The URL can be used to link to this page

83-06-2116. Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 46, Regulation of Traffic, Vehi'cles, Bicycles and Parking - Cardigan Lane 17. Report on Rate Increase from Continental Telephone - Verbal Report - Increase from $21.90 to $28.30 per month 18. Sidewalk Safety Program - Verbal Report 19. Payment of Bills 20. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Special Meeting - Park Commission June 23rd at 7:30 P.M. B. Copy of 'Final' Lake Minnetonka Task Force Report C. Letter from City Prosecuting Attorney D. Clipping on Tonka Corporation E. Miscellaneous Planning Handouts from League of Cities Conve~tion F. Westonka Chamber Waves - June 1983 G. Metropolitan Council - Review H. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Meeting Notice & Minutes I. Local Planning Assistance Newsletter d. Announcement of'HUD Grand Approval - City of Mound for $100,000. Pg. 1572 Pg. 1573-1575 Pg. 1576-1578 Pg. 1579 'Pg. 1580 Pg. 1581-1633 Pg. 1634-1635 Pg. 1636 Pg. 1637-1662 Pg. 1663-1664 Pg. 1665-1666 Pg. 1667-1678 Pg. 1679-1680 Pg. 1681-1684 Page 1484 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL June 7, 1983 :89 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5341Maywood Road in said City on June 7, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Gary Paulsen. Councilmember Swenson was absent and excused. Councilmember Peterson arri'ved late at 9:30 P.M. Also present were: City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Manager Jon Elam, City Clerk Fran Clark and Police Chief Bruce Wold, and the following interested citizens: Frank Hancuch, Jerry Pietrowski, Pete Ward, Larry Connelly, Buzz Sycks, Bud Stannard, Kaye Westerlund, Ron Gehring, Gregory Pederson, Charles Peugh. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the May 17, 1983, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the May 17, 1983, Regular Meeting as presented, The'vote was.unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Minutes of the May 31, 1983, Board of Review were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the May 31, 1983, Board of Review as presented The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Mayor asked that Larry Conn~lly, promoter'of the "Blue Water Daze" Celebrat-ion in Mound be recognized for all his work and for getting the Celebration recognized nationally. ABC television will carry some short footage of the Blue Water Daze Celebration at 7:00 A.M., Wednesday, June 15, 1983, on Good Morning America. The Council then decided to move from the regular Agenda to the Planning Commission Items starting with #3 and come back to #2 on the Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS ; CASE #83-226 - GREGORY S.. PEDERSON - 6087 ASPEN ROAD - LOT 18, BROOKTON - PID #14-117-24 31 OO19 - FRONT YARD VARIANCE The City Manager explained that the applicant has applied for a 12 foot front yard variance to allow the construction of an attached 20' x 24' garage within 18 feet of Clover Circle front yard setback, with the doors to face the Aspen Road driveway entrance with a 50 £oot setback ~ from his other front yard setback. The Planning Commission has recommended approval. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-90 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD 12 FOOT VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 18, BROOKTON (6087 ASPEN ROAD) PID #14-117-24 31 0019 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. June 7, 19~3 CASE # 83-227 - VALERIE SWENSON - 5005 AVON DRIVE - LOT 2, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "B" - PID #24-117-24 14 O041 MISCELLANEOUS VARIANCES The City Manager explained that the applicant had previously applied for a variance and it was denied. The applicant has reapplied and reduced the size of the garage by 5 feet and now needs building setback variances to allow the existing non-conforming side yards of 6.6 ft. and 1.2 ftL and to add an attached two-story garage to be placed 5 ft. to 7 ft. from the west property line, 6 ft. to the east property line, and 5 ft. to 21 ft. from the north property line; the lakeside 20 ft. by 20 ft. addition, would 6e placed 6 feet and 13 feet from 'each side side property line with the existing porch to be removed. The Planning Commission have recommended approval of these variances due to the topography of the property, narrowness of the lot, and relief to the landowner. The Planning Commission conditioned its recommended approval asking that the owner bring the existing structure up to current.building code. 'The owner has submitted a letter stating that the following will be done: - Repaim exisiting foundation to current building code (floor and support system). - Rewire existing building to meet electrical code. - Plumbing in existing building will be inspected. - Remove existing porch on the lakeside of the property. - Roof lines may change but the roof height will not be altered. - Replace siding with cedar. - If necessary, relocate sewer and water lines. The Council asked that the above conditions be incorporated in the resolution of approval. ~. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-91 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION'TO APPROVE VARIOUS VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "B" (5005 AVON DRIVE) PID #24-117-24 14 OO41 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #83-228 - CHALES PEUGH, SIGNCRAFTERS (FOR BURGER CHEF) - 5025 SHORELINE BLVD. - LOTS 3,4,5,6, 36 & PART OF 2 & 37, BLOCK l, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "F" - PID #13-117-24 43 Olll The Ci.ty Manager explained that this sign permit is to replace the Burger Chef sign with an Hardee's sign. The Hardee's sign will be slightly smaller than the Burger Chef sign. The signs will be placed in the same locations as the existing signs. The Planning Commission has recommended approval. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded 'the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-92 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOTS 3,4,5,6, 36 & 24 FT. OF 2 & 49 FT. OF 37, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "F" (5025 SHORELINE DRIVE) PID #13-117-24 43 Olll The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. June 7, 1983 91 CASE #83L223 - CATALYST PROPERTIES, INC. - PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA - PID #13-117-24 22 0023 - SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM SIZE - SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has recommended approval with the Staff's recommendations and now a public hearing date needs to be set. Charon moved and Paulsen moved the following resolution RESOLUTION #83-93 RESOLUTION TO SET THE DATE OF JUNE 21, 1983 AT 7:30 P.M. FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CATALYST PROPERTIES, INC. - PID #13-117-24 22 0023 The vote was bnanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #83-224 - DOUG MOODIE &.MICHAEL C. BEATTY - VACATION OF FIRE LANE - SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has recommended approval. The Council should now set a date for a public hearing on this vacation. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-94 RESOLUTION TO SET THE DATE OF JULY 5, 1983, AT 7:30 P.M. FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION OF THE FIRE LANE ON EDGEWATER DRIVE BETWEEN 4908 AND 4916 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #83-225 - PAUL A. HENRY - 5056 SULGROVE ROAD - LOTS 7,8, 13,14,15 & PART OF 6, BLOCK 28, WHIPPLE - PID #25-114-24 12 O185 SET DATE FOR.PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission has recommended approval with the condition that Mr. Henry get a permit from the Watershed District. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-95 RESOLUTION TO SET THE DATE OF JUNE 21, 1983, AT 7:30 P.M. FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PID #25-117-24 12 0185 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 46 OF THE CITY CODE The City Manager explained that the residents of Sinclair Road have petitioned to have the "No Parking" signs on the north side of Sinclair Road included in the City Code. It seems they complained several years ago because transient fishermen were using the street as a parking area causing difficult ingress and egress from their driveways. The City erected a no parking sign 92 June 7, 1983 on the north side of Sinclair Road but neglected to pass an enabling ordinance. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following: ORDINANCE #449 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 46.29, (b) SUBSECTION 58 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING u. - "NO PARKING ANYTIME" ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SINCLAIR ROAD FROM WESTEDGE BLVD. EAST TO THE END OF THE PAVEMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 39 OF THE CITY CODE The Police Chief has submitted a memo asking for a change in Chapter 39, Section 39.90.~ subsections (d) and (e) of the City Code because they contradict each other. Subsection (d) speaks to a recurring impoundment of a dog within "the last two years" and subsection (e) speaks to recurring impoundment of.a dog "within a year'l. He would like (d) to also read "within a year" Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following: ORDINANCE #450 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 39.90, SUBSECTION (d) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO REDEMPTION OF ANIMALS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION #82-156 - SUBDIVISION REQUEST - LOTS 16 & 17, SKARP & LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD The City Manager reported that the Building Official has recommended approval of this request for an extension of Resolution #82-156. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the fol. lowing resolution. RESOLUTION #83-96 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION #82-156 (SUBDIVISION REQUEST) FOR i YEAR, TO JUNE 7, 1984 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING - INFORMATION & POLICY STATEMENTS The City Manager explained that tax increment financing may be used to provide public funds for: 1. the redevelopment or rehabilitation of.deteriorated areas of the city; 2. assistance to facilitate the construction of low-moderate income housing; 3. the promotion of economic development and the provision of employment opportunities in the city. Any project utilizing tax increment financing as a source of revenue requires the citation of two statutes, one creating the project area and specifying its prupose, and one establishing the means of financing the project through the creation of a tax increment district. · . June 7, 1~83 ~3 The City will first have to decide whether it is going to proceed under Chapter 462 which deals with a redevelopment project and is basically an operation of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority with approvals by the City Council or if it will proceed under Chapter 472A which deals with the establishment of a municipal development district and can proceed without the HRA being involved. With respect to both Chapter 462 and 472A, a Policy Statement has been developed to.cover each of these two.types of projects. The Manager then read the Policy Statement "Tax Increment Redevelopment Projects". Mayor Polston stated that he would-like the policy to limit, to some extent, the percentage of tax base of the City on TIF. After some discussion it was agreed to limit it to.not more than 5~ of the market value of the City. The Manager then read the Policy Statement "Tax Increment Economic Development Pr°jects".. The Council asked .the City Attorney to research · ' a statement in #1 of the Policy which reads, "The developer will normally be expected to 'pay for municipal service costs attributable to the project during the tax increment's life (i.e. snowplowing, street sweeping, fire protection, police protection, etc.) ..... "to see if this can legally be done. The Mayor asked if there were any questions from the audience on the two policies. Pete Ward asked what the nature of the contract between the City and the Developer would be? The City Attorney stated that the contract would include plans and specifications, timing (letter of credit), and would be very tight to protect the City. A question of the time allowed for tax increment financing was asked. The Attorney stated that the length-of time is regulated by the Statutes. Chapter 462 allows up to 25 years and Chapter 472 allows up to 8 years. The Council would have to decide exactly how many .years the tax increment would remain. That time would also be influenced by the number of years calculated to pay back the bonds. Councilmember Paulsen asked about the Character of Improvement with regard to'Lynwood Blvd. be closed and traffic having to be reroute~ and a new street considered. The City Manager explained that even though this woul.d not happen on the tax increment site it would still have to.be paid for out of the tax increment bond, up front. There were several questions about benefit to the public and acquisition procedures. The Council then decided to .hold a public hearing on the Policy Statements and make them available to the public by placing them at the public library and City Hall. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to set July 5, 1983 at 8:00 P.M. as the date for a public hearing on the Policy Statements of Tax Increment Financing. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 94 June 7, 1983 TOWN SQUARE DEVELOPMENT - REPORT The City Manager recapped the background of this proposal that was presented to the.Counci'l earlier this year. Since that time the project boundaries and included pa'rcels have been modifi.ed slightly. Those modifications mandate the adjustment of the preliminary increment projections as follows: Assessors Market Value Relocation of 11 Properties @$10,000 Demolition Legal Administration Land Cost Charged to Town Square Tax Increment to Mound Property Tax - 1983 $ 1M @ 8.5% - 15 Year $1,000,0OO x .1182 = Total Tax Projected Market Value Projected Tax (Note: 942,500 110,000 45,OO0 50,000 75,000 1,222,500 $222,500 1,O00,OO0 38,655.32 118,200 $ 156,855.32 $ 3,750,000 + $163,OOO + the above information has been provided to staff by Smiley/Glotter.) According to the above the tax..increment to Mound would be $1,OOO,OOO and anything( over that amount in costs would be the responsibility of the Developer. As far as the bond interest rate of 8.5~.goes, these bonds today go for slightly more than this and since the seIling of bonds is in the future it would be a guessing game as.to what they would finally go for. The City Manager stated that the City has gone about as far as.it can with regard to what the Council asked for earlier this Spring. The proposal has been modified and we can now say that the projected tax of $163,OO0 is enough to cover the the annual tax increment bond payment. Thus the next step is that the City should designate an area as a development district. He then presented the Council with a map of the area that could possibly be included in a development district. (SEE EXHIBIT "A") This is an area that might be eligible for development or redevelopment if a proposal came forth and meet the requirements of the law. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-97 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BOARD POLICY STATEMENT DESIGNATING A SPECIFIC AREA (EXHIBIT "A") AS A HIGH PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT & REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND TYING THIS AREA TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE DOWNTOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE STUDY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. June 7, 1983 95 The City. Manager explained that the next step is for the City Council to designate itself or the HRA to implement and administer the redevelopment project which would depend on whether the project is a redevelopment project or an'econom'ic development project. (Chapter 462 or 472A of the Statutues.) Councilmember Paulsen asked for a'definition of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The City Planner stated that it is basically a semi-autonomous body appointed by the City Council, charged with administration and overseeing of primarily redevelopment projects, economic development projects or housing projects. It is similar to other Commissions of the City, i.e. Planning, Parks, etc. At this po-int, it has been assumed that the Town Square project would fall under Chapter 462 of the Statutes which would require that the HRA woul.d be involved. This assumption being made because of the 15 years that has been requested for the TIF. Step 3 is to complete a preliminary feasibility study and determination that the project is feasible. This item is essentially compl, ete, however, it seems subject to change due to questionable cost estimates, changes in businessed and district boundaries, etc. Prior to review and action on thi-s item, the developer's feasibility stUdy needs to be finalized. This will require the involvement of the developer, city engineer, city manager and city planner. The City has completed as much as it can at this point before leading into Step 4. The City Manager stated that what he and the Planner are saying tonight is that we have completed the preliminary feasibility study and it seems feasible using the developer's figures and current tax figures and that Town Square appears to ~e feasible. The figures have to be considerably refined which is a much more time consuming and expensive process which the City Planner is ready to do,. but first the Council needs to adop~ the plan as modified for Town Square. Then when a more detailed document is prepared a public hearing can be held on the proposal. Councilmember Peterson arrived at 9:30 P.M. The Council then went back over the proposal from Town Square. The Planner explained that the developers of Town Square have asked for $1,000,000 in bonding and stand ready to pick up any additional costs. Any additional costs would be inclUded in the development contract. Mayor Polston suggested looking into either building or leasing space for a new Liquor Store in the downtown area. The City Manager recapped what has already been discussed. So far it has been decided that yes, the plan is feasible and yes, we are ready to go on to the next step which is to develop a comprehensive redevelopment plan and a financing plan. The comprehensive redevelopment plan would be done by the City Planner and the financial plan would be done by Miller& Schroeder. Once those are completed, they would become the focus of the public hearings in the future. By going thru the steps up to this point we are saying yes, we agree with the plan in principal and concept only. The City Manager explained that what is needed now is an detailed analyzation of the project and financing with a translation of this anaylsis into a final feasiblity. The City Attorney and the City Planner were directed to prepare a resolution to authorize proceeding to investigate a redevelopment project and a .tax increment financing plan for the proposed Town Square development~ 96 June 7, 1983 Peterson. moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-98 RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY STAFF TO PROCEED TO INVESTIGATE A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED TOWN SQUARE DEVELOPMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. BID APPROVAL - ISLAND PARK WATER IMPROVEMENTS The City Manager explained that bids were received today and have been reviewed by Hickok&Associates. There were 3 parts to this bid and the following have been recommended for approval: Bid A: Booster Pump Station A & K Construction Co. - $89,990.00 Bi d B: Standpipe Webco Tank, Inc. $117,228.00 Bid C: Watermain F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. - $132,570.OO Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-99 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF A & K CONSTRUCTION CO FOR .BID A - $89,990.00; WEBCO.' TANK, INC. FOR BID B· ~$117,228.O0; AND F.F. JEDLICKI, INC. FOR BID C - $132,570.OO FOR THE ISLAND PARK WATER IMPROVEMENTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. BID APPROVAL - FIRE HALL ADDITION The City Manager explained that there were 3 bids received and that the City is only approving the Base Bid. There was no funding for Alternates 1 or 2 so they are not to be considered. The low bidder for the Base Bid was Falls & Nyhusmoen at $29,857.00. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-100 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF FALLS AND NYHUSMOEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,857.00 FOR THE FIRE HALL ADDITION The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. BID APPROVAL - 1983 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM The City Manager explained that there were 6 bids received and the low bidder was Buffalo Bituminous. Section 7 of the bid is to be deleted. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-101 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE BID OF BUFFALO BITUMINOUS IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,O78.00 FOR THE 1983 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM '. " June 7, 1983 °97 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. BID APPROVAL - CITY HALL SKYLIGHT & ROOF REPAIR The City Manager explained that there was only one bid received on this, although there were several people out looking at the roof in the last week. The bid was from W.J. White Co. in the amount of $34,476.00 plus Alternate #3 which is a tappered roof on both roof areas to provide for proper drainage, $6,792.OO. Polston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-102 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF W.J. WHITE CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,268.OO The City Manager reported that this amount is the complete replacement of the skylights and reroofing beth the upper and lower roofs. The vote wa~.unanimously in favor. Motion carried. $20,000 would come from Revenue Sharing and the balance from the Building Fund. DESIGNATED SIGNER OF APPLICATION ~OR REIMBURSEMENT - TRAINING MONEY The City Manager explained that Bruce is the first designated signer for the application for reimbursement of training money. Police Chief Wold is recommended that William Hudson also be authorized to sign these applications. Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-103 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING WILLIAM HUDSON AS SIGNER OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAINING The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. HUD APPLICATION - REVOLVING LOAN FUND The City Manager explained that the New Jobs Bil.1 has provided Mound with another way to assist the existing commercial business in Mound. He has developed a Small Business Revolving Loan Program that will be funded by CDBG funds.. This program as proposed will provide $100,000 from City CDBG Funds and $~OO,000 from area banks. The City's fund will be the source of longer term loans of up to $25,000 for a minimum of 15 years at 2% interest. This will be matched by equal loan amounts from area banks at going interest rates to provide a total loan up to $50,000 at a melded interest rate of about 8 - 9 %, currently. He is asking for approval of this program so that it can be submitted to HUD for funding. Polston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-104 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL HUD APPLICATION TO CREATE THE "REVOLVING LOAN FUND" FOR COMMERCIAL LOANS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 'June 7, 1983 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION The City Manager suggested forming an .Economic Development Commission that could coordinate and oversee efforts in the area of economic development. Responsibilities of this commission could be to oversee the policy development and implementation in the areas of: 1. Downtown Revitalization Programs (all the HUD funded programs that have been and are being developed for .the downtown area) 2. Tax Increment Financing Plans & Proposals 3. Downtown Development 4. Business Promotion of the City of Mound 5. Recommendations to the City Planning Commission on matters relating to zoning and economic development planning. 6. Minnesota Star Cities Program 7. Industrial Revenue Bond Proposal Review 8. Development of City Economic Development Plan and oversee its implementation. Mayor Polston and Councilmember Paulsen stated that they envisioned funding this type of a commission to promote business coming into Mound. .The City Manager suggested that the commission be allowed to propose a budget for their promotion of Mound. It could possibly be funded with HUD funds. The Council suggested that the Planning Commission be asked to give their input on the creation of an Economic Development Commission. Peterson moved and Charon seconded a motion directing the City Manager to consult the Planning Commission and get their input on the creation of an Economic Development Commission. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Paulsen asked that a policy statement be developed for all advisory commissions. MICROCOMPUTER PURCHASE The City Manager submitted a detailed memo on the reasons the City needs a microcomputer, terminal and printer. Peterson moved and Polston seconded a motion authorizing the purchase of a Direct 1025 Microcomputer, and 825 Terminal and 2 software packages (Word Star &Supercalc) for $5,415.00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Peterson moved and Polston seconded a motion to authorize the purchase of a multiplexer in the amount of $4,400.00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Peterson moved and Polstron seconded a motion the authorize the purchase of a high quality printer in an amount not to exceed $2,350.00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 99~ June 7, 1983 APPROVE QUOTE FOR REPAIR OF WELL #3 Charon moved, and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the quotation of Stevens Well Drilling Co., Inc. in the amount of.$7,150.OO for the repair of Well #3. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. TRANSIENT MERCHANT'S LICENSE Polston moved and Peterson seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of a Transient Merchants License to Diane J. Froslan for a sale at.the Mound Legion Hall on June 9, 1983. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT REQUEST - PERKINS LANDSCAPE - $5,448.80 The City Manager explained that this request is for work that has been completed thru May 31, 1983, at Mound Bay Park. Charon moved'and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the payment request of Perkins Landscape in the amount of $5,448.80. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $155,610.68, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. WESTONKA SPORTS VARIANCE The City Manager explained that John Scherven needs a variance on the front of his remodeled building because it encroaches.'3¼" over the sidewalk at the top of the front. He further expl.ained that he did not take this to the Planning Commission because it would have taken several weeks and the construction is due to be done tomorrow. It would cause undue delays in the construction. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the fo]lowing resolution. RESOLUTION #83-105 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A 3¼" VARIANCE AT THE TOP OF THE .FRONT WALL - PID #14-117-24 44 0039 - LOT 52, LYNWOLD PARK The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Letter of thanks for stairs on Avocet and Bluebird from Geoff Michael. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District materials. 1. Memo on the Laws of Minnesota for 1982, Chapter 509 2. Meeting Notice for June 9, 1983. 3. Minutes of April 21, 1983, meeting. C. Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes of May 17, 1983 and May 9, 1983. lO0 June 7, 1983 D. Review from Metropolitan Council - May 13, 1983 E. Information Material on Accessory Apartments. F. Memo from Police Chief on assaults. G. League of Minnesota Cities Building Memo. H. Twin Cities Labor Market Information for May, 1983. I. American Legion Post #398 Gambling Report. ~ J. 3 newspaper articles: 1. Smaller Minnesota Towns Competing for Businesses. 2. Low-Cost Business Incubators Hatch Entrepreneurs. 3. Stronger Development Agency Needed to Compete. K. Calendar for June. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to adjourn at 11:05 P.M. vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Fran Clark, City Clerk Jon Elam, City Manager ONO~O Budget Plumbing lO.O0 Robert Byrnes 17.O8 Boy Scou~s of Amer 1,1OO.OO Fran Clark 400.00 Commissioner of Revenue 5,039.84 Dick & Joe's Auto Body 391.11 Director of Property Taxa 28,787.37 Dept of Property Tax 113.O0 Jon Elam 400.00 Doug Fetter 32.50 Griggs, Cooper 4,606.80 Georgia Tech 225.00 Johnson Bros. Liquor 5,877.37 League of MN Cities 170. OO Motor Vehicle Mfg Assn 10.OO MN Park Supervis. Assn 21.00 Mound Postmaster 102.O0 Old Peoria 930.80 Ed Phillips 2,826.27 Nan Pollach 65.00 Real One Acquisition 853.41 State Treasurer 9.50 State Bank of Mound 5,000.00 Howard Simar 400.00 Robin Schiel 32.50 Roger Stark 30.00 Michael Vargo 60.00 Tom Watson 105.OO Werner Weisser 12.O0 Xerox 967.08 Air Comm 96.00 Earl F Andersen 143.26 Abdo, Abdo & Eick 4,700.00 Acro Minnesota 321.33 Badger Meter 2,713.38 Ben Franklin 90.20 Bertelson Bros. 14.95 Holly Bostrom 344.76 Burlington Northern 533.33 Butchs Bar Supply 208.90 Business Furniture 349.56 Bowman Distribution 178.39 Capitol Electronics 36.00 Coca Cola Bottling 286.30 Gary Cayo 19.79 City Club Distrib 3,943.79 Chemlawn 1,498.OO Dependable Services 33.00 Day Distrib 4,263.77 East Side Beverage 4,773.23 Jon Elam 30.50 Schoell & Madson 560.00 Westonka Comminity Service Flexible Pipe Tool Farmers Steel Co. Gold Medal Beverage Henn Co. Treas Hecksel Machine Shop Shirley Hawks Wm Hudson Robert Johnson Internal Revenue Kromer Co. Kool Kube Ice Herman Kraft Litfin Trucking Lowell's Long Lake Ford Tractor Sharon Legg City of Minnetrista Mound Medical Clinic Mound Super Valu Munitech, Inc. Midwest Paint Mfg Mack Trucks, Inc. City of Mound Metro Forte Maple Plain Diesel N.S.P. New England Camp Supply A.J. Ogle pepsi Cola/7 Up Pogreba Distrib Pitney Bowes Credit Precision Striping Perkins Landscape Brad:Roy Regal Window Clean Real One Acquisition Suburban Community Services SOS Printing Sterling Elec Co. Mike Sullivan Painting Standard Spring Twin City Home Juice Thrifty Snyder Drug Thurk Bros. Chev Tri State Drilling Thorpe Distrib Toll Co. V & R Heating Waconia Ridgeview Westonka Sanitation Bruce Wold 9,068.58 24.31 96.39 168.O0 1,596.00 15.80 2.90 15.00 30.80 54.OO 7.30 354.3O 23.81 225.00 103.57 41.97 35.91 276.00 26.00 43.44 27.60 1,990.11 1,695.90 27.40 23.60 23.20 5,233.76 595.90 1,566.O5 255.OO 4,307.75 26.0( 1,486.O0 5,338.80 12.50 10.75 675.00 831.75 68.30 134.29 5,487.48 168.45 97.62 39.56 25.90 513.98 5,032.90 2.O3 189.37 6.88 165.00 67.75 TOTAL BILLS 155,610.58 June 14, 1983 BOARD OF REVIEW (continuation from May 31, 1983) Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review reconvened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road in said City.on June 14, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Coun¢ilmembers Pinky Charon, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Councilmember Gordon Swenson was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, Hennepin County Assessor Milt Hilk and City Clerk Fran Clark. Also present were the following interested citizens: James T. Brown (representing Tonka Corp.), Jean Olson, John Tombers, Michael Murray, Rock Lindlan (representing Jude, Oas & Smith), Duane Norberg, Patrick Ruhr, Ralph Reeves, Paul Henry, Duane Terlinden. The Mayor reconvened the Board of Review. The Mayor explained that at this meeting the Assessor, M~lt Hilk, wili~g~ve theassessor's decisions as to the value of the~property questioned at the May' 31, 1983, Board of Review. After the decisions are given and approved by the Council, if the property owner still feels that the value is too high, he has the r~ght to appeal the decision to the County Board of Revi'ew. i. PID #13-117-24 34 O066.- James T. Brown, repr~sentin~..T0nk.a'Corpo~at~on The Assessor recommended no change tn the value of this property. Value - $3,349,500. PID #14-117-24 43 0032 - Jean 01son The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property' from $60,~O0 to $53,000. PID #14-117-24 43 0033 - Jean Olson The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this property. Value-$11,O00. 3. PID #13-117-24 21 0025 - John Tombers The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $38,400 to $37,000. PID #13-117-24 42 0007 - John Tombers The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this property'. Value - $39,600. 4. PID #19-117-23 23 0074 - Michael W. Murray The Assessor recommended no change'i'n the value of this property. Value - $85,300. 5. PID #13-117-24 34 0051 Rock Lindlan, representing Jude, Oas &'Smith The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $6,600 to $4,500. PID #13-117-24 34 0052 The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $6,600 to $4,500. PID #13-117-24 34 0053 The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $39,600 to $37,500. June 14, 1~83 PID #13-117-24 34 0054 The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from 339,600 to $38,300. PID #13-117-24 34 0055 The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $39,600 to $38,200. PID #13-117-24 34 0056 The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from 339,600 to $37,500. PID #13-117-24 34 0057 The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $6,600 to $4,500. PID #13-117-24 34 0058 The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $6,600 to $4,500.' PID #23-'117~24 41 0016 - Rodney Lar$on The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $201,600 to $188,700. PID #13-117-24 ll 0072 - Donna Whitman The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from 3129,400 to $118,000. PID #23-117-24 42 0007 - Priscilla Anderson The Assessor recommended nO change in the value of this property. Value - $78,400. PID #14-117-24 32 OOlO - Eugene Garvais The Assessor recommended.no change in'the value of this property. Value - $86,600. PID #14-117-24 32 0040 - Eugene Garvais The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this property. Value - 311,000. 10. PID #25-117-24 ll 0035 - Don Chemberlin The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $110,000 to 3101,000. 11. PI'D #14-117-24 31 0024 - Duane Norberg The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $79,700 to 378,900. 12. PID #23-117-24 14 0020 - Bud Skoglund The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this property. Value - $33,000. PID #23-117-24 14 0019 Bud Skoglund The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this property. Value - $38,500. PI~ #23-117-24 14 0021 - Bud Skoglund The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $103,900 to $95,000. 14. 15. 16. June 14, 1983 PID ~24-117-24 13 0016 - Patrick Ruhr The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $191,400 to $183,700. PID #24-117-24 12 0018 - Ralph Reeves The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this proper~y. Value - $69,700. PID #23-117-24 24 0044 - Robert Derner The Assessor recommended reducing .the value of this property f~om $88,300 to $86,200. PID #30-117-23 32 0058 - Thomas Eliasen Mr. Eliasen was not present when his name was called at the May 31st meeting, but he had been at the May 31st meeting. The Assessor conse- quently d.id not review his property but he does have the right to go before the County Board of Review because he did attend the first part of the May 31st meeting. 17. PID #25-117-24 21 Oi13 - Ron Gehring The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $161,500 to $158,300. 18. PID #24-117-24 41 0061 - Donald Block The Assessor recommended .reducing the value of this property from $7,000 to $5,000. 19. PID #25-117-24 12 0003 - Rbn Norstrem The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this property. Value - $128,200. 20. PID #25-117-24 12 0191 - Paul Henry~ The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $69,700 to $64,700. 21. PID #13-117-24 24 0006 - Duayne Terlinden The Assessor recommended no change in the value of ~his property. Value - $62,700. PID #13-117-24 24 0007 - Duayne Terlinden The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $70,900 to $64,900. 22. PID #19-117-23 24 0001 - Oswin Pflug The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $59,900 to $54,000. PID #13-117-24 44 0016 - Oswin Pflug The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this property. Value - $156,800. 23. PID #13-117-24 33 0020 - Wm. Netka The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $8,500 to $6,000. June 14, 1983 24. PID #13-117-24 22 0005 - Sylvia Ogren The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $126,200 to'$118,000. He explained that Ms. Ogren had written him a letter on this property before the previous meeting. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-106 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ROLL AS PRESENTED AND CORRECTED : The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Assessor explained that if anyone wanted to appeal a decision to the County Board of Review they should contact his office by July 15, 1983 in order to be scheduled for an appearance, before the Board. The County Board of Revie~ starts on July 11, 1983 and runs two weeks. The City Manager gave each of the Councilmembers a copy of Councilmember Swensonls resignation which would, take effect July l, 1983. He then proposed a timetable for filling that Council seat which would be as follows: 1. Publish Councilmember Swenson's letter of resignation in The Laker the week of June 20th. 2. Publish a notice in The Laker the week of June 27th and and July '4th announcing that the Council is accepting applications to fill this seat for the remaining l½ years, until December 31, 1984. 3. The deadline for applications would be Monday, July llth at 4:30 P.M. 4. The City'Council would'then screen the applications and set-up interviews for the week of July 12th - 16th. 5. After completing the interviews, the Council could bring a recommendation to the July 19th Regular:Meeting and appoint that person, have them sworn in and he or she could begin serving that evening. The Council agreed with the above timetable. Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously.in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 83-225 NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING OVER MAXIMUM SIZE PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23.407(3) OF THE CITY CODE FOR CONSTRUCTIONOF A.936 SQUARE FOOT PRIVATE GARAGE FOR STORAGE AT 5056 SULGROVE ROAD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, June 21, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held on.the application for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory building over maximum size per provisions of Section 23.407(3) of the City Code for construction of a 936 square foot private garage for storage of personal vehicles at 5056 Sulgrove Road, the property described as: "Lots 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and the south 55 feet of Lot 6, Block 28, Whipple, in the City'of Mound". PID 25-117-24 12 0184/0185/O190/O191 & 0198. Al! persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor- tunity to be heard~ Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Case No.. 83-225 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda' of May 23, 1983: Board of Appeals' Applicant: Case No. 83-225 Paul A. Henry Location: 5056 Sulgrove Road 5056 Sulgrove Road Legal Desc.: Lots 7, 8, 13, 14 & ]5 and Phone: 471-8435 Part of 6, Block 28, Whipple' Request: Garage size of 96 square feet and Conditional Use ZoninR: The applicant' is requesting to construct a 936 square foot detached accessory building on his property with the required 4 foot setbacks to side and rear property lines. Me will also'~maintaln the required 933.5 minimum flood plain slab elevation~ He has filed to combine the parcels described on his applica~ tlon. Pursuant to Zonlng Ordinance 23.407(3) "In Residential Districts, no accessory building Shall'exceed 10 percent of the lot area, and in no case ex- ceed 840 square feet of floor area except by conditiOnal use permit". Due to the fact that a variance applies to the 'prOperty (land) and that a Con- ditional Use Permit is granted to the owner and requires a public hearing, .I would recommend granting a variance rather than requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The 96 square feet over the maximum size accessory building variance could be granted requiring the building.could only be used for storage of vehicles and personal belongings. A home occupation can not be conducted .from an accessory building as per Section 23.302(54). The ]and area is 20,600 square feet for the parcel..One Other item of concern could be that the Zoning Ordinance does not limit the number of accessory bui.ldings which may be built on one (1) parcel. The applicant could build one or more buildings of 840 square feet. Another con- cern could be, i'f a' conditional use were granted, the new owner and applicant would be l~m.~ted to the R-2 Zoning District permitted use~Conditional Use, and a~c~ssory uses for the building. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Planning Commission MinUtes May 23, 19.83 - Page 3 Case No. 83-225 Garage Size Variance of 96 Square Feet and Conditional Use Lots 7, 8, 1-3, 14, 15 and Part of 6, Block 28, Whipple - 5056 Sulgrove Road Paul Henry was p~esent. The Building Official explained that Mr. Henry is applying for a conditional use permit to build an oversized (936 square feet) garage on a floating slab 6n a sand base; the garage will have 9.6 foot.walls and an 8 foot door for his vans and truck (storage of personal vehicles). Byrnes moved and Jensen seconded a motion to approve the use contingent on getting a permit from the Watershed District if needed. The vote was unani- mously in favor. The public hearing on this wiil be on the June 21st Council agenda. OF MOUND r~ MAY 1'61983~ ~P~ I CAT 1 ON TO PLAI~r'~ F MOUNJ~ASE NO. ~S3-225 Fee Paid/T.~,/~ .+ $65.00 & ZONING COMMISSION owing information) Da~e 'Fi led ~-//~/?~ Street Add ress '~f~'P roperty Legal'Des~rlptl.on.of ProPerty: Addition ~,/~ ~/~. ' 0w~,~,, ~L ,~..~e~,~ ,,, App1 leant '(i f other than owner): ~me ~~ r~ ~ ~'~ - Address Eot, Day.Phone No. · Type. of Request: *If other, specify: ~, Rresent Zoning Distr.ict t- Existing Use(s) of Property (~.Varran:e (><') Conditional use ( ) Zoning Interpretation & ~Levlew' ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. \ Amendment Sign Permit )*bther Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~JO If so, .Iisi'date(s) of Ii'st date(s) of.application, actlo~ taken-~n'd provide ~esolution N~.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements .contained In any'required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate· I consent to the eh. try in .or upon the premises described in .this applica.tlon by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the"purpose of in~5~:t'ing, or of posting, maintaining and removing such n~tic.es as may he, required by/y.//~ // . . Slgnatur.e of Ap. pl Icant ~'. J~/~/J/ ~V~///~, ' ~ ,., Plagning Co~ssion Reco~eddat~on: // Date Council Action: Re~olutlon No. Procedure for Conditional Use Permit : D. Location.of: 'Signs,-easements, underground u ilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction. Fe Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Se~tlons of the Zoning Ordinance, III Request for a Conditional Use A. All info~mationlrequested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable gua.rantces 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:- 1. Conditional Use (Specify): Current Zoning-and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to thi's .application.providing reasonable guarantees for. fhe compl~ion of the proposed development.. 2. Estln~te of cost of. the project: $~'~~, ~; 'D..l~ensity (for residential developments only): · ' Efficiency '~. '~~ I Bedroom ~ ~Sroom.. 3 Bedroom ]. !.~gt a/~rea per dw'eJ]Jng u~t-... Total lot I¥. Effects of the Proposed Use List impacts the proposed use will have on property Jn the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and~ describe the steps taken to mitigate or ~l|minate the impacts. Reques't fo'~ Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case # ~3-225 D. Location of: Signs, easements; underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North c~mpass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and a~plicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. II!. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan,.as descr'ibed in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled. B. Does.the present'use .of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in'which 'it is located? Yes (~ %1o ( ) If" " .no , specify each n~n-conforming use: Do'.the existing structures comply, with all area height and bulk.regulations for the zone district'in'which i't Is.located? Yes (~-~. No ' ( ) .. If "no" specify ~ach non-conforming use: · D.. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject propert~ p~event.its reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district? (. ) ..Too narrow (.) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too. small :. ( ) Drainage.. ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow (.) Shape . ( ) Other: Specify: Was ~he hardship described ab0~e'created by .the action of anyone having property interests in the land after The ZOning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~ If yes, explain:., F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of'a road? Yes ( ) No (~-.~. if yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for'Which~you request a variance peculiar only.to the property described in this petition? Yes (~No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance). from the area-bulk regulations ~fz' that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, i~ necessary.) I. Will grant g o ~e variance b~ ~ly detrimental to'property in the same zone, or to the enforcementof ~h~is ordinance? Case NO o 83-225 i 'l Certificate of 'Survey for Paul A. Henry of Lots ? and. 8, Block 28, Whipple Hennepin County, Minnesota Case No. 83-225' ROAD I hereby certify that this'is a true and corrc'ct representation of a · survey o£ the boundaries o£ Lots ? and 8, Block 28, Whipple, and the loc~tion o£ all existin~ buildings, if any, thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. GORDON R. CO}TIN CO.; INC. Scale: 1" ' 30' Date : 4-21-83 o ': Iron marker Mound City sewer ~0rdon R. Cof£in Regf No. 606~ Mark S. Oronbcrg Reg. No.127%5 Land Surveyor and Plsnner Long Lake, Mirage s ora RD RD RD RD CITY OF MOUND OF MINNETRI$1 CASE NO. 83-225 ' ,¸3 CASE NO. 83-225 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR A 936 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 5056 SULGROVE ROAD ON LOTS 7,8,13,14,15 AND PART OF LOT 6,.BLOCK 28, WHIPPLE (PID NUMBERS 25-117-24 12 O184/O185/O190/0191 & 198) WHEREAS, the applicant, Paul A. Henry, has requested to construct a 936 square foot detached accessory building on his property, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the R-2, single family zoning district provisions for acces- sory buildings, Section 23.407(3) "No accessory building shall exceed lO percent of the lot area, and in no case exceed 840 square feet of floor area except by Conditional Use Permit", and WHEREAS, pursuant to due and proper notice according to law and Chapter 23 of the City Code, a public hearing was held on June 21, 1983, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval as requested with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the app)ication for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 936 square foot accessory building located on 5056 Sulgrove Road, Lots 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and Part of Lot 6, Block 28, Whipple, PID Numbers 25-]17-24 12 O184, O185, 0190, O191 and 0198, is approved subject to the following conditions: l) The combination of the above aforedescribed property parcels, 2) The accessory building is to maintain a minimum elevation of 933.5/ above sea level (minimum flood elevation) with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. 3) The accessory building is to be used for the applicant's personal belongings and vehicles. CITY OF M0~ND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 83-223 NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIZE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23.412.2(1) OF THE CITY CODE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CONDOMINIUM AND TWIN HOME BY CATALYST PROPERTIES, INC. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, June 21, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held on the application for a Conditional Use-Permit for a Planned Development Area and Variance from the minimum size provisions of Section 23.412.2(1) of the City Code for constructi6n of a nine unit residential condominium and a two unit twin home at 5545 Three Points Boulevard by Catalyst Properties, Inc., the prop- erty described as: "Commencing at a point in south line of Lot 27 distance 150 feet west from southeast corner thereof than north parallel with said east line to southerly 1.ine of Town Road than westerly along said road line to-a point 275 feet west from said east line than south to an intersection with a line running east at right angle from a point in west line of Section 13 distance 995 feet south from northwest corner thereof than east 1OO feet than south 1'00 feet than west 100 feet than south to a point in a line parallel with and 25 feet northerly from a line bearing south 88 degrees 39 minutes east from a point in west line of Section distance 22 7/10 feet north from the south line of Lot 27 hereinafter known as line A than south 88 degree 39 minutes east to westerly line of Channel than southerly along said Channel line to a point in said line A than south 88 degrees 39 minutes east to a point 376 2/10 feet measured along said Line A from west line of Section than south 53 degrees 46 minutes east to south line of Lot 27 than east to beginning, Lot 27 Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka", in the City of Mound. PID 13-117-24 22 0023. All persons appearing at .said hearing will be given an oppor- tunity to be heard. ncene C. Clark, City Clerk 15"13 APR 2 2 1983 - MOUND Street Address.of Property ff~ I~ Legal'Des~riptipn of Property: Lot APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following inf. ormation) Date Fi led Block P ~ D No. i3 i/7 ,~¢ ,~, Day Phone No. " *If other, specify: ?. EXisting Use(s) of Property Applicant '(if othe~ than owner): Name .^ddress '( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Uetia'~d Permit' ( ) P.U.D.. \ ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? /~ If so, .list 'date(s) of list date(s) of. application, action taken and provide Resolution NO.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. ! certify that all"of the above statements and the statements contai.ned in any required papers oF plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. $ consent to the eh. try in or upon the premises described in .this applicaAion by any authorized official of the City of Mound fop the'.purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices ~s may be requlredy-~y law. Signature of A~plicant .... Date Planning Commission Reo~/~endatlon: Date Counci 1 Action: Re~olution No. ¢?.rallclto .and Z5 feet.North ~£the-South l~ne of s~cl'Lot ZT, ac. cOrding to the plat . '<hereof on rile'mud of rec'ord in the: office of.thc .iRe'gi'ster. of De~ds, i n mud for 'Mcr. ncpin County,,i%,~in~cs'o~a-.. . . ~ .. .~ he.~ebY ii'tended tO transfer and convey all r~ght, title'and '~nterest of the Grantor in and to the .~bove described premises, ;iud di~ta~ceS'.ba-..~ed or calc,~h-~tcd from the original and true gouth Boundary line of Lo~ ZT, zfa~etie:~ark ) ' ' EXCEPT ~ha~ ~ortio~ ~a~n by the vfllace of Mound for pumphouse as follows: The 1Vgst 100~'efof~'North I0~ feet of the South 530 feet of that part ~f L~t ZT, ~'~afay~te Park Lake h~{nnelonkm", described as.beginning at a poi~ %vhich f~ 4bb feet Eas~ and on a ~h~ erected perpendigul~r to ~e ~est Ih:e of Set,on 13, TownshipllT, Range Z4, from m poiuf~ qn .said 1Vest line 15Z5 feet South of lhe ~or~h~vest corner of said Section 1~; thence l~es~ ~bng'sai~ p~rpendiculmr l~ne 1~5 feet; ~hence'Nor~,pmrmllel to ihe %Vest line o{ said SectiOn 13 a ~stance of 650. Z4 fe~t to ~ae Souther~ l~ne Of%Venonah Road; thence Ezslerly along ~:e Southerly line of said Road 1Z7.09 fee~ ~o an intersection wilh a tine drawn ~or~h and pnraXlel to the 1Vest ~ine of said Section 13 from Xhe point of beginning; ~ence South along ~e last described pmraIId[ line 67Z. 45 feet to the point of beginning. and'. '- SU'~'.YE.~'T tO the following easement: right-of-way · 'Easement in favor.~of the Vil. lage of R~ound for access, drainage,'storm'~wer and utility'.purposes 6var the ~zst ZS.feet lying Nor%h gf me SouZh 430 feet, and ~e East 10'feet l~ing SoutherlY' 6f the North line 'of ~e South'430'feet and lying Northerly of the Northerly shore-line'.of the Channel of the following described, tract of land: That part of Lot ZT, "Lafayette. Park Lake described as Beginning at a point which ~s 400 fee[ East and on ~rectedperpendicular of the %%rest line of Section ~3, Township I17, Range 24, from a polnt, dn safdWest line 15Z5'fe~t south of the Northwest corner of said Section 13; thence'%Vest along said perpendicular llne 125 feetl thence North parallel to the %Vest llne of said Section 13 a distance of 650.24 feet to the .Southerly line of ~'enonah Road; thence Easterly along the Southerly line pf said Roe d 1ZT. 09 feet to an inter2 section ~ th a line drawn North and parallel to the %Vest line pi said Section 13 from the po~t of beginning; thence South along the las{ described parallgl line 672.45 feet to the point of beginning, created in Final Certificate Document No. ga~Tvoa .. I:~CEL 4_ · The East 125 fee't df that part of Lot 27, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying West of a line drawn parallel to and ~00 feet E~.st of the West line of Section l~, To'-'nshfp 117, F~n~e 2A, lying South of Highway and lying R'orth of a line drawn parallel to and 155 feet North of the South line of --~:-- *- ~'-~ ~+ *~'~-~,n? n~ ?~le an~ of recor~ in the De Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etq. Indicate North compass direction; ' Any additional information as may reasonabl~ be required by the City Staff and ~pplicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. · !11 Request for a Conditional Use A. All information.requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion'. of the construction must be proyi.ded b~fore a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for'which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: I. Conditional Use .(Speci'fV): , '2. urrent Zonin nd signation in the.. . future. Land Use Pla~for Mound Ce .D. Deve 1 opment Scheclul e: 1. A'development schedule shall 'be att'ached to thi's .application.providing reasonable guarantees for ~he completion of th.e'proposed development... . '2. Estimate of cost of. th~ project: $ . ' Density (for' residential developments only'): Number of structukres: ' ~, "- Dwel 1 lng Units Pe~ Structu~e:/~ ~/~,~s ~O~A~,c~ ..~ .... a. Number. of t~pe: .. IV. Effects of the Proposed USe A.. List impacts the proposed use will'have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts, D. Location o'f: ~igns, ~asemefit~, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction ( .F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. !11. ,Request for a Zonin~ Variance 'A. All.informatlon below, a site.plan,.as desc(ibed in Pert II, and general application must be provided before a hearlng.will be sbheduled. B. Does.the present'use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which i~ isi.located? Yes ( ) if '.'no", specify each n'on-conforming use: Do '.the exi'~ting 'structures comply, with all 'area~helght~and bul.k~regulations for the zone Clistrict' in'which i't' is .located?' ~fes ( ~ .. No ' (/~() ..... If !'no", spec,fy each non-conform,ng.use. -. /Z~.~j:;. ~ t) . ' ' 0.'- ' ~ ~- ' v · ' '(/ - · Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent.its reasonable'use for any of the uses .permitted in that zoning district? ' ' ' (~ ..To° 'narrow (..) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too. small ':. ( ) Drainage. ' ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow (.) Sha. pe. ( ) Other: Specify: (--' · ' Eo Was ~he hardship described'ab~v~ 'created by' the action of fin¥one 'ha¥i.ng property interests in the land afte~ the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ( P~ If yes', explain: " Was the hardship create~by any 'o.t~er man-made char, ge, such as the reloca- tionof a road? Yes(7',,) if Yes, e×plaln: . Are the condit,ons of hardsh,p for'which~y~u reque~ a ~r~,ance pecu~r . only to the property describer in this petition? Yes .(~) No (). If no, how many other properties are sim~larly'affected?/ ' /V' . M..What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable, use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written expl.anation. Attach additional .. sheets, if necessary.)' I.. Will. granting of the variance be materially detrimental to'property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? CASE NO. 83-223 C.I'T¥ OF MBt]ND Mound i Mi'nnesota Planning Commission Agenda of May 23' 1983: Board of Appeal's Case No. 83-223 L6cation: East of Commerce Boulevard and South of Three Points Boulevard Legal Desc.: Part of Lot 27, Lafayett~ 'Park, Lake Minnetonka Request: Variance of P.D.A. and Side Yard Setback Conditional Use Permit Zoning District: B-2 General Business Applicant: Catalyst Properties, Inc. 11900 Wayzata Boulevard,.sUite 214 Minnetonka, MN. 55343 Phone: 544-9084 The attached information from the City Planner and the Minnesota Department of Health will allow a more comprehensive review of Jon Nelson's Condominium request. The tabled action from the April 25th meeting also required that the neighbors within 350 feet be' notified of a Planning and Zoning hearing on this matter. A new site plan is enclosed with a 9 Unit condominium and a 2 unit caretaker's home, Jan Bertrand Building. Official BOARD OF APPEALS - May 23, 198~"Planni~g-'c~iss-!°~'Me~t[n~ ............................................ i. Case No. 83-223 Variance of P.D.A.,' Side Yard Set~ack and conditional Use Permit Propert~ on Three Points Boulevard approximately 300 feet east of Commerce Blvd. Partof Lot 27, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka -'PID 13-117-24 22 0023 Jon R. Nelson of Catalyst Properties was present. Alsopresent was Engineer Gary Tushie. · Mr. Nelson reviewed the items that the Planning Commission had wanted dealt with from the April 25th meeting. They were: 1) Parking, 2) Density, 3) Access Road, 4) Neighbor Input, 5) Question on setbacks, 6) PDA vs. Conditional Use Permit and 7) What about trash? On # 1) Parking, Ordinance calls for.2½ spaces per unit; they now show 23 spaces for the 9 units and all parking is on their property. # 2) Density, they have ended up with 9 units vs. the 11 units shown on the first plan. # 3') Access Road into the property - they found no support for a road to come in off of County Road 110. The second alternative was shifting the road closer to. the west line; they are also trying to preserve some trees. One problem is the road has to cross the City property (pump house site). # 4) The neighbors were notified and last Friday evening, they met with them in a group session; think session went reasonably well. # 5) This addressed by going to a non-uniform set- back; the east is increased from 20 to 30 feet and on the west property ]ine, decreased from 20 to 10 feet--provides enough room for the Fire Department to get around the building. # 6) In favor of rezonlng to PDA and not operating with a conditional use permit. (Not6: # 6 is not correct procedure) # 7) The architect has designed an internal trash system'(chute); trash to be compacted and picked up inside building; no outside storage of trash. CASE.NO, 83-223 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, ~19831 .................. Mr. Tushie explained some of the things they've added into this plan. The south portion of plan now pretty much self-sufficient with amount of units, amount of parking spaces, paved areas and open spaces - this south portion can meet all of the ordinance. The new access road would be coming through the trees; they would be putting in retaining walls to preserve the trees because they know their value. Have more parking than ordinance requires - 23 spaces; 13 spaces to be inside and the rest outside. Also they have provided a fire access to back of building with either grass blocks or paved and grass block combination. They have tried to separate visitor parking from the resident parking. The Chairman asked how close road would come to pump house. Tushie answered,"20 feet from pump house". This proximity to pump house was discussed. Biggest problem would be getting approval from the Minnesota Health Department. The Chairman expressed concern for the possibi.lity of contaminating the well; would not like to jeopardize the well so that it could no longer be used. Reese liked the road coming in from the west. City Manager suggested there might be some options, such as it could be bermed or possibly some land might be .able to be pur- chased from the Gas Hut. Sylvia Ogren, owner of Lots 1 and 2 bordering this land on the east, stated she has been concerned about the density and doesn't like privacy fences. She does like this plan better with the 'roadway on other side. Would like to see deciduous trees rather than evergreens as they are'too dense. The Staff recommendation of requiring approval of a landscape plan was discussed; also location of the parking spaces; drainage down to the lake and dockage as well as boat storage. Planner Koegler stated that. the applicants have been very willing to meet and the effort shows the result of the sessions. The Staff recommends the ~pproval of Conditional Use Permit for a P.D.A. - the site plan approval is contingent upon: 1) Site plan review by the Health Department to clarify possibility of the access easement. 2) Approval by the City Engineer of grading, drainage and utility plans. 3) Submission and approval of a landscaping plan and 4) Approvals of other agencies such as DNR, Watershed District and LMCD. Koegler stated the City will need to grant a minimum size variance from 2 acres to 1.33 acres. He explained that in drafting of the P.D.A., the plans become binding with approval of the development, r Discussed size of caretaker's units (433 square feet each or total of 866 square feet). Nelson stated the quality of architecture would be comparable to the 9 unit building. Reese moved ~nd Byrnes seconded a motion to move the Staff recommendations. The vote was unanimously in favor. The public hearing will be on the June 21st Council agenda. The City Manager asked the Planner to provide the steps required for the P.D.A. FROM: DATE: SUBJ: City Council and Staff, City of Mound Mark Koegler, Consultin~ Planner June 13, 1983 Planned Development Area (PDA) Procedure and Final Planning C~,.,~nts on the Catalyst Proposal, Case No. 83-223. Memorandums of April 20, 1983, and May 17, 1983 The following is an outline of the Planned Development Area (PDA) process (Section 23.412, pp. 19-21, Zoning Ordinance). The Mound PDA process is unique in that it only requires one approval step. Ordinarily, municipal ordinances require a preliminary plan review phase followed by a more detailed final plan stage. Since the Mound ordinance is a single step process, it is important to note all considerations at this time so they can be incorporated into the developer's contract. In order for a project to be processed as a PDA, it is required to be at least two acres in size. In the Catalyst proposal, it is recommended that a variance to this provision be granted to permit the 1.39 acre property to be processed as a PDA. A variance in this case seems appropriate because of the unusual shape of the property, and it is the simplist way to handle the construction of two principal structures on one lot. APDA can be proposed for any zoning district. Its intent is to permit more flexibility and to encourage creative design. Overall density, however, can not exceed that of the zoning district within which it is located. Under the ordinance, the PDA is established by the approval of a conditional use permit. All restrictions and conditions of the approval can be noted both in the permit as well as in the developer's contract. The essentials of the PDA process include the following: Application su~nitted by developer for a conditional use permit (PDA) and payment of appropriate fees. Submission of a detailed preliminary site plan. Ideally, landscaping, utilities, grading, drainage plans, and a preliminary plat are submitted simultaneously. 3. Staff review. 4. Planning C~.~,ission review and c~u~ents. 0 City Council public hearing and action. City Council notes conditions of approval and establishes amount of escrow account. If approved, the project is processed by City staff with covenants, bylaws, and articles of incorporation approved by the City Attorney. 7. A developer's contract is drafted and executed. The Catalyst proposal, Case No. 83-223, is proceeding in accordance with this schedule with the exception that the City has not received final landscaping and en(3ineering plans and a preliminary plat. ~ne ordinance is somewhat vague as to when this information is required. Staff recon~ends approval of the Catalyst Properties' PE~ contingent upon the following: No conveyance shall occur until the property is platted in conformance with the subdivision ordinance of the City of Mound and MSA 426.358 and that all bylaws, home owners' association articles of incorporation, and protective covenants must be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the recorded plat. Cash in'the amount of $5,500 in lieu of land shall be accepted in fulfillment of the open space and parkland dedication requirements as outlined in Section 22.37 of the City Code. Ail improvements required under Section 22 of the City Code shall be constructed by the developer at his/her sole cost. A surety bond shall be required in an amount designated by the City Engineer. An escrow account in the amount of $3,000 shall be established to cover all engineering, administrative, and legal expenses pertaining to the processing of the PDA. Any balance remaining upon completion of the project shall be returned to the depositor. Approval is contingent upon the review and approval by City staff of the final landscaping, utilities, grading, and drainage plans and City Council's approval of the preliminary plat and developer's contract. The applicant shall secure the necessary access easements from the City after review and approval of plans by the State Health Board. Any other access except the easement depicted on the west side of the City pumphouse property shall require further review and approval by the City Council. e The applicant shall be required to secure all approvals from other agencies such as the Watershed District, LMCD, etc. CASE. NO, 83~223 FRON: DATE: SUBJ: Pl~nntug~Cn~mission and Staff, City of Mound Mark Koegler, Consulting Planner May 17, 1983 Conditional Use Permit (Plmuned Development Area) and Site Plan Review APPLICANT: Mr. Jon Nelson LOCATION: Frontage on Three Points Boulevard approx~n~tely $00 feet e~st of Cc, mw~_rce Boulevard REFERENCE: 1983. For additional comments, see planning memorsmdumofApril 20, PROPOSAL: Mr. Nelson hassulmitteda revised proposal for the construction of a nine-unit condominium and the construction of a two-family residential structure. The use of the two-family structure remains unchanged; it will house residentcaretakers. CO~59ENTS: Since the last meeting of 'the Planning Ccu~.,~ission, Mr. Nelson h~_~ met with the planning staff on several occassions to address the concerns that were raised. Specifically, the condominium proposal has been reduced fron 11 to 9 units m~ndzting a change in both the structure and the parking. A 30-foot structural setback is proposed al. ong the ~_st side of the site which abuts the existing' single-f~mlly residences. All p~rking has been provided within the applicants ownership. At the previous Planning Commission meeting, access was a major' issue. The letter from the Health Der~_ rtment prohibits the sale of a portion of the pump house property but it did not address the possibility of mn easement. The revised proposal shows an eas~ment of undetermined width along the west side 6f the pump house p~rcel to provide access to Three Points Boulevmrd. The applicant would retain ownership of the strip of land lying due east of the pump house property. This new access arrangement relocates the driveway away from the existing residential property and lessens the impact of the propOSal. Providing that a satisfactory easement agreamentcanbe reached betweenthe City and the applicant, the revised access seems to be the best available alternative. The applicant hasindicatedthat subsequentdiscussionswiththe property owners to the west do not seem to indicate the liklihood of connecting thepropertytoOxnmerceBoulevard. Staff recommends that the City approve a Conditional Use Permit for the Minnetonka Condominiums Planned Development Area. Furthermore, site plan approval is reccmm~ndedcontingent upon: Site plan review by the Health Detrartment to clarify the possibility of the access easemsnt. 2. Appl-oval by the City Engineer of grading, drainage, and utility plans. 3. Submission smd approval of a landscaping plan. 4. ° Approvals, as required, by other agencies such as IJqCDon dockzge mhd other issues. minnesota department of health 717 s.e. delaware st. p.o, box 9441 minneapolis 55440 (612) 623.5000 Hay 3, [983 CASE NO. 83-223 Mr. John Elam City Manager 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota Dear Mr..Elam.~ 55364 Information obtained from your consulting engineer indicates that a proposal exists which would infringe upon the property surrounding municipal wells #4 and #7. The current Water Well Construction Code requires that a well constructed to produce water for a community water supply shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from a property line (7MCAR§1217). In other words the City must own all of the property for a fifty foot radius around each well. In addition, other require- ments stipulate additional minimum distan'ces from sources of contamination, which are listed in the Code. This Dep~rtment would insist that the provisions of the Water Well Con- struction Code be adhered to and no modification take place which would violate the Code. -If you have.any questions or comments, please contact me at 623-5361. Sincerely, · gstro~ Public Health Engineer Environmental Field Services DBE:Igl cc: John Cameron, McCoombs-Knutson & Assoc. V CASE NO. 83-223 [McC?MBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES,' INC. . ONSULTING ENG NEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS · May 17, 1983 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 3an Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: PropoSed Hlnnetonka Condominiums Oon Nelson Property #6755 Dear 3an, As requested we have reviewed the revised utility and drainage plan, dated 5/17/83, for the above project and have the following comments and recommendations. 1. Grading: There'are no proposed finished grades shown on the plan submitted. Before final plat approval is given a complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan will need to be submitted and approved not only by the City's Engineer but also any other governing agency, such as, the Minnehaha Wa- tershed District. 2. Storm Sewer: Before final plans are completed the depth of the exist- inc.12" storm sewer line should be verified. I do not believe the invert shown at the new manhole over this existing line is correct. It also appears this line may need to be extended. The two plans received are in conflict as to the final grading intended for the small bay which receives the discharge from the storm sewer..One shows it being filled, while the other plan shows a settling basin. The final storm sewer plans will need to clarify these problems. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain: We see no major problem with either utility. A gate valve will be required at the connection of the 6" main .to the existing 8" at the pump house. This line will also need to be located within an easement. We assume the Fire Department would like to see at least one hydrant located somewhere close to the proposed building. 4. Streets: We feel this plan is much more acceptable as far as entrance onto Three Roints 8oulevard is .concerned, but there is still the conflict with the Health Department Regulations governing the municipal well site. printed on r~,cycled paper CASE NO. 83-223 Jan Bertrand 17, 198~ ~age Two Final detailed construction plans will need to be submitted for approval prior to final council action. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Oohn Cameron ~i~ed o~ ~e¢¥¢~ed ~e~ p,.JOU J-JEION~ DNINOZ O-~OBd ONO4:IO ~lo~euu!lhl' 'punolhl ~o Y[I~C) · 0N 2SV3 ' '-'i CASE N0. 83- 23 McuOM S-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. April 21~ 1985 Reply To: 12800 Indus"[rlal Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minner, ota (612) 559-3700 Mr. 3on Elam City Manager City of Mound 5}41 Heywood Road Mound, Mn 55}64 Subject: Proposed Hinnetonka Condominiums Oon Nelson Property #6755 Dear As per your request we have reviewed the above proposed development. We have looked at it from an Engineering standpoint, rather than a planning or zoning review. Our two main concerns relate to the existing pump house and the upgrading of the existing access to Three Points Boulevard. The Health Department regu- lations state that the City must either own or have control of the property within a 50 .foot radius of any 'municipal well. From our conversation with the Health Department, they would not approve the selling for.or allowing the im- provement of.any of the existing City owned property. We interpret this to mean that they would not allow the proposed parking on the City property. We have also studied the problems that would be created by using the exist- ir~ pump house driveway as the only access to and from the proposed 'development. We feel that the proposed access is too close to the adjacent City street, Lafayette Lane. The existing grade is also far steeper than would normally be permitted, especially on a north exposure. We would like to suggest investigating the possibility of obtaining access to Commerce Boulevard. This could be handled by the same easement containing the sanitary sewer and watermain although the street easement would have to be some what wider than the utility easement as shown. If you have any questions, we would be happy to discuss them with you at your convenience. Sincerely, McCDMBS-~UTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. MEMORANDUM SCHOELL & MADSON,~Nc. CASE NO. TO: Planning Commission, City of Mound FROM: Mark Koegler, Consulting Planner DATE: April 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review APPLICANT: Mr. Jori Nelson LOCATION: Frontage on Three Points BoUlevard approximately 300 feet east of Commerce Boulevard. PROPOSAL: Mr. NelsOn is proposing the construction of an eleven unit condominium structure and the construction of a two-family residential structure on 1.33 acres of land. The two-family structure is proposed as a possible caretakers quarters and/or possibly an income property for residents of the condominium. The plan features a pedestrian pathway system connecting the 'principal structure with a multi-level wood deck and ten proposed boat slips (five docks) on Lake Minnetonka. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The configuration of. the subject property can only be described as "unusual". At the present time, the property is actually two distinct parcels, which would be combined under this proposal. The front of the property which abuts Three Points Boulevard consists of a 15,000 square foot area which is connected to the rear portion by a 25 x 100-foot piece o2 land. This land borders a pumphouse owned by the City of Mound. The City has an easement over the eastern side of the property for access to the pumphouse. The developer proposes to expand this paved access as the entrance, to the site.. The.property is somewhat wooded and rolling. Oaks are the predominate tree species with some elm, linden and maple. The northeast corner of the site which contains the existing 11 foot wide bituminous access to the pumphouse has a 14 percent slope which is fairly steep, particularly considering its northern Orientation. The rear portion of the site drops 'to. the south toward Lake Minnetonka at a slope of approximately 13 percent. The area surrounding the City pumphouse is the highest elevation of the property. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES: These issues are being addressed by the City Engineer under separate cover. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Mound Comprehensive Plan's Proposed Zoning Concept map depicts the property as R-l, single-family residential ('see enclosure). ~ZMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, City.of Mound .age Two · CASE NO.' 8~,-,/.23 ' April 20, 19 83 COMMENT: The Minnetonka Condominiums proposal contains a number of issues and'variables. For ease of discussion, the following issues have been identified. Land Use - Before proceeding with further review o~ the project, the City must determine if a residential condominium use accompanied by a two-family Residence is appropriate on the site. The plan itself appears to be sound and well conceived and in all likelihood, would have good market acceptance. A caretaker residing on the site would be an amenity to such a project since it provides greater security. 'A higher density residential use serves as a good buffer between the single-family residences to the east and the possible future commercial development'to the west.~ Distinction should be made, however, between a higher density, attached residential use on the site and the specific'. proposaI at hand. While planning staff sees some merit to condominiums or townhouses on the site, we have concerns with.the type and .size of the structure proposed.. Specifically, staff %eels that'the proposed structure may be both too intensive and massive for the property. Thirteen units on the parcel Works out to a gross density of 9.8 units per acre. Due to the configuration of the site, this use may be overly intensive. This conclusion is supported by-the fact that the developer is proposing to use a portion of the City pumphouse p~operty to conveniently accommodate parking for the condominiums. Additionally, staff has concerns with the massive nature of -the building, particularly since the adjacent single- family residential properties to the east are located 10 to 20 feet from the property line. The parking lot immediately northwest of the condominium building again indicates the crowded nature of the site. The parking lot is a zero lot line situation since it abuts B-2 zoned property and the garage stall on the extreme southwest end contains minimal backup-turnaround' area. 'Staff questions whether a vehicle could reasonably negotiate a turnaround and exit movement should a car be parked in the apron area of the stall located next to the end one. Zoning - The B-2 zoning permits the construction of the condominium structure but does not permit a second detached structure, which in this case is a two-family residence. In order to accommodate both uses, two scenarios are possible. MEMORANDUM' TO: Planning Commission, City of Mound Page Three CASE NO. 83'-~23 April 20, 1983 The front portion of the site could be rezoned to R-3, two- · family residential. As a separate parcel, the two-family structure would be an appropriate use. This action would, however, bring up questions of spot zoning and may require a number of variances. The cleanest way to avoid th'e problems associated with two zoning categories is to grant a variance to the minimum size provisions of the Planning Development Area (PDA). ordinance. Section 23.412.2(1) .states that a PDA requires two acres.. The subject proposa% contains 1.33 acres. A variance to this provision would permit the type Of construc- tion proposed and would simplify processing. Additionally, the PDA would provide the City ~ith added control through the development contract. Access - Due to the configuration of the property, options for the provision of access to the condominiums are extremely limited. Essentially, only two options exist. The City of Mound could accept the access as proposed which conflicts with Lafayette Lane at the northeast corner of the site. It .may be possible to relocate this access to the west side of the front property, hOwever, g~ades are still a problem and major t~ee removal would be required. The second option is to examine access to the entire area. This would require the developer to meet with the landowners to the west to determine if an access off of Commerce Boulevard could serve all partie~. The City could assist in the facilitation of such a meeting. Pumphouse Property - The site plan and grading and utility plan show conflicting information regarding the pumphouse property. The site plan indicates that the developer is requesting to purchase 2,552 square feet from the City to .provide parking. The grading and utility plan shows the existing property boundaries intact and implies that an easement agreement will be requested. Regardless of'which option is being proposed, there may be .problems with the Health Department permitting the City to relinquish control or use of any portion of the existing site. The City Engineer's report contains more information on this matter. RECOMMENDATIONS: As mentioned, at this stage of the review process, the City should focus on the major issues: land use, zoning, access and the pumphouse property. .MEMORANDUM · TO: Planning Commission, City of Mound 'e Pour CASE NO. 83-~23 April 20, 19 83 The planning staff recommends denial of the Minnetonka Condominiums proposal in its present form. We emphasize that we feel that the use is appropriate but in a scaled down version with less structural massing and in all likelihood, less units. The developer is encouraged to r~vise his plans accordingly and should further consider: A request for a variance to the PDA ordinance waiving the minimum size requirement and the issuance of a conditional use permi~ for the project as a PDA. The project should be accommodated totally within 'the developer's ownership and should not infringe on City-owned land. The developer s~ould meet with property owners to. the west along with representatives of the City to determine if 'joint access is feasible. PROPOSE'D RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-223 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'~ RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIZE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23.412.2(1) OF THE CITY CODE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NINE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AND TWIN HOME BY CATA~STPROPERTIES, INC. WHEREAS, the applicant, Catalyst Properties, Inc., has applied for a conditional use permit and plan approval of a planned development area located on a 1.39 acre parcel at 5545 Three Points Boulevard, PID # 13-117-24 22 0023, and WHEREAS, they have requested that the above-described parcel contains a nine-unit residen'tial condominium and a twin home (two units), and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 23 of the City Code, a planned development area is subject to a conditional use permit, and WHEREAS, pursuant to due and proper notice, according to law and Chapter 23 of the City Code, a public hearing was held on the 21st day of June, 1983, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommends approval of the variance requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the variance to Section 23.412.2(~) of the City Code is granted due to unusual configuration of the subject ~roperty, that the application for a conditional use. permit to construct a nine-unit residential condo- minium and twin home as a planned development area at 5545 Three Points Boulevard and grant 20 foot variances from the required 30 foot side yard setback to the west in the B-2 district and 50 foot side yard set- back abutting the residentally zoned property to the east is approved subject to the following: No conveyance shall occur until the property is platted in con- formance with the subdivision ordinance of the City of Mound and MSA 4~.358 and that all bylaws, home owners' association articles of incorporation, and protective covenants must be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the recorded plat. Cash in the amount of $5,500 in lieu of land shall be accepted in fulfillment of the open space and parkland dedication requirements as outlined in Section 22.37 of the City Code. All improvements required under Section 22 of the City Code shall be constructed by the developer at his/her sole cost. A surety bond shall be required in an amount designated by the City Engineer. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-223 An escrow account in the amount of $3,000 shall be established to cover all engineering, administrative, and legal expenses pertaining to the processing of the PDA. Any balance remaining upon completion of the project shall be returned to the depositor. o Approval is contingent upon the review and approval by City Staff of the final landscaping, utilities, grading, and drainage plans and City Council's approval of the preliminary plat and developer'.s contract. The applicant shall secure the necessary access easements from'the City after review and approval of plans by the State Health Board. Any other access except the easement depicted on the west side of the City pumphouse shall require further review and approval by the City Council. The applicant shall be required to secure all approvals from other agencies such as the Watershed District, LMCD, etc. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MOUND Notice is hereby given that Hennepin County and the City of Mound, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, are sponsoring apublic hearing on June 21, 1983, at 8:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban County housing, community and economic devel- opment and to provide the citizens with the opportunity to comment on the City of Mound's proposed reallocation of its Year XIll (1982-1983).Hennepin County Block Grant. The City of Mound is proposing to continue or reallocate its funds amoung the following activities: Project # 022 252 572 712 Title Westonka Senior Citizen Housing Street Imp./Special Assessment Grant Rehabilitation - Private Property Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation Design Grants 5,000 752 Low Interest Commercial Loans 40,000 803 Administration 4,000 925 Senior Citizen Housing Study 1,283 Original Budget lO,O00 10,OOO 40,114 Proposed Budget 30,OO0 -O- 40,114 5,000 25,000 4,OOO -O- NEW PROGRAMS Commercial Fix-Up, Paint-Up, Grants -O- 6,382 110,397 110,397 For additional information on the above listed activities, contact the City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MN. 55364, phone 472-1155 This public hearing is being held in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement, pursuant to M.S. 471.59. F~an-cene C. Cl~rk, City Clerk Publish in The Laker June 6, 1983 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MOUND Notice is he. reby given that Hennepin County and the City of Mound, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, are sponsoring apublic hearing on June 21, 1983, at 8:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban County housing, community and economic devel- opment and to provide the citizens with the opportunity to comment on the City of Mound's proposed reallocation of its Year Xlll (1982-1983) Hennepin County Block Grant. The City of Mound is proposing to continue or reallocate its funds amoung the following activities: (Revised June 14, 1983) Original Project # Title Budget 022 Westonka Senior Citizen Housing 10,OO0 252 Street Imp./Special Assessment Grant 10,OOO 572 Rehabilitation - Private Property 40,685 709 Downtown Revitalization Study 5,755 712 Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation Design Grants 5,000 5,000 752 Low Interest'Commercial Loans 40,000 25,000 803 Administration 4,000 4,OOO 925 Senior Citizen Housing Study 2,553 2,550 NEW PROGRAMS Commercia] Fix-Up, Paint-Up Grants Proposed Budget 3O,OOO -0-- 40,685 5,710 -0- 5,O48 117,993 i17,993 For additional information on the above listed activities, contact the City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MN. 55364, phone 472-1155 This pUblic hearing is being held in accordance.with the Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement, pursuant to M.S. 47~.59. F~an-cene C. Clgrk, City Clerk CITY OF MOUND CDBG FINANCIAL REPORT (5-31-83) Project # Budget Total Expended, Balance 022 10,000 -0- 10,000 252 lO,O00 -0- 10,000 572 40,685 2,758 37,927 * 709 5,755 5,710 45 712 5,000 1,706 3,294 752 40,000 10,000 30,000 803 4,000 3,289 710 925 2,553 1,607 946 TOTAL $ 117,993 $ 25,070 $ 92,922 * $40,685 obligated, work in progress, will be finalized by 9-I-83 approximatel; 42 343 3~50 41 42 343 2631 41 42 259 4801 91 22. 235 2401 41 22 238 4933 81 22 238 5023 71 22 253 2017 11 22 259 4949 Ol ~-2 259 4978 91· 22 268 5872 41 22 271 2925 71 22 277.58.53 51 22 280 5846 31 22 283 5900 21 22 286 6040 91 22 289 3017 41 22 292:6033 21 22 310 2605 11 22 310 2676 21 22 310 3120 Ol 22 310 3160 61 22 310 3198 61 22 316 2882 31 22 317 3016 51 22 321 3013 41 22 343 2434 71 22 343 2606 Ol 22 346 5667 21 22 364 2571 21 .22 397'2524 11 22 404 5092 Ol 22 404 '5241 31 Del lincluent I~/ater and Sewer Steve Hess. ~J~ ~ 43~.96 Water Care 357.17 262 Zeb Hanson 7~. 10 ~40 Richard Bees ~.~ ~75.34 49~ Donnald 'Bennett 170.10 502 Earl Luse ~ ~-~ ~8.10 201 H.G.Mil ler F~ ~0~° 67.'72 ~9~ Martin Hein~rh ~0- · ~ n Mike Barlow. , ~ ~C~Q 78.,90 5R7 .Fritz Johnson 109.16 292 Kevin Morgan 164.40 · 585 Steve Bergeson . 166.96 584 Bradley Elmore h67.90 59C ~eter solstad ~ ~ Ii~ 604 Steven Spencer ' 129.10 301 Todd Warner 84.31 '603 M' Volkart ~ ~ ~ .~ . 7711~ Robert La'Bresh ~[~ 169.70 . 267 Kenneth Paarsch ' 65.22 .'312 Bruce Burton 85.32 316 June. Mc Carthey 62.42 '31~ Ed Rowley 107.90 288 Chester Pirk',, ~ I%~.~'1 209.71 Tom Watson 108.10 301 B~!.! Petro~ ~ ~ 60.90 ' 243 Paul Scherber 38.54 Robert Brown 105.18 ~. ZEaaas 149.22 Richard P. ugh ~& ~0.o0 ! Paul Neuschwaoder ~~ ~ ~5~,70 Sally's ~ ~ {3'* 557.1"!+ 25-54~ I?O*IC+ 27 · ? 2 + 164,~G+ 1~6o9¢+ 167o9C+ t29-1c+ 7'7.19+ 55.65- 65-22+ 209o71+ 152-71- lO~.lG+ 105,1~+ 1~9.2E+ 117o45+ 60.0C- 7/~ 260 ........,ecce I~lvd. 5667 Bush Rd. 2571 Lakewood · 5092 g241 Shnr.1 tn. Rlvd_ $4348.76 42 343 3650 41 · 42 343' 2631 41 42 259 4801 91 22 235 2401 41 22 238 4933 81 22 238 5023 71 22 253 2017 11 22 259 4949 O1 22 259 4978 91 22 268 5872 41 22 271 ~925 71 22 277 5853 51 22 280 5846 31 22 283 5900 21 22 286 6040 91 22 289 3017 41 22 292 6033 21 22 310 2605 11 22 310 2676 21 22 310 3120 O1 22 310 3160 61 22 310 3198 61 22 316 2882 31 22 317 3016 51 22 321 3013 41 22 343 2434 71 22 343 2606 O1 22 346 5667 21 22 364 2571 21 22 397 2524 11 22 4O4 5O92 01 22 404 5241 31 Delinquent Water and Sewer $491.40 435.96 357.17 73.10 75.34 170.10 118.10 67.72 51.60 78.9O 109.16 164.40 166.96 167.90 48.18 129.10 84.31 77.'19 169.70 65.22 85.32 62.42 107.90 209.71 108.10 60.90 38.54 105.18 149.22 118.48 151.70 49.78 $4348.76 6-16-83 :MOUND APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03-~ VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER :l~./.--(... l (-.-- 0 PLAT FEE $ PARCEL Northerly part o.f PID'24-117-24 22 0018 Location and compl.ete legal description of property to be divided: ZONING ' To be divided as follows: THAT PART OF THE H 637.5 FT OF LOT i~ NLT EXT. OF THE S L1;NE OF LOT 13 OF THE N 637.5 FT OF LOT ~q AUD SU3D $ LINE OF LOT 13 SH'rRLEY HILLS L~4IT O BUBO NO ~70 ORS ~S FOLLO'.~S BEG AT THE SAID ~U0 BUBO NO 170 HITH THE ~LT E~ HILLS ~IIT O TH OH AH ~SEUMED BEARIH~ ~0 X DIS OF 51 FT TH S 46 DEG N B8 FT 1Z9 FT ~ S 17 O[G E B9 FT TH S ~E NELY EXT OF THE NLY LINE OF LOT SA~O EX TO THE ~ L[NE OF LOT 20 AUD TO ~E ~ CDR OF LOT 20 TH tlEL? E L~NE OF LOT ~0 TH N ALONG SA~D E ~9~ ~0 AND SZ OF THE BARTLETT PLACE OF LOT $g OF THE BARTLETT P~CE UPPER FROH THE ~ CDR OF SA~D LOT ~ TO A k DIS OF 20 FT N[LY FROH TH~ S~ CDR THOF SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT 0 LYZN$S OF THE SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT O ALSO THAT PART NO 270 LYIHC- S OF THE NLY EXT OF THE ALSO THAT 'PART OF LOTS 19 AN'D ZO AUD INTERSECTIOH OF THE E LINE OF LOT OF THE S LINE OF LOT 1-~ OF SHIRLEY OF ~ PAR WITH THE N LINE OF SAID LOT TH S qB OEG N 1Zl FT TH S 3~ DEG W 8 DEG E 201 FT TH S 29 DEG N 67 FT TH 59 ~T TH S 5 0EG 30 HIN N 120 FT TO 28 SAIO AUD SU5 )~0 170 TH RELY ALONG SUBD NO 270 TH SLY ALO:,'G SAID ~4 LINE ALO;~$ THE SLY LIHE OF LOT ZO TO THE LIRE TO THE POINT OF BEG ALSO LOT UPPER LAKE t~IN~ETONKA ALSO THAT PART LA.~E HI~.~ETONKA LYIHG E OF A LINE RUH POINT OH THE SLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3~ Reason: . ~/~', ' . / (_signature) ' NO. Subdivision of Land - Lost Lake Addition Bounds Description - Northerly. part of PlO 2/4-117-2/4 22 0018 Vern Veit of Jellico was not present. 7. Case No. 83-229 Metes and Applicant, Discussed the application briefly. Commission felt that Outlot A should be split between Lotsll and 14 except for portion containing the storm sewer. Also felt that watermains and sewer mains should be looped out to Maywood. /~'3~ Byrnes moved and Jensen seconded a motion to table consideration of application ,,n¢;1 nnnllCmnt lc nr~enr_ The vote wn~ unanimously in favor. Planning Commission minutes of June 13, 1983 F BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 83-229 Subdivision of Land - Lost Lake Addition Metes and Bounds Description - Northerly Part of PID 24-117-24 22 0018 Vern Veit of Jellico was present. The Building Official explained that she had talked to Mr. Veit about Outlot A and it was agreed there would be no problem dividing this between adjoining Lots 1 and 14 so it can be maintained and will not be left unbuildable; will need to put in a outlet for drainage off of that site so will take an easement for storm sewer. The sewer and water will be looped out to Maywo~d. The City Manager advised that the lift station on Bartlett had been rebuilt so it can handled the added capacity of this proj.e~t. The one factor will be in the grade change and elevations. The other thing discussed was the possibility of shortening the cul-de-sac and connect another cul-de-sac off of Maywood. The City owns 300 feet between project and Maywood. City would have to put in road and extend Maywood. Discussed the recommendation of a maximum 600 foot cul-de- sac. Some cul-de-sacs are longer. Tree maintenance biggest problem in case of a storm. Applicant is requesting subdivision for single family dwellings. Mr, Veit com- mented that the length of cul-de-sac was not brodqht up at hearlnq on twin home rezoning request. This site plan i's for 14 single family homes. Reese moved and Fillbrandt seconded a motion to recommend plat approval with the provision Outlot A be combined with one or divided between the adjoi~ing lots'and further that the plat approval be subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and City Planner. The vote was Jensen against; all others in favor. Jensen would like to see cul-de-sac off of'Maywood Investigated; can't see having all the traffic dumped on Bartlett. Public Hearing to be set for July 19th Council Meeting. /,3"3 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS [] LAND SURVEYORS Il PLANNERS May 17, 1983 Reply To: 12800 Indu~rial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 3an Bertrand City of Hound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: City of Mound Proposed Subdivision Lost Lake Addition #6383 Dear 3an, We have reviewed the latest preliminary plan dated April 25, 198~ for the remainder of Lost Lake Addition. The following are our comments and recommendations. 1. Grading: A more detailed grading and ~rosion control plan will be re- quired before final plat approval is granted..Also, permits most likely will be required from agencies such as the DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dis- trict before final plat approval. 2. Storm Sewer: Detailed storm sewer plan will also have to be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Hound before final plat approval. ~.' Sanitary Sewer and Watermain: The 6" watermain should be looped through to the existing main in Maywood Road. We would suggest that the sani- tary sewer and watermain be run in the same easement.~ The exact alignment can be determined at a later date when the final construction plans are prepared. 4. Streets: As we stated in our previous letter of February 22, 1983, we feel the proposed cul-de-sac is still excessively long, even though the number of housing units bare been reduced. This change will of course reduce the amount of traffic, but we are still concerned with creating a dead end street of this length. The possibility of extending this street through to Maywood Road could be investigated since the sanitary sewer and watermain will need to be connected to the existing mains in Maywood Road. / 'Yo printed on recycled p,~per Jan Bertrand' May 17, 198 Page Two .CASE NO. 83-229 Final construction plans will need to be submitteO and approved prior to council action on the final plat. If you have any questions or need'further informstion, please contsbt me. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. OC:j m~;r, te~ on recycled D2Der April 6, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, 1982 ~ouncilmember Swenson moyed the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO 82-84 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOST LAKE ADDITION the plat of Lost Lake Addition h'as been submitted in the manner required for platting under Section 22 of the C~t.y Code of the City of Mound and under Section 462 of the Minnesota 'Statutes, and the Planning Commission of t~e City of Mound has reviewed said plat and found it to be consistent with the City plan a~d ordinances of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: Preliminary Plat Approval Request Application, Case #82-105, Lost Lake Addition is ~pproved contingent upon compliance with the.folloWing requirements: 1 . The filing of a revised plat with the City BdildJng Official'~ office exhibiting a full cul-de-sac, with a radius of 50 feet, including all necessary easements. 2. The filing of a revised plat indicating surface water drainage patterns and proposed street grades. Also. before ffnal plat approval by the City Council, the petitioner shall submit to the City Engineer for app. roval, construction plans which. will i'nclude'grading, stEeets and utilities. 3. Submission to t~e dity BuJlding. Official.of.a letter, from the Hennepin County Highway Department documenting the approval of the proposed road access on County Road 125. 4. Submission to the City Build.ins'Official of results from soil boring tests conducted on the site. 5. Submission to the City Bui. tding Official of evidence of approval ' by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the proposed surface water drainage plan and systems. 6. Furnishing a duly completed and'executed performance bond, certified by the City Attorney as valid and enforceable, in the amount of $50,000. to cover (a) installation of. grading, gravel and base for streets, (b) paving of streets, (c) installation of concrete'curb and gutters, (d) installation if water systems, (e) installation of sanitary sewer systems, (f) installation of storm sewer systems; all in conformance with City approved plans and specifications at th~ sole expense of the subdivider in conformance with Chapter 22.00 of the City Code. 7- The provision of a ten (10) foot utility and drainage easement along the front, sides or corner lots, rear of all lots, and ten (~0) feet equally divided between each lot on interior side lot lines. 8. Before bu;Iding permits for any homes constructed in said subdivision are issued, a certificate signed by a registered 'engineer must be provided. This certificate will state that April 6, 1982 all final' lot and building grades are in conformance to the drainage development plan and minimum floor elevation plans approved by the City Engineer. 9.~ Pursuant to City of Mound Resolution No. 72-433, the park dedication and open space requirements for the subdivision are satisfied, f Approval of Title by the City Attorney. Il. Failure on the part of the petitioner to submit a final plant within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary approval to be null and void (Section 22.13). 12. Submission to the Building Official of evidence of approval by PCA and Minnesota Department of Health for sanitary sewer and watermain. 13. Submit street name for proposed plat. 14. An escrow fund of $1,500. (Minus Filing Fees) be established to cover City Engineering, Legal and Administrative Expense. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Ulrick and upon vote being taken thereon; the'roi'lowing, voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; the following voted agains~ the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. · Attest: City Clerk i ~ADDITION ,/ 12 13 '% )PERS, INC. IN CO, INC. ;NGINEER$ 1982 .c~,',~; ..... : '/EL .CRE$ CASE NOt 83-229. % /"% · 4~. ; PROPOSED LOT t BLOCK '1 LOT I R-I SINGLE I' LOT 2 R-I, DUPLEX BLOCK 2 LOT I R-I $1NGCE ir LOT Z R-I S~NGL~[ Ir LOT 3 R-3 DuPL.[X CITY of MOUND MEMORANDUM 5341 MAYWOOD ROA, MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mound City Planning Commission Rob Chelseth, City Planner 22 February 1983 Proposed Lost Lake Addition Subdivision This request, is to rezone the Lost Lake property from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-3 Two Family Residential. A review of the Mound Compre- hensive Plan shows that th~ specific area including this parcel is planned for low density residential development (about 4 units per acre). The requested r~zoning to R-3 would increase this density slightly, into the range of 4 to 6 units per acre. Given the facts that: 1) land-to the immediate west of the property is currently planned and zoned for R-3 density development; 2) the remaining land to the west is wetland - unsuit- able for'urban development; and, 3) land immedia{eiy south of the property is zoned R-2, allowing single family home on 6,000 square foot lots; the requested rezoning, while not being totally consistent with the current plan, contains several Circumstances that may make it an acceptable excep- tion to the exact details on the land use plan map. Specifically, under the.Plan Policies Section, containing Plan Policies for Housing, Item "c" states: "Establish duplex zoning where contiguous blocks maintain_an exis- ting duplex structure or vacant lot development potential".. The proposed rezoning appears to be consistent with this land use planning policy for housing proposals. There are several other very important issues that should be addressed before a rezoning is granted. These questions, to which the Planning Commission should request the applicant to provide answers,, include: 1. Evidence that the soils and slope on {he parcel (especially to the north) are suitab]e locations for higher density deve.lopment. 2. As there is on]y one street frontage on the lot, the plan has been de- ve__joped with a very long cul-de-sac (far longer than standard planning ~rin.cipl~s suggest). This co'bl~-lead to snowplowing problems, a~d traffic problems given the higher density and availability of only one outlet. It is strongly recommended that the developer seek a second outlet on the north side of the property. 3- Several lots are very narrow, and oddly shaped. The applicant must realize that the rezoning of the property in no way implies approval of the pro- posed plat. A new p]at review process must be started if the rezoning is approved. Rob Chel seth Re/ms February 22., 1983 RECEIVED '25 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS II LAND SURVEYORS I~ PLANNERS CASE NO. ~ Reply To: 12800 Indu~rial Pa;'k Boulevard Plymouth. Minnesota 5544,1 (612) 559.3100' Jan Bertrand City of Mound 5341 Heywood Road Mound, MN 55364' Subject: City of Mound Proposed Subdivision Lost Lake Addition File ~6383 Dear Jan: Having reviewed the latest drawing submitted for rezoning on the above property, we offer the following comments: We feel the proposed cul-d~Lsac is excessive!y"togg:.'for the number of housing units (32) being served. This cul-de-sac is prgposed to be approximately 900 feet long, whereas'under normal conditions, new installations are limited to 600 feet. The possibility of extending this street through to Maywood Road could be investigated · since the sanitary sewer.and watermain witl need.to cbnnect to the existing mains in Maywo~d Road. If'the property is rezoned, the owner should'be required to resubmit complete preliminary grading and ~tility' plans in order to receive preliminary plat approval. The existing preliminary plat approval should not be transferred to the new layout since numerous changes have been made. If you hav'e any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. JC:sj I I Case ]IT.Z 35 ...~Z4.~... (o C.t~ ',5.3I.r,3 ') .... 2~87. Z412es..... 282.~ Corr. ongle5 ~re /he h'nes - es/. by adv. oos. and div. h'~e bwn. Gov7 Lois 2 19 ° $1 i; No. 831229 )':t (Cc..,, q_IV[I 'Oil l~OI JLF[iO S'JH : i, iOI J.,'3V' : M OI£¥QN~'~OO~H i, iOIS$IIC..<OD .> - '.' i"{" "' ' ' C v~'~'-"'-~ ' -~.~.~ ~ono~ .... ' ~ooz pue IIea ~uo!~4e^~.I~ ep!s pu~ ~uo~$ ~ueId aooI$ ~ueId .uo!~puno$ .. -. o~ -""7". . '. -,naqs zo ~ua~aozdm[ s!q~ Jo uo~qona~uo~ a~ ~zlzoqqne og panss~.q~mx~d e s'ei.l . - ot~o7 DICK ULRICK CONSTRUCTION, INC. P. O. BOX 263 WAYZATA,, ?~rrI~N'ESOTA 55391 612 - -I° 0 0 (0 Z I ~ (oo/)"o, ~ob ~oo/) MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION MEETING June 9, 1983 Present were: Chair Phyllis Jessen; Commissioners Toni Case, Andy Gearhart, Delores Maas and Pete Ward; Commissioners Art Andersen and Lowell Swenson arrived later meeting the group'at Brookton Park~ Council Representative Pinky Charon; City Manager Jon Elam; Park Director Chris Bollis and Secretary MarQe Stutsman. Commissioners Cathy Bailey and Cheryl Burns were absent and excused. MINUTES The minutes of the Park Commission meeting of May 12, 1983 were presented for con- sideration. Gearhart moved and Ward seconded a motion to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. MAINTENANCE PERMIT -'IMPROVEMENT OF COMMONS ABUTTING LOT 10, BLOCK 35, WYCHWOOD ~pplicant Kenneth Smith of 2927 Cambridge Lane and Contractor Dick Ulrick were present. Mr. Smith explained that.the heavy rains of 4 or 5 years.ago washed out a large portion of the bank and in the last two years, the bank has come in toward his house about four more feet. He is requesting permission to go a~ead and re- build the bank, terrace it and rebuild the washed out retaining walls and put in stairs down to the lake. The Park Director explained that the last sheet of handout is a copy of a survey of thi's, part of Commons done in 1977-1978 which shows concrete wall with stairway. This ~s not new construCtion~ the applicant simply wants to rebuild what was washed out. Mr. Ulrick stated the plans are to clean up and rebuild and prevent erosion. plan to use plastic, railroad ties, etc. and minimize the erosion with p'lants (honeysuckle) and keep very natural. They Ward moved and Maas seconded' a motion to approve the application for the mainte- nance permit for rebuilding the retaining walls and stairway on the Commons abutting 2927 Cambridge Lane. .Chair asked if applicant plans to incur the costs himself. The City Manager advised that any public funds available would be for public accesses and public sites used by everyone. Applicant will do the project himself. He also advised that he will riprap the shoreline as he can afford it. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. This item will be on the Council agenda of June 21st. REPORTS Council Representative Pinky Charon reported the Council received a "thank you" note from the Avocet and Bluebird residents for the stairways to the Commons. The City Manager stated the cost of the work done "in house" was approximately $600. The stairways fit into the landscape. The residents have riprapped and sodded the Commons. The City Manager stated that it looks good and this has been a good trade off for the City and residents. The City Manager reported that the Council approved a number of small items. Park Commission Minutes June 9, ]98'3 - Page 2 1) They.approved bids on a basketball court at Brookton Park. 2) Mound Bay Park is 95% done - both the Lions and Rotary Clubs have agreed to work on the building - the Lions agreed to paint the depot this spring. Need $5OO at least to do the deck. 3) Council approved backstop and fencing of third base at Island Park to increase safety. The existing back~top will be torn down at Island Park and rebuilt over at Avon Park. 4) A full fence to be installed alongside Mound Bay Park by Skoglunds. Cost $500 to install 150 feet of fence. 5) Fire hydrant has been moved out of sidewalk. 6) The swimming dock is in on the Bluffs beach. 7) All the parks have been sprayed for dandelions - this was approved last year. 8) The Highland Park equipment is going in. The City Manager reported a petition has been received from residents of the Bluffs'requesting a tennis court for the Outlot in the Bluffs. They are agree- able to having it 'assessed back to the people in that area. Park Director noted that same contractor doing Mound Bay Park will grade ice rink at Brookton Park and Highland Parks. The City Manager stated he wants a snow fence around the sodded areas and trees at Mound Bay Park this winter to keep the snow mobiles out. Suggested designing a path around the trees and sod. Discussed having a re-dedication of Mound Bay Park when the park is completed. This would probably be sometime in Jul.y. Park Director reported they are putting in a 80 foot long dock for boat docking and fishing with a 16 foot "L" on it at Mound Bay Park. There is also space for boat docking alongside the beach area. Maas moved and Charon seconded a motion to recommend approval of the concept of a tennis court in the Bluffs. The vote was unanimously in favor. It was also discussed briefly that Commission plan a tribute to Gordie Swenson. The Park Commission would like to initiate the idea. At this point, the Commission moved over to Brookton Park. The Park Director explained the plans for the park; a skating rink between the Cottonwood Tree and light pole; sandbox by the Cottonwood and a tennis court in the southwest area of the park. ADJOURNMENT .-Maas moved and Charon seconded a motion to adjourn the meetinq at 9:05 P.M. in favor, so meeting was adjourned. All CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: Jon Elam FROM: Licensing Department DATE: June 16, 1983 SUBJECT: Liquor Licenses Applications have been received for the renewal of the following li'quor licenses: Donnie's on the Lake - Class A - On Sale for restaurant Class B - Sunday License Minnetonka Post 398 - Club On Sale Liquor License (American Legion Club) Chamberlain-Goudy VFW Post 5113 Club On Sale Liquor License A1 & Alma's Supper Club - Wine License and Set Up Permit Three Points Tavern - Set Up Permit The renewal period for the above licenses is from July 1, 1983 through June 30, 1984. Marjorie Stutsman June 1, 1983. City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, ~ound, ~. 55364 Dear Sirs: Enclosed is my deed to Graves 2, 3, and ~, Lot ~ 15~, Div. C, of Mound Union Cemetery. My first husband, Elliott Gillespie, is~ buried in one grave, and I wish to sell the remaining tWo. I understand from the clerk at the City office that each grave will sell for ~200 each. Will you please approve this request? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, (M~s.) E\~llengene GiD~lespie-Fisher i~420 '~estwoo~ Drive, Mound, ~iN. 55364 Tel.: 472-1126 .DIvISION il CHAPTER 5 - Page 2 SECTION 5.033 Purchase Payments Options Upon payment in full of the purchase price of a lot, the cemetery will issue a deed conveying the lot executed by the Mayor and the Clerk, and the deed shall be recorded in the records of the Village. An interim receipt may be issued at that time which may be exchanged for the completed deed which will be ready for delivery within ten days.. Lots may be purchased on a deferred payment contract. Such contract shall be signed by.the Purchaser and approved by the Village Manager. This contract shall stipulate the amount paid and the terms for payment of the balance. Deferred payments shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of execution of the contract. Before a burial is permitted,'an amount equal to the actual space used plus. the interment and.disinterment charges mgst be paid. No memorial may be installed on the lots purchased on deferred payments until the full purchase price has been paid. (Ord. 287 - 8/19/71) SECTION 5.034 Sole Ownership No lots will be sold in joint ownership or commoh ownership. The title must stand in one name, but where two or more persons join in paying for a lot, their respective interests and rights may be protected by placing the lot in trust, said trust conveys the lot th' the Cemetery to be held as a place of burial for the persons specified in the trust agreement. ~No lot may be p!aced in trust until the full purchase price has been paid. SECTION 5.035 Subdivision Prohibited, Transfer, Resale, Reas$1~nmeht Restricted No lots shall be subdivided by the owner. No transfer, resale, reassignment, or other disposition may be made by a lot owner of any interest in. his lot, except by will under the governing laws of the State of Minnesota, without securing the written consent of the Village Manager and the.Village reserves the first option to repurchase the lot or fractiona.1 lot at the orginal sale price.. No lot will be permitted to be resold, disposed of, or otherwise used until the purchase price and all unpaid charges, including charges for permanent or special care have been pald in full. (Ord. 287 - 8/19/1971) SECTION 5.036 C'onditions of Sale. %he instrument of conveyance and the Ordinances, Rules and Regulations and any amendments thereto constitute the sole agreement between the cemetery and the lot owner. The statement of any employee or agent, unless confirmed in writing by the cemetery, shall not be binding. Lot owners are granted only the right of interment in their lots. /~.,,.~.~:~ C- 1- 1971 7.02 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 June 2, 1983 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: I am submitting this material in response to your request for information regardin~ our interest in providin~ consultin~ planning services to the City of Mound. Van Doren-Hazard Stallings is extremely interested in providing ongoing planning assistance to Mound on a contractual basis or other appropriate agreement. We would be pleased to discuss our hourly rate schedules and the ten~s and conditions of such an agreement if and when it beccmes appropriate. For informational purposes, the current hourly rate for planning personnel is $40. This number is all inclusive. No addit'ional fees are billed for mileage, printing, clerical work, or secretarial support. Additionally, Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings' staff is available for Planning Commission and City Council meetings on an as-needed basis without additional charge. Since the majority of planning charges are billable to developers, our statements could be itemized consistent with the City's accounting practices for easier allocation to the appropriate parties. I have enclosed some background material to provide you with a general overview of Van Ebren-Hazard-Stallings. Additional copies of this material are available if needed. Over the past few months, I have enjoyed my association with the Mound staff, Planning Cc~mission, and City Council. Ongoing work activities and the City's commitment to the redevelcment of the CBD area present exciting challenges in the field of planning. If appropriate, I would welcome the opportunity to continue this professional association. 5~. Jon Elam page Two June 2, 1983 Should you require additional information or have questions, please contact Sincerely, VAN DOREN-HAZARD-S TALLING$ .. R. Mark Koegler Principal Planner ~nclosures .VAN DORS~-HAZARD-STALLIN~S Engineers-Architects--Planners Provide architectural, engineering, and planning services as a multi-disciplinary effort for a~tainment of our clients' goals.: Ensure coordination and expediency through all phases of project design and construction by assembling a project team c~mpatible with the tasks to be performed and capable of generatin~ a mutual trust and confidence with each other, the client, and representatives of the client. Utilize current technology in pursuance of innovative design for cost-effective, energy-efficient construction and capture those aesthetic elements which most freely complement the project yet are. harmonious with outside influences. HISTORY Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings was organized as a partnership in January, 1946, under the nan~ of Servis and Van Doren, Consulting Engineers, with offices in Hays, Kansas. In 1950, the offices w~re moved to Topeka, Kansas. Mr. S.G. Hazard joined the firm in 1953, and the name became Servis, Van Doren, and Hazard, Enginee.rs/Architects. In 1964,. Mr~ J.R. Stallings and Mr. D.P. Schnacke became partners of the firm, 'and the name became Van D~ren-Hazard-Stallings-Schnacke, Er~ineers/Architects. The firm established a second office in Wichita, Kansas, in 1968. In 1974, the name of the firm was changed to its present form,' Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings, Architects/Engineers/Plan~ers. An office was established in Minneapolis in 1975 to better serve clients in MinnesOta. In 1979, a fourth office was established in Kansas City, Missouri. Our firm provides architectural, engineering, and planning services to governmental, industrial, commercial, and private clients throughout the Midwest with some work in' geographical locations outside of this area. The present full-time staff consists of 69 persons, 32 'of whom are licensed architects, engineers, and land surveyors. The staff has extensive background and experience in the special disciplines of architecture; structural, civil, sanitary, electrical, and mechanical engineering as well as in planning, photogrammetry, and surveyiDg. CAPABILITIES Engineering Architecture Planning Structural: Buildings Bridges Electrical Mechanical Civil: Streets Highways Interchanges Airports Sew-age Collection and Treat3rent Storm Drainage Utility Placement Water Improvements Flood Protection Photogr~,,,~try Surveyir~ Construction Inspection MAJOR CLIENTS C~,ul~rcial: Banks Offices Stores Shopping Centers Parking Ramps Educational: Fine Art Facilities Libraries Laboratories ClassrocraFacilities Single/Multi-Family Housir~3 Industrial Facilities Religious Facilities Health Care Facilities Building Rehabilitation Architectural Plan Review · Construction Inspection Feasibility Studies Econ~nicAnalyses Energy Conservation Traffic Analyses Environmental Analyses Comprehensive Plans Master Development Plans Site Selection Site Design Transportation Plans Water Pesource Plans Revegitation Studies Wildlife Management Plans Park/Open Spgce Plannin~ Capital Improvement Tax Increment Districts EOwntownRedevelopm~nt Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Landscape Design Ford MOtor Company Goodyear Tire and Rubber C~npany Montgomery Ward and Company Hallmark Cards, Inc. .' E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Inc. Pnternational Business Machines, Wnite Plains, New York Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Minneapolis Star and Tribune Conpany U. So Postal Service U.S. Corps of Engineers (St. I>aul, Omaha, Kansas City, add Alaska) Army National Guard Air National Guard U.S. Navy Washburn University Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois Kansas State Board of Regents Department of Buildings, State of Alaska Ccmotara Properties, Inc., wichita, Kansas Malan Construction Ccmpany, Detroit, Michigan Hanson Development Company, Hac~ensack, New Jersey Ozark Regional Plannir~ C~,~ission, Little Rock, Arkansas Fazendin Homes, Inc., Minnetonka, Minnesota Energy Research and Development Administration, Kansas City, Missouri U.S. Fish a~d Wildlife Service Burlington Northern, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota Missouri-Pacific Railroad, St. Louis, Missouri Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority, Topeka, Kansas Alaska Division of Aviation Wichita Airport Authority, Wichita, Kansas City of Minneapolis, Minnesota City of St. Paul, Minnesota City of Topeka, Kansas City of Wichita, Kansas City of Atchison, Kansas Hennepin County Department of Transportation, Hopkins, Minnesota Jackson County, Missouri (Metro Kansas City) Iowa Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation Nebraska Department of Transportation Kansas Department of Transportation Alaska Department of Transportation SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE Under the able direction of Mr. Earrell D. 'H~,u,ond, the Minneapolis office of Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings has provided and continues to provide professional services for design of a number of projects in the Twin Cities' area. Many. clients retain our firm on a repetitiTM basis for projects which utilize many of our capabilities in architecture, er~ineering, and planning. Our firm was retained by the City of Minneapolis to provide engineering services for the relocation of streets a~d utilities around the Hubert H. Hu~nphrey Metrodom~. /his work included relocation of sanitary and storm sewer lines and their connection back to the existin~ lines, sc~e of which have been in place since the area was originally developed. Severe time c6nstraints were imposed on. the design for this'project. .By reviewing our project schedules and prudently selectin~ additional staff members to supplement the project team, we were able to accomplish the work well within the time frame agreed upon. Construction was campleted in 1981. We were concurrently i'nvolved with another series of projects near the Metrcdcr~ site for the Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company. Part of this work is on-going and will ultimately accomplish rehabilitation of the Roberts-Hamilton Building. Analyses were performed and recommendations submitted for other buildings in this same area. For this client, we designed a new maintenance facility and provided construction observation services. Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings was prime consultant for preparation of the Eastern Ebwntown Minneapolis Parking Study. This study was prepared for a group interested in the future and existing parking needs and the parking sUpply in the area bounded roughly by Portland Avenue, Eleventh Avenue, Third Street, and Tenth Street excluding land occupied by the Metrodome. In conducting this study, existin~ data was reviewed, parking demand determined, alternative sites for parking facilities examined, functional design of parking facilities prepared, and a financial analysis of the parkin~ system prepared. T~e Plymouth Avenue Bridge over the Mississippi River near downtown Minneapolis wms designed by our finn for 'the City of Minneapolis. This bridge is presently under construction; and we have been retained for construction observation services. : Preparations presently are being made to begin the design phase for the Broadway Bridge 'which is also near downtown Minneapolis. Our 'firm was initially retained by Hennepin County for the preliminary phase which included the collection of existing data, stirv~y~; public involvement, aDD development of concept and preliminary plans.. A substantial part of. this work wms devoted to preparation of an environmental assessment and to the~ studying of alternatives to preserve the historical 'character of the area. The pr~cedir~ projects ar~ b~t a few examples of our capability to perform work in downtown areas. We have also provided professional services for develc~nt wor'~, in Osseo (120 acres) and Coon Rapids (90 acres), Minnesot~ - for Burlimgton Northern, Inc.' CUr firm is presently involved in a develclmment project for Fazendin Hc~es, Inc., in Minnetonka and has been since 1979. This w~rk includes platting, site design, er~ineering, and construction observation services on a 62-acre tract. We also prov~d~ design review services for their staff architect. · Van Doren-Hazard-Stallir~s will soon embark on another development project for a Twin Cities' client. This project 'will incorporate energy efficient design into a housing, 'retail, and c~,~'L~rcial/industrial use area, somewhat similar to our Com~tara Development in Wichita, Kansas. Comotara is a 3600-acre multiple-use development by Comotara .Properties, Inc. Development of this tract has been underway for approximately 10 years. Our finn wms retained to provide .the'platting, site design, and engineering on the first portion'of the tract and has been continuously involved with the project site since that time. The project includes residential ar~as and' provides for ccrmmercial and kusiness activity as well as an industrial park for light manufacturing. All types of transportation facilities are associated with the project including a proposed freeway, major arterial streets, railroad service to the industrial park, amd an airport for general aviation. Other Work in the Upper Midwest: Studies and report preparation for.a social and environmental inventory of the Fargo, North Dakota/Moorhead, Minnesota, area for the Corps' of Er~ineers. - Location and preliminary design report, environmental impact statement, " and preliminary plans for a 94-mile section of Trunk Highway 53 from Virginia to International Falls, Minnesota, for the Minnesota Depazh,~nt of Transportation. - Industrial park feasibility study at Little Falls, Minnesota, for the C~unity Development Corporation of Little Falls. Preparation of concepts and preliminary plans for 1.4 miles of urban high~ay through Minnehaha Park for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Provision for a traffic tunnel was included in this project. - Numerous projects for structural analyses of buildings. Van Eoren-Hazard-Stallings' staff has been involved in prime design acti¥ities for ~rous building projects in Minnesota, particularly projects in the Twin Cities' area constructed by local contractors. Scme of these are: - Capital Centre Skyway Building in St. Paul constructed by Knutsen Construction Campany. ~ - Edina High Rise elderly housing in Edina constructed by Kraus-Anderson. Residential high rise in Minneapolis constructed by Franz Klcdt & Sons, Inc. - · Shelard T~Wer cu,~ercial high rise .and parking facility in St. Louis Park constructed by Bor-Son Construction~ Inc. Other significant projects which demonstrate Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings' overall capabilities: E~ineering - Design for sewage interceptors, pump station to serve entire city, and treatment plant in lansing, Kansas. .. - Numerous wastewater collection and treatment facilities in Topeka, Kansas, · includin~ design for treatment plants, in. terceptors, pump stations, and sludge handling facilities. - Design for 5-million gallon water storage. reservoir in Topeka, Kansas, including distribution system connection, remote controlled off-hour filling pump facilities, and differential zone boosting to the distribution system. Design for a lake water supply intake, water treatment plant, clear ~11, elevated storage, and water distribution piping at Clinton Reservoir in Douglas County, Kansas. Surveys, soil .investigations, right-of-w-ay plat maps, street/ramp/roadway design, and bridge design for Interstate 35W viaduct (2-1/4 miles) in Wichita, Kansas. Preliminary surveys, soils engineering, roadway and interchange design, railroad shoofly design, and preliminary bridge design for 7 miles of 4-lane U.S. Highway 71 bypass at Storm lake in Buena V. ista County, Io~a. Architecture * Washburn University Fine Arts Building in Topeka, Kansas. This is a 122,500 square foot facility with 1,200 seat concert hall; rehearsal roo~.s; art galleries; studio for sculpture, ceramics, and jewelery; and a 400-seat theater in the round. Merchants National Bank Building in Topeka, Kansas. This 16-story facility is ccmposed of 273,923 square feet and contains a major bank facility, 4 stories of perking, and 10 stories of office space. An office building containing 35,86~- square feet for the American Home Life Insurance Ccmpany in Topeka, Kansas. Numerous shopping centers and retail, outlets throughout' the Midwest f~)r a number of clients. Structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering services are also provided for buildir~3 projects. ~lanning. Conducted social and environmental inventory of Fargo, North E~kota/Moorhead, Minnesota, area and prepared studies and report. Environmental Assessment, Kansa~ City Urban Study. This project included. .an inventory of the 8-countyurbanarea and environmental assessments of the region's'long-range water supply plan and flood protection projects in 9 basins within the urban area. An Assessment of the region's long-range population and e~ployment plans were also included. -' Freeway Corridor Location, U.S. 77 frc~ Lincoln, Nebraska, to Kansas State line. Tnis project incorporated specific habitat analysis procedures, land use, agricultural capabilities, and other resource parameters into development of alternativ~ highway locations. Reno County Land Capability Study, Reno County, Kansas. This project. acccmplished development of a land use plan for the' County and provides a means of easily updating this plan ~by c~nputer methods. A ccmputerized data base was established and a computer modeling technique developed which can be easily updated .to reflect changes in resources and i-n land uses. - Wildlife Management Plan, Fort Riley, Kansas. A plan was developed for vegetative, land use, and wildlife management. - Site design and preliminary engineering for Topeka Industrial Park, Topeka, Kansas. This project included development of 'a ccmprehensive site layout, preparation of a final plat, and investigation of offsite factors which affect the site. Final plans and construction documents were then prepared by Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings. The precedin~ has been an overall view of the multi-disciplinary capabilities of Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings. Our success is not limited to projects for "which we have been sole consultant. Project teams are often assembled with outside expertise to ccmpl~ent our staff in a particular field or to provide talent for highly specialized tasks for which we lack the proper experience. The success of a client's project is. of utmost importance to Van El)re n-Ha za rd-St al 1 i ngs. 5341 MAYWOOB ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Jan Bertrand, Building Official June 16, 1983 Request to place temporary home at 212] Grandview Boulevard Mr. and Mrs. Steve Collins have requested the placement of a travel trailer at 212] Grandview Boulevard for 90 days. I would recommend approval of the placement. The owner is receiving electric power from the neighbor until his is restored; his water and sewer is provided at their home. The fire damage was mainly smoke damage. The house will probably be gutted out to remove all smoke penetration into the walls, but it is structurally sound. JB/ms 00' O01 ~) ,,,.otj ............................................................ OOl/O0 '~3!3ou sAep 0~ uo ~]~ Aue le ase~t s!q3 ~3eu!~J~l ol 3q§!J ~q3 S~AJ~$~J JOSSg[ 43UOW O0'OOJlj~':il''(I OOI/O0 pue paJpunN au0 ~ ........... I,J-P~.-t,~u!.Otdl ........ · o~a 'uo!le~!Jqej. '6u!Jn3~e:~nueLu 's~les [!e:l~J ou ~q ii!~ 9J~ql - Aluo ~§eJo~S · ~.,' ;,:s4 3 uom 'x!s ,- ,,,, ,, ,,. ,.,j ,..,-.,..,,,J .,,, ,,,,.,~.: ,., ,,,, v,,, ~ , - , ....... ~,,:, 'pAI~] pOOh, UA] pue 'pAIB agJatuwog Jo uo!lm~sJ~lu aq~ jo J~ujo3 3S aq~ le p~3e~oI 6u!pl~n~ uosJ~puV aq~ Jo (6u~.~e.;p paq3e~e uo u~oqs pue ~aaj aJenbs O00J AJa~e~!xoJdde) JaUJO3 lsataq~JON .J¢) filL) ,) q l .,.,s 'ql .[~ A I.ll,,I I,.ll~x .'ql OlUU I,FI I -u.,.u,., J,u~ slN.*.l ,~ql .J'~ U'qll~.'l'/s'ur~.~ 'DUi 'e~osauu~N Jo ~eS-~Od CITY of MOUND June 17, 1983 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: RE: CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER TENNIS COURT PETITION FROM THE BLUFFS Enclosed is a petition, signed by nearly every household in The Bluffs. What they are requesting is that the City would undertake a preliminary feasibility study to analyze the engineering problems and costs in implementing this proposal. The residents are proposing that the cost of the court be assessed against the residents over a period of up to 10 years. This could be an interesting approach to implementing higher cost recreation facilities in the various neighborhoods. Because having a park, tennis court, etc. close by can increase house values and neighborhood attractiveness, people may be willing to support the projects when other times they might not. I would suggest moving this proposal on to the engineer and then conduct a public hearing to see how much formal support exists for this approach. JE:fc a. THOmAS WURSt~ P. a. CURTIS At. PEARSON, P. A. JOSEPH E. HAMILTON, P. A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P. A. JAMES D- LARSON, P. A. LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD II00 FIRST BAN}{ PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 June 29, 1983 TELEPHONE Ms. Fran Clark City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, M~ 55364 Re: Tennis Courts - Bluff Dear Fran: I promised you I would prepare resolutions for the Bluffs improvement project regarding the construction of tennis courts. I enclose herewith two resolutions, one of which should end up being published. Please review and if in order complete and put in your resolution book. Very ~uly yours Cnrtis A. Pearson CAP:ms Enclosure RESOLUTION # RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR IMPROVEMZNT AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVE- M~NTS - (TE~IS COURTS - BLUFFS) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound that a certain petition requesting construction of a tennis court on land presently owned by the City and called "Tot Lot" on Bluff Lane has been filed with the City Clerk and is hereby declared to be signed by 35% or more of the owners of property affected by the proposed improvement. This declaration is made in conformity with M.S.A. 429.035. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer, who is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed in a preliminary way as to whether the improvement is feasible and whether it is best made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost thereof. A copy of this resolution shall be published in the official newspaper in accordance with M.S.A. 429.036. Attest: Mayor city 'Clerk RESOLUTION # RESOLUTION DETERMINING VALIDITY AND SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT FOR TENNIS COURT CONSTRUCTION (BLUFFS) WHEREAS, a petition to construct a tennis court on the "Tot Lot" located on Bluff Lane as a local improvement under Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes has been received, and WHEREAS, said petition is signed by more than 3~ of all property owners in accordance with requirements of M.S.A. 429.031 subd. 1, and WHEREAS, a resolution to order construction of a park improvement requires a 4/5ths vote of the Council and approved by the Park Commission (See M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 2); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: The petition attached to this resolution and marked Exhibit One has been presented to the City Council and it has been determined that the petition has been signed by more than 35% of the property to be assessed for the improvements. e This resolution is adopted in accordance with provisions of M.S.A. 429. 035. Be The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer who is instructed to report to the Council with all conven- ient speed in a preliminary way as to whether the improvements are feasible and whether they are best made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost thereof. e A copy of the preliminary report shall be referred to the Park Advisory Commission for their review and recommenda- tion. Said recommendation shall be required before a public hearing is conducted for this project. Attest: Mayor City Clerk INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: . City Manager; Jon Elam Fl{Obi: Police Chief; Bruce Wold SUBJECT: Ordinance A~nendment DATE June Chapter 46 Regulation Of Traffic, Vehicles, Bicycles and Parking Section 46.29 sub(57)(aa) reads as follows: No parking on the west side of Cardigan Lane from Denbigh Road south to the dead end. The ordinance as written brings Cardigan Lane into conformity with the majority of north/south streets within the city. However, an extenuating circumstance exists which I believe requires an exception to conformity. Cardigan Lane is an extremely narr~v street with housing only on the east side of the street. The ordinance as currently ~ritten allows resi- dents to park in front of their houses. However, the residence have been advised by the Mound Fire Department not to park in front of their houses. The reasoning behind this is that parking in front of the residence at the time of a fire would prohibit the fire vehicle from parking directly in front of the house and being in the best position 'to suppress the fire and aid injured persons. Whenever the resident follows the direction of the fire department, and parks on the west side of the stregt, the police departmeni enforces the no parking ordinance and tags the vehicle. I would recommend the ordinance be changed to permit parking on the West side of Cardigan Lane and prohibit parking on d~e East side. To accomplish the change the subsection should be stricken from (57)(aa) and moved to subsection (46)(b). The ordinance should then read: And no parking on the East side of Cardigan Lane from Denbigh Rd. South to the dead end. Bob Johnson could be instructed to make the 'change in the signing at his convenience. There are currently three signs on Cardigan Lane with the ledgend "No Parking Anytime". Two of the signs should be erected on the East side of Cardigan Lane (one at the south end and the other at the north end where a sign is now installed). The spare sign could then be installed at the intersection of Denbigh Rd. and Cardiff Ln. to bring the North side of Denbigh in conformance with the ordinance. This will also allow the police department to enforce the parking ordiance on this stretch of Denbigh ~]ere parking problems exist because of the number of cars congregating at a rental home in the area. We the undersigned residents of "The Bluffs" in Mound, MN are in favor of building a tennis court on the land presently called "The Tot Lot" on Bluffs Lane. We would like the city to review this request. We realize that there might be a small annual assessment. NAME ADDRESS PHONE //TZ (,, o ,¢ 6?'0 ~ v/e.~J A~.w c '-/7 Z~.'-~'"5'z 7 ~et LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE RATES (Continued) 4. Line Access Rate Component - "Metro" (1) Grades of Service WITHIN THE EXCHANGE AREA BUSINESS SERVICE Individual Line B1 Business Trunk BTK Key Business Line KBL EXCHANGE NAMES (2) S & E Maple St. Scandia- Code Plain Mound Bonifacius Marine Wyoming $59.80 $53.50 $48.85 $51.15 $63.85 86.45 82.55 73.20 77.85 90.50 59.80 53.50 48.85 51.15 63.85 RESIDENCE SERVICE Individual Line R1 26.45 ~~ 21.35 22.10 28.40 Two Party R2 25.30/21.95 20.05 21.05 27.35 SEMIPUBLIC PAYSTATIONS SP 59.80/ 53.50 48.85 51.15 63.85 / Local Exchange rates are composed of a Line Access component. General Services components may also apply - See Section 5 - Touch Tone Line Service and Telephone Set Rates. The rates shown above do not constitute filing or availability of a class or grade of service; Local Exchange Service Offering sheets are governing. ~ed: March 19, 1982 By: Claude DeSanto Customer.Service Manager Effective: March 19, 1982 CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE C~ANY OF MINNESOTA, .INC.. State of Minnesota Sect i on 1st Revised Sheet Cancel ing Ori gi nal Sheet 4 13 13' LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE B. RATES {Continued) 4. Line Access Rate C~ponent - "Metro" (1) Grades of Service WITHIN THE EXCHANGE AREA BUSINESS SERVICE Individual Line Business Trunk Key Business Line METRO EXCHANGE RATES( S&E Code Rates KBL 49.50 RESIDENCE SERVICE Individual Line R1 Two Party R2 SEMIPUBLIC PAYSTATIONS SP .(T) r) (1) Local Exchange rates are composed of a Line Access component. General Services components may also apply - See Section 5 - Touch Tone Line Service and Telephone Set Rates. (2) The rates shown above do not constitute filing or availability of a class or grade of service; Local Exchange Service Offering sheets are governing. Issued: Effecti ye: By: Doug Morton Director - Public Affairs Administration C( ~ENTAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC. State ~f Minnesota Se ct i on 4 2nd Revised Sheet 13 Cancelin9 1st Revised Sheet...13 LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE B. RATES (Continued) 4. Line Access Rate Component - "Metro" (1) Grades of Service WITHIN THE EXCHANGE AREA BUSINESS SERVICE Individual Line Business Trunk Key Business Line METRO EXCHANGE RATES{2,,) S&E Code Rates B1 $ 64.05 (I) BTK ..... 92.35 KBL 64.05 RESIDENCE SERVICE Individual Line R1 Two Party R2 SEMIPUBLIC PAYSTATIONS SP Local Exchange rates are composed of a Line Access component. General Servicescomponents may also apply - See Section 5 - Touch Tone Line Service and Telephone Set Rates. The rates shown above do not constitute filing or availability of a class or grade of service; Local Exchange Service Offering sheets are governing. s'[~-uued: u~,, o7 ~o~q Effective: July 26, 1983 INTEROFFICE .MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Off. Gary.Cayo ~ Chief BrUce Wold Use of Explorers for crosswalk observation DATE June 14, As you know, the crosswalks continue to be a potential source of injury within ~und. The crosswalks that worry me the most are the ones at the post office, House of }.~y, Ben Franklin, Lynwood and Commerce, and Church and Commerce. Jon Elam mentioned using the Explorers to monitor the crosswalks and get license numbers ~f cars failing to yield. The police department could then follow-up and contact the offenders to let them know of the infraction. John told me he also.spoke to you. The program could have some strong public relations points for the 'Explorers. I am concerned with the kids becoming board if we schedule them for extensive shifts when no action occurs. See if you and the Explorers can divise a program which would place one or more Explorers at a crosswalk.during peak. activity periods. These periods would probably be 1200 to 1330 and 1500 to 1700 on week- days and 1000 to 1400 onSaturday. By breaking the shifts into 1½ to 2 hour intervals and assigning two people per shift, some of ~]e boredom can be .taken from the job. I wouldn't expect the kids to work every day or all shifts on the days they do work. However, I do think the patrol should be out four or more times per week. During a shift, the patrol should cover the crosswalks that are most active. Information the kids should obtain when a violation is detected: 1. Date 2. Time 3. License number of vehicle 4. Descriotion of vehicle .5. Direction of travel 6. Description of driver 7. Road and weather conditions 8. Description of offense I am.providing a propose~ report form to help standardize the responses and serve as a tool in prosecution, if necessary. Please kick it around with the Scouts and let me know what's happening. I would like to start the program by June 18, 1983. 0 / REPORT OF CROSSWALK 'VIOLATI ON DATE: TIME: LOCATION (Address or Intersection): VEHICL~ DESCRIPTION: LICENSE NUMBER MAKE MODEL COLOR DRIVER DESCRIPTION: MALE FEMALE OTHER HAl R COLOR HAIR STYLE ROAD CONDITIONS: DRY WET ICY SNOWY ~rEATI-IER CONDITIONS: CLEAR CLOUDY RAIN SNOW VIOLATION DESCRIPTION: SIGNATURE: BADGE NUMBER Dear In an attempt to promote pedestrian safety within the City of Mound, observers have been stationed at crosswalks. The observers are trained to observe~traffic flow and report the license numbers of vehicles fail- ing to yield the right of way to pedestrians in crosswalks. On at hrs., your , (Date) "(Time) ~Make of. vehicle) license number violated the.pedestrial right of way law by failing to yield the right of way to a pedestrian'in a crosswalk. Minnesota statutes require that all motor vehicle operators slow or stop to allow a pedestrian crossing the roadway'within a crosswalk, time to safely cross the street. Failure to yield the right of way is a petty. misdemeanor. This letter is sent to you to bring the violation to your attention. The ~und-Police hope to increase your awareness of pedestrians and in doing so, promote safer use of our City streets. Very truly yours, Bruce H. Wold, Chief Mound Police Department BW/sh · BILLS .... JUNE. 21, 1983 Badger Meter Blackowiak & Son Bryan Rock Prod Bill Clark Standard Robert'Cheney Continental Telephone Dept Employee Relation Jon Elam Empire Crown Auto. Feed Rite Controls Glenwood Inglewood Hawkins Chemical. Illies& Sons Robert E. Johnson LOGIS The Laker Long Lake Ford Tractor Marina Auto Supply Minnegasco Mound Fire Dept Navarre Hdwe N.S.P. Don Rother Shepherds Rug Rent Spring Park Car Wash Unitog Water Products Duane's 66 Firemen 7 ~ 275 Griggs Cooper Johnson Bros. Liquor Johnson Paper Mound Postmaster City of Mound MN Assn Cable Tv Old Peoria Ed Phillips Police Officers 6 @ 160.O0 Registrar-Dept Conferences Nels Schernau Greg Skinner Air Comm Earl F. Andersen Badger Meter Holly Bostrom Burlington Northern Bury & Carlson Jan Bertrand Borchert Ingersoll Coast to Coast Davies Water Equip 110.67 lO5.00 334.15 3,532.76 334.O0 1,141.62 69.00 172.77 105.11 290.72 59.80 1,198.54 4,85O.OO 31.90 1,428.62 651.16 29.51 453.12 132.75 3,387.80 154.36 5,292.15 15.00 26.50 128.70 233.42 52.O5 12 O0 -1,925 O0 2,579 74 3,169 14 143 5O 6oo O0 82 51 11 OO 2,696.92 1,883.11 960.O0 220.00 24.20 182.68 100.00 2,222.35 118.59 144.OO 533.33 344.OO 57.00 19.44 111.33 810.10 Jon Elam First Bank Mpls Farmers Steel Gerrys Plumbing Eugene H ickok & Assoc Lyman Lumber Lyman Lumber McCombs Knutson M i nnega sco Wm Mueller & Son Muni tech, Inc. MN Recreation & Park Mi nn Comm Mpls Oxygen Jack McLard Hoist N.S.P. Oswald Fire Hose Popham Haik Quality Industries Marjorie Stutsman Suburban Tire Thurk Bros. Chev Widmer Bros. Westonka School Dist 277 West Henn Human Serv Westonka Community Serv Xerox TOTAL BILLS Io.15 16.00 62.35 41.75 2,518.97 5.82 30.40 4,623.00 122.70 2,3~9.95 7.5O 7O.OO 28.75 21.OO 259.96 4,135.80 614.11 1,247.94 4,441.5O 15.OO 386.56 85.25 2,160.64 55.00 388.o0 57.OO 996.07 68,042.29 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE TO ALL PARK COMMISSION MEMBERS: A Special meeting is being called for 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, June 23, 1983, at the City Hall, foF the purpose of planning a tribute to Gordie Swenson who had just submitted his resignation from the City Council effective July 1st. CITY of MOUND June 17, 1983 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is the 'final' report of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force. find the more I read the more concerns I have. I may be just too defensive, but I get the feeling that it supports a major intrusion of lake management by the LMCD into city affairs. I spent this afternoon going through the Lost Lake Channel and side waterways. I was amazed at how much of it has filled in. I don't think there is a place deeper than 3 feet. DNR regulations say an access must have at least a 5 foot clearance. Can you imagine how much must be dredged to clear out that whole channel. Ball park costs that I checked on were that if done during the Summer it might equal $500,000. If it were done in the Winter it might be about $1OO,OO0. Either way I can't believe anyone has the resources to spend what is needed to really develop the site, channel, etc. That of course is. probably a naive viewpoint. JE:fc y ~4 N O.I,'q N N I I~ BACKGROUND Historically, Lake Minnetonka was once a wilderness used exclusively for hunting, fishing and trapping. Indian camps were "common and thickly interspersed on the shore of the Lake" In 1852, when the U.S. Senate'rat~fied the Sioux treaties translating Indian title to its shoEe, wild ~ice was observed standing in four feet of water "like a field of cultivated qrain." Farming, logging and the first dam at Mimnetonka Mills followed soon thereafter. The first trails from St. Anthony to Minnetonka were.su~rveyed by Hennepin County in 1855-56.~ Only 30 wears later, in the late 1880's, steamboats and hotels were catering nationally to approximately 100,000 summe~ tour~sts.~ Following World War II, regional population growth was rapid because of improvements in transportation, installation of utilities, development of recreational equipment, construction of service facilities and changes in life style. Today Lake Minnetonka has become a beehive of activity uniquely oriented to recreation for ~,000,000 people living withim minutes of its sometimes stormy, sometimes p~ocid surface. The 1980.area population of lakeshore communities alone was 80,000 and may be at least ~00,000 by the year ~000. Geographicclly, Lake Minnetonka is a "perched" lake lying 15 miles west of Minneapolis and is gradually being surrounded by urban development. The la:ke is made up of a series of bays, p~i~%s, ~nd islands with 3~ interconnecting channels cove~ing ~ square miles of water {1~,0~3 acres] with 1~5 miles of shoreline including islands. The droinoQe area covers ~3 square miles. The deepest point, 91 feet, is im Crystal Baw~ the mean depth of the lake is' 2~.5 feet (see enclosed Lake Minnetonka Mop]. Lake Minnetonka recreational planning is complicated by the fact that 1~ municipalities abut its shores. Much of the ]and was platted and privately d~veloped long ago. Planning then could not anticipate today's ne'eds. The problem now-is that great recreational use of the surface of the lake, limited publicly owned lakeshore, and increasingly hJqh ]akeshore property values further diminish opportunities to provide for free public use of a valuable and extremely attractive body of public water. The Task Force believes, however, that this beautiful urban resource con continue to be eh)owed by the public ~n a variety of ways while being wisely requlated to pmeserve its uniqu~ character for generations to come. With these considerations in mind the Task Force presents its report. REPORT OF THE LAKE NINNETONKA TASK FORCE ADOPTED May 31, 1983 Robert L. Sear]es, Chairman Karen Loechler Thomas R. Mu]cahy E.F. "Bud" Robb, Jr. Joseph E. Size: Dirk deVries Rosemary Dineen Wallace E. Ess David Cochran Thomas Maple Robert Tipton Brown Richard D. Smith Wayne LeBoeuf David B~as]au Pou) Pond Robert Thrift Malcolm Reid Robert E. Wo~ner Brad Van Nest IV. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS Backg=ound Ion back of Cover] Summary Statement Public Access A) Introduction B) Access Pa=kin~ Opportunities C! Improving Existing Launch Map 1 D) New "Fishing Boat and Access Sites Mop 2 Tables 1, 2, & 3 E) Shore Access Map 3 F! Island Rec:eation G) Municipal Poiicies H! Commercial Access to Winter Access J) Maintenance-of Lake Bed K) Ripa:ian Interests Small Recreation the Lake and Devices Lake Su=face Use A) Ma)o= Factors ~ffe~tinq Lake Surface Use Figure 1 B) Surface Use'Conflicts C) Education Efforts fo~ Usin~ the Lake Law Enforcement A} Current Laws Adequate LMCD Should Have Primary Management Role C) Potential Fo~ Confusion - 20 Agencies D) Negotiated durisdiction E) Public Information ConsolidatJon" F) Law Enforcement Suggestions G) FjVe Funding Options Fo: Law Enforcement Boat" Bibliography Appendices A! Lake Minnetonka Su=face Use Data B) Grays Bay Causeway Resolution C) Public Access Sites Discussed DI Background To Lake Minnetonka Task Fo~ce Formation Enc]osu=e Lake Minnetonka Map Pa~e 3 7 8 10 17 20 20 21 22 22 22 23 25 26 28 29 29 29 30 30 3O 3~ lA lB lC ~D ' 1, SUMMARY SI'ATEMENI The Lake Minnetonka Task Force was formed in du]~ of 1982 to prepare o'-report and make recommendations to the Governor and Minnesota Legislature addressing recreational use of Lake Minnetonka and adjacent public ]and. The three areas studied were 1) adequacy of public access, 2] su:face use part. ems and conflicts, and 3] adequacy of lake manaaement and enforcement proarams. ]t is the po]icy of M~nnesota to promote full use and enjoyment of its waters, safety for persons and property ~n connection with the use of its waters, and un, fo:mitT of laws relating to swch use. Of critical ~mportonce to recreationa! use of Lake Minnetonko ore its surface water level, which was established by ~udicial decree in 1Bg7, and the quality of its water. The Task Force found that opportunities for both boat and shoreline access were inadequate in some areas of the )ake. It also found that, during peak weekend afternoons, 'boat density in some parts of the lake presents potentially hazardous conditions. Conflicts exist in the form of big boats vs. smaller boats, fast boats vs. slower boot~, swimming/diving vs. boating, and fishing vs. pleasure boating. The body of existing ]aw and regulations was found to be adequate, but enforcement is l~m~ted by ~nodequote funding. The Task Fo:ce recognizes public parkin~ avai]ability as a crucial component of adequate pub]ic boat launch facilities. The lask Force recommends that new boat and shoreline access .opportunities be established in certain areas of the lake and that some existing access facilities be expanded and/or improved. The Lake M]nnetonka Conservation District ILMCD! should continue to be the primary oqency in coordinating the study, monitoring, and :egulat]n~ of rec:eationa] use patterns that will balonce~.the needs of the regional public, riparian interests, enjoyment and protection of the lake. Finally, adequate personnel and funding a~e ~equi~ed on a contSnuinq basis to ~mp]ement these ~ecommendati'ons'and to maintain the manaqement of Lake Minnetonka for th~ continued assurance of quality :ecreat~0na] expez]ences, II. PUBLIC ACCESS A) INTRODUCTION: The Task Force recognizes Lake Hinnetonka as a unique natural and recreational resource because of its size and location within a ma~or, densely-populated metropolitan area. The lake's public siCn~ficance is broader than the local communities which surround its shores and recreational planning for such a resource must be approached from a regional perspective. The Task Force throughout its public access deliberations was mindful of the importance of lake use patterns on Lake Minnetonka. The information available from existinq studies by the Department of Natural Resources (DNRI, the LMCD and the Water ~atrol of the Hennep~n County Sheriff's Department provided an in-depth analysis of lake use from several viewpoints. Of particular importance to the Task Force was the comparative data on boats stored, boats Jn use, and low enforcement activity (see appendix Al. The Task Force finds that there ore times when portions of Lake Minnetonka ore over-c~owded and unsafe. However, much of the time, such as weekdays, and weekends when weather conditions ore not idea], the ]~ke is neither over-utilized nor unsafe. The Task Force finds that there is a need and a'demand for additional access to Lake Minnetonka %o serve persons who want to fish and otherwise eh)ay the lake in boat.s and from the shoreline. There is no demonstrated need for additional lake access for boots other than fishinD craft and small recreation boots. Because the majority of the existing publicly-owned boat launch capacity is located primarily on the nor%h and east shores of Lake Hinnetonka, it is recommended that additional public boat launch opportunities be provided on the south and west sho~es. In identifyinD new access sites, the Task Force recommends that consideration be given to ten different site selection (see paDe ~5). Further, there is opportunity for improvement o.f ex]stin~ boa% launch ramps and scenic shore sites on Lake ~inne%onka. orce cone p~ov~ publfc with access to Lake Mfnnetonka fs the provisfon of a~-e~uqte, legal, safe car-trailer pazkina within a reasonable distance from a lounchfn romp. On-street pozkin of coz-trailer unJts, though Sometimes necessary, is ]ess desfrab]e than off-str~et parking. For on-street parking locations to be considered reliable, they should be supported by long-term written agreements between the appropriate public o: private group and the LMCD, a~d the~ should be properly identif'ibd with signs as approved access parking. Throughout the Task Force deliberations on public access, the desirability of and need for additional on-site parking at launching ramp sites, old o~ new, was almost taken os a "given" in any discussion. At the some time, ]akeshore market values some areas make the achievement of this goal an expensive pro~ect. While not intending to ignore any user group, the Lake MJnnetonka Task Force focused ma}or efforts on meeting the needs of anglers who would lik'e a~ditiona] access to Lake Minnetonka and the excellent fishing opportun]ties it provides. The lask Force f~nds that prov~din9 additional boat launchinfl facilities for fishing craft and small recreation boats would not s~gnificantly add to wate~ surface overcrowding or unsafe conditions. The Task Force recognizes the prob]ems inherent w~th ~t%empting to define, monitor and enforce boot o~ motor size limitations at boat accesses, but also is aware that new launching sites can be designed to d~scourage use of lar~e~ watercraft. Limiting factors might include shallow wate~ ramps', overhead barriers, ]ow bridges, etc. Since most existin~ launch ramps~are capable of handling a variety of motor sizes and boat types, new boat launch =amps developed on Lake Minnetonka should be designed to serve fishing c~aft and sma]] recreation boats.'~. B! ACCESS PARKING OPPORTUNIT]ES: Arguments have been made both for and aqaJnst additional boat]hQ access to Lake MJnnetonka. The Task ~orce enqa~ed in ]'ong and lively debates on the subject before coming to conclusions. The two main areas of contention concerned: l].Lake BoQtin~ Density, and 2} Porkinq Spoce Capacity, for the acres (approximatelyJ of Lake MJnnetonka wate: surface. 1." Lake' Boating Density: Boats in use at a g~ven moment may vary from essentially none to more than 2,000. LMCD data fo= 1~8~ showed approximately ~300 boats in use du=ing one spot check, which ~mounts to one boat for every ~ acres of water. -' 2. Pa=king Space Capacity: The Task Force identified free car-trai]er spaces including off-site/on-street and on-site locations. One-half are on-site o: within 1,00~ feet and all are within ~500 feet of existing public ]~unch ~ac~]~ties (Mop 1, page 8), which amounts to one space fo= every ~ acres of w~te= Surface. The Task Force finds that although these free-unrestricted ~rkJng spaces more than meet the DNR~s numerical standard ave=all, the DNR st~ndord of quality 'for parkinq in most areas is not met. Early in its deliberations, the Task Force recognized p~b[i.c parking as a crucial component in analyzing adequacy of boa't launching facilities. While one measure of the quality of a boating experience is the ease of ]aunching and retrieving watercraft, another is the distance one must park away from an access site. Parking ]ong distances from ramps causes inconvenience to boaters, particularly senio~ citizens, individuals going on the lake alone, or persons accompanied by young children. Equipment may be stolen when anglers leave boats· and geo~ unattended and launch ramp efficiency may be hindered while boaters pork and ~etrieve car-trailer un, ts. Wh~]e some on-street park]ng w~ll probably be necessary, it will always be less desirable' than on-s~te parking, primarily because of safety and convenJence factors. Any assessment street parking must take into consideration several factors: Even when street p~rking near an access is made reliable by written agreement, not all spaces are ~uaranteed for car-trailer use; ~) Parallel parking a car-trailer unit -- necessary to utilize on-street space -- is often difficult; and 3) While the Task Force ~s ~'}ven credence to on-street parkinQ up to ~500 fe~t away from a boat launch ramp, it rec0gnjzes that a quarter Of a mile can be a long walk for some individuals. Given these difficulties, the best alternative to providing on-site parking is securing weekend use of private parking lots near existing access si%es' and posting notice of %heir availability at launch ramp sites. The Task Force used the DNR standard of one on-site car-trailer parking space per 20 acres of water to determine a "Task Force Goal for Reliable Parking in V~cinity of Access Sites at Lake Minnetonka~, which computes to 700 spaces. However, the T~k Force found that parking goals in the Lake Minnetonka area should not include the DNR on-site criterion and concluded that "in vicinity" fi.e., within ~500 feet from launch ramps! should be the standard used. Existing dense land 'use and high property acquisition costs, w~re two of the ~actors leading to this conclusion. The Task Force fin~s t~at the LNCD has authority, under its enabling legislation, to regulate -- "public facilities for access to the lake within the territory of the municipalities" --, and to regulate -- "commercial marinas and their related facilities including parking areas" -- Therefore, the Task .Force recommends that the tMCD be responsible to coordinate existing standards for what constitutes reliable park~nq ]n the. vicinity of access sites and to maintain a program designed to reach and sustain the Task Force ~oa] of 700 spaces. This program should include a continuing status report of the number of qualified reliable parking spaces a% each public and commercial boat access facility. To achieve the goal of 700 reliable car-t:ai]er parking spaces, the Task Force further recommends that the kMCD, in concert with ]akeshore mum]cipalitJes, employ any or all of the following means as appropriate while attempt~n~ to reach this goo1 in the following order of preference. increasing on-site parking at existing access sites by land acquisition where ]and availability and fundin~ lO7/ permits. Increasing on-site parking as new access sit'es are established. ]nc=easing reliable pa=king by acquisition of or throuflh written parking agreements for off-street parking lots in the vicinity of pub]it launch =amps. ]nc=easing long-term reliable on-st=eet parking in the vicinity of access ramps thzough written parking agreements. C) IMPROVING EXISTING LAUNCH FACILITIES: The Task Fo=ce finds that boat launching facilities and car-trailer p~rking could be enhanced at Lake Minnetonka by improving and/or expanding some existing facilJties. Existing boat launch ~acilities are primarily located on the east and northern areas of the lake and a=e deemed to meet the needs of all types of boot uses throughout the lake except for f~shing craft and smal] ~ecreation boats (see Map l, page 8). The Task Force finds that the following common improvements shou]d be made at all ex~s%ihg boat launching sites· Construction of make-ready docks. Parking agreements between local, units ~f government and the LMCD. Signs showing the location of off-site parking. Adequate landscaping. Toilets, trash contafners, and public telephones. The Task Force finds that the following boat launching facilities should be improved: ~. The Spring Park access should be improved by adding a wave retarding device ]n con)unction with the cons%ruction of a make-=ead~ dock. A second launch ramp should be installed and ~mprovements made to the traffic flow to facilitate faster launching and retrieval of boats. .~. The Task Force recommends expansion and improvement of the Grays 8ay Causeway site, including om/off street car and car-traJ]er parking facilities, ]n order to meet reflional recreational needs. On February 8, 19B3, the Task Force passed a =eso]ution endorsing =edevelopment of this site (Appendix B}. This redevelopment, which should 9bserve and maintain sound environmental policies, should limit the romp and parkinq to the Gray"s Bay side and enhance aesthetic and passive uses on the Wayzata Boy side· The Grays Bay Dam site should boot access site. The Woyzato/Arlingt-on access should be improved:by acquiring land west of the present site to provide space for safe launching and retrieval of boats without the need to bock in directly from the street. The Williams Street access on Halsteads Boy should be .. improved to facilitate the launching of fishing craft and small recreation boats· D) NEW "FISHING CRAFT AND SMALL RECREATION BOAT" ACCESS SITES: To address the distribution of accesses for fishing craft and small recreation boats, the Task Force arrived at a system whereby the lake was divided into fJve ma~or zones (see Mop 2, page KO). The zone lines dre arbitrary and the Task Force re~onized that ali boots including fishing craft and small recreation boats move from boy to bay and. do not necessarily stay in any one zone. However, the Task Force also realized that adequate distribution of free public boat launching ramps around the lake for fishing craft and small recreation boats is on important goal. Dispersal of sites wi]] cut down boat traffic to lava:ire recreation spots· Since large boats can more easily move about the lake, the zone approach proved particularly significant in determininQ access needs for fishing craft and small recreation boats. Present location of some romps require anglers to make long amd sometimes difficult water crossings to find desirable areas to fish. The Task Force used the DNR standard of one on-site car-trailer parking space per 20 acres of water. A zone by zone analysis produces the fo]lowing summary (see Table ~, ~, & 3 page ZONE .2 3 S' IA~L~ DiSTRiBUTION OF CAR-TRAiLER PARKING SPACES AT PUBL1C ACCESS SITES BY ZONE ACRES OF WATER 2,780 2,880 3,100 2,520 2,720 TASK FORCE GOAL FOR RELIABLE** EXISTING PARKING SPACES IDENTIFIED PARKING iN iN VICINITY* OF ACCESS SITES VICINITY* OF ...... ACCESS SITES RELIABLE** UNRELIABLE** TOTAL 139 60 109 169 144 46 363 409 155 0 80 80 126 79 216 295 :136 0 219- 219 :14 , 000 700 185 987 :1 , .172 In Vicinity means within 1500 feet from the access site. Reliable car-trailer parking space is one that is publicly owned or guaranteed by ]onq term written agreement. Source: See item 20 of B~bliogrophy TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR-TRAILER PARKING BY ZONE ON-SITE VS. OFF-SITE ZONE ON-SITE OFF-SITE I 36% 64% 2 11% 89% 3 0% :100% 4 6% 94% S - 0% 100% Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR-TRAiLER PARKING BY ZONE ON-STREET VS. OFF-STREET ZONE ON-STREET OFF-STREET*** :1 64% 36% 2 89% 11% 3 0% :100% 4 32% 68% 5 100% 0% 67% 33% '-- off-street porkino inc]udes both.on-site and other parking lots within 1500 feet from launch ramps. Source: See item 20 of Bib]iogrophy Hoy 31, 1983 The column headed "1ask Force GOal for Reliable Pa=king in Vicinity of .Access Sites" uses the DNR standard fo= on-site p~kin9 referred to above, i.e., one pe~ 20 ac~es of water. However, the Task Force found that parking goals in the Lake Hinnetonka area should not Snclude the DNR on-site criterion and concluded that "in vi~nJty" (i.e., w~thJn 1500 feet fzom launch ramps) should be the standard used· Existing dense land.use and hSDh pzopezty acquisStJon costs, were two of the factors leadJng to th~s conclusion. The Task Force analysis of the access site d]strJbution problems indicate odequa'te °ccess exists for medium size ond/o: high-powered croft w~thout additional dispersal of access sites. in. fact, the principal purpose of ]aunchJng this rather predominate medium size class of boat Js to cruise around the lake However, the zone opprooch has sign£fJconce for thedf craft and small recreation boats,~becouse-..the"-~esent lbcatton of some ramps require smoll boaters to make long and sometimes d~fficult water crossings to find desirable areas. These boats are low-freeboard and ]ow-powe:ed, and not protected from swamping by high ~aves o~ b~g boat ~akes in traveling from one part of the lake to another.. This type of sma]] craft might be exemplified by a range of boots from canoes to the standard ~6 foot aluminum fi'sh~ng boat sometimes carrying as much as a 50 horsepower motor but usually ]ess than that. 'The Task Force is intentionally not settino~ descriptive lSmit$ on what constitutes "fishing craft and smal~ rec:ea¢ion boats" since there is such a g~eat variety of boats_~ .~fa]]in~__ ~in this category.~ Dispersal of access sites for this category is a desirable goal and the zone analysis of the lake ~onfirmed %hat implementing afencies should take reasonable steps to provide access fo~ fishing craft and sma]] recreation boats on the south and southwest shores of the lake. To assist ]n the dispersal of access sites, the Task Forc-~ has recommended elsewhere in this report (see Section H, pa~e ~1], that the kMCD should require all ex~st~ng amd new commercial lakeshore facilities to provide, ~here possible, some public services ~m return for the r~ght to operate commercial docks in /3'72 ,the'public waters. Boat access is one of those services which may be required and may in itself help to provide and distribute access in some areas o( the lake presently under-served. Fo.l]owing is an overview of the current status and perceived public access needs on Lake Minnetonka, based on the five-zone approach (see Map 2, page 10): ZONE 1: North Arm, Stubbs Bay, Maxwell Bay, Crystal Bay, , West Arm, Forest Lake, Jennings Bay, Coffee Cove, HarrJsons Bay. EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: North Arm/Hendrickson EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACCESS: Crystal Bay Service; "Gay]es Marina; Chaska Marine; North Shore Marina; Rockvam's Boat Yard, Martin and Son Boat Rental NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING P~BLIC ACCESS: Make- ready dock and secure long-term agreement fo= off-site parking NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: None RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACCESS: See last paragraph on pare 15 ZONE 2: Grays Bay, Wayzata Bay, Browns Bay, RobJnsons Bay and portions of Lower Lake North, Tanager Lake, Libbs Lake EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Grays Bay Causeway, Grays Bay D~m, Wayzata/A=lington EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACCESS: WJndward Marine; Minnetonko Boat Works -~Orono; MJnnetonka Boot Works - Wayzata; Gra~s Bay Marine NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESSES: Grays Bay Causeway (see Appendix B) NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Wayzata/ Arlington RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACCESS: See last paragraph on page 1~ ~. Mnv R1. 19RR ZONE 3: Smiths Bay, Gideons Bay, Echo Bay Exce]sEor Bay, St'.. Albans Boy, Co=sons Boy, St. Louis Boy, t.owe= Lake South, portions of Lower Lake North, Island Passage, Veterans Boy EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Carsons Bay EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACCESS: "Sailors World Tonka Boy Marine Service; Curly's Mor]no;'Shorewood Yacht C]ub Marina; Cochrone~s Boat Yard; Greenwood Marina; EXcelsior Boat and Moro= Mart; Schmidtt NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESSES: Add Make-ready dock at Carsons Bay and secure off-site po~king agreement NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUB[~IC ACCESS: None RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACCESS: Yes ZONE 4: East Upper Lake, Old Channel Bay, Co=man Boy, Spring.Pork Bay, ~he]ps Bay, Black Lake, Seton Lok,.__._e, Emerald Lake, Lafayette Bay EX]STING PUBLIC ACCESS: Spring Park and Phelps Boy EXISTING COMME~CIA~ ACCESS: None NEED FOR ]MPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESSES: Add moke-meody docks, additional ramp space and secure on-street parking agreements NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: None RECOMMENDED ADDIIIONAL ACCESS: See last paragraph on ZONE 5: Smithtown Boy, South Upper Lake, West Upper Lake, Cooks Bay, Priests Bay, Ha]steds Bay EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Wil]iams Street IHalsteds Boy) and Mound Park EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACCESS: Ho~ord's Point Marina NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT TO EX1ST]NG PUBLIC ACCESSES: Secure long-te~m porkinD oD~eements and odd make-ready doc k s NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Street RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACCESS:~ W~ ] 1 S cms · ' " The Task Force has developed c~teria which should be used in evaluating and se]ectin~ potential new access sites for 'f~shing craft and small recreation boats. Wh~le St may be impossible to meet each standard, the following criteria should be seriously'considered. Relationship to residential areas - Positive and negative impacts of access si%es on ad)acent residential areas, including distance between a site and nearby homes, screening the site from homes, and creating new ac'cess opportunities, for nearby off-lake residents. 2. Accessibility to primary highways - Potential sites near maior highways (State Highways 7 and ~01, County Roa~s 19 and 15 are examples) can reduce traffic impact on residential streets. 3. Public use'precedent - Sites already in public ownership or in commercial or industrial use, have %he least n~iDhborhood impact, where public facilities or services have been provided and accepted. Intensity of boating use near a potential access site - Sec%ions of th~ la~e where there is intense boatin'9 use should be avoided when possible. 5. Wind and ice_exposure of site -.Sites protected from predominant winds and ice action are preferred. 6. Cost of acquisition - Property and development costs must be considered. Implementing aQencies should apply ~ ~e~-boat-]aunc. hed, and a per-car/trailer-parked cost ana]ys~s. 7. Physical development constraints - Minimizing the amount of site al%eration needed on land and in the water'to make the potential site usable is preferable. 8. Ability to buffer site from surrounding land uses - The site should be large enou9h to support adequate vegetation to screen the site from ad)acent ]and uses. ~. Barriers - Restrictions such as ]ow brSdges and shallow launch ramps may be used to limit the accessibility %o the main lake for larger boats. Multiple use opportunities for %he site - Si%es that could provide shore fishSng along with boat access are prefered. The Task force recommends that new "fishing craft and small recreation boat." ac. cesses be sought in zones 3 and 5. However, no add~iono] fishing croft and sma]} recreational boat access is needed in zones 1, 2 and 4 provided that the ~oal fo= zeliable ~rk]ng in'those zones hove been met (see ]cst pozogzaph on' po~e 56). These zones a:e odequate]y served by existing pub']~c launch .z~mps and ex~sting commercial m:~inas. Because of the la~e area o~ open w~tez in Cooks and Sm~thtown Bays, the Task Force concluded that add]tiona] fishing craft and small :eczeat~on boat access Js desirab]e in the southern portion of SmJthtown Bay ~n zone ~. In the cou~e of discussing many sites, The Task Fo=ce dave]aped c=]te=]a fo= the~= select/on. As a result some sites were e]iminated f=om further consideration. The s~te sel'ection c=1terSa were not ranked in any priority. The Task Force =ecommends that implementating agencies use the site selection criteria to evaluate specific sites in zones 3 and -the Task Fo=ce recommends the fo]low~ng in ZOne ~. ~) The Task Force finds that a site in Lost Lake ~n Mound )resents. a special challeng6 and oooortun~ty.fa= a ma~or access which seld°m comes along at ~ake M~nnetonka. ]t is potentially of large capacity, ad)ac~Dt to downtown activities, may have mu]t~ple use potential, en~oys local support, and is located in an under-se:red area..Successful deve]opment of this site would ve:y 1%kely have the effect of =educing over-crowding at other ex]st~ng boot access sites. ~) A site on Lake V~=g]n]a was discussed to provide access to the southern portion of Sm~thtown Bay..This site has great potential provided the environmental conce:ns.of installing a new small boat passage unde: Sm~thtown Road can be m]tigated. However, ]f this deve!opment proves impractical, a site fo= the southern portion of Sm~thtown Boy has a high pziozSty. The Task Fo=ce has conc]uded that additional boat access lusive]y fo: fishing craft and small recreation boots at any arian on the ~ mile mainland shoreline of the lake should not significantly add to surface ova=crowding o= unsafe conditions. Therefore, any new access in Zones ~,2, and ~, uheze %he .goal tar reliable parking :n %ha~ zone has no% yet been met, should be considered by the implementing agencies if the s~te: - Satisfies the sit~ selection criteria {see page - Helps meet the ]on~ term reliable parking goal in lieu of of unreliable parking.within its zone Jsee Table 1, page - Can be designed and maintained as a site for fish~n~ craft and small recreation boots (see paragraph and criteria ~9, page El SHORE ACCESS:' Through its year-long study the Task Force has consistently viewed Lake Minnetonka as an exceptional recreation resource. The Task Forc~ envisions significant opportunities for increased use of the extensive shoreline on the part o¢ citizens who are not bo~t owners. Shore access facilities should be designed effectively and managed well to prevent adverse environmental impact to Lake Minnetonka. Minnetonka could be enjoyed by' bikers, hikers, anglers, and picn]ckers. Municipal recreation departments, county and state agencies should be utilized in developing the most appropriate methods to accomplish'additional opportunities for passive enjoyment and appreciation o~ Lake Minnetonka. The Task Force finds that there is considerable potential for improving shore access. Oppo:tunities exist to both increase shore use and maintain a high' quality recreation experience. ]n areas where roads are ad)acent to lokeshore, where bridges cross the lake channels, and in public parks~ the Task Force notes that there are many opportunities for i~proving facilities. All existing and new sites should have benches, trash containers and toS]ets. ADair, the need for adequate parking to serve shore ~sers mus% be addressed. The Task Force recommends improvements of shore facilities on nine sites (See Map 3, page 19): ~. Molly's Corner/Browns Bay - Secure parking and construct o fishing pier on Browns Boy. ~. Noerenberg Bridge - improve ]andscapin¢. 3. Coffee Bridge - improve landscaping. May 3~, &983 4, Black Lake Secure street parking and construct a fi~hin~ pier on Black Lake, 5,Emerald Lake/Cooks Bay - Secure street pork]nqv Mo.__und park - Construct o fJshJng pSe= on Cooks Boy, ?, .Zimme~mans Pass - Secure street parkJng and construct fishing pie=, 9, Grays Bay Causeway - Landscape the sJte and provlde for non-boating passive use on the Wayzata Boy side, The Task Force recommends that when County Road ~5 between Wayzata and Navarre needs improvement, it should be designed and managed os a two-)one scenic parkway preserving the historical scenic vistas of this unique lokeshore roadway. Th~s roadway cots through the center of the lake and offers many unique and spectacular views of Lake Minnetonka. Future improvements of the scenic parkway should provide, where environmentally possib]e, bike and hiking trails, and scenic ]ookout parking areas. W~th p~oper )andscaping and deve)opment this roadway can remain one the p~emier scenic parkways in the metropolitan area. County and state classification and construction standards should be modified to allow this roadway to be classified amd u~ed as o %wa-lone scenic parkway. The Task Force also reviewed trail system plans prepared by most of the Lake Minnetonka Communities. These interconnected t~oi] systems ore we]] planned and con provide access to public lokeshore recreation areas. The Task Force commends these communities and recommends that they imp]ement their plans. The Task Force recognized that in order for improvements or additions to access facilities to effectively serve the public, they must be adequately maintained. ]mplementJng agencies should set aside adequate maintenance funds for these facilities. FI ISLAND RECREAT]ON= The Task Fo:ce concluded that significant potential exists fo: expansion of island :ec~eot~on ~n Lake MJnnetonko. Two islands, ~awatosso and Wild Goose Chase, a~e publicly owned by the Hennep~n County Pa:k Rese:ve D~st:]ct (HCPRDI. The Task Fo=ce :ecommends that Dee:Jng ]sland and the B~g Island Vete=ons Comp be ~cqu~=ed fo= pa~k puzposes. The State of Minnesota should obtain full and cleo= t~tle to the B~g Island Vetezans Comp. Afte: title p:ob]ems a:e cleo:ed, the HCPRD should]develop and manage the B~g Island Vetezans Comp S~te Sn con)unction w~th the A:thu: Al]en Wi]dlSfe Sanctuo:y as a zeg~onal pazk. Th~s ~20 Ac:e 'facility should be managed to serve the bootSng and non-booting public. The development of on ~slond :ec~eatJon system in Lake Hinnetonka m~ght ~nciude o fe~:y boot system. A pub]~c cz p=ivate re:ay boot system would make these is]and pa:ks'ovaJ]able to non-boate=s. It ~]so has the advantage of Snc~easSng lake en)oyment w~thout a co:zesponding She:ease ~n boat usage. Th~s =ecommendatSon could be Sntegzated into the pzesent ~Jght :aS] t=ansit study of the Hennep$'n County owned :ail:cod ~ight-of-woy whSch extends f=om Victo=~o th:ough Exce]s~o= to Hopkins and wh$ch may be extended to H~nneapo][s. ' The development of a fe~y boot system mo=e off-]okesho:e s~tes fo:' public po~k~ng. SStes in the v~c~n~ty of Wayzata and Exceisio: shou]d be investigated. These s~tes shou]d be nea= p=esent o= potential mass tzanspo=tot~on :cutes. The potentSal development of a'Lost Lake access sSte could p:ovide one maze s~gn~f]cant 'po:kSng azea to se:ye an ~s~and fe:=y system. Gl MUNICIPAL POLICIES: The Task Fo:ce commends those Municipalities that hove p~ov~ded public ]oke access and :ecommends that )okesho:e municipalities, when managing access sites unde~ the~: and when cons]de:ing new ]okesho:e development, give pozt~cu]o~ attention to the goal of imp:oving access fo: fJsh~ng czoft and small :ec:eotjon boats. ]'he Task Force recommends that ~mplement:ng agenc:es and ]akeshore mUnicipalities cooperate in mon]tor~ng any future ]and use changes at existing commercia] access sites. Oonsideration should be'given to creation of a public access site ~t any existing commercial access location prior to possSb]e future rezon~ng of such a site to multiple dwelling or other non-lake access use. HI COHHERC]AL ACCESS TO THE.LAKE: lhere are two principal forms of privately owned ]~ke access facilities: commercial marinas, and food/entertainment establishments. Commercial marinas provide many important services required on any public lake. These services range from simple directions and general boating information, to gas, maintenance and boating accessories, to boat sales, storage and public access. Many of these are provided free but others are necessarily provided at a charge. The LMCD should encourage the diversity of services provided by commercial marinas on Lake Minnetonka. Some commercial marinas provide many.of the above referenced services while others do not. Currently, the LMCD Code (Chapter' III, Section 3.08) :equires that any new marina proposal which would need a special density use permit must provide "certain amenities deemed beneficial to the Lake and to the genera] public use of the Lake", s~ch as boot accesses, fishing boot rental, fishing piers, restrooms, telephones, etc. lhe Task Force recommends that the LI~3D requirement t~at new marinas p~ovide public service facilities be expanded where possible to existing marinas. This policy would help repay the public for the marina's use of public waters fo~ docking boots. The Task Force '~dentified several potential problems with this recommendation, including a ~ene~a] lack of on-site (marina) parkinQ space, the d~fficulty of enforcin9 the regulations, increased car and boot traffic congestion, and conflicts between day-users and ]esse~s. A user fee for the service, provided the fees are reasonable, ~s recomme,~ded. Owners of existing marinas should be given ample time to implement any new license requirements involving additional service obligations on their port. access optSdn t~ the non-boat-owning pub]Sc and should be encouraged. Food/entertainment establishments also pzovSde valuable services to lake users. Ha~or restaurant facilities serve as a destination and provide boaters with food, entertainment' and rest~oom facilities. In addition the establishments provide facilities from which to vieQ the lake for both booters and non-boaters. The preservation of this type of shore use is an important public benefit. II W]N~ER ACCESS: The Task Force finds that winter access is adequate and well-distributed. A wide variety of winter activities prevail, including ice-boating, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and fishing in-the~open and in small "cities" of fishing houses. J) MAINTENANCE OF LAKE BED AND DEVICES: Ma]ntenance of lake amenities through dredgJng and its concomitant disposal of 'spofls, sub)ect %o appropriate permitting, should be continued. 5xperience at Lake M~nnetonka and elswhere has conclusively shown public access benefit from careful, l~mited improvements t° natural order. Examples of this experience can be seen in dams, channels, shoreline protections (riprappingl, Goose Island, .Bug Island, beaches and the like at Lake Minnetonka. K) RIPARIAN INTERESTS: ~ In all ~ts deliberations on p6blSc access to the lake the Task Force was mindful of lakeshore owners, their continued efforts to beautify and maintain the shoreline, and their stake in reasonable use and preservation of the lake. Riparian interests should be kept in proper balance with regional public interests. ]Il. LAKE SURFACE USE Al MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING LAKE SURFACE USE Many factors affect, and/or are affected by, Lake MJnnetonko surface use. The number of uses and users varies qreatly depending upon weather, time of day, week, month and year, and s~gn~f~cant conflicts between these uses and users exist, particularly during "peak" hours on 10 to 20 "peak" days. Speed, darkness and area of the lake are contributing facto=s, but most conflicts seem to result from carelessness and thoughtlessness. While common sense, courtesy, respect for the dangers of water activities, and education of the users are the prefer=ed means for mJtigatin9 these conflicts, a considerable body of law and regulations already exists and is enforced. Of critical importance %o recreational use of Lake MJnnetonka are its surface wate~ level, which was estoS]ished by ~udic~a] decree in 1897, and .the quality of .its water. Surface water level is ~mportont because of its relationship to rocks, reefs, and ot~er so]id objects hidden from view. HennepJn County should be encouraged to continue its efforts %o. m~tigote these hazards through its buoy,,dredg~ng, and riprapp~'ng Regarding water quality, since lake water testing at Lake M~nnetonka began circa 1960 and s~nce substantial sewage ~nstallat~ons have been made, the clarity of surface water at Lake Minnetonka has significantly ~mp~oved. However, stormwa%e= runoff continues %o provide excessive'nutrients to the lake causing the depth of oxygenated water to decrease. Municipal and .Minnehaha Creek Watershed D~stric% attention to the sewage and runoff concerns should be continued. The lake surface is a finite resource {approximately 14,000 acres). The total area is directly related to the lake level.~. variations of the lake level have a s]gniflcant effect on the recreational use of the ]ake. See historic recorded water levels shown in Figure The Hjnnehaha Creek Watershed District manages the lake level through operation of the Gray~s Bay Dam. In addition to reducing f.loodJng, one management 9aa] Js to stabJllze lake levels between 928.6 feet above sea ~eve] (elevation of low polnt in the aid G:oys Bay Dam) and 929.h feet (No,ma1 O~dinary H1gh Water Level - NOHW). Figu:e 1 indicates that thls go~l is essentially met during the boating season. It should be noted that the ~verage l~ke level has been rising over the p~st 30 years. HSgh water levels of Lake HSnnetonka caused by Sncreas~ng urbanization of its watershed, which bring faster and greater quantities of. storm water runoff to the lake, present an important hydrologic and environmental problem ~n the future. For the benefit of the general public, the lakeshore municipalities, the LHOD and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed D]str$ct should m]nimlze the adverse affect of h~gh water levels on the' lake, above 929.6 feet above se~ level, ~929 datum, by ]) controlling future u~banJzat~on, 2) developing an upper watershed impoundment pro~ect and 3) regulation of the discharge of ~ater at the Gray's Bay Dam. The protect]o~ o-f'Lake Minnetonka from the ~dverse affects of high water, levels should be paramount when high ware: 1,~vels are in conflict vJth other management goals. For example the DNR requirement of rough fish screens ~t the G=~ys Bay Dam should be elJmln:ted when l~ke debris prevents d~scha=ge rates necessary to ma]ntaSn env/ronmentally safe levels. The prSmary boatSng season on Lake HSnnetonka occurs from mid-Hay (f~sh~ng season openerJ ¢o la~e September. Peak boating use of the lake occurs on July ~ a~d warm weather Weekends -- approximately 50 to 20 days during the season (See Append]x Page ~A and At present the rec:eatJona] use of Lake HSnnetonka du:ing the boating season Js influenced by natural features of the lake such as water depth, size of bays and open water, the high zo~5o of shoreline to open ~ate:, and man-made features such as lSmSted cleo=once under bridges and shoreland development. · ' FIGURE J MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT LAKE MINNETONKA WATER LEVEL DATA 931.0 r~ '"' 930.0- 928.0 N. OH,W.. 929.40 ....... _.. .... I JAN ; ........... i ........ ': ....... '" .......... ..... : ........ ! ....... ~ ................. i · : : ' ' ' i ......... ~ i 1 I I I t I i I ][ FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC LEGEND 19,.50-1979 AVERAGE 1970-1979 AVERAGE REGIONAL FLOOD 931.5 RECOROED LOW 92[8 (DEC., 1937) Although only 50 to ~S percent of boats stored on the Joke ~ay be in use at one time, increasing this storage capacity ~nfreases th~ number of boats that cou]d use the lake at any time. There also appears to be on ]ncrease Jn the numbe=s of traile=ed 18 'to 26 foot boats using the lake. The presence of Joke-front restaurants and their docks may have an ~ndJrect influence on the s~ze of boats using the Joke, os well os having a direct ~ffect on the booting density. (~umbe= of boats per acre) on that area of the lake. BJ SURFACE USE CONFLICTS: Recreational use conflicts on the Joke during the boating ~egson con be categorized as big boats versus smaller boots, fast boots versus slower boots, underwater diving or swimming versus booting, and shore f~sh]ng versus boa%lng. For example, shore fishing at channels can c~e~te .a conflict with passing boats when lines become cough% ~n the propellers of these boots. The fo]lowing Task Force f~ndings suggest surface use conflicts will increose'in'{he future years: The number of boots using the lake (boot~ng density) .has been increasing from 1973 to 1982. 2. Boats can be leased on o short-term basis {usually three years). Consequent]y, people con afford to temporarily use larger boats. 3. It has been observed tho% larger, boats are o large part of the sa]es inventory of Lake ~innetonko area boat dealers. The Hennepin County Water Patrol has found that the main c.ouse of boating accidents is ~nottentJve driving, which con be exacerbated by h~gher boat speed or dr~v~ng wh~]e under the influence of alcohol. Recreational use conflicts which may lead to an accident.~or interfere with enjoyment of the lake by others ore primarily caused by core]ess or inconsiderate boot operation -- not bv the fact there ore more larger and foster boots on the lake. Lake M~nnetonko Conservation District's regulation of the operation of,... I 11 boats [e.g. speed ]SmJts, quiet water zones, etc.} regard]ess of boot type, ]ength or motor size reduces surface use conflicts. An example of how the LHCD code regulates surface use follows: overtaking anchored boots at high speed, especio]]y fishing boots, con create safety hazards and dSmJnish the quality of fishing. The LMOD Code of Ordinances, Section ~.1~, Subdivision lc, prohibits speeds of over six mi]es per hour on several areas of the lake under certain conditions including that oreo within 150 feet of an anchored raft or watercraft. )t is noted that o boater is responsible for the woke his/her boo% creates. The Task Force recommends the LMCD consider lowering the night time speed limit for safety purposes. Observation has shown that a predominant use of o particular area of the lake con preclude other uses in that oreo. For example, waterskiing prevents fishing, if skiing is the predominant use on that part of the lake. The Task Force concluded that with increased booting densities, more research'of' lake activities and their interaction with other factors is needed. The Task Force recommends that more data should be collected to determine the ecological and sociological carrying capacity of the lake in order to predict when and where certain use activities and hence conflicts could occur. 8a~ed on the data collected, the Lake Minnetonko ConservotSOn District should continue to develop a framework for ]ak% use conflict definition and resolution. The Task Force recommends thor the recreational uses and use 'pattern of Lake Minnetonko should continue to be regulated by the exis%ing Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. To the extent possible, the present LMCD policy avoiding over-regulation of users of the lake should be continued. ~ The Task Force concluded that the permit process used by the LMCD for scheduling special events, such os ~fishJn.q tournaments and races, has worked we]] ]n reduc~n9 potentio] user conflicts. /~/2 27 ~ay 31_, 1983 The Task Force recommends that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation D~str~ct.sho6]d schedule as many special events as poss~bie for weekdays, not weekends 0r weekday evenings, ~n order %o reduce the pot'ent~al .for water surface use conflicts. C) EDUCATION EFFORTS FOR USING THE LAKE: Educati'on Js lust as important as enforcement Jn controlling lake surface uses. The Task. Force notes that %he lake is.used by many "new boat owners" who may not have any previous boating operation experience - especially in light of the fact that there ~s no required %raining for adult recreational boat operation. Approximately 50 percent of the warning t~ckets given by the Water Patrol %re 9~ven to violators who claimed-no know]edge of {he LHCD boater/surface use rules. Based on research indicating that up to 98 percent of Lake MJnnetonka baa'rets are Hennep~n County residents, the LMCD sends out a boating rule synopsis to prospective users Jn Hennep]n County. However, the tHCD admits that this education effort does not reach everyone because there are many '"new users" of the lake every year. 7he LMCD a]%o'p%sts their surface use/bo~ting rules at .public launch sites on the lake. These practices are commended and should be continued. A map/brochure of Lake Minnetonka produced by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation Planning and Programming Division is distributed to boa%ers at public bo~t launch sites, through the Hennepin County Water Patrol, 'bait sho~s, and marinas serving Lake Minnetonka, and ~s included with th~s report. The map was revised to include LMCD boat~ng/surface use rules in 5D82. The Task Force recommends that the Lake MSnnetonka mop/brochure should continue to be improved. Hay 32., 1P83 IV. LAW ENFORCEMENT A) CURRENT LAWS ADEQUATE: After a thorough examination of the ex/sting laws and ~egula~ions'covering mo~e than 20 pub]ia agencies that claim or could claim some )uzisdictiona] authority over lake use, the Task Force concluded that there is a substantial body of ]aw covering lake regulations. Consequently, there is minimal need for additional regulatory ]eg/slatidn by any level of government. B) LMCD SHOULD HAVE PRIMARY MANAGEMENT ROLE: The state has granted the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), the most extensive and comprehensive to regulate t. ake use. Included among the more important regulatory sub}ects that the LMCD controls are surface use, dock dens/t/es and configuration, boating speed, marina location, spec/al events and pal]uriah. In addition, the LMCD can raise revenue through taxation and mamina license fees. Under contract with the LMCD, the Hennep/n County Sheriff's Water Patrol provides staff, equipment and other fac/iities in order to enforce the LMCD Code. A Oepartment of Natural Resources Conservation Officer is ~vai'lable to enforce state snowmobiling and game and fish laws. The Task Force recommends that the LMCD should continue as the pr/mary lake management agency because of its comprehensive authority, expertise, existing staff, and specialization exclusive to Lake Minnetonka. C) POTENTIAL FOR CONFUSION - 20 AGENCIES: While it appears that ex/sting laws and regulations are adequate to regulate ~enera] lake use, it aisc appears that there is potential for confusion and con{liar among the more than 20 governmental agenc/es having authority on specific matters. Fo~ /nstance, three agencies, the LMCD, DNR and a local municipality are involved in the routine development of a boat access. Spec/a] circumstances, such as those surrounding the Gray's Bay Causeway s~te may require the /nvolvement of st/il more agencies, in the case of a dredging proposal, agencies such as local municipal/ties, Hennepin County, the LMCD, DNR, and Creek ~atershed D/strict can become /nyc]red. Jurisdictional overlap occurs w/th other common lake issues as well, ranging from boat access to dock p]acement. ~ay 3], ~283 D] NEGOTIATED JURiSDiCTiON: Obv]ous'ly,'this situation causes confusion amon~ the public zesu]t ng tn nadveztent law v 01ati0ns and the p0ssfble =isk of loss. of public zespect fo: law. Consequently, the F°=ce =ecommends that the agencies meet to negotiate and assign p~ima=y =esponsibility fo: developmental and =egu]ato=y ~uthozity in each specific azea of concezn :esulting ]na fo:ma1Memozandum of Unde:standin9 that would speci'fy each ~gency's :ale ~nd zesponsibilify. Once this task is completed, the Task F~:ce :ecommends that the gene:a] public should be ]n~o~m~d o~ :ules 9ove:nin9 lake use and the identity of public agencies ~esponsible fo: specific :ule enforcement. This info~mation should be pzi~ted on signs, maps and b~ochu~es, which should be d~st~ibuted.at .]ib:~ies, city halls, bait shops, ma:inas and restaurants. Local p:int and b:oadcast media should be solicited to :un public se:vice announcements, pazticut~zly in the. sp~Jng, .that would advertise the ~vail~bility of Lake Minnetonk~' zegul~to:y information. E) PUBLIC INFORMATION CONSOLIDATION: The Task Fo:ce finds that a maze efficient implementation of existing inte:agency coordination is desi:able between the l~kesho:e municipalities, the LMCD, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Wate~ Patrol, the DNRTs Conse:vation Office:, and the Minnehah~ C:eek ~ate:shed District. Because these ozganJz~tions do not have common sex-vice a~eas, enabling legislation, az funding sources, physical consolidation of thei~ involvement with L~ke Ninnetonka would be difficult. Howeve:, it would be desi:able to develop ~ consolidated pub]lc ~nfozmat~on p:og~am to aid in the dissemination of info~mot~on pe:ta~ning to Lake Minnetonka. Public :elotions could be improved by p:oviding the gene:al public with o single te)ephone numbe: fo: info:motion :equests :ong]ng f:om dock densi¢ies to oppzoved flotation devices. Administrative costs may a]so be :educed f:om shaz]ng of these services. FI LAW ENFORCEMENT SUGGESTIONS: The=e a=e oppo=tunit]es to increase the effectiveness of ]oke monapement effo=ts. In addition to impzovinp the pub]]c's awa:eness of )ake use :ules and pub)~c infozmotion on ~ene:a] May 3~[, 1983 lake use, .the .Task Force recommends: ~)Station Wate~ Patzol Staff in known problem areas dur]n9 periods of peak use; 2)Increase ]ow enforcement visibl]ty by making patrol boats easily, recognizable from long d~stonces; 3) Require marina operators to distribute ordinance summaries to boot slip leasees; and 4) Expand the use of volunteers f'or both informational and enforcement purposes. Gl FiVE FUND]NO OPTIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: The Task Force recognized that the Sheriff's Water Patrol has done a good )ob, given the limited financial resources that a~e currently available. However, the Patrol's current efforts will probably not be adequate if the~e is either an increase in meflu]ations or an incmease in sumface use activity. Moreover, fundin~ levels for the Water Patrol have fluctuated g:eatly in %he past decade. Because of the current financial crunch on government funding at all levels and because of the relative priority those govergmental levels may assign to financing outdoor recreation, the Task Force concluded that innovative, user-oriented funding proposals might be necessary in order to properly finance the Wa{er- Patrol. Following is a listing of five funding options that the l'osk Force reviewed. On]y-the first and fifth options were found to be fair to all segments of the booting public. The first Water Patrol financing alternative studied was the sale of lake use stickers or permits. This concept would require everyone who wanted to use the lake to' purchase and display a special Lake M~nnetonka permit. T~e cost of the permit might vary depending on the size and power of the watercraft. Un'er the premise that large, powerful boats create more potential for trouble and, therefore, a greater need for ]aw enforcement presence than do small boats, it was suggested that permits for large boots should cost more than permits for small boots. There are mo)or problems with this approach. First and foremost ]s the fact that current state law expressly prohibits any boat licensing procedures that are supp']ementa] to the Qenera] state license. Consequent]y, state ]aw would have to be May 3~, ~983 amended to implement this alternative. It was also noted that this opp.~oodh c6uld lead to the proliferation of similar permits elsewhere, (e.g. St. Cz0~x Rive= pe=m~tsj Lake M~]]e Lacs permit's, Gui.].Lake permits, etc.). Another problem with the special permit is the necessity of creating on adminSstza%]ve structure to sell the permits during the boating season at multiple ia'cations. Enforcement of this alternative would simply be an added burden fo~ the Wate: Patrol. Although the L~CO would be the logical choSce to implement this program, there could be a substantial cost involved. Therefore, a thorough cost/benefit analysis should precede any formal proposal to the legislature. A secon~ financing alternative would involve a new fee fo~ use of public accesses during peak lake use periods, (i.e. weekends and holidays). This alternative could be implemented by stationing an employee at each access or by placing a parking lot entrance gate at. the access entrance. Obvious problems with this a]terna-tive include: 1] The ~nconsistency of cha~ging the general public for use of the lake while owners of seasonally docked or motored boats and r/parian owners pay no peak use fee, and 2! A conflict with the DNRJs obligation to develop free and adequate access to public waters of the state. A third alternative considered by the Task Force was for the LNCD to increase the annual marina licensing fee and dedicate the proceeds to law enforcement funding. The rationale for this approach is that the p:esence of marinas around the lake contributes to crowded conditions at peak'use times. Therefore, the marinas contribute to the need for increasing Water efforts. A potential p~oblem with this approach is that, once again, it forces a specific segment.of the public to pay for boating privileges, while othe~ segments of the boating pub]Sc do not pay. This alternative could be considered in con)uncton with the previous a]te:nat~ves to provide greater equity, but it Ss noted that ~ipar]an owners wou]d not be charged in this approach. The fourth alternative involves the fu]le: use of the existing funding mechanism of the LHCD. Each of the fourteen communities adjoining Lake ~4innetonka may ]espy a tax of one-third Hay 3:1, 1983 mill on the property within their c]tSes to provide s~pport of the LMCD. Unlike the lake use permits alternative, this fundjnfl mechanism is currently in place and 5s administratively possible to implemen%. However, once again the question of who should pay for additional lake enforcement arises. This funding method wOuld further tax non-riparian owners and/or non-users of Lake Minnetonko living in the 14 cities. Furthermore, those boaters who do not ~eside in these c~ties would not be taxed. The Task Force concluded that, while it is reasonable to fund basic 'LMCD support services at their present leve] from the levy on property in the ~4 c~ties, additional support, particularly for enforcement activities, should be provided from a broader fundinD base. '. The fifth and simplest o]ternotive might be to ~ncrease the state watercraft license fees. Watercraft license fees ore currently the primary source for financing county water patrols throughout the state,, so the administrative mechanism is already in place. There was o 9enero] concensus of the Tas~ Force members that current state license fees for large and high powered boats were ]ow. 'However, there must be some assurance that fees collected ~re used for needed ]aw enforcement activity. on Lake Minnetonka. .. May 3~, 1~83 VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY "A Creel Census of Lake Hinnetonka, Hennepin County, Ninnes0to from Nay ~? to October ~9, ~D?S;" Minn. Department of Natural Resources (danuary 1978). 2. "AddJtSonal FSndJngs of Rec:eat~on Demand Study on Public Boat Launch S~tes Serving Lake HSnnetonka"; memorandum by A. Stefferud; (Feb~uar~ 13, 1983). "Boat Density Policy Statement"; Lake Minnetonka Conservation DistrJct (April 197~)'. ~. "Carryin~ Capacity Controls on Lake Hinnetonka - Rough Draft"; City of Orono-(1977). Committee on Laws and Low Enforcement - Final Report; Lake Minnetonka Task Force - Laws and Law Enforcement Committee; (March 6. "Gray~s Bay 'Causeway Lake Access Data Summary"; HCPRD (1981). ?. Hennep/n County She=iffts Water Patrol AccJdent Reports'(Summaries for 1979-8~; Ap=J1 ~97d; and dune 8. "Inventory of Existing Public and Quasi-Pubi~c Recreationa] on Lake Hinnetonka that Provide Some General Public Access to Lake"; memorandum by A. Stefferud; Metropolitan Council (danuary 3~, do]nt and Cooperative Agreement {for ]aw enforcement between HennepJn County and LMCD). 10. "Lake Management Program Prlor~tJes Report, October Jg76 - October 1~7~" Lake M]nnetonka Conservatlon District [December 1~. Lake M]nnetonka Conservation District Code of Ordinances as amended JSeptember 1~. "Lokeshore Develoment Potential Survey"; LHCD 13. "Lake Use Study - 1982 Aerial Boat Count Report; Remote Sensing Laboratory, University of Minnesota, (duly 1~. "Land Use Zoning and Policies from-Appropriate Comprehensive Land Use Plans that Affect Existing and Potential Boat Access Sites on Lake Ninnetonka"; memorandum by A. Stefferud; Metropolitan Council; (March 17, 1983). Laws of Minnesota, Chapt. 907 (1967) as amended. The enabling ]eaislat]on for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LHCD]. ~6. "Metropolitan Recreation Demand Study - Lake Access, 1982"; memorandum by A. Stefferud and C. Smith; Metropolitan Council; (January 3, M~nnehaho Creek Watershed District Lake Minnetonka Water Level Data Minnesota Snowmobile Safety Laws and Rules. tq~nnesota Waters and Watercraft Safety Laws and Rules. WI? "Parkin~ Capacities ]n And Around Lake Minnetonka Public Access Sites," Memorandum bv Georqe Orninq, Manaaer Research'& Policy Section Department of Natural Resources; The Lake Minnetonka Task Force PublSc Access Subcommittee "Parkinq Study - Hennepin County Lake Accesses at North Arm and Sp'r]r Park Public Launch Ramps." Memorandum by Alan P.'Olson; OSty of Orono INovember 30, ~982). 22. "Public Access Summary"; LMCD (February 1982). 23. Report of the Lake Minneton.ko Task Force - Surface Use Committee; Lake Minnetonka Task Force - Surface Use Committee; IFebruary-8, 1983). 24. Report of the '1999' Conference; LMCD (May 25. "Vessel Traffic Management Techniques for Recreational Woters"~ U.8. Coast Guard (dvly 1982]. May 31, 5983 APPENDIX A Summary Lake Use Studies &973 - 2282: LMCD 1275 Estimated F]shinq and Non-Fish]nq Pressure bY Ronth$: DNR 1982 Lake M5nnetonka ActSv~ty Compa=son: Hennep~n County She=iff U~Jfo=m Identification of Lake Minnetonka Areas: LMCD PAGE 4 & S A 6 A 7& 8A 0lA BOATS IN USE ON L~JIE .~IN]~ETONKA Summary 1973 to 1982 1973 1974 1976 1977 1978 1979 I981 1982 Runabout 557 512 613 808 561 546 1012 1252 Cruiser 139 131 149 215 134 176 214 188 Sailboat 289 165 292 234 236 266 .'385 388 Pontoon 72 64 53 70 37 50 43 38 Houseboat 35 28 23 44 13 20 19 50 Sub Total " Rowboat Miscellaneous 1092 900 1130 1371 981 1058 1673 1916 62 46 94 32 35 37 88 135 25 40 50 69 32 22 152 233 Total 1179 986 1274 1472 1048 1117 1913 2284 DEFINITIONS Runabout - An open, ~lan~ng watercraft'usually over 16 feet and 10 hp and stored in water. Cruiser - A cabim, Semi-displacement watercraft usually with sleeping accommodations or day cruiser. Sailboat - A wind driven watercraft with sail and cockpit. Pontoon - A motorized watercraft using two tubular flotation devices. Houseboat - A pontoon boat with cabin and sleeping accon=nodations. Rowboat - Watercraft 16 feet or less in length and unmotorized or 10 hp or less motor, usually stored on shore. Miscellaneous - Watercraft, other than rowboats, 16 feet or less in length and are unmotorized or which use motors of 10 hp or less, such as canoes, wet sailboards, paddle boats, jet skis, etc., and seaplanes. ~ Numbers refect an "instantaneous" (approximately one houri count %aken once each year by the LMCD dur]nq a standard normal hSQh use period. 1973 through ~979 counts were tabulated from sumface observations. 198~ and 1982 counts were made using aerial photo /~~ surveys. There was no count made in 1980. 02 A May 3~, ~983 Runabout Cruiser 'Sailboat Pontoon Houseboat Sub Total Rowb o a t ~Liscellaneous Total BOATS STORED ON LA~E MIN~TON}~ Summary 1974 to 1982 1974 19~75 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 3309 3259 3094 2940 .2732 2694 2632 2519 2607 872 1074 867 934 1293 1549 1630 1765 1699 1288 1648 1326 1359 1316 1372 1135 1512 1294 557' 448 473 456 454 391 394 342 351 147 156 142 132 121 113 118 105 91 6173 6585 5902 5821 5916 6119 5909 6243 6042 1850 1621 i708 1643 i578 995 511 848 1106 903 791 76o 548 685 3o2 8926 9123 8431 8255 8254 7662 6908 7776 7450 Commercial 2305 2633 2668 2691 2804 2891 2874 2921 2966 Multiple . Residential 504 552 572 624 622 643 647 694 690 Other Residential 6617 5938 5191 4940 4828 4128 3387 4161 3794 8926 9123 8431 8255 8254 7662 6908 7776 '7450 Total Boats s%ore, d were tabulated by L. MCD personnel durin~ annual systematic shoreline surveys by boat. Counts were mode durinq ]ow use summer periods. /~ f)'~ a k~,ov ~1~. ~g83 Figure 1 shows how the total fishin, g and non-fishing recreational pressure was distributed.month by month for Lake ~Iinnetonka. The max~_m~--~ fishing pressure · occurred during the month of June when there was 99,420 'man-hours spen.= fishing, or 7.75 ma'n-hours per acre (Table 5). 27.47. of the fishing pressure for the entire census period occurred during the month of June. Table 5 S~ry gf Estimated Fishing and Non-fishing Pressure on Lake Minnetonka by Honths. 1975~ Exoressed in }hn-hours House or Month Fishinz ~unabou~s SailboatinE Uaterskiin~ Pontoon Canoein~ May 17-31 93,976 64,396 25,290 960 11,540 3,787' June 99,420 12~,610 39,794 4,120 20,374 3,485 July 66,373 237,327 61,493 10,533 40,017 2,910 August 47,047 154,976 35,622 ·6,289 32,484 1,654 September 38,703 48,667 16,900 698 6t607 328 October 1-19 17.881 ~607 13.222 0 2.078 936 Total 363,400 637,583 192,321 22,600 113,100 13,100 Although the most fishing pressure was found during the month of June, the month of V..zy had the most pressure per day. There were 14 available fishing days in }~y during which an es~i~v, ated 6.,705 man-hours per day occurred compared to 3,310 man-hours per day in June. The maxim~-n, speedboat, waterskiin~, sailboa~ and house or pcntoon boa~ pressure was found durin3 the month of july, ~ne n~v..ber of r~an-hours, · per acre, and percent of to,al is sho~.m in Table 6. HENNEPIN COb~l'Y SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 1982 LAKE MIh~ETONKA ACTIVITY COMPARISON Activity Rank Total UILM Order Activity Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 225 213 170 127 36 30 19 11 29- 20 12 25 118 101 84 83 9 79 39 10 74 26 11 69 15 12 68 3 13 65 9 14 65 22 15 65 17 16 56' 4 Area Excelsior ~ay Gray's Bar' Coffee Cove Spring Park Bay Wayzata Bay West Crystal Bay Black Lake Lafayette Bay Carson's Bay Smith's Bay Harrison's Bay Cook's Bay Carman's Bay North Arm Bay West A.rm Bay West Upper Lake 17 51 38 18 50 14 19 48 41 20 44 7 21 42 37 22 40 39 23 40 1 24 '40 ~ 42 Echo Bay Seton Lake Lower Lake South Phelps Bay Gideon's Bay Big Island Passage' Halstead's Bay Lower Lake. 25 39 26 37 27 35 28 29 40 13 21 29 22 2 30 20 10 31 19 33 32 15 6 Veteran's Bay Emerald Lake East Cryal Bay East Upper Lake Priest's Bay Old Channel Bay St. Louis Bay Smithtown Bay 33 14 18 Forest Lake 34 14 5 South Upper Lake 35 12 16 Jenuings Bay 36 12 24 Maxwell Bay 37 11 35 St. Albans Bay 38 10 23 Stubbs Bay 39 7 32 Robinson's Bay 40 6 28 Brown's Bay 41 6 31 Libbs Lake 42 3 27 Tanager Lake Repo=t shows o bay by bay ranked comparison of activity of the Hennepin County She=~ff's Water Pat=o] 'on Lake Minnetonka du=ina 1982. Activity 5nc]udes thefts, citations, warnings, recovered p:ope=ty, boat and snowmobile accidents, d=ownings and ware= related accidents, medico]s, and m]scel]aneous ~nc~dents. 06 A May 31, ~983 07 n UNIFORM IDENTIFICATION OF T.~R MIh-NETONKt AREAS (~.) (~) (~) (4) (s) (~) (~) (~.o) (~.2) (~) (~4) (~) (~) (~8) (~) (~o) Halsteds Priests Bay Cooks Bay West Up_Der Lake South Upper Lake Smithtown Bay Fnelps Bay East Upper Lake Ca=mans 01d Channel Bay Sp~ing Pa~k Bay BlaCk Lake Emerald Lake Seto~ Lake Ha=risoos Bay Jennings Bay West Forest Lake C of fee' Cove West C=ysta~ Bay E~st Crystal (22) North Arm (23) Stubb~ Bay (24) ?~.,~,en ~ay (25) Lafayette Bay (26) Smiths Bay (27) Tanager Lake (2s) ~o~s ~ (29)' Wayzata Bay (3o) Gr~s B~ (32) Robinso=s Bay (33) Bay St. Louis (~4) Ca=sons Bay (35). St. Z~b~-- ~ (36) Excelsior Bay (37) Gideons Bay (38) Echo Bay (59) Big Island Passage (40) Veterans Bay (41) Lower L~-ke South (42) Lower Lake North- 08 A APPEND]X B '~ Lake MJnnetonka lask Force A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONCEPI DESIGN PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THE GRAYS BAY CAUSEWAY AREA WHEREAS, The Lake Minnetonka Task Force was formed at the request of the Governor to, amonq other charqes, repo~t on the adequacy of ex~stinq'pub]ic access to the Lake and to make recommendations fox improvements %o existinQ facilities;, and WHEREAS, The Lake Minnetonko Task Force is addressinq those specific chorqes; and WHEREAS, lhe Lake M~nnetonka task Force has oqreed that there is a recoqnJzed'.need for improved boot access sites on Lake M~nnetonko; and WHEREAS, The'Grays Boy Causeway site has ]onq served as a heavily used boat access site on Lake Minnetonka even thouqh i{ is hazardous, environmentally unsound, and aesthetJca]]y unp]easinq; and WHEREAS, There hove been numerous proposals over the last 15 years to improve the area which hove not proceeded due to ]ack of fund~nq and unresolved differences between local cities and various aqenc~es; and WHEREAS, The Lake is a resource that must be approached from o regional perspective; ~nd WHEREAS, There is a treed to provide increased occomodation of those Jnd$vSduals who want to en~oy the Lake by swimmina on ~ts beaches and fishin9 on its shores; and WHEREAS, Highway 105 accross the causeway is one of only o few ore~s where a significant public road is located immediately adjacent to the Lake providing aesthetic enjoyment of the Lake by vehicular troff~c~ and wHEREAs, While placement of fill %m the Lake is ~enera]]y prohibited expanding the access site area by suitable and environmentally acceptable means wi]] have overall public benefit; and WHEREAS, Highway 10~ and the associated causeway site ore scheduled for ~mprovement ~n the near future by the Minnesota Deportment of lronsportotJon; and WHEREAS, Concept desian plans hove been created which Qenera]ly address and include the desired features; and z. WHEREAS, Early approval of the concept des~an p]ans Js required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the pro~ect to proceed with the desired features; B Nay 31, 1983/~F NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the toke M~nnetonko Task Force that: Improvement and expansion of the Causeway access site is necessary and desirable and should be desianed to meet the meed of o regional constituency. Development and Jmprovement o¢ the Causeway s~te should provide fo= boot launchim9 facilities and related parkinq on the Grays 8ay side of the Causeway, preservin9 and enhancin~ the Wayzata 8ay side f6r~ aesthetic o~d Qenera] recreationa] use of the take; and \ The City of Wayzata, the City of Minnetonka, the Department of Natural Resources, the Hennep~n County Pork Reserve District, the Lake M~nnetonka Conservation Di~tr~ct, the MJnnehaho Creek Watershed District the Metropolitan Porks and Open Space Commission and other neeHed agencies are urQed to expeditiously approve a concept design plan, ~ncorporotinq the recommendations ~dentified in this Resolution. Adopted by the Lake Minnetonko Task Force this 8th day of February, 1983. /s/Robert L. Sear] es Chairman /s/George W. Staff Coordinator / 30 02 B APPENDIX C PUBLIC ACCESS SITES DISCUSSED The fo]lowinq list represents those sites discussed by The Public Access Committee of the Lake Hinnetonko 7ask Fozce foz the purpose of development of site selection cziterio for new fish,hq czaft and small zeczeation boat access. They aze not intended to be a list of zecommended access sites: *Stubbs Bay (nozth shoze) *Wayzata Yacht C]ub ~G~ay~s Bay Causeway *Tonka Bay ~Exce]s$o: T~mbe~ Lane JCarson~s Bay ~Lyman Lodfle *LJtt]e Venice *NSP SubstatJon ~O~d Resort ~K~nas' point Road ~Ha]stead Bay County *Smithtown Bay ~Lost Lake ~W~l]~ams Street ~Lake ~Surfs]de *Harzison's Bay ~Fo~est Lake APPENDIX D 'BACKGROUND TO LAKE M~NNEI'ONKA TASK FORCE FORMAT]ON In February 1982, a controversy f]a~ed when the MSnnesoto Department of Natural Resources (DNR} announced plans to acquire ~ boot access site on l. Qke NJnnetonk~. Local cJtJzen opposition p~ompted Gove~no~ QuJe to d~ect the DNR to abandon thei~ plans. The ensujnq d~Q]ogue between the Governor's of£Jce, the legislature, the DNR ~nd Lake M/nnetonka a~ea ~esSdents ~esulted /n a decision to ¢~eate a Task Fo~ce to study all ~ec~eat~onol uses of the lake and to p~epa~e o ~epo~t on theJ~ f~nd/ngs; The ta~aet date fo~ the comp]et/on of the ~epo~t was set fo~ June 1, ~983. In July, 1982 the L~ke MJnnetonka Task Fo~ce was appointed by the CommJssJone~s o¢ the HJnnesota Depo~tment of Natural Resources; Energy, Planning ~nd Development, and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Counc/1. In o~de~ to ossu~e a well balanced, object,ye membership, the ]'ask Fo~ce was comp~sed of ten citizen members, n~ne ~ove~nment officials and a chairman. The ten citizen members were selected as .Fou~ members f~om non-N~nnetonka A~ea communities: Thomas R. Nulcahy ~oyne LeBoeuf David B~aslau Bill Hoo~est~ot [~es/gned} Three members f~om M~nn~tonka A~eo commun~t/es: Pou) Pond Rosemo:~ D/neen B:ad Von Nest One membe~ each ~ep~esent]ng boatJna, sai]]nq and fish/nfl ~nte~ests: Robert E. Wogne~ - Boat~n~ Thomas Maple - Sa]l~n~ Richard D. Smith - F~shing N/ne ~epzesent~t]ves were selected f~om the fo]low~n~ ~ove~nmental agent/es: Kamen Loech]e: - M]nnesot~ Depoztment of Natu~l Resources Joseph E. $]ze~ - Minnesot~ Dep~tment of Ene~qy, P]ann]nq and Development D$:k deV:~es - Metzopo]~ton Council Robert TJpton B~own - L. oke M]nnetonka Conservation D~stz/ct Robert Thrift - Fzeshwate~ B~o]o~]cal Institute E.F. "Bud" Robb, d~. - HennepJn County Wo]loce E. Ess - Ca~ve~ County David Cochman - M~nnehaha Cmeek Watershed D]st~ct ?g3 01 D May 31, ]983 CHARGE 70 THE TASK FORCE The charge to the Task Force members was to p:epoze o report thut addresses the recreatJona] use of Lake Hinnetonka and adjacent public land, inc]udin~ but not limited to the fo]]owing top~cs: Evaluation of present recreational management pro. grams, including ]aw enforcement and maintenance, with recommendations for.improvements to those programs if needed. Adequacy of exiSt~r~ public access to the lake, includJnq a comprehensive inventory of public and private lake access facilities and lake-orientated recreational facilities' such as beaches and parks. Recommendations for improvement to existing facilities and proposals for additional faci]itfes should be mode Jf necessary. 3. Evaluation of recreational water surface use patterns on the lake includin~ identification of surface use conflicts and recommendations for resolving those conflicts. Target date for.completion of the p']an was June 5, 1983, at which time it will be submitted to the Governor, the Leqis]ature and other appropriate units of Government. In order to more effici'ently manage the limited 6va]]able t~me and the relatively large group, the Task Fo~ce was divided into three committees. Each committee was assigned to studv one component of the charg~ and report their findings, conclusions and recommendations to the full Task Force. The three committees were known as: ~] The Public Access Committee ~) The Laws and taw Enforcement Committee 3) The Surface Use Committee. This organizational structure resulted ~n three separate committee reports which were consolidated to form the Report of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force. 02 D MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Linda Zitzman, City of St. Bonifacius Charlotte Paterson, City of Minnetrista /John Elam, City of Mound Desyl L. Peterson Recent Prosecution Legislation June 2, 1983 I~ 1982, the Legislature amended the Ramsey County Municipal Court statute to transfer the prosecution of gross misdemeanors from the county attorney to the city attorney. For whatever reason, this was not done at the same time for Hennepin County. At the beginning of the 1983 legislative session, I was informed that Senator Luther was proposing that the same thing be done for Hennepin County, and I was asked to testify regarding the bill. I did testify at the subcommittee in the Senate, opposing the bill. I used as an example the City of St. Bonifacius which has a general fund budget of approximately ~100,000. If the city was required to undertake the gross misdemeanor prosecutions and even one such defendant was incarcerated for six months (a realistic sentence), the workhouse fee to the city would be approximately ~8,000. That would be 8% of the city's total budget, and in light of the 8% levy limit, would bankrupt the city. As a result of my testimony, joined by the city attorney for Richfield, the bill was amended to provide that the cities in Hennepin County would not have to pay the incarceration fees for gross misdemeanor prosecutions. The basic concept of transferring the gross misdemeanor prosecutions to the city attorney remained, however. To offset those additional costs, the city would also be entitled to the fine revenues from the gross misdemeanor prosecutions. That was the final form of the bill which was enacted into law on May 19, 1983. This law is to be effective January 1, 1984, ostensibly to provide the cities with notice for budgeting purposes. My own reaction to this is that the cities may not be significantly impacted by the legislation. There will be additional time in preparation of complaints and handling of court appearances, but by and large, I think this could be absorbed in my normally scheduled appearances at court. Obviously, because a gross misdemeanor is a more serious crime, there may be more of an impetus to go to trial which would then result in increased costs. Hopefully, however, the ~ne revenues will be sufficient to offset these costs. Also for your information, the 1983 legislature increased the maximum fine limits for misdemeanors from ~500 to ~700 and for gross misdemeanors from ~1,000 to ~3,000. I have not yet been able to find out when this will go into effect. Because we rarely get the maximum fine now, I think this should have little impact on fine revenues for the cities. cc Chief Timothy Thompson Chief Bruce Wold 0532i Staying Out of Court: Plannihg & Zoning Presenter: Michael Dean Wednesday, June 15 1:15-2:45 p.m. Great Hall West 'PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS (1) Notice. (2) Opportunity to be heard. (3) The right of cross-examination. (4) Disclosure. (5) Findings of fact. (6) Conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflict or impropriety. (7) Prompt decisions. (8) Records of proceedings. (9) Some ground rules for fair hearings. DUE PROCESS: Staying Out of Court--Planning and Zoning Presenter: Michael Dean wednesday, June 15, 1:15 - 2:45 pm Great Hall WEST THE ELEMENTS OF FAIR PLAY R. Marlin Smith Partner, Ross, Hardies, O'Keefe, Babcock & Parsons /6JE Land-use regulation is set against a constitutional backdrop that tablishes certain limits for such regulation. Two of the most important of these constitgtional limitations come from the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which is made applicable to the state and its instrumentalities by the Four~:eenth Amendment and which provides that no person may be "deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law . . ." This re- quirement of due process'has two a~pects, conm~nly called procedural due pro- cess and substantive due process. The constitutional requirement of procedural due process essentially requires that the procedures used in decision making--whether it be adminis- trative or judicial decision making--be fair~, giving all interested persons an adequate opportunity to make their views heard. SubstantiVe due process is the term sometimes applied to T. he constitutional requirement %hat statutes, ordinances, rules, and decisions must not be arbitral! or capricious. That is, there must be a rational relationship between the exercise of legi$1a:ive or rule-making authority and =he achievement of some legitimate puklic Procedural Due Process The constitutional requirement of fair procedures has eight general aspects. (1) Notice. Adequate and timely notice of proceedings and of the pro- posed decision-making or rule-making process is a fundamental aspect of due process. The U.S. Suprem9 Court, in a frequently cited decision [Mullane REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM: Land Use Law: Issues for the Eighties, Copyright 1981 by the American Planning Association. All rights reserved. V. Central Ranover Bank and Trust Co., 3]9 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)], has sai~ that not~e must be ". . reasonably c&lculated, under all ~Lhe tO ~prise interested parties of the tendency of the action ~ affora an op~ity to present their obJection~ .... T~e notice ~t ~e of natur~ as reasonably to conyey =he required /nfo~tion . . . ~d it must af- ford a rea~on~le t~e for those interested to ~ke ~eir appearance .... ~th the en~ling a~s of ~ various states ~d m~icipal zoning ordin~ces usually provide ~at notice of ~th legislative hearkngs ~d ad- ~nistrattve hearings on zoning matters ~ given in so~ fashion to all in- terested parties. Due process requfres"t~at the owner of ~e l~d ~ other interested persons be given prior notice, before ~y action is t~en whach ~uld make a material change in the regulations applicable to a particular parcel, or group of parcels, of l~d [Gulf and Easte~ ~velopment Co~. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 354 So.2d 57 (Fla. 1978)~ ~erican Oil Corp. v. City of Chica~o, 331N.E.2d 67 (Ill. App. 1975); Nesbit v. City of Albuquerque, 575 P.L 1340 (N.M. 1977)]. P~lication is the ~st co~nly re~irea fo~ of notice, although posting on the p~rty affected is also frequently re- gu/red. In some circumst~ces, ~uch as where a proposed ~nde~ation i~ in- volved, p~lication and posting have been held insufficient notice [Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208 (1962)]. Increasingly, statutes ~d m~l- =lpal oratn~ces have r~uired that ~tice ~ ~iled, ~ually by certified ~il, to all pro~rty o~ers (or ta~ayers of record) within a specified dis- ~ce of the property which will ~ affected by ~e zoning action. The notice must ~ ade~ate: the average citizen reading it, whose Eights ~y be affected, must ~derstand the general purpose, nature, character bf the pro~sed action [~ore v. Cataldo, 249 N.E.2d 568 (Mass. 1969)~ Nesbit v. City o~ Albuquerque, supra, Note 2j ~oga Society of New York v. Town of Monroe, 392 N.Y.S.2d 81 (App. Div. 1977)~ Sellers v. Cit~ of As~eville, 236 S.E.2d 283 (N.Car.App. 1977)~ Barriev. K/tsap County, 527 P.2d 1377 (Wash. 1974)]. Moreover, there is some authority for the view that an application for one. type of zoning relief cannot rest on public no- tice for a different type of relief. Thus, for example, an applicant cannot be given a special-use permit when the notice stated that he was seeking a varia~ion. [See, Folana v. Zonin~ Board of Appeals, 207 N.Y.S.2d 607 (N.Y.S. Ct. 1960) and Village of Larcb~ont v. Sutton, 217 N.Y.S.2~ 929 (N.Y.S.Ct. 1961).] The timeliness of the notice ~s also important. ~inimum notice times are ordinarily specified in sta~e enabling legislation and in muni- cipal ordinances. A zoning action that does not comply w~th these statutory time periods is invalid [Lunt v. Zonin~ Board of Appeals, 191A.2d 553 (Conn. 1963)~ $~a~le v..Zonin~ Board of Appeals, 137 A.2d 542 (Conn. 1957)~ George v. Edenton, 230 S.E.2d 695 (N.Car.App. 1976)~ S~barco Stations, Inc. v. Town Board of Vestal, 2S8 N.Y.S.2~ 8 (N.Y.Agp. Div. 1969)]. To summarize, ~rocedural due process demands ~%at ~here must be notice of an action, it must a~equately apprise interested persons of the intended action, and ~t must be given within the prescribed time periods and wi=bin sufficient time to allow intereste~ individuals to make appropriate prepara- tions. (2) Opgortun~y to be heard. It is central to the concept o~ pro- ceaural due process that all persons inte~'es~ed in a prospective decision be given an opportunity to offer their ¥ie~s an~ to supply evidence An their suppoz~c. This concept is embodied in the virtually uniform requirement that there be no changes in zoning regulations, and that no speclal perm/ts, sl~e- cia1 e~cepttons, or variations be granted until a public hearing has been held. The failure of a local legislative body to conduct an appropriate hearing that gives everyone a fair opportunity to be heard may invalidate any subsequently adopted ordinance or regulation. [See, e.g., Bowen v. Story County Board of Supervisors, 209 N.W.2d 569 (Iowa 1973); Baltimore v. Mano Swartz, Inc., 299 A.2d 828 (Md. 1973); and Lima v. Robert Slocum Enter~rises 331 N.¥.S.2d 51 (App. Div. 1972).] .The hearing must be open to the public. Any decision that is based on proceedings held in a closed session, wi~h the public excluded, will be held void [Blum v. Board of Z0nin~ and Appeals, 149 N.Y.S.2d 5 [N.Y.S.Ct. 1956) ]. While there are some older co~Lrt decisions that support the view that private deliberations prior to a public vote are permissible, an in- creasing n%~mber of states have adopted open meeting or "sunshine laws" which require that the deliberations of local governmental bodies, as well as the actual vote, be public. The Washington -nd Oregon courts have carried this requirement a step further by holding that local boards and commissions may not even receive information outside of the presence of all of the parties [Smith v. Skagit County, 453 P.2d 832 (Wash. 1969) and Fasano v. Board of County Comm/ssion~rs of Washing~con County, 507 P.2d 23 (Ore. 1973)]. A hearing in which there is no meaningful opportunity to be heard and which in fact frustrates the right of persons to be heard is no bearing at all. One such case was described by Justice Grice of the Georgia Supreme /gq/ Court in Pendley v. Lake Harbin Civic Ass'n. [198 S.E.2d 503 (Ga. 1973)]. The evidence in this complaint for injunctive relief shows 3g zoning petitions were scheduled to be heard before the Cbm- missioners of Clayton County on October 11, 1972, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.! that the hearings continued until 3:30 o'clock a.m., October 12, 1972; tha~ from 1,200 to 1,500 people were present to attend the public meeting; that the hearings were held in the commissioners' hearing room, which accommodates approximately fifty 9eople; that there were three other larger rooms in the courthouse where the hearings could have been legally held; that people were packed so closely in the entire corridor outside the hearing room that those interested in various petitions could not get close to the door, much less inside the hearing room. The record discloses substantial evidence to support the find/ngs of the trial judge{.such as the following. One man swore that when he arrived for the hearing there was already an "enormous" crowd gathered in the hearing room and the hallway outside; t. hat it took him thirty-five minutes to get from the hallway into the hearing room, which he managed only through the help of friends who were already inside; that there were no microphones in use and it was difficult to hear the proceedings even inside the hear- ing room; that when he asked the commissioners to clear the hear- ~ng room to let in persons who want to speak pro or con on each petition in turn they took no action on the request; and that he then left the hearing to enable some other interested person to have a chance to get in. The Georgia court, in holding that there had been no public hearing under such circumstances, referred with approval to this ruling of the trial Court: Zoning' is a matter of highest governmental business. The govern- ment's business should not be conducted in unreasonable places, a: unreasonable hours. To do so would seem to defeat the intent of the General Assembly to insure reasonable, orderly, and pub- lic hearings when required by law. The court finds that conduct- ing the county business of zoning after mid-night and into the early morning hours, and on a day other than as previously adver- tised, and in one of the small public meeting room~ in the couP- house where only a small number of the approximately 1,200 to 1,500 people present had access, was unreasonable to · ~ extent that the general public was deprived of an effective, meaningful public hearing before the comm/ssioners of Clayton County to which they were entitled by law. A/~hough'the more generally accepted view is still ~hat decisions with respect to t~e zoning of particular tracts of land are legislative decisions [see Meyer v. County of Madison, 287 N.E.2d 159 (Iii.App. 1972); Golden Gate Corp.' v. To~n of Narragansett, 359 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1976); and Charlestown Homeowners Ass'n. v. LaCoke, 507 S.W.2d 876 (Tex. Civ.App. 1974)], there have be~n an increasing number of decisions which have followed the lead of the Oregon Supreme Court in Fasano v. Board of Count~ Commissioners of Washington County [.supra, Note 9], in holding that when the local legislative body is considering a rezoning or a request to use a tract of land in a particular way, then the decision is not legislative at all but is in fact a quasi- judicial decision [$nyder v. City of"-Lakewood, 542 P.2d 371 (Colo. 1975); ..Lowev. City of Missoula, 525 P.2d 551 (Mont. 1974); F%emin~ v. City of Tacoma, 81 Wash.2d 292, 502 P.ld 327 (1972); and Golden v. Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 584 P. ld 130 (1978)]. The distinction is of great importance because, as the ~asano decision indicates, if the local hearing is regarded as quasi- judicial or adjudicative, rather than legislative, then all interested per- sons are entitled to a "trial type" hearing, whereas less rigorous procedures will satisfy due process requirements when the m~tter to be determined in- ~olves issues of legislative fact or reco.~mendations with respect to public (3) The right of cross-ex~mination. When the hearing is regarded as adjudicative or quasi-judicial, all parties must be accorded the opportuni- ty to question their opponents and the opposing w~tnesses. Courts have generally ~ en reluctant tO hold that cross-examination is a necessary element of fair procedure in legislative hearings, perhaps because of a concern that local boards are inadequately equipped to deal with evidentiary rules. How- ever,'one recent Illinois decision has requi~ed that an oppor~unity to cross- e~ne b~ afforded in legislative hearings. In E & E Hauling v...County of Du Page [396 N.E.td 1250 (Iii.App. 1979)], the court held that a zoning board o~ appeals, sitting to consider a proposed rezoninq with respect to which it Would only make a ~ecom~endation to the county board, must not only give Interested persons the right to appear and give evidence but must also give them the right to examine witnesses offered by opposing parties. In an earlier Connecticut decision, the Supreme Court of that state ha~ expla£ned why the right to cross-examination was an important aspect of fair procedures: #... ia zoning board] often deals with important property interests; ~,d a denial of a right to cross-examin~ may easily lead to the acceptance of testi- mony at its face value when its lack of creditability or the necessity for accepting it only with qualifications can be shown by cross-exam/nation" [Wadell v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 68 A.2d 152 (Conn. 1949)]. The Wadell decision makes a persuasive argument that, to the greatest extent possible, local zoning boards should not accept testimony offered at its face value. By permitting the cross-examination process to disclose the extent f- which the testimony should be credited or qualified, local hearings will be made procedurally fairer. (4) .Disclosure. There must be an opportunity to see, hear, and know all of the statements and evidence considered by the body making the local de- cision. Private communications with the decision makers, called ex parte communications, destroy the credibility of the hearing process and deprive it of an appearance of fairness. The decisions in the state of Washington have developed the requirement that a public hearing must not only be fair, it mus~ appear to be fair. Thus, tn Smith v. Skagit County [supra, Note 9; cf. Fas*no v. Board of County Co~n~issioners of Washington Co~t~, supra, Note 9], the court invalidated a decision t_hat rested in p.art on information receive4 a: · mee{:ing from which the public and opponents of t_he proposal were ¢luded. In that case, the court explained: It is axiomatic that,'whenever the law requires a hearing of any sort as a condition precedent to the power to proceed, it means a fair hearing, in appearance as well. A public hearing, if the public is entitled by law to participate, means then a fair a.nd impartial hearing. When applied to zoning, it means an tunity for interested persons to appear and express their views regarding proposed zoning legislation .... The term "public hearing" then presupposes that all matters upon which public notice has been given and on which public comment has been.in- vited will be open to public discussion and that persons present in response to the public notice will be afforded reasonable opportunity to present their views, consistent, of course, with the time and space available. Where the law expressly gives the public a right to be heard . . . the public hearing must, to be valid, meet the test of fundamental fairness, for the right to be heard imports a reasonable expectation of being heeded. Just as a hearing fair in appearance but unfair in substance is no fair hearing, so neither is a hearing fair in substance but ap- pearing to be unfair. One of the cor~onest breaches of the right of interested parties to have an opportunity to be acquainted with, and to respond to, all of the in- formation received by the d~cision-making body is the practice of considering staff reports which have not been circulated to the interested parties or which, are not made available in advance of the hearing. It is not unusual for plan commissions and zoning boards to receive such staff reports at the last m/nute, or even after the public hearing has closed, without those reports ever having been distributed to members of the public and interested persons given the'opportunity to peruse them and to respond to assertions made in them. The f&/lure to d/sclose all of the information that is taken into account by the decision-making body destroys the fairness of the decision- making process and may be held to deprive the parties of procedural due process. {5) ~indin~s of fact. When an adm/nistrative decision is involved, the findings or reasons for the decision are an essential aspect of due process. In some.~instances, the applicable statute or ord/nance requires findings of fact and in others, the courts have imposed that requirement. [See, e.g., Shay v. D/strict of Columbia Boar~ of Zonin~ Adjustment, 334 A.2d 175 (D.C. App. 1975); Re/chard v. Zonin~ Board of Appeals, 290 N.E.2d 349 (Ill.Agp. 1972); Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals v. Graves, 360 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. App. 1977); Baile~ v. Board of Appeals of Holden, 345 N.E. 2d 367 (Mass. 1976); and see generally, 3 Rathkopf, The Law 9f Zonin~ and Planning, pp. 37-69 to. 37-70 (4th ed., 1980)]. Findings of fact are ordinarily not required where the decision is characterized as a legisXative one. This means that in most zoning actions find/ngs of fact are not necessary. However, one consequence of the Fasano rule in the Washington courts has been a requirement that rezoning decisions with respect to particular parcels of land, which are characterized as quasi- judicial, be supported by adequate findings of fact. The Oregon Supreme Court held in South of Sunnyside ~ei~hbqr~ood. Lea~ue v. Board of Commissioners ~569 P.2d 1063 (Ore. 1977)] that while no particular form for such findings is required, there must be a clear statement of what the decision-~king body believed ~o be all of the relevant and important facts on which it based its ~ecision. ~n that case, the court found that the very generalized findings were too incomplete and speculative to meet the requirement that ~here be adequate findings. Certainly it is not sufficient for the decision-making body simply to parrot the wor~s of the statute and call its product findings of fac~ [Harbor v. Board of Appeals, 228 N.£.2d 152 (Iii.App. 1967)]. So_me years ago, Justice Smith of the M/¢higan Supreme Cou~-t, in Tlreman- Joy-Chica~o ImprDvement Ass'ri. v. Chernick [105 N.W..2d 105 (M/ch. 1960)], gave yen= :o ~.n expression of Jud/eial ax&speration with genera/~zed And un~nforma- rive "findings" by a local zoning board: Appellants complain of variances (exceptions) granted by de- f .dent Board of Zoning Api)eals without rhyme or reason. They say that the ordinance permitting the grant of variances is vague- ly phrased and without specific standards (for example, "unneces- sary hardship" is a ground). In addition they complain that the Board's action here was "wholly unwarranted under the facts." What,. in truth, was the warrant for the Board's action? We are not told. The Board says we do not have to be told. Thus, under the Board's argument, the citizen gets it goin{ and coming. Were the legislative standards followed by the Board? There are no specific standards to be followed. What, then, are the reasons for the Board's finding the broad standard of "unnecessary hardship" to be satisfied? No one knows. No reasons are given. In other words it boils down to this: there is um. necessary hardship because there is unnecessary hardship, and, because there is unnecessary hardship, the standard (of tlnnecessary hardship) is satisfied. Thus by mumbling a~ incanta- tion the bureaucrat forecloses effective judicial review· Explicit and careful find/ngs of fact enable all persons interested in the local decision to know just exactly what was decided. That, too, is an essential element of procedural due process. (6) Conflicts of interest and the a$~earance of conflict or im- propriety. W%en a local official has a d/rect or indirect financial interest in the decision, that decision is infected with the potential bias of the in- dividual and will not be permitted to stand. [See Low v. Madison, 60 A.2d 774 (Conn. 1948); Ol.ley Valley Estates, !nc. v. Fussell, 208 S.E.2d 801 (Ga. 1974); and Crall v. Leonminster, 284 N.E.2d 610 (Mass. 1972).] The appearance of fairness doctrine developed by the Washington courts, mentioned above, has been applied quite frequently to invalidate decisions in which the interest of one of the decision makers deprives the decision of the appearance of fairness. In Fleming v. City of Tacoma [502 P.2d 327 (Wash. 1972) ], O~'e of the councilmen was employea as an attorney by the successful petitioners for a rezoning ~mendnent less than 48 hours before the city coun- cil voted on the request. The washington Supreme Court held that the proceed- lng in which the amendment was approved was fatally infected by the appearance of unfairness created by the councilman's conduct. Consequently, the ordinance was declared.invalid--even though the vote of the councilman in question was not necessary to pass the ordinance. Subsequent Washington decisions have set aside a rezoning ordinance be- cause two me=bets of the plann/ng contmission were closely associated with a community organization whose members would benefit financially from the pro- posed rezoning [Save a Valuable Environme.nt v. City of Bothel, 57 P.2d 401 (Wash. 1978)]. A decision has even been invalidated when it appeared t.hat a member of the local decision-making body had an interest that might have influenced his vote, although in fac: it did not [West Slope Cor~m=nitm,V Co..un- cilv. City of Tacoma, 569 P.2d 1183 (Wash. App. 1977)]. In Buell v. City of Bremurton [495 P.2d 1358 (Wash. 1972)), the court applied the appearance of fairness rule to invalidate a zoninq deciaion when the chairman had a possible interest because his property might appreciate in value as a result of the zoning. The court noted that the fact that the ac- tion could be carried without counting the chairman's vote was not determina- tive; the self-interest of one member of the planning comm/ssion could affect the action of the other members of the commission regardless of the fact that they themselves were disinterested. A New York court has gone so far as to invalidate a local planning decision because the controlling vote was cast by a town board member who was a vice-presi~ent of a large advertising agency that the court assumed might be "a strong contender" for obtaining advertis- ing contracts for the project. The court preferred to believe that the board member's vote was prompted by the "jingling of the ~uinea" rather than by ).is conscience. So the court invalidated the decision, saying "like Caesar's wife, a public official must. be above suspicion." [See Tuxedo Conservation and Taxpayers Ass'n. v. Town Board of the Town of Tuxedo, 418 N.Y.S.2d 638 (App. Div. 1979).] (7) .prompt decisions. Even adequate and timely notice, a full and completely fa/r public hearing, and absolute impartiality (free-of any taint of bias) on the part of the decision-making official do not guarintee due process unless a decision is made ~ro~ptly. The parties to a contested~land- use decision have a right to expect prompt decisions, and failure to provide this is itself a failure to provide fair procedures. In recent years, especially in environmental impact litigation, there has been a tendency for opponents of the project to use the environmental re- view process solely for the purpose of securing a delay in the ~ltimate de- cision. The decision-making body that permits itself to be a party to such procrastination effectively denies one or more of the groups involved the' process to which they ara constitutionally entitled. (8) Records of proceedings. Finally, it~is central to the concept of procedural due process that complete and accurate records be kept of proceed- ings--more than just skeletal minutes of what transpired. All exhibits must be preserved and there must be a ~tenographic record of all testimony heard and all of the statements made. Anything les~ will deprive the judiciary of the opportunity to engage in a meaningful review when the dispute finally reaches the Judicial system. In McLen:.an v. Zonin~...Huarin] Board of Mount Pleasant township [304 A.2d 520 (Pa. Comm. 1973)], the court expressed exasperation with being required to review judicially a local zoning decision on · totally inadequate re~ord: "These ordinances are absent from ~he record, and we aye mystified as to how we are to decide this appeal without them. Additionally the Zoning Hearing Board merely kept a summary of t-he proceed- ing before it and made no stenographic record. In Camera, Jr. v. Danna Homes, Inc., 6 Pa.Commwlth. 417, 296 A.td 283 (1972), we remanded because the testimony was 'paraphrased by the Board's secretary rather than ~aken verbatim." Like the requirement %hat decisions be made promptly, the requirement that a complete and adequate record be kept is centre/ to due process. No hearing can be considered to have been a fair hearing if the matters taken into account by the decision-making body cannot be reconstructed when its de- cision is reviewed by others. (9) Some ~round rules for fair hea_rSngs. No local decision-making body can conduc~ business in an orderly and efficient manner unless it has' a set of rules which are available to any person who appears before the body. Unless the participants in the local hearing process can know the ground rules that will govern the hearing, they cannot adequately prepare. themselves for the hearing. Nothing more surely deprives an individual of due process th~n if the parties to a proceeding are permitted to guess at what the procedures will be or, even worse, to prepare on the assumption that one set of ru/es will be followed only to have them changed by the decision-making body at the last second. A local decision-making body, such as a zoning board or a plan com- m/ssion, should, at the start of every hearing, recite briefly the rules that will be followed during the course of the hearing so that everyone understands in advance what procedures will be employed. · Disclosure of all of the information taken into account by the de- cision-making body is · critical ele~nent of procedural due process. Rowever, disclolu~.e of that information prior to the hearing contributes to the faiz'- ness of %he hearing and also to the efficiency with which it can be conducted. Par~tes expecting to present evidence at a hearing should be required to supply in advance a list of the witnesses they propose to call and a brief summary of the testimony that they expect to elicit from those witnesses. Any reports or stud/es prepared by a party for introduction at the hearing should be on file in advance so that they can be studied by other interested persons and so. that copies for review and critique can be made at. leisure. : Staff reports should not be conceal'ed until the penultimate moment before the decision is made; they should be prepared and circulated in advance. The objective of procedural due process is to guarantee that the decision- making body has before it all of ~he information that is pertinent to its decision in a fashion that is calculated to ensure, at best it can be done, that the decision-making process will be open, fair, and thorough--which is the essence of the constitutional concept of procedural due process. STAYING OUT OF COURT: PLANNING AND ZONING 1983 Minnesota League of Cities Bloomington, Minnesota June 15, 1983 Presenter: Bruce D. Malkerson Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Dory, Ltd. 4344 IDS Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM RECENT MINNESOTA ZONING CASES INVOLVING PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS HRA for Lincoln County v. Jorqenson, Finance and Commerce, Jan. 21, 1983 a) Ail applicants seeking similar permits or zoning approval must be treated in a uniform, non-discriminatory way. Hubbard Broadcastinq, Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (1982) a) Where the City makes a complete record of procedures before it, the district court should limit its review of a permit denial on the record before the'City. b) Ordinarily an evidentiary hearing before the district court will be permitted on whether or not the denial has deprived the owner of the property of all reasonable use. Same probably applies to every constitutional issue. d) Reasons for denial must be legally sufficient and have a factual basis in the record. e) Special use permit may be denied for reasons relating to public health, safety and general welfare or because of incomparability between the proposed use and a municipality's comprehensive municipal plan. f) Appellants bear the burden of'persuasion that the reasons stated by the council for denial of a permit are either without factual support in the record or are legally insufficient. g) If there is conflicting evidence on an issue before the City, the planning commission and council should decide who is more credible. If there is a factual basis to support the finding, the court should not interfere. n) Aesthetics are important, but alone cannot justify denial. Not all of the reasons stated for denial need be legally sufficient and supported by the facts in the record. j) Discussions between one councilmember and a planning commission member do not constitute a violation of the open meeting law. k) A violation of the open meeting law tends to show arbitrariness and denial of procedural due process. 1) Court wants to see clear complete record, open discussion, deliberations and informed public dec.ision-making. m) Only under rare circumstances will a denial of a special use permit constitute a taking. n) Regulation ~through zoning ordinances normally does not constitute a compensable taking unless it deprives the property of all reasonable use. White Bear Docking v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174 (1982) a) The setting aside of routine municipal decisions should be reserved for those rare instances in which the City's decision has no rational basis. b) In special use permit cases, "reasonableness" is measured by the standards set out in the ordinance. c) In a small community, city officials have the experience, competence and capacity to measure the impact of a permit on property values and to weigh and assess similar issues without relying on expert witnesses to determine whether or not the use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and city comprehensive plan. Town of Grant v. Washinqton County, 319 N.W.2d 713 (1982) a) The district court and Supreme Court will make an independent review of the record. The standard of review is whether on the evidence before it, the Board reached a reasonable decision. b) Expert opinions, although countered by opinions to the contrary, furnish substantial evidentiary support for the Board's findings. It is the function of the Board to determine which of the expert opinions to accept. -2- c) It seems clear that the Board had less expertise than the expert witnesses. Nevertheless, the record illustrates that the Board's members had a comprehension of the issues which in our opinion justifies the presumption that its decision was correct. d) The court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the body created by the legislature to perform that function. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (1981) a) Legislative zoning decisions (zoning or rezoning classifications) must be upheld unless opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational -basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. b) Even if the decision is debatable, courts do not interfere. c) Since the issue is whether there is a rational basis for the municipal body's legislative decision, evidence presented to the city council is, of course, relevant. d) Ordinarily this evidence will include documents received by the city council, such things as maps, plans, surveys, studies and reports prepared by both the city staff and by the landowners. e) At the least, a summary of statements of interested persons at the hearing should be made at the time of the hearing by the city council and kept in the official file. f) This kind of evidence should ordinarily be admitted at trial by stipulation. g) New or additional evidence may be received at the trial, but it must be relevant to the issues that were raised and considered before the municipal body. n) Witnesses may testify and be cross-examined, but their testimony must be relevant to the issues that were raised and considered below. -3- i) j) k) 1) m) n) o) P) q) The municipal body need not necessarily prepare.formal findings of fact, but it must, at a minimum, have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion. By failing to do so, it runs the risk of not having its decision sustained. This procedure should be followed in presenting any zoning matter, whether legislative or quasi-judicial, for review to the district court and for subsequent review to the Supreme court. In enacting a zoning ordinance or in amending an ordinance to rezone the approach is legislative' what is Involved is a kind of municipal planning in which a wide range of value judgments is considered. On the other hand, in granting or denying a special use permit· the inquiry is more judicial in character since the zoning authority is applying specific use standards set by the.zoning ordinance to a particular individual use. For rezoning the standard is whether the classification is reasonably related to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. But the approach is different in a special use permit case, where reasonableness is measured by the standard set out in the particular local ordinance, not the statute. In other words, in legislative zoning, the municipal body is formulating public policy, so.the inquiry focuses on whether the proposed use promotes the public welfare. In quasi-judicial zoning· public policy has already been established and the inquiry focuses on whether the proposed use is contrary to the general welfare as already established in the zoning ordinance. The burden is on respondents, to show either some mistake in the original zoning or that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current zoning classification. -4- Tamarac Inn, Incorporated v. City of Lonq Lake, 310 N.W.2d 474 (1981) a) Revocation of liquor license, but case cites zoning cases. b) City council meeting at which petitioner was afforded notice, opportunity to be heard, opportunity to cross-examine city's witnesses, written reasons for refusal to renew license and written findings, cured defect, if any, in due process resulting from any inadequacies of prior city council meeting. C. R. Investment, Inc. v. Villaqe of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320 (1981) a) Vague reservations or concerns about traffic are not sufficient to justify denial of special use permit. b) There must be an adequate factual basis in the record to support legal reasons for denial. c) Denial of a special use permit cannot be based upon an applicant's failure to meet an impossible and unreasonable requirement. d) When the ordinance does not require buffering, in the absence of evidence that the development will adversely affect the public health, safety and in the area or the value of surrounding property, the claimed lack of buffering cannot reasonably be advanced to deny the special use permit. e) The incompatibility between a proposed use, even one permitted by a zoning code upon issuance of a special use permit, and a municipality's comprehensive municipal plan may in some circumstances be a legally sufficient reason for denying the special use permit, but not when the standards in the plan are unreasonably vague and do not bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. Luger v. City of Burnsville, 295 N.W.2d 609 (1980) a) Although neighborhood sentiment may be taken into c6nsideration in any zoning decision, it may not constitute the sole basis for granting or denying a permit. -5- b) Mere aesthetic concerns of the neighbors is not sufficient. c) City cannot condition granting of variance on neighborhood consent. Kletschka v. Le Sueur County Board of Commissioners, 277 N.W.2d 404 (1979) a) Due process of law does not ordinarily mandate that witnesses in a special use permit hearing be sworn or subject to cross-examination since the statements are usually broad expressions of opinion in favor or against the application. b) Basic rights of procedural due process require reasonable notice of hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. c) There may be circumstances where testimony concerns matters so criterially, important that the oath and the opportunity for cross-examination are to be preferred, if not required, as a matter fairness. d) A reviewing court may as a practical matter consider the absence of such procedure in assessing the sufficiency of evidence on a close question of' factual basis for a governing body's determination. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES TO KEEP OUT OF COURT Pre-Application a) Review your ordinances and make sure that the standards for approving or denying a variance, conditional use permit, rezoning, or zoning text amendment comply with recent cases and Minnesota statutes. b) Make sure your ordinances prescribe the statutory correct notice periods. c) Make sure your comprehensive plan and ordinances fit together. d) Codify all informal policies as ordinances if you expect to rely upon them. e) Make sure your application forms set forth all requirement. -6- f) Adopt a conflict of interest policy. g) Adopt procedures for governing public meetings, presentation of information and adhere to them. Application Process Before City Staff a) Inform applicant at outset of all city requirements. b) Memo to applicant regarding same. c) Staff must be careful of what they say; must appear and be unbiased. d) Stress importantce of meeting deadlines. e) Make sure applicant has copies of all relevant ordinances, plans, policies, etc. General Rules Before Planninq Commission and Council a) Do not violate the open meeting law. Be conservative. A planning commission member should not talk privately to another planning commission member or councilmember. Councilmember should not talk privately to another councilmember or planning commission member. If you must communicate, talk to the city planner, attorney or administrator. b) As of August 1, 1983, open meeting law statute M.S. 471.075 requires that materials distributed to governing body be made available to public. c) If you inspect the property, state in the public record, when, with whom, what your observations were. d) If someone communicated to you about the application outside of a public meeting, state in the public record who, when and what was said. e) Do not force the city staff to rush a review. applicant wants to hurry up, slow down. When the f) City staff, planning commission and council should always remember that any matter before them could be litigated. g) City staff must "litigate" the case before the planning commission and council, applying the facts to the applicable law which normally consists of the standards in the ordinance. Staff should identify the applicable legal tests and relevant facts for each test. -7- in) i) j) k) 1) m) n) o) The planning commission and council then must make findings of fact based upon agreed or disputed facts and apply those to the established legal principles; based upon those findings they should approve.or deny the application. The reasons for any denials should be stated in the minutes before the planning commission. Those.reasons should include the standards set forth in the zoning ordinance. There should be facts in the minutes and/or staff reports to support those conclusions. In more~ complex cases, staff should draft a resolution of denial for adoption by the planning commission. The'reasons for denial by the council should be stated in a preliminary and conceptual manner with direction to staff to draft a formal resolution of denial. The resolution of denial should be adopted at the next meeting by.the council. A draft of the resolution should be mailed to the applicant for his/her review and comment. Those reasons stated for denial should be supported by facts stated in the resolution or at least in the minutes or staff reports. The applicant should be allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Each witness should state his/her name and address before speaking for the first time and name only before each subsequent statement. Ail written or demonstrative evidence should be marked as an exhibit and made a part of the record. The City should have multiple microphones and a long playing tape to record the proceedings. No concurrent conversations relating to the subject matter should be allowed. The City Clerk should summarize in the minutes what was said and by whom; in some cases a verbatim transcript from the tape should be made or court reporter's transcript should be made and/or adopted as the minutes; preserve the tapes of the meetings for 10 years. The presiding officer should seek the assistance of the City attorney in deciding on informal rules of evidence and objections, etc. In more complex cases with cross-examination, the City attorney may be asked to act as a hearing officer and to ask questions of the witnesses and rule on questions of evidence. -8- P) Do not discuss any item not on the agenda and for which notice was not given. q) Reduce hearing procedures to writing and distribute to affected persons. Role of Staff a) Someone must coordinate entire review process. In a non-contested matter, the zoning administrator or planner should do it. In a contested matter, the city attorney must play an active role at each state of the proceeding. City council must be willing to authorize more involvement by attorney. b) -Staff should be impartial in fact gathering and analysis. c) Do you expect the staff to give recommendations? Many city councils do not want them to do so· Role of Planninq Commission a) Gather and analyze facts. b) Advise city council on planning considerations only, not political matters. c) Reduce workload of city council. Role of City Council a) Usually the final decision-maker. conflict. Resolvers of b) The persons to be sued. ¢) Control staff and planning commission to insure compliance with city ordinances, plans, state law and constitution and U.S. regulations and constitution. Summary: Why should the Government adopt a more formal and detailed procedure? a) It forces the government and the applicant to better define the issues. b) The courts demand a more detailed record. -9- c), d) With a detailed record, the government will dissuade persons from litigating, will be able to limit discovery and days of trial, and will prevail more often at trial or on appeal to the Supreme Court. The disadvantages of the additiona~ expense, inconvenience, dislike of formalistic procedures and time before the planning commission, council, town board, etc. are far outweighed by the advantage of a complete and accurate record which afford procedural due process. 2587j -10- "CHAMBER · ~ ,, ~.~'AV~S westonka area chamber o$ commerce JUNE GENERAL M~EET!NG- PRESIDENT ' S T,W. TTER: Gray 1Freshwater Biological~ Institute~ June 15th 12:00 - Lunch on .the deck catered by Axel and Bob's. Tours w~ll start at'12:30 .and they take · about 45 minutes, so you should plan on this '. :.~ilt hav~ to be Staoo.~red. Please feel free to. bring alone a 'guest. Non-members' are always 'wel- come. Res=.rvatlons ar.~ a must! Pl~as9 cal~ the Cost will be $5.00. Chic Remien said to me last january that ~h~ WiShed someene would take a series of pictures of.the whole ~15 strip from #19 to #!10 becauSe.she· a feeling that the area was going to change so in the next five years, We might all have trouble-remembering how things used to be. With the start of Mr. Prokasky's building in Spring Park, the renovation of the ~ Minneto~ka Mist and the Koenig, Robin, Johnson, and Wood Buildings, and the Westonka Senior Citizens' landscaping.progect for. the Community Ser- vices Building, it seems as though-we are on out'way! This area is de- finitely poised on the threshold of a changing image and increased value. We must all remain very sensitive to thiso~-r~w~.~ ~,, so that the #15-#110 business district develops into an aesthetically acceptable area. Let's make a concerted effort tO'continue to upgrade the appearance of our~ commercial areas. Awareness of how each of our·businesses appear indiv- idually, aud also how they contribute to the overall appeal of the area must be one of our foremost concerns. Paul Pond, President I LOVE A PARADE!!!!!!!!! Don't miss the Westonka Blue Water Daze Parade at 10:00, June llth on #110! Larry Connolly has done a wonderful job, and we are expecting 72 units. Remember there will be lots to do that week-end with events like Lord Fletcher's Save The La~e Celebration (llth andl2th), Shoreline Early Program's Giant ~re~e~__~~-~ ~ond Arena (10th, l!th and 12th), Surfside's Bass Fishin~ Contest (!Ith), and t:~ Mo,~nd Volunteer Firemens' 'ishfr~ ~th) ~{ a wild Westo~4a ~;eek-end! 0NGRATUI~TION$ TO: qeor=~e Stevens, Mo,,].ud Super-Valu, on his appointment by .'the Board of Directors to replace Ron Carlson as one of the tWo Directors from Mo~ud. Jim Robin for being named as the~May'Member~of ~the Month. NOTES: We are JustfinishingUpthe membership drive and the Membership Directory should be available by the end of this month. With the execption of in- dividual memberships-(.which will-be alphabetical and give no indication of business or professional affiliations ), the Directory will be clas__~slfied! These Directories will be available to the general public at Vartous~West, onka locations. A_uother benefit to Chamber Members~ GOODS ...... AND SERVICES P~R~FILE: As an insert to this month's _.~ ....... , ~o in~i~d[ug a questio~aire which w~ hope that all of you will take a moment to complete and return. One of th~ real problems facinE our business co~LuuitX is a~sad ignorauce'of what goods-and servlces~-are available~to 'us withi~ our own area. This insert.~is.p~rt of this Chamber's on-going efforts to address this dilema. Please be sure to include any unusual goods and services that are available through your firm. REFOUND FASHIONS - THE YOUNGER GENERATION - Judie Witt WELCOME NE~,,¢ CHA/~BER MEMBERS TONKA TOOL.- Bob Albertson D& S AccoUNTING.- Dick andSue Martin THANK- YOU THANK-YOU THANK-YOU TH;~-YOU THANK-yoU. THANK-YOU" To the Business Development Committee and their guest speaker Mr..Bob- Wiess, President of the Minnetonka State Bank, for providing us with an- excellent, informative program for our May General Meeting. AND To the Chamber Potters ( members of the Garden Clubs, Mary and Howie Sundby, Eva VanDerSteeg, and the Chicken ) under the direction of head Potter, Audrey Schultz. Thanks for pitching-in to beautify us. Don't forget to water them! ~.~, ' c ~? ." ,.:. :' ~ITY OF MOUND 5341 ~%a, YWOOO RD .... =J_L " MOUND MN 55364 300 Metro Square Bldg.., St. Paul. MN 55101,,,~ Goner. al Office Telephone (612.) 291-6359/ ' A Metropolit,~n Council Bulletin for C6n,]munity' Leaders For more in£ormarion on items mentioned in this publication, call ~he Public Information Office at 291-6464. MR, JUN ELA~ CIT¥ DF ~OUND 53~1MAY~OOD ~LVD May 27, 1983 RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (May 16-27) METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Parks--The Metropolitan Counci! approved a S4.4 million acquisition grant and development master plan for Minneapolis's Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park, which includes Nicollet Island. The Council also asked for clarification of previous agreements between the Minneapolis Community Development Agency and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Those agreements call for restoring exteriors of the island's homes and allowing some houses to be moved to the island. Council requests were to ensure compatit~ility between the housing and park areas on the island. The Council approved Hennepin County Park Reserve District's request for $85,000 to acquire the 2.1-acre Grabill property in Baker Park Reserve. The property is a'residen'tial site that extends into the park and borders the park's main bike trail. Solid Waste--The Council authorized its staff to begin searching for additional solid waste landfill disposal sites in the metropolitan counties that do not have an approved inventory of four candidate sites as required by the state Waste Manage- ment Act. The law requires the Council to have a completed inventory of sites from all counties by Sept. 1, 1983. The Council has to find the following number of sites in these counties: one in Dakota, two in Hennepin, one or more in Ramsey, one in Scott and one or more in Washington. Anoka and Car~er Counties each have an approved comple- ment of sites. Health-The Council recommended approval of a certifi- cate of need submitted jointly by Health Resources, inc., Maplewood, and by St. John's Hospital, St. Paul. The request is to relocate general acute patient services from St. John's to a 130-bed general acute patient hospital to be built at the intersection of Hazelwood and Beam Ars. in Maplewood. Estimated cost of the project is S33.7 million. Construction is scheduled to begin Oct. 1, 1983, with completion scheduled for July 1985. General-acute and chemical dependency services will be continued at the present site until completion of the reloca- tion, when they will be consolidated at the Maplewood site. Obstetric and pediatric services will be consolidated at the Maplewood site by June 1988 if specified volume levels are not attained by December 1987. If the consolidation would require additional construction at the Maplewood site, the completion date would be extended. Partial closing of the current St. John's location will result in a reduction of 33 licensed beds. Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Health Planning Board-June 15.7 p.m., Council Chambers. A joint public hearing to receive comments on a task force report, Prescript/on for Change: Balancing Competitive, Community and Regulatory Force~' in Twh~ C/t/es Area Health Care. The report contains recommendations to strengthen market in- centives, maintain voluntary community initiatives and main- tain or improve necessary regulatory controls. To obtain a copy, no. 18433-074, 36 pp., at no charge, call 291-6464. Metropolitan Council--July 7, 3:30 p.m., Co6ncil Chambers. The Council will hold a public hearing to discuss transfer of $500,000 in capital improvement funds to com- plete the Hyland Lake picnic area at Hyland-Bush-Anderson Park Reserve, Bloomington. The money was originally ear- marked for developing Bryant Lake Regional Park in Eden Prairie. The Hennepin County Park Rese. rve District would use the funds to: build a road off Bush Lake Rd. to a boat launch, picnic area and trailhead; rehabilitate existing parking lots, connecting road and the lake's picnic area; and build a boat launch and parking lot near the lake. Persons may register to speak by calling the Council's public.hearing coordinator at 291-6482. Free copies of the proposed amendment may be obtained by calling '291-6464, COUNCIL PLANS ACTIONS TO STRENGTHEN OVERSIGHT OF COMMISSIONS Metropolitan Council Chair Gerald Isaacs is undertaking several actions in response to concerns growing out of a recently concluded series of articles by the St..Paul Pioneer Press investigating possible irregularities in operations of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC). First, he has reopened the period during which people may apply for commission membership on the MWCC and two other regional commissions (see item below). Second, he has directed Council staff to develop recom- mendations for strengthening Council oversight of the MWCC and the other regional commissions. Council staff is currently conducting a comprehensive study of the metropolitan financial structure, which is expected to be an important source of such recommendations, In addition, the Council will give further study to recent recommendations by the Legis- lative Commission on Metropolitan Governance. Third, Isaacs will designate a Council staff member to serve as a liaison to a MWCC and state agency team being formed to examine MWCC operations. COUNCIL REOPENS APPLICATION PERIOD FOR COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP NEW APPOINTMENTS The Metropolitan Council appointed Allen Sorteberg, councir member of the city of Ramsey, to the Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee. The Metropolitan Council has reopened the period during which people may apply for appointment to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the Metropolitan Transit Commis- sion and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission. The new deadline for applications is June 10. The new request for applications is designed to broaden the pool of candidates. (See related item above.) To apply, call Rosemarie Johnson at the Council, at 2916391. COUNCIL OFFERS AFFORDABLE HOUSING EDUCATION PROGRAM Where will our children live? This is the theme of an · affordable-housing education program being offered upon request by the Metropolitan Council to local Twin Cities Area civic groups. The program is about today's housing market and the need to provide more affordable housing. The program consists of a 45-minute presentation including a slide show and discussion of such topics as: trends that affect housing, current housing costs, how regulations affect housing costs, housing in the 1980s, and common concerns and misin- formation often associated with more dense housing. Where possible, current housing issues in a community will be high- lighted. The program provides an information kit, booklets and staff available to work wi.th local civic leaders. For more information, call Council housing planners Guy Peterson or Aha Stern at 291-6472. FRANCHETT WINS LEADERSHIP AWARD Eugene Franchett, the Metropolitan Council's executive director, was selected last week as the recipient of the Walter A. Scheiber Regional Leadership Award. The award, presented by the National Association of Regional Councils at a conference in Kansas City, honors a regional council executive who has made significant contributions to the regional council movement. This is the eighth year the award has been presented. INFORMATION ON 'ACCESSORY HOUSING' AVAILABLE "Accessory housing"-rental housing units located in exist- ing homes-was discussed at a Council forum last month. Also discussed was a proposed Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) demonstration program to provide below-market financing to convert space in existing housinginto accessory apartments. 'Information materials distributed at the forum are available without charge to local officials and staff. Call the Council's Public Information Office at 291-6464. Materials include: - Association of Metropolitan Municipalities report on accessory housing; - Summary of proposed MHFA apartment loan program; and - MHFA questionnaire on accessory apartment demon- stration program. Free from the MHFA is the report An Analysis of the Market and Economic Feasibility of Accessory Apartments in Minnesota. To obtain a copy, call Louise Poquette at 297-2070. NEW PUBLICATIONS 1979 Birth Stat/st/cs for Health Planning Areas in the Twin Cities. April 1983. Data-log says Area women gave birth to nearly 30,600 babies in 1979, a 14.5 percent increase over th~ 26,700 babies born in 1976. Says the rate is projected to level off before 1990. No. 18-83-033; 29 pp.; $1.50. 1979 Death Statist/cs for Health Planning Areas in the Twin Cities. April 1983. Death statistics are used as in indicator of an area's health and in estimating future populations. Data-log says Area residents.died at a rate of almost 7 deaths per 1,000 residents in 1979-the same rate as in 1.976. No. 18-83~34; 33 pp.; $1.50. Revised Capital Improvement Program for Regional Recre- etlon Open Space. April 1983. Document is amendment to the Council's Recreation Open Space Development Guide/ Policy Plan. It lists proposed projects to meet needs of the regional park system through 1991. No. 11-83-036; 9 pp.; no charge. COMING MEETINGS (June 6-17) (Information below is tentative. To verify, call 291-6464.) Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Committee- Monday, June 6, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Transit Alternatives Steering Committee (light rail transit) -Tuesday, June 7, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Compensation and Mitigation Subcommittee (solid waste) -Wednesday, June 8, 10 a.m., Conference Room A. Metropolitan Health Planning Board-Wednesday, June 8, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council--Thursday, June 9, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Criminal Justice Advisory Committee-Friday, June 10, noon, Council Chambers. Air Quality Committee-Tuesday, June 14, 9:30 a.m., Conference Room B. Transportation Advisory Board--Wednesday, June 15, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. BOARD OF MANAGERS: David H. Cochran, Pres. · Albert L, Lehman · John £. ThomJs · Barbara R. Oudmundson · Michael l~. Cerroll MEETING NOTICE A special meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be held on Tuesday, June 21, 1983, at 4:00 p.m., in the conference room of Eugene A. Hickok and Associates, 545 Indian Mound, Wayzata, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a work session of the managers to review Chapters I - IV of the District's Overall Plan, as part of the Chapter 509 management planning process. 0227o MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT May 19, 1983 The regular meeting of May 19, 1983, of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran at 7:35 p.m. at the St. Louis Park City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Managers Present: Cochran, Lehman, Carroll & Andre Manager Absent: Thomas Also present were board advisors Panzer, Reep and Macomber. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the regular meeting of April 21, 1983, were reviewed. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the minutes be approved as distributed. Upon vote the motion carried. The minutes of the special meeting of April 28, 1983, were reviewed. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the minutes be approved as distributed. Upon vote the motion carried. Approval of Permit Applications The managers reviewed a memorandum from the engineer dated May 12, 1983, indicating those applications which comply with the applicable standards of the District and as to which the engineer recommended approval on the terms and conditions as set forth in his written memorandum. Following discussion and review of the written memorandum, it was moved by'Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the following applications be approved subject to all terms and conditions as set forth in the engineer's memorandum of May 12, 1983: William Niccum - approach channel and lagoon dredging and sheet ~r~taining wall, Harrison Bay, Lake Minnetonka~ 82-68 Patrick J. McGlone - 50 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Echo Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Tonka Bay. 83-14 May 19, 1982 Page 2 . Charles Quattlebaum - 50 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Echo Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Tonka Bay. 83-15 Bradley J. Boote - 55 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Echo Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Tonka Bay. 83-16 De Eli Pugh - 50 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Stubbs Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Orono. 83-17 Zeta DeMarias - 40 lineal feet of shoreline erosion protectiOn, Lafayet.~ Bay', .Interlachen Channel, Tonka Bay. 83-25 .John Mayer - 50 lineal feet of shoreline eros~i~ protection, Harrison'Bay, Lake Minnetonka, 83-26 John Steichen - 118 lineal feet of shoreline erosion protection, Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach. 83-27 Stu Turnbull - 67 lineal feet of shoreline erosion protection, Gray's Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka. 83-28 Upon vote the motion carried. High Water Investi~ations/Minnehaha Creek at Highway 100 Manager Andre moved, seconded by Manager Carroll, that agenda item 7.B.(3) be considered at this~-time in light of the members of the public present for consideration of this item. Upon vote the motion carried and Chairman Cochran declared the agenda amended. Chairman Cochran then called on the engi%~eer to review his report regarding his investigation undertaken at the creek in the vicinity of Highway 100. The engineer reviewed his memorandum to the board dated May 11, 1983, which was prepared in response to the board's direction of April 21, 1983. The engineer advised the board that his inuestigation indicated the following: May 19, 1983 Page 3 1. Water levels on Minnehaha Creek upstream of Highway 100 range from 0.0 to 0.2 feet above the level of the Edina Mill Pond reservoir for all flows up to 2~0 cfs. The engineer concluded that a modification or series of modifications upstream of Highway 100 would result in an insignificant decrease in the water level profile nea~ Cascade Lane. The engineer recommended that modification of the Highway 100 bridge section, channel dredging or removal of the Cascade Well not be considered further by the managers. 2. Floodproofing of the residences below the 100 year wate~ level on Minnehaha Creek would require, in accordance with city code, construction of a dike 5 to 6 feet high. The engineer indicated that a lift station would also be necessary to drain the landlocked area behind the dike. The feasibility of floodproofing could be determined by hydraulic studies to evaluate the effects of a dike on creek surface water profiles. 3. The water level profile elevation near Cascade Lane could be reduced significantly if improvements were constructed at the Browndale Avenue Dam so that water could be discharged in a controlled manner at an elevation several feet below the existing dam crest elevation. An improvement at the existing Browndale Avenue Dam is identified as a proposed project in the District's overall plan for water management. The engineer recommended further investigation of the feasibility of an improvement at the Browndale Avenue Dam. The engineer reviewed a rating curve and other data showing in a preliminary way the possible effects of such a project. Following the engineer's report, public discussion followed. Residents of the Cascade Lane area in Edina were present. Residents advised the managers that water has remained on their properties for a longer period of time this year than has occurred in prior years. Questions were raised regarding the decision to discharge at a given rate and the extent to which balancing of lakeside and creekside interests had been considered by the board in setting discharge rates. Manager Carroll indicated that he had requested the engineer to identify all complaints received. He indicated that complaints were nearly identically balanced between the creek and the lake, both in number and in type. Manager Carroll stated that it was his view that a series of relatively small actions at Highway 100 and upstream may help to reduce the flooding at the Cascade Lane area. May 19, 1983 Page 4 Chairman Cochran then requested that Donald Ringham, a former manager and President of the Board of Managers, 'comment regarding the present high water levels. Former Manager R~ngham ~ta~e~ ~ha~ ~here had been ~u~s~ant~al ~own~ream flooding in the years preceding the establishment of the District and that minimizing downstream flooding was one ~f the primary purposes of formation of the District in the first instance. With respect to the Highway 100 bridge, Manager Ringham stated that at the time Highway 100 was upgraded, the District required the Minnesota Department of Transportation to provide greater capacity under the bridge than it first proposed in order to assure that the bridge section did not operate as.a cons.traiDt on the flow. Former Manager Ringham stated that.'he ~eli'eves that the Management Policy adopted by the board has worked very well, even in this year of extremely high water conditions. Manager Ringham pointed out the limited band of control provided by the structure and the constraints placed on the operation of that structure by both the DNR permit and water levels. Following discussion by the board, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, that (1) the staff further investigate the feasibility of an improvement at the Browndale Avenue Dam and report to the board at the June 16,'1983, meeting regarding its preliminary conclusions; (2) the staff contact the Minnesota Department of Transportation and make provision for the Department of Transportation to remove sediment build-up under the Highway 100 bridge; and (3) the' staff direct a letter to the City of Edina requesting that the City consider removing the Cascade Well structure immediately upstream of Highway 100 and also indicating that the board would look favorably upon a request from the City for an allocation of funding from the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund for this purpose during 1983. Upon vote the motion carried. 'Irwin Mandel Development Corp. - grading and drainage'~la~.for a high density residential apartment building, County Road 18 and Glen Road, Shorewood. 83-11 The engineer advised the board that this matter had been tabled at the last regular meeting pending a determination of the position of the City of Shorewood regarding the project and future plans for stormwater management in the area. The engineer advised that the City Council approved the project and found that the development complies with all City requirements. The City has also advised the District that any future stormwater control project that the City may initiate will not May 19, 1983 Page 5 be negatively affected by the proposed development. The managers noted receipt of and reviewed a letter from J6seph M- Finley, attorney for James O. Borchart, requesting that the board deny the permit. William Lines and Mark Gronberg appeared on behalf of the owner of the project. The engineer recommended approval of the application subject to conditions numbered 1 through 3 in his written memorandum. Following discussion and review of the project, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved subject to the three conditions recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Thomas DiRocco, DiRocco Development .. grading and drainage plan for "Harborage," a nine town home, planned unit development, Smithtown Bay, Lake Virginia Outlet, Lake Minnetc~.ka, Victoria. 83-13 The engineer reviewed the proposed project and indicated that the matter was tabled at the last regular meeting pending receipt of information from the City of Victoria regarding planned stormwater management for the area. The engineer advised the managers that the City has advised the board that the development is consistent with the adopted comprehensive land use plan of the City and that a conditional use permit for the project has been granted by the City. Linda Fisher appeared as attorney for the applicant and also advised the board that City approval has been granted since the last regular meeting of the Board of Managers. Manager Cochran noted receipt of a letter from Manager Thomas requesting addition of a condition to the permit, if granted by the board, regarding a retaining wall at the property. Manager Cochran indicated that it was his view-that given the nature of the development proposed for the site and the fact that the natural vegetation at the shoreline will remain pursuant to a conservation easement to be dedicated by the owner, the retaining wall issue was not germane to %he permit approval at the present time. The engineer advised the board that the project, as submitted, complied with all applicable requirements of the District and recommended approval. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Carroll, that the application be approved as submitted as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Tandem Corporation - grading and drainage plan for a 7-unit townhouse development "Landsend," Kings Point, Halsted's Bay, Minnetrista. 83-21 The enginer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval. Jim Ostenson, President of Tandem May 19, 1983 Page 6 Corporation, appeared and answered questions from the managers regarding the project. The board was advised that the ~ity has approved a planned unit development plan and preliminary plat for the property. ~he engineer recommended that %he proposed dredging and shoreline improvements associated with the application be separated from the grading and drainage plan and that dredging and shoreline improvements be handled as a separate permit application. The engineer also advised the managers that a variance from the District's setback requirement was requested from the man-made lagoon but that all structures are greater than 75 feet from the shoreline of the main lake. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the applicati6n.be ~pRrQved subject to conditions numbered 1 through 3 in'th~ 'engineer's written memorandum. Upon vote'the motion carried. Dr. Dennis Arne - grading and drainage plan for Ridgehill Professional Building, 1948 Plymouth Road south of Ridgedale Drive, Minnetonka. 83-23 Richard Larson appeared as the architect for the owner and responded to questions from the managers. The engineer ~advised the board that the project complies with the City's comprehensive drainage plan and recommended conceptual approval .with authorization to the staff to issue a permit upon receipt -and staff approval of conditions 1 through 3 in his written memorandum. Following discussion, it was'moved by Lehman, seconded by Carroll, that the application be approved with authorization to the engineer to issue a permit upon receipt of the items specified in his written memorandum. Upon vote the motion carried. Centurion Co. - grading and drainage plan for Phase Two Construction, Cheyenne Trails 2nd Addition, Minnetonka. 83-24 The engineer advised the managers that this application 'was a request for an extension of permit No. 77-70' for tWO° ° blocks uncompleted in Cheyenne Trails 2nd Addition. The engineer recommended approval subject to and conditioned upon staff receipt and review of a final storm sewer construction 'plan. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Carroll, that the permit be extended subject to the foregoing condition as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Noble Company - grading and drainage for an 8 lot residential subdivision, west of Grant Lorenz Road, Shorewood. 83-30 The engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval. Mark Gronberg appeared on behalf of the May 19, 1'983 Page 7 applicant. The engineer recommended concept approval with authorization to issue a final permit upon receipt of ~ final grading and drainage plan in compliance with conditions verbally Recommended by the engineer. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Carroll, that the application be approved subject to the conditions recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Robert D. Wilson - placement of fill in low area adjacent to Lake Zumbra, Zumbra Ridge, Laketown Township. 83-31 The ~ngineer reviewed the application for fill placement near Lake Zumbra and recomm~n4ed n~prov,.]. ~ubject to conditions numbered 1 through 3 in his written memorandum. It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer and subject to conditions 1 through 3 in the engineer's memorandum. Upon vote the motion carried. Wayzata Evangelical Free Church - grading and drainage plan for building addition and parking area, Highway 101 south of 8th Avenue No., Plymouth. 83-32 The engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval for expansion of existing church building and parking area. Dennis Batty appeared on behalf of the applicant. The engineer recommended conceptual approval with authorization to issue a permit upon receipt of a final grading and drainage plan in compliance with conditions verbally recommended by the engineer. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved with authorization to the engineer to issue the permit upon receipt of the foregoing items. Upon vote the motion carried. Theron Hineline - grading plan for "Highcroft Court" preliminary plat, HiQhcreft north of Ferndale, Wayzata. 83-33 The engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval and recommended waiver of the District's .requirements for stormwater retention and water quality because of the insignificant impact of this project. Paul Pearson appeared on behalf of the applicant and responded to questions from the managers. It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. May 19, 1983 Page 8 Recommendation Regarding Size of Board of Managers The managers reviewed a letter from the Minnesota Water Resources Board to the District dated April 12, 1983, requesting the recommendation of the Board of Managers whether the size of the Board of Managers should be increased as authorized by recent legislation. President Cochran advised the board that he had received a number of calls from mayors of municipalities 'within the District inquiring what the board's position would be on this issue and asked the managers for their comments and views on this issue. Manager Andre stated that he saw no need at this time {o recommend an increase in the size of the board. 'He stated that.the possibility of managers representing segments within the entire .watershed. district might be considered at a future time. James von..Lorenz, an interested citizen, .asked to address the board. Mr. yon Lorenz s~ated that the St. Louis Park Chapter of the Izaak Walton League would prefer managers who would seek increased wetland and floodplain protection. He also stated that his organization would prefer to see the board expanded by two members. Managers Lehman and Cochran then stated that wetland and floodplain protection, particularly along Minnehaha Creek, has been a primary concern of the entire board for many years, but that, by statute, the City of St. Louis Park regulates the extent of allowable filling of the floodplain located within the City. Manager Cochran stated that the board has previously asked the City to amend its floodplain ordinance to provide greater floodplain preservation, but the City has not done so. Manager Carroll pointed out the filling recently allowed by the City of St. Louis Park in the reach of the floodplain at the Cardinal Glass property and noted that the board had thereafter requested the City of St. Louis Park to again reconsider its present ordinance on floodplain filling. Manager Carroll also stated that he did not favor dividing the board into segments within the watershed district. Manager- Cochran stated that the new legislation requires the County Board to select managers from a list of candidates submitted by the municipalities, if one is submittted, and that ~his provision will have this effect. Manager Lehman stated that it was his position, based on his experience, that a smaller board could function more efficiently than a larger board. Following the foregoing discussion, it was moved by Manager Lehman, seconded by Manager Andre, that the board recommend to the Water Resources Board that the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District remain at five members and that such recommendation be communicated to the Water Resources Board. Upon vote the motion carried. May 19, 1~983 Page 9 Saul Segal - "Cedar Hills Third Addition" commercial and residential properties, NE intersection of Cedar Lake Rbad and County Road 73, Minnetonka. 82-27 The engineer reviewed the application for an extension of permit No. 82-27 and recommended extension on conditions numbered 1 through 5 in his written memorandum. Following review, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Andre, that the permit be extended subject to the conditions as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. David J. Logelin - dredging, steel sheet pile retaining wall, Harrison Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Mound~ 83--09 The engineer reviewed the application which had been tabled at the last regular meeting to allow an opportunity for investigation of alternatives to minimize the scope of the proposed dredging. The engineer advised the managers that the present proposal involved significantly less dredging than the alternatives. The engineer recommended approval as submitted subject to all requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The managers noted that this property was located adjacent to a storm sewer outfall which had deposited substantial silt near the shoreline of the property. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved as submitted as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. - /~ommunity Development Corp. - grading and drainage plan for a 48 J ~nit residential complex "Westonka Elderly and Handicapped Housing, east shore of Lan~don Lake, Mound. 83-18 The engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval and approval of a variance to 48 feet from the ordinary high water level of Langdon Lake. The engineer recommended approval with authorization to the engineer to issue a permit upon receipt of a document showing the precise setback distance. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved subject to the foregoing 'condition. Upon vote the motion carried. Keith Stuessi - 47 foot lake setback variance request, Lower Lake, Lake Minnetonka, Greenwood. 83-20 The application was reviewed by the managers and the engineer recommended approval subject to compliance with all applicable City requirements. It was noted that the requested May 19, 1983 Page 10 setback for the building addition was greater than the.setback of the existing structure. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Correspondence Chairman Cochran noted receipt of an informational flier from the Department of Natural Resources on floodplain management and regulation and requested staff to place the managers' names on the mailing 'list for this publication. Manager Cochran noted receipt of a letter from the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts indicating that the Wild Rice Watershed'District will'be hosting a tour of projects within that district early this summer. Treasurer's Report. The Treasurer distributed his monthly Administrative Fund Report dated May 19, 1983. Following review and discussion of the report by the managers, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman,.that the Treasurer's report dated May 19, 1983, be approved and the bills paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote the motion carried. CP-5 Painter Creek/Engineer's Preliminary Report Revised as of May 3, 1983 The engineer advised the board that comments from the managers and the Advisory Committee regarding the prior draft of the preliminary report had been incorporated into the final preliminary report revised May 3, 1983. The engineer also advised the board that the Advisory Committee had reviewed the report as amended and has recommended that the board proceed with the CP-5 Painter Creek Project as well as to take other appropriate action on other recommendations of the Advisory Committee. The engineer advised the managers that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, on April 27, '1983, urged the board to proceed with the CP-5 Painter Creek Project and had adopted and forwarded to the board a resolution to that effect. The engineer distributed a draft timetable for proposed activities to be undertaken in connection with the project. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Cochran, that the engineer's preliminary report, revised as of May 3, 1983, be accepted by the board and submitted to the Water Resources Board and the Division of Waters, Department of Natural Resources, for their reports pursuant to statute. Upon vote the motion carried. The managers also directed staff to provide informational copies of May 19, 1983 Page 11 the preliminary engineering report to the municipalitiHs located within the Painter Creek Subwatershed and to other interested governmental agencies. City of Minneapolis/MCWD Creek Hydraulic Study/Final Report This matter was laid over until the June meeting of the Board of Managers. Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy/Operating Procedures The engineer advised the board that the Department of Natural Resources, on May 20, 1983, approved the revised "Management Policy and Operating Procedures, March 1, 1983 - March 1, 1986." The board authorized and directed the engineer to publish copies of'the approved Management Policy and distribute copies to municipalities, governmental agencies and interested citizens within the District. The attorney advised the board that the Department of Natural Resources' letter of approval did not conform with the board's request for approval. The board directed the attorney to advise the Department of Natural Resources regarding the District's position regarding those items. 1983 Water Maintenance and Re~air Fund/Board Initiated Project The engineer distributed a memorandum dated May 16, 1983, recommending preliminary criteria for modification and repair of creek improvements. The board reviewed the engineer's recommendation and approved the preliminary design concepts contained in the memorandum. Private Vehicular Bridge/Il907 Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka The board directed the staff to review the present status of the vehicular bridge at the above address and to report back to the board with recommendations at the next regular meeting. 'Adjournment There being no further business to come before the regular meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Albert L. Lehman, Acting Secretary 0145o Local Planning Assistance Spring 198_ PLANNERS' FORUM ON ACCESSORY APARTMENTS -MAY 17 METRO APA MEMBERS. TO MEET MAY 17 LOCAL EFFECTS OF 'EMERGENCY JOBS' LAW A planners' forum on accessory apartments will be held by the Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Assistance program May 17. The forum will focus on a demonstration program being developed by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to offer below mdrket-rate financing to homeownars who want to acid an accessory apartment to their homes. Mary Tingerthal, director of MHFA's Home Improvement Division, and Mary Louise Poquette, MHFA consultant, will give a short presentation on the demonstration program and the 85-page study that recommended it. MHFA is interested in city, county and HRA comments on eligibility requirements, relationship to local zoning and housing codes, and the role of local program administrators. It also wants to explore possible relationships with other nonprofit organizations and neighborhood groups, and possible marketing strategies to specific population groups such as elderly people, single-parent homeowners or first-time home buyers. Copies of the initial accessory apartment feasibility'study will be available at the meeting, Charles Ballentine, Council housing planner, will review a report on accessory apartments being prepared by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. Ballentine helped AMM with the report. The forum will be held in the Metropolitan Council Chambers, 300 Metro Square Build- ing, 7th and Robert Sss. in downtown St. Paul, from 9 to 11 :'15 a.m. People planning to attend the forum should respond by Monday, May 16, by calling Irene Massman, at 291-6415. There will be a special "bag lunch" meeting for Metropolitan Area members of the American Planning Association (APA) at 11:30 a.m., May 17, in the Metropolitan Council Chambers, following the Council's Planners' Forum. The purpose of the APA meeting is to determine if area planners would be interested in meeting periodically and, if so, what types of programs would be useful. Jim Bellus, president of the Minnesota APA Chapter, will report on the recent APA national planning conference in Seattle and discuss the 1984 national conference, which will be held in Minneapolis. Anyone attending is welcome to bring lunch and eat during the meeting. Local effects of the new federal emergency jobs legislation are not certain yet. But it appears three programs will get the bulk of the new funding: Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG), Subsidized Housing Funding and Supplemental Community Development Block Grants. Urban Development Act/on Grants. The law restores $244 million to the UDAG pot that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had recommended for deferral. These are national competition funds. However. the money will prgbably increase funding chances for UDAG applications from this Area. Subs/d/xed Housing Funding. The law restores $3.081 billion in subsidized housing funds recommended for deferral by OMB. This action will restore some subsidized housing units, although exactly how many is unclear. Supplemental Community Development 8lock Grant Monies. The taw p~aces major emphasis on the CDBG program, providing an additional $1 billion. The money must be used for eligible CDBG activities that produce jobs. This pot of money requires a separate statement and application, but references the existing regulations. The restriction on use of CDBG funds for public services is lifted. Up to 50 percent of the national pot may be used for public service jobs. HUD is to monitor this but hasn't figured out how yet. HUD's preliminary estimate of funds for entitlement recipients follows: Bloomington $ 188,000 Minneapolis 4,223,000 St. Paul 2,302,000 Urban Anoka County 537,000 Urban Hennepin County 1,054,000 State of Minnesota 4,050,000 (Small Cities Program) State staff said the state money would probably be used to fund existing applications with components that would generate jobs. 'DESIGN OF OUR HOMES' CONFERENCE JUNE 11 A one-day conference, "The Design of Our Homes: Past, Present and Future," will be held at the Science Museum of Minnesota in St. Paul June 11 from 8:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The conference will look at how the design of our housing affects us, how we can evaluate e design, what innovations we should look for, and where we can go to find the most appropriate design services for our desired life-style. The registration fee of $50 (additional family members half price) includes all instruc- tional materials, two refreshment breaks and lunch. Pre-registration is suggested. For further information, call 231-9438. TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP SURFACE WATER PLAN GUIDELINES The Metropolitan Council has formed a task force to prepare content guidelines for surface water management plans. The group includes representatives of the Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Water Resources Board, local commu- nities, consulting engineers and other concerned groups. The intent is to provide guidelines that will help articulate requirements of the Lev;- Merriam bill passed last year. The guidelines will be voluntary, i.e., water management organizations will not be required to follow them in preparing their plans. The task force is expected to complete a draft of the guidelines by August.'Final guide- lines should be ready for use by the last quarter of 1983. LOGIN NEWS Since the Metropolitan Council acquired the use of LOGIN from Control Data in January, its staff has responded to more than 80 requests from city and county officials. LOGIN is a computer-based data and information exchange that allows local, regional, state and federal agencies to share solutions to common problems, Requests have ranged from local development issues to model ordinances to personnel policies. Here are a few examples: - Use of mini-computers in police work. - Examples of multi-jurisdictional fire services. - Alternatives to landfilling old tires. If you have problems that require innovative solutions, or you want to discover what other cities are doing about your type of problem, contact your Local Planning Assistance representative, or call James U ttley, at 291-6361. CORRECTION RE: MANUFACTURED HOMES An article in the January issue of LPA NEWS suggested that communities could establish manufactured home park districts. The article was written before the attorney general issued an opinion regarding manufactured home districts. The opinion, issued Nov. 10, 1982, stated that Chapter 490 "clearly prohibits a city from restricting the location of manufactured home~ from any residential classification districts...so long as those homes are in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 327.31 and 327.35, and comply with other applicable zoning ordinances." We apologize for any confusion the article may have caused, and hope that this will clear it up. 1983 CDBG SMALL CITIES GRANT AWARDS Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 The Minnesota Department of Energy, Planning and Development announced the 1983 Small Cities Grant awards earlier this month. The grants are a category of Community Development Block Grants {CDBG). Statewide, 45 grants totaling $21,845,180 were awarded. In the Metropolitan Area, six of the 17 grant applications (35 percent) submitted to the state were approved; they totaled $2~87,355. Metropolitan Area recipients and their projects follow: - New Brighton, $600,000, construction of new city well. - Dakota County, $200,000, supplementary grant for Mendota. - Willernie, $249,838, community-wide revitalization project. - Farmington, $600,000, neighborhood improvement project. -- Savage, $700,000, Hwy. 13 investment incentive program. - Rosemount, $537,517, commercial neighborhood improvement project. Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Mpls., Minn. Permit No. 1610 CITY of MOUND June 17, 1383 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROH: CITY HANAGER Enclosed is the attached memo stating Mound's application for $100,000 of CDBG Funds for the "Revolving Loan Fund" was approved. Mound received the fourth highest fund total and everything we asked for. This will be a real shot in the arm to helping renew our commercial district. Hurray for all of you. JE:fc HENNEPIN DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 15, 1983 Program Participants Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development REQUESTS FOR FUNDING/1983 JOBS BILL ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION/URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM At its June 14 meeting the ad hoc Citizen Advisory Committee met to review the subject requests~ They arrived at a recommendation to approve the funding of eighteen of the 43 requests received~ Their recommendation will be communicated to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on June 23 for authorization to submit to HUD on July The accompanying summary of the Committee meeting specifies which requests were approved and at what level of.funding. Those requests received but not funded are also identified. Any applicant wishing to discuss their request with the Committee may do so beginning at 7:30 PM at the Committee meeting scheduled for Monday June 20~ at the Hennepin County Ridgedale Area Library. Although not necessary~ it would be appreciated if those planning to appear would notify Bob Isaacson at 348,4544. lw Enclosure cc: Ad hoc Citizen Advisory Committee CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1980 JOBS BILL ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM MEETING SUMMARY/JUNE 14~ 1983 All eight members of the CAC attended the meeting: Mark Eckes, Chairman; Ray Johnson~ Vice Chairman; Elaine.Ask; Vern Ausen; John Berryhill; George Eckblad; Charles Hodge; and Gary Prazak. Philip Eckhert~ Director~ Office of Planning and Development and Larry Blackstad and Robert Isaacson were Hennepin County staff representatives. Each CAC member was in receipt of a copy of all requests for funding received by the Office of Planning and Developmen% as well as a summary listing of the requests and a request analysis form. These had been delivered to the CAC on Friday~ June 10~ Prior to opening the meeting the members were provided a listing of proposed activities by general funding category (Public Works and Facilities~ Economic Development, Public Services, Rehabilitation~ Acquisition and Barrier Removal) and a summary listing of the programs receiving additional allocations through the 1983 Jobs Bill. Chairman Eckes opened the meeting with an over view of the requests for funding. Forty-three requests were received from ~3 Urban Hennepin County CDBG participants. They requested funding totaling over 7.1 million dollars. With only about one million dollars available to fund the requests, the CAC was presented with a difficult task. Each request was subject to a series of screenings with those felt to best reflect the objectives of the program and CAC criteria and priorities remaining in contention~ This process of review and evaluation continued until consensus and approval was gained on recommending the following requests for funding: Chanhassen Job Training and Employment Program $ 35.000 Dayton Neighborhood Revitalization 86~000 Edina Fix and Paint Project 27,000 Excelsior Handicapped Accessibility/Curb Cuts 10,000 Excelsior Six Corner Intersection Traffic Control 12,000 Excelsior Studer Park Improvements lOjO00 Hanover Public Employment/Training 10~850 Hennepin County Day Care/Newly Employed (Community Services) 75.000 Maple Grove Public Employment/Training 125.000 Minnetonka Commercial Rehab Loans 100,000 Minnetrista Summer Youth Employment 8~000 Minnetrista Wood Processing 5,000 Mound ~]_~us_ijlg~~s_~volvin~J~Qgjl_P~r_og_r_~m .... 100,000 Fix and Paint Project 27,000 Employment Program 65,000 Downtown Revitalization 82.000 Recycling Assistance 107.000 Handicapped Accessibility Improvements 5.500 Richfield Robbi nsdal e Rockford St. Louis Park Tonka Bay TOTAL $ '890;350 Seven of the approved requests were approved at a lower level of funding than originally requested. These seven are Chanhassen. Dayton, Hennepin, Maple Grove~ Robbinsdale~ Rockford and St. Louis Park. Staff was directed to review the requests from Chanhassen~ Hennepin County. Maple Grove, Robbinsdale and St. Louis Park to assign to them the difference of $160,650 between the total amount of approved funding~ $890,350, and the $1~051~000 available. A pro-rata.distribution is to be made if no compelling reason to do otherwise is identified. The Dayton and Rockford requests were to remain at the approved level as well as all those receiving the amount originally requestedJ Those requests reviewed which were not recommended for funding include the following: Champlin Crystal Crystal Excelsior Hennepin County Hennepin County Hennepin County Loretto Minnetonka Orono Orono Osseo Osseo Osseo Plymouth Plymouth Richfield Robbi nsdal e Rockford Rogers St. Anthony St~ Anthony St~ Louis Park St~ Louis Park St, Louis Park Richardson Park Activity Center Business Relocation~ Expansion Shopping Center Construction Sidewalk Repair Day Care Linkages (GMDCA) Diseased Trees (CETA) Emergency Care, Shelter (Community Service) Sidewalk (Withdrawn by applicant) Senior Citizen Center Crystal Bay Sanitary Sewer Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Jail Addition Sidewalk Improvements Storm Sewers Extension Acquisitionj Scattered Sites Housing Rehab Economic Development Fund Site Acquisition Industrial Development Water System Improvements Acquisition~ Elderly Housing AcquisitionjLibrary TH 7 Improvements Time Outj Parent Education Women in Transition The next meeting of the CAC was set for Monday~ June 20~ at 7:00 PMJ It will be held at the Hennepin County Ridgedale Area Library. The Committee will review the final project description of the approved requests for funding and will hear any applicant who wishes to discuss their request beginning at 7:30 PM' lw