanation incensed a hew peopte at-5c, a6tet all the trees were thei.n4 - on Mound city ptopetty. It seemed I eoutdn't win. Along about the flame time I did give a hew trees to Geno and other city emptoyee4 upon the.it teque4t. I'd depo4.it ,them at a city tot and usuatty ovet- night the togs would be cut up and hauled away. A couple times white - %emoving those trees 6rom the.it gtow.ing location, I would be a4ked by a tuident to leave the u, Instead o6 getting into the mess with tty.ing to explain city policy 1 4.impty flay Geno and the 4tteet department were u4.ing it. No one evet had a ptobtem accepting that tea.6on. So I've been u4ing that tea4on even 6i.nce, even though 1 1 ve been haut.ing it out o6 the city att togethet. 1 have some etos.ing tematk4 to the cu ident who brought all this out in the public eye. Fi46t o6 all, I apologize to you s.ve Got the deception on my pant 15575 Oxfnfy Tow 45. (!mvo, Jl mra* 55315 y� .04 to the Meal Re46009 I couldn't leave you the wood. Secondly, you w4.6Quoted Sts, wh rA gave a CoWtetely d iJexent colon to the actual encountrA that day. �I neveA bads I wouldn't leave you tke wood because i Mb "ej" d I would lobe the ContAact with the City ". RatheR, aiteR tet.Ung you the wood wab 6 poken bat 'gou abked at to leave 4owe big logo anyway, that Gene wouldn't know tke dkiJeRence. G"atet it wa a deception I wn C /teating but my tRue tupon6e wa woae to the f4ject that I didn't app+tecdate you a6hing at to jeopaedize my contaact joR you4 pwonal gain Am the city t4u6ted we to comply with theist poti.c -i.eb. TVAdly, once you've taken caae o6 the un6.ightty me66 o6 wood debut p Ued in your yaad that hab been 4itt ng unu6ed box yeau, call me and I'll de,fi.vex a city twee to you 46 an expKe66.ion o6 apology, not bo much to you 61-4 but to the city employeeb you ctitiazed due 'o wy lebb than .ideal bolutiun. • • E LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS A G E N D A Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 28, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall WT ,JUN 2 5 SM 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 7:00 p.m.: Meeting preceded by Public Information Meeting on Inter-Agency Dredging Agreement 7:30 p.m.: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: 5 -23 -90 Regular Meeting 4. Public Comments - from persons in attendance not on agenda 5. Reports A. Chair Cochran 1) Consideration for amending LMCD By Laws or administrative prerogative to change the order of business for Board agenda • 2) Announcements: * Po!-lic Officials Lake Inspection Tour, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Saturday, August 4, from Lafayette Club .B. Finaacisl Reports, Treasurer Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions, month ending 5 -31 -90 2) Audit v_ youchers for payment 3) A.,..ual Budget proposal for Fiscal Year 1991, 1 -1 -91 to 12 -31 -91 C. St. ;nding Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol (no minutes) a) Temporary Dock Extension requests for: • Hary T. Kreslins, Greenwood, St. Alban's Bay, for 8 feet • St. Alban's Bay Marina, Inc., four foot dock platform for gas dock access from boats • Shorewood Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., eight foot dock platform for gas dock access from boats • Tonka Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., four foot dock platform for gas dock access from boats Recommending approval as requested, no navigation interference b) Additional business recommended by the committee 2) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 6 -18-90 (over) I- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT IMCD Board Agenda June 28, 1990 Page 2 5. C. 2) b) 'Wayzata Chamber of Commerce July 4 special Event Permit recommending approval for fireworks shoot from barire .n Wayzata Bay c) Deposit refunds, recommending approval for Westonka M.D.A. Fishing Contest; Lord Fletchers Canoe Race, application denied d) Water level reference point for Water Patrol public inquiry response, recommending use of 9 28.6' a vation e) Recommendation to rescind Board action of 5 -23 -90 denying Code change to modify waterski observer rule for certain low -use days, with a further recommendation for staff to develop a waterski- observer rule modification under certain low lake -use conditions including require- ment that operator be 18 years of age or older c) Personal Watercraft information and education program request by Kawasaki jet ski dealers, recon_iending denial g) Additional busire�s recommendcd by the committee * Charter boat liquor license requireuents V 5. C. 3) ADVISORIt C0MMI=- E, Chair Raacop a) Progress on public review comment through close of comment period of June 18, 1990 0 b) Reschedule of 4dvisury Committee review of conaulLant'n respcnse to public comments, set for 7100 p.m. Thursday, June 28, 1990, Tonka Bay City Hall 5. C. 4) ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese a) curasian Water Milfoil Task Force progress b) Weed harvesting upoate * Progress on permit of 1,5:50 acres * Equipment condition and operation * Re2earch progress on alternate treatment methods * Funding progresb 5. D. Executive Director's Report, Strommen 1) Staff vacation plans; temporary r'erical assistant Aimee Meyer 2) U.S. Army Corps o`_ Engineers meting 7- 25 -90, ?• "1 p.m, to 10 p.m., regarding Federal Man.ial Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetiands 6. Unfinished Business 7. New Business 8. Ad journmenL f 6 -21-90 w LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS FWD JUN 2 5 1990 Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., May 23, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Call t�_ Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call. Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Marvin B3orlin, Tonka Bay; Jan Boswinkel, Secretary, Minnetonka Beach; David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Jchn Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thoma3 Reese, Mound. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; DuWayne Schibilla, Auditor; Euga_,e Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: James Grathwol, Excelsior; John Malinka, Victoria; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka, Robert Slocum, Woodland. 3. Reading of Minutes: Hurr moved, Biorl.in seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 25, 1990 meeting as submitted. Motion carried, Rascop abstaining. 4. Pubic Comments: There were no requests to be heard from persons in attendance n -3t on the agenda. ® 5. Reports A. Chair Cochran 1) MN DNR Shoreland Grant Contract. Cochran reported the MN DUR Shoreland Grant Contract is ready for the fourteen member cities approval. 2) MN DNR Management Plan Reimbursement Contract States. Cochran reported the contract for management plan partial fund reimbursement is being signed by the MN DNR and the funds shou_d be available befora the next Board meeting. The $40,000. will be recorded as a reimbursement to the Management Plan contract expense. 3) Management Plan Public Review. Public hearings on the Management Plan will be held June 6, 1990, 1 p.m. and 7 p.m. at the Minnetonka City Hall. Each member is to make a special effort to invite the elected officials anO staff of the city s /he represents tc the public hearing. B. Financial Reports, Treasurer Lewman ® 1) Statement of Cash Transactions Lewman submitted the stateme - .t of cash transar:tionp as of April 30, 1990. It was accepted by the Board and ordered filed. 1 C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Babcock for Chair Grathwol a) Boswinkel moved, Rascop seconded, approval of the minutes of the 5-12 -90 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. b) Temporary Law Water Variances Babcock moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of the committee recommendation to approve the following temporary low water variances: Smithtown Bay Association, Smithtown Bay, Victoria * Baycliffe Property Owners Assn., South tapper Lake, Victoria (The dock will be moved so there is no encroachment within the 15 foot setback to the southwest) * Jennings Cove Dock Owners Assn., Jennings Bay, Minnetrista Lafayette Club, Crystal Pay, Minnetonka Beach * Minnetonka Yacht Cj /Lake Minnetonka Sailing School, Carsons & St.,Louis Bays, Deephaven Motion carried unanimously. 2 LMCD Board of Directors May 23, 1890 2) Audit of Vouchers for Payment Lewman moved, Hurr seconded, approval of bills in the amount of $22,740.85, checks numbered 6078 through 6145. Motion carried unanimously. 3? Annual Audit, Year Ending 12/31/90 Lewman presented the 1989 annual audit and management letter prepared by DuWayne Schibilla. He noted the variance from the budget in the incon;,; and expenditures. This results because there was no budget in 1989 for the Eurasian Water Milfoil program included in the administrative budget. Schibilla reviewed the two recommendations in the management letter. He recommends changing the chart of accounts to eorrespord to the budgeting process. Rascop recommended using the state uniform chart of accounts. Staff will review the current method and state chart of accounts and report to the Board with a re ^ommendation. He also stated !aims for payment should be accompanied by a disclai LhAt t -e claim is gust and correct and that no part of it been paid. He suggested this be conveniently handled by ha, .,& the disclaimer imprinted above the endorsement section on the reverse of the check. This is a statutory requirement. Staff will order a stamp for this purpose until the new supply of checks is exhausted. 4. First Quarter 1990 Balance Sheet. The Board received the first quarter balance sheet and ordered it filed. C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Babcock for Chair Grathwol a) Boswinkel moved, Rascop seconded, approval of the minutes of the 5-12 -90 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. b) Temporary Law Water Variances Babcock moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of the committee recommendation to approve the following temporary low water variances: Smithtown Bay Association, Smithtown Bay, Victoria * Baycliffe Property Owners Assn., South tapper Lake, Victoria (The dock will be moved so there is no encroachment within the 15 foot setback to the southwest) * Jennings Cove Dock Owners Assn., Jennings Bay, Minnetrista Lafayette Club, Crystal Pay, Minnetonka Beach * Minnetonka Yacht Cj /Lake Minnetonka Sailing School, Carsons & St.,Louis Bays, Deephaven Motion carried unanimously. 2 LMCD Board of Directors May 29, 1990 c) Dock License Renewals. Boswinkel moved, Lewman seconded, to approve the the following dock license renewals, including Orders and stipulations: * Lafayette C1ub,East Crystal Bsy, Minnetonka Beach * Pizelli's on the Lake, Seton Lake, Spring Park, with name change from Pizza on the Lake. Motion carried unanimously. d) Dock License Renewals (Pending City Approval) Boswinkel moved, Martinson seconded, approval of the following dock license renewals, including Orders and stipulations, pending city approval of zoning certificates: * Gayle's Marina (need $100 late fee) * Grays Bay Resort & Marina * The Harborage * Jennings Cove Dock Owners Assn. * Johnston, Adeline D. * Loring Acres Beach Assn. * Maple Crest Estates * Minnetonka Portable Dredging * St. Albans Bay Marina • * Smith's Bay Marina * Smithtown Bay Association Motion carried unanimously. e) Bean's Greenwood Marina - Minor Adjustment to 1990 Dock License Hurr moved, Lewman seconded, to approve P temporary change in the Bean's Greenwood Marina 1990 dock license to move slip 0101 from its location next to slip 098to a location next to slip #6. Motion carried unanimously. f) City of Deephaven Environmental Assessment Torksheet The executive director reported the water surface use of 7,668 square feet for the eight new slips is arrived at by taking 1 -1/2 times the slip depth for the water surface use area, plus dockage. Foster moved, Hurr seconded, approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the City of Deephaven dock expansion and authorize its distribution and publication as required by the Environmental Quality Board. Motion carried unanimously. • 3 j.Xa. LMCD Board of Directors May 29, low s g. !linnehaha Creep Watershed District - Dredging Vioiatift Woody Love, Board of Managers Member, and Jim Mahady Consulting Engineer, representing the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) reported their findings regarding Gayle's Marina's dredging violation. Love requested L4CD support in bringing the marina into compliance with MCWD rulers and dredging policy. He stressed that this violation has nothing to do with litigation between Gayle's Marina and MCWD on another matter. Love explained the MCWD responded to a complaint about dredging at Gayle's Marina, insrected the site and found a non - permitted channel was being dredged by the owner, who is not a licensed contractor. The channel is wider (30') and deeper (921.7) than the MCWD would periait (15 923.6'). In addition spoil was being used to build up an embankment on shore, and some spoil was believed to be cast aside in the Lake. Love said the DNR is joining the MCWD in enforcement and Love requested LMCD support. Responding to a question from Rascop, Love said they asked the owner to cease, but by then the project was completed. The DNR indicates they may ask for restoration with clean fill. Hurr stated her opinion that the LMCD has no authority over dredging. Lefevere responded that the multiple dock license requires compliance with all legal state agencies. He urged the Board to proceed with caution because any action taken to revoke the marina's license would have to be based on another agency's ordinance. He suggested resolution of support of the MCWD would be appropriate. Rascop suggested commending the MCWD for their actions and encourage them to issue citations. Babcock's suggestion to continue the discussion in committee was accepted. Babcock asked Love to keep the LMCD informed of actions taken. h) Use of Lake Water for Lawn Sprinkling The Board received a suggested communication from Cochran to all the Lake communities suggesting they implement a requirement in their lawn sprinkling bans to include water drawn from the Lake. Foster's opinion ►at the amount of water withdrawn from the Lake has a minimal impact. He feels it is important to maintain the lawns and shrubs on the lakeshore but would discourage the use of fertilizers. Boswinkel favors the letter, stating use of lake water, dredging, and fertilization, while individually small, all add up to an effect on the Lake. Rascop said this is a means of indicating the District is also worried about the water table. Rascop moved, Boswinkel seconded, to commend Cochran for the letter he has written and to authorize forwarding it to the cities. Motion carried, Foster voting nay. • 4 • LMCD Board of Directors May 29, 1990 • i) Priority Study Items *Wetlands inventory - Babcock moved, Reese seconded, approval of a letter to the cities requesting assistance in preparing a wetlands inventcry, the letter to include the details in the management plan, including the scale of the maps and a definition of wetlands. Motion carried unanimously. *Code Amendment Regarding Amenities - Hurr moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of a Code amendment categorizing and valuating amenities required in Section 2.05, including additions to Subd. "B" and 'i," as recommended by the Committee, the Code amendment to be prepared and placed on the June 27 Board agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Rascop questioned the appropriateness of fees charged for amenities. Hurr noted the Code allows appropriate fees to be charged by the licensee when necessLry. j) City of Wayzata EAW Findings of Fact Recommendations The executive director reported the MN DNR and the Metropolitan Council found no problem with the EAW and their comments have been "incorporated in the Findings of Fact. Martinson moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval and distribution of the Findings of Fact and Recommendations in the matter of the City of Wayzata EAW involving a request for the addition of 15 slips to the northerly most of two lagoons in its city marina on Wayzata Bay. Motion carried unanimously. 5. C. 2) ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese. a) Martinson moved, Hurr seconded, ac of the Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force minutes of 4 -22 -90 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. b) Eurasian Water Milfoil Program Planning Reese reported as follows: 0 * Two harvesters are in the Lake for operator training as of 5 -23. * Reese has met the personnel and is impressed by them. * UMI has been training the Hennepin Parks and LMCD personnel. It also has completed warranty maintenance on the LMCD harvesters. * Harvesting is to start 5 -2° with media being advised. * A four wheel drive truck and a trailer have not been confirmed as yet. * $39,000 has been collected toward the $55,000 volunteer fund goal. 5 LMCD Board of Directors May 23, 1990 b) Underwater Found Obstruction (UFO) Progress Reese reported the UFO program is underway. A sample buoy is on display at the LMCD office and ten more have been ordered. An information flyer will be prepared. Boswinkel suggested a display at local shopping malls. c) Dredging Policy Interagency Agreement Hurr moved, Foster seconded, to accept the committee recommendation to authorize an informational hearing on a Lake Minnetonka Dredging Policy Interagency Agreement among DNR, MCWD and LMCD, the meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. before the 6 -27 Board meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 5. C. 3) LA[M USE, Vice Chair Foster for Chair Pillsbury a) Foster moved, Rascop seconded, approval of the minutes of the 5 -21 -90 Lake Use Committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously. b) V*Ur Ski Slalom Course Voiter moved, BJorlin seconded, continuation of. the arrAkMt1) !or a slalom water ski course for Carey Manson and the Westonka Water Ski Residents under the same terms and conditions as 1989. Motion carried unanimously. c) Water Ski Observer Requirement Foster moved, Reese seconded, to request the LMCD attorney draft a code amendment regarding the water ski observer rule to be changed to 1) eliminate the need for an observer on non - holiday Mondays through Friday Noon. 2) Require standard-- curved rear -view water skiing mirror equipment on the boat when an observer is not used. 3) Eliminate the reference to between Memorial Day and Labor Day ". 4) Include a provision which would allow the Water Patrol to require an observer when there is sufficient congestion on the lake to warrant it in their Judgment. DISCUSSION: Hurr stated she would be opposed because it creates a dangerous situation. Foster noted the LMCD code is more stringent than Minnesota State law. Rascop would oppose the changes as he does not believe it would be enforceable by delegating a judgment call to the Water Patrol. Cochran stated opposition because of the danger involved. Lefevere said it could be worded in a manner to give the Water Patrol authority if they issued a warning. If the skier continued it would then be a - continued N LMCD Board of Directors May 29, 1990 ` �y . failure to follow an order of a law enforcement officer. Chandler reported there are occasions, under the current Code, when they issue citations for no observer aboard during the week when the skier is the only boat on that portion of the Lake. VOTE: Reese, Foster, Martinson and Babcock voted aye. Hurr, Rascop, Cochran, Bjorlin, Boswinkel and Lewman voted nay. Motion failed. d) Special Event Application - Canoe Races Lord Fletcher's Restaurant has made application for a special event permit to hold canoe races in their dock use area to the edge of the channel and back. Foster moved, Bjorlin seconded, to deny a special event permit for canoe races at Lord Fletcher's. Hurr moved, Cochran seconded, to table the application for additional information. Reese, Cochran, Martinson and Hurr voted aye. Babcock, Bjorlin, Boswinkel, Lewman, Foster and Rascop voted nay. Motion failed. VOTE ON MOTION TO DENY: Motion carried, Hurr and Martinson voting nay. d) Personal Watercraft Ordinance The committee recommends two changes to the draft Ordinance regarding Personal Watercraft: 1) Delete the first sentence of Subd. 8 regarding age of operator and 2) Add to Subd. 11 Prolonged Operation. Person in control of such personal watercraft shall be subject to citation. Foster reported Minnesota Statutes require an operator of a personal water craft of more than 25 hp and under age 13 must be accompanied by an adult in the watercraft. At the suggestion of counsel the entire Subd. 8 could be eliminated and Subd. 10A changed to read Gperator Permit required by law. Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the third reading of An Ordinance Relating to Personal Watercraft be approved and ordered published accepting the following amendments: 1) Delete Subd. 0 of Section 3.041 and re- number 2) Change Subd. 10 (a) of Section 3.041 to read Operator Permit as required by law. 3) Add to Subs. 11 of Section 3.041 the word Person in control of such personal watercraft shall be subject to citation. Motion carried unanimously. e) Pontoon Boat Rental - Lord Fletcher's Wm. Streeter and Bill Pearson have made application for a special event license to allow rental of small battery- operated pontoon boats from the Lord Fletcher's dock use area. h r sr� UICID Board of Directors Nor 2X 1 Foster moved, Martinson seconded, approval of a spoon_ event permit to permit rental of battery powered watercraft W) according to the application of Wm. Streeter and Bill Pearson. DISCUSSION: Lefevere commented thet without a special use permit this would not be a lawful use because the boats are being stored on the beach. The Code could be amended to take canoes and non- restricted water craft out of the ordinance. In the interim this could be tried for this season. Hurr objects to usurping the ordinance by giving a "use variance ". Hurr expressed concern about this type of boat in the channel until it p.m. Babcock indicated concern with re- ac.t'ng on a week to week basis on various requests. Responding to questions, Streeter said they would provide paddles on the boats, life vests in addition to the cushion type preserver, will not allow alcoholic beverages. He submitted a letter from Spring Park stating the city has no problem with the activity, but it cannot be conducted from Naegele's adjoining residential zoned parcel. They will operate from the west end of the Lord Fletcher property where the boats will enter into a "slow" area. Chandler said he has not seen a permit application but is concerned about night operation of this type of watercraft. There were comments to the effect that the idea is a good one for giving people • access to the Lake but this is not a good location. VOTE: Reese, Foster, Lewman and Martinson voted aye. Hurr, Bjorlin, Cochran and Rascop voted nay. Babcock and Boswinkel abstained. Motion failed. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Responding to a question from Foster, Lefevere stated there is reason to believe there would be a problem in setting a precedent if this were approved. Hurr spoke to the credibility of the Board if ordinances are circumvented. Martinson reminded the Board they have a commitment to add 350 parking spaces and this proposal goes a long way to give more people access to the Lake. Questions were raised about the full season special use permit. C, :hran moved, Reese seconded, to reconsider the motion previously denied, provided there is wording to indicate this is an experiment. Reese, Foster, Cochran, Martinson and Lewman voted aye. Hurr, Bjorlin, Rascop and Babcock voted nay. Boswinkel abstained. Motion carried. Foster moved, Martinson seconded. to approve a special use permit for rental of battery powered watercraft from Lord . Fletcher's with the restriction that the applicant have a paddle - continued 1.1 i LOM Hoard of Direators May 89, 1NO on the boat. the operation terminate to review by the Board at any time. for the 1990 boating season, but the this type of boat for lake access. Motion carried, Hurr, Rascop Boswinkel abstaining. at sundown, the permit open This is be an experiment S board sees a potential in and Babcock voting nay, f) Water Patrol Report Chandler had no further information for the report given to the Lake Use committee on May 21. g) Late Inspection Tour The lake inspection tour is scheduled for 7:30 a.m., Saturday, 6-9 -90. Boarding will be at Minnetonka Boat Works. If there should be priority items for consideration by the Water Structures committee a meeting will be held at 7:15 a.m. A Water Patrol representative, Denis Bailey and Commodore Roger Arendt, Lake Minnetonka Power Squadron, have been invited as special guests. h) Special Event Deposit Refund • is Foster moved, Bjorlin seconded, approval of a special event deposit refund of $100 to Holiday- Johnson Crappie Contest as recommended by the committee. Motion carried unanimously. 5. D. Executive Director's Report Strommen 1) The executive director reported 45 applications for the Administrative Technician position have been reviewed. Chair Cochran and the executive director interviewed eight candidates. Four candidates have been selected for a final interview. The executive director proposes the four officers and immediate past Chair Hurr participate in the final selection and authorize the hiring of an Administrative Technician from the four finalists. The annual compensation range is up to $22,000. with benefits as detailed in the personnel policy. Bjorlin moved, Babcock seconded, to approve the most qualified candidate for the Administrative Technician position as determined by the interviewing committee. Motion carried unanimously. Reese asked if the Board desires to be involved in the selection process. The executive director indicated any board member would be welcome to attend the interviews. Cochran said he would want any board participants to see all candidates being interviewed. The executive director assured Rascop that funds are budgeted and /or available through contract adjustments approved by the Board. 9 L. , . LMCD Board of Directors May 23, 1190 The executive director reported temporary adjustments will O be made in the office meeting room area for desk space, and additional space is needed. 2) Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) The executive director reported the LMCD applications for grant funds did not pass the screening review. Contact was made with Senator Earl Renneke, an LCMR member. Mike Markel - MN DNR was most supportive. There was considerable competition for the funds. Continued lobbying was encouraged. 3) Presentation The executive director reported he will make a presentation on Lake User Conflict to the Central Minnesota Lake Manag , -ment Conference and apl.ear as a presentor and panel member on May 25 at Madden's Lodge, Brainerd. 6. Unfinished Business 1) Babcock reported the Hennepin County Board voted to cap the last open well on Lake Minnetonka. 2) Cochran noted a letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources -Lating they will not issue a permit for diversion of water from the Mississippi or Crow Rivers for augmentation of Lake Minnetonka. 7. Other 1) Chair Cochran circulated a "Thank You" from .roan Mansk to the Board for a birthday gift arranged by the executive director. 2) Cochran reminded the members to contact the city councils and mayors to attend the June 6 Public Hearing on the Management Plan. 8. Adjournment The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. David Cochran, Chair Jan Boswinkel, Secretary 0 lU C7 REC JUN 2 5 VV NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Wednesday, July 25, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. is A public hearing will be held before the Metropolitan Transit Commission or. Wednesday, July 25, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the MTC Commission Chambers, 560 6th Ave. No., Minneapolis, for the purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed discontinuance of week -day bus service on MTC Route 36 serving Minnetonka, Edina and St. Louis Park and for the prop .)sed subcontracting of Saturday do Sunday bus service on MTC Route 51 serving Minnetonka, Wayzata, Orono, Mound, Navarre and Spring Park. 0