1999-05-25AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1999 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be rout&e by the
Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
· Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 11, 1999,
REGULAR MEETING ............................ 1706-1723
*B.
*C.
CASE# 99-12: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD
SETBACKS, LOT SIZE, HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A
CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2925 HOLT LN;
BLOCK 6, LOT 5, MINNESOTA BAPTIST
SUMMER ASSEMBLY, MICHAEL STOLTENOW, 61810,
PID # 23-117-24 42 0074 ............................ 1724-1737
CASE# 99-13: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
STREET FRONTAGE; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING
DETACHED GARAGE AT 4420 RADNOR RD; BLOCK 15,
LOTS 3-4-5 & PART OF 6, AVALON, JERRY BARELMAN,
37850, PID # 19-117-23 34 0093 .....................
1738-1751
*D.
*E.
CASE# 99-16: VARIANCE; LAKESIDE SETBACK;
TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE
AT 5513 BARTLETT BLVD; PART OF LOTS 13 & 14 AND
ADJOINING ABANDONDED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT
PLACE, CLYDE BONNEMA, 61510, PID# 24-117-24 23 0018.
1752-1770
CASE# 99-18: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK;
TO CONSTRUCT A LAKESIDE DECK AT 2625 WILSHIRE BLVD;
BLOCK 1, PART OF LOT 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C,
DAREN & JILL JENSEN, 62030, PID# 24-117-24 13 0013 .... 1771-1796
1704
*F.
*G.
*H.
MOTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//99-22, PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER FINAL PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR THE LYNMORE SUBDIVISION
TWIN HOME PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE
R-2 ZONING DISTRICT, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3,
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, AT 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE,
PID #13-117-24 44 0032. SUGGESTED DATE - JUNE 8, 1999 ......
MOTION TO APPROVE LICENSE RENEWALS AS FOLLOWS .....
CLUB ON-SALE
SUNDAY ON-SALE
ON-SALE WINE
ON-SALE BEER
OFF-SALE BEER
1797
1798
PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 1(PARTIAL PAYMENT) ........ 1799-1801
NORWOOD LANE STREET UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION
*I. MOTION TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF BILLS ........ 1802-1824
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
CASE//97-39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A
NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, ROBERT
STEELE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN,
PID # 13-117-24 44 0059 ................................ 1825-1942
PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
BY INDEPENDENT AUDITORS. (SEE INCLOSED BOOKLET)
6. ZONING CODE STREAMLINING AND PROCESS ENHANCEMENT . 1943-1962
ESTABLISHING PILOT PROGRAM FOR PERSONAL WATER CRAFT
AT AVALON PARK ....................................... 1963
8. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
LMCD mailings ...................................... 1964
Dock & Commons Minutes of 4-15-99 ................... 1965-1975
POSC Minutes of 5-13-99 ........................... 1976-1982
Planning Commission Minutes of 5-10-99 ................. 1983-1997
Ao
2.
3.
4.
1705
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 11, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, May 11, 1998, at 7:40 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Melsel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus,
Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark., City Attorney John
Dean, Park Director Jim Fackler, City Planner Loren Gordon, and the following interested citizens:,
Craig and Elsa Watson (4610 Tuxedo), Walter Neske (6225 Red Oak Road), Frank W. and Betty
Weiland (6045 Aspen Road), Cathy Bailey (1554 Bluebird Lane), Greg, Vickie, and Sarah Pederson
(6087 Aspen Road), Julie Andersen (2221 Southview Lane), Shirley M. Andersen (2210 Southview
Lane), Amy Nelson (2226 Southview Lane), Ardrey Mewwisson (6170 Red Oak Road), John
Beachamy (6029 Aspen Road), Greg Howard (6061 Aspen Road), Duane and Carol Norberg (6015
Aspen Road), Charles J. Chapman, Jr. (2017 Clover Circle), David Shinn (6310 Walnut Road),
Thomas R. Berent (6000 Lynwood Boulevard), Tim Prepkorn (5600 Lynwood Boulevard), Bob
Dorfner (4849 Glasgow Road), Matt and Tracy Walstrom (4872 Leslie Road), Darren Poikonen
(5967 Hillcrest Road), Doug Anderson (4912 Leslie Road), Paul Ganst, Board Group, Inc. (10
Eleventh Avenue South, Hopkins), Bill Beord, The Board Group, Inc. (10 Eleventh Avenue South,
Hopkins), Gene and Gretchen South (4705 Island View Drive), Bob and Connie Schmidt (4708
Island View Drive), Becky Cherne (4701 Island View Drive), Greg Knutson (4701 Island View
Drive), Stan and Marlene Straley (4501 Island View Drive), Don Williams (32135 Ayer Lane), John
Mundt (4517 Tuxedo Boulevard), Joel Johnson (5309 Piper Road), Connie DeBoct (4722 Aberdeen
Road), Irene and Pat Harrington (4687 Island View Drive), Tamy Liljenquist (4737 Aberdeen Road),
Mark Reschke (4737 Aberdeen Road), John Miller (3149 Inverness Road), Janet L. Petersen (3136
Tuxedo Boulevard), Greg Euvil (5585 Sherwood), Brad Biermann (5106 Windsor Road), Todd Rask
(5109 Drummond Road), John Zuccaro (3146 Island View Drive), Orv Burma (3011 Island View
Drive), Michael Gaida (3119 Tuxedo Boulevard), Jon F. Helgeson (3124 Tuxedo Boulevard), Timm
Hollenberger (4512 Clyde Road), Gina and Mark Smith (4665 Island View Drive), Sandi and Tom
Effertz (4757 Island View Drive).
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. She apologized for the
lateness of the start which was due to the Housing Redevelopment Authority meeting. The Pledge
of Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
Council andwill be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA
Clark added a New Tree License for Tall Timber Experts, Inc. as Consent Agenda item number B4.
She also deleted Agenda item number 4 (Public Hearing P & Z Case #99-09). This was withdrawn
by the applicant and not rescheduled at this time.
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Regular
Agenda, as amended with the add-on Item and deletion of item number 4. The
vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Hanus pulled item A to be voted on separately.
*3A.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27,1999 REGULAR MEETING.
The following were the corrections made to the April 27, 1999 Regular Meeting:
Hanus
· Page 9, first paragraph, last three sentences
This will now read: "He stated that the resident would allow the docks to be
in front of part of his home. The following is a statement the resident to the
south gave indicating he would enter into an agreement with the city. The
statement is dated 4/26/99 and reads as follows:"
Weycker
· Page 6, fii~h paragraph, last sentence should read:
"She stated that if Swenson Park was used, there wouM be parking
available."
· Page 9, fourth paragraph, add to the last sentence:
"; and to be careful with the LMCD rules and regulations."
· Page 9, last paragraph, second to the last sentence should read:
"Fackler needs to have this reviewed by the I_A4CD."
· Page 8, second to last paragraph, moving the "benches" no fences.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Minutes ofthe
April 27, 1999 Regular Meeting of the City Council, as amended. The vote was
5-0 in favor. Motion carried.
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
3B.
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING PERMITS:
1. TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER/SET-UP LICENSE, PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT,
TRANSIENT MERCHANT PERMIT, PARADE PERMIT, FIREWORKS
PERMIT FOR MOUND CITY DAYS - JUNE 18, 18, AND 20, 1999.
PARADE PERMIT FOR AMERICAN LEGION/VFW FOR THE MEMORIAL
DAY PARADE - MAY 31, 1999.
PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR SILVERADO PRO BAS S TOURNAMENT
WEIGH-IN - JULY 30, 1999, MOUND BAY PARK.
NEW TREE LICENSE - TALL TIMBER EXPERTS, 1NC., P.O. BOX 836,
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391.
3C.
3D.
3E.
3F.
RESOLUTION- CASE 99-10-VARIANCE, FLOOD PLAIN, LAKESIDE SETBACK
TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE AT 315:3
PRIEST LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES, JIM SMITH, PID tt2:5-117-
24:34 0079.
MOTION TO RE-PURCltASE A CEMETERY LOT.
MOTION TO APPROVE 1999 SEALCOAT BID - ALLIED BLACKTOP - $26,850.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - AUDITOR'S ROAD
DEMOLITION - JME OF MONTICELLO, INC. - $7,285.75.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve items B - F of the
Consent Agenda. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PEMBROKE MULTIPLE DOCK CONFIGURATION
Fackler indicated that the map shown on page 1630 (estimate #3) of the packet is the recommended
configuration with the exception of slip #10 which would be moved to the other side of the dock.
Brown stated he thought the plan looked pretty good, as did one on page 1631.
Joel Johnson of 1531 Park asked what would happen to the beach and the park area with the dock
configured like this and located here. Mayor Meisel indicated that the beach would be let~ as is and
roped off for safety sake. Mr. Johnson indicated that he doesn't understand why the dock needs to
be moved to the commons area since it is not in it now. Also, he is concerned that the kids could run
4
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
onto the docks and jump off creating a potential hazard. Mayor Meisel discussed that one of the
things they were looking into was to gate offthe dock area.
Hanus stated that some people like the dock for jumping off, so he was thinking the gate could be
mounted on the dock. That would allow security for the boats, but yet allow people to jump offthe
dock for swimming.
Weycker asked where the dock was last year. Fackler said it was close to the same area as the 28.25-
foot mark on the drawing. (The drawing was displayed on the overhead for all to see.)
Dean Sulander of 2524 Emerald Drive stated that his understanding was that the dislocated people
from Roanoke would have spots elsewhere. Hanus stated that he was right. Mr. Sulander asked if
there were any unused commons available in the future. He stated that slips 11 and 12 were far too
shallow for boats and that it was a difficult area to maneuver around in.
Hanus stated that 11 and 12 were to be assigned to Mr. Watson and that he had sailboats on lifts
which required less depth than other boats. Hanus believes the water depth at this point is deeper
than last year.
Mr. Sulander asked if the system has worked well in the last few years, why is it being changed. He
asked why it couldn't be left alone and eventually decrease to seven slips as originally agreed to by
the people. He suggested relocated the other slips on other commons to be developed.
777 of 2915 Tuxedo Boulevard asked why the people were relocated from other commons and if
anyone on City Council was affected by the changes.
Mayor Meisel stopped the discussion at that point and stated that the discussion would not go that
direction tonight. They have discussed these points previously and viewpoints had been aired. If
anyone wanted to review the past meeting minutes they were available. She also stated she could be
called and she would discuss the issues personally with them. Every meeting in 1999 has had this
topic discussed and now it was time to move on and make some decisions.
John Zuccaro of 3136 Island View Drive stated that he lives three doors away from the proposed
dock configuration. He has lived there for 46 years and all his children grew up taking swimming
lessons there. He believes the dimensions of the dock as pictured on the overhead are confusing. He
believes it is a safety issue and problem. The beach is unsupervised and he doesn't believe the ropes
will help. Additionally to fully analyze the slips, the lake depth needs to be noted. He said these were
the only issues he had.
Brown discussed the option on page 1631 of the packet. He stated that on this option double piers
encompass the beach area. Ifoil was a problem, he suggested placing ropes and a"floating absorbent
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
material" between the boats and the swimming area. This material not only serves as a boundary, it
soaks up the oil.
Mr. Zuccaro asked why not leave it the way it is now.
Hanus stated the primary reason for the change was to allow more room. That is why the multiple
dock versus individual docks was initially installed. However, he stated, it was not designed to be
so totally in front of one person's picture window as it has ended up since at, er the first year. This
is the impetus for change to reduce the negative impact to the southerly neighbor, he stated.
Stan Straley of 4501 Island View Drive stated he was the property owner north of the park. He
asked about his view. He stated this relieves the visibility for the neighbor to the south, but makes
it a visibility problem for him. No the "marina" is in front of my house. Hanus stated that he shared
his concern, but that all the LMCD rules and regulations had been followed in the new dock
configurations.
Mr. Straley stated that the plan last Council meeting would have required him to file for a variance
and that he was informed that the LMCD believed he was in favor of that plan. He stated that no one
had contacted him with any plans. He wondered if the presentation last time was an attempt to
convince the LMCD that all owners had agreed to the new configuration. Hanus stated that this was
not the intention. Mr. Straley wanted it stated publicly that he was not in favor of the dock in the
middle of the beach area.
Hanus stated that it was 5 - 6 feet from the south access road. Mr. StraleY asked why the # 1 slip had
a 10 foot setback to the property line. He asked why it was not on the south side of the dock.
Fackler stated that other plans (pages 1628 and 1629) had this configuration, but that the intend was
to stay within 143 feet.
Members of the Council asked if the whole dock arrangement could be moved down one slip. It was
indicated that the plan might be more favorable that way. The #1 slip is for a 36 foot cruiser and
would need to be rearranged anyway to fit this size of a boat.
Fackler stated that the #1 could be changed with #10. Hanus stated that would make it difficult to
accommodate the sailboats on #10 and 11. If you moved it to the other side, he said, it would put
it in the beach area more. Nonetheless, stated Hanus, he did not have a problem with minor
rearrangements to the configuration. He would like to stay within the negotiated 143-foot
measurement, however.
Dean Sulander stated that he would like to see the dock issue tabled for this year, the existing
configuration put in so people could go boating, the people could work together over the next 11
months to come up with a plan that suited everyone's needs.
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
Janet Petersen of 3136 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that she had been informed she was a non-abutter
to Pembroke Commons. She purchased her home because of the parkland and the swimming area
for the children. She is concerned about such a large dock. She asked the following questions:
Is it a public dock? Can anyone walk on it? Hanus stated that it was intended for dock leases
only.
What is the legal distance out an adult swimmer could go from the beach? Brown stated that
a swimmer could go as far out as they were comfortable with. They could swim across
the lake, he indicated.
She was looking at the 1630 configuration and asked how it would keep the children from
swimming under the rope. Hanus asked her how they kept the children within the rope
area today.
She stated that she agreed with those before her. She has real safety concerns with the boats and
dock area so close to the swimming beach. She doesn't want it to be resolved tonight. She would
like to see it tabled. She also indicated that she did not receive notice of this meeting.
Weycker indicated that only the people with slips on the dock had been notified.
Craig Watson of 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that he had a petition signed by 90 people objecting
to the dock. He doesn't like what they are doing to the dock. He doesn't like the trash that is going
to result from having it here. He doesn't like what it does to the beach area and the danger to the
kids. The petition reads as follows:
"We, as residents of the Pembroke Beach area, feel that the proposed dock configuration will
offer a hazard and inconvenience to the children who use the beach.
The hazards as we see them are:
An attractive nuance - in the physical dock that the children can climb on- run on -
and jump off the structure.
There will be flotsam on the beach area consisting of weeds, trash, and oil spillage,
mainly due to the blockage of water flow by the boats. This we believe will be a
health threat to the children as they use the beach.
The dock will extend into the swimming area causing less usable area to play and
swim."
Mr. Watson indicated that slip #11 was too swallow for his boat. The dock would have to extend
further out about 10- 15 feet. His boat is 28 feet long and this is a low water year. He indicated that
slip #10 was deep enough, however, it cuts offan additional 10 feet of the dock because of its size
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
and length. It is a SeaRay. Brown stated that he had three slips. Mr. Watson quickly stated that the
City has issued permits to have 4 boats at his own dock.
He stated the neighbor to the south, Rod, indicated to him that last year's configuration was all right.
He just didn't want them to come any further in front of his window. With that configuration, stated
Watson, the beach is safer, the kids are not affected by the boats.
Additionally, he stated, he does not want to lose his own private dock. Sometime in the future, the
City could say you could only have one slip. He believes his dock is supposed to be grandfathered
in.
He was told that the Park wasn't used as much and would be going away. He stated that was untrue.
Last Sunday, there were 15 kids and parents playing at the park.
They've taken away the lifeguard, he stated that used to be here. He believes a lifeguard is needed,
the parents are afraid to send their kids down there alone. He has also heard rumors that a member
of the council was talking about moving the dock even closer, like to within 3 feet. He was curious
if there was some agenda that wasn't put on the table.
Another concern Mr. Watson has is that he pays $150 for four slips at his own dock. Other people
pay $150 per slip. Is the City going to charge him more he asked. The Mayor indicated that she felt
the ordinances needed a thorough review to bring them in line with where Mound is today.
Mr. Watson asked if the lake was public access to everyone. The mayor indicated that a dock was
a privilege, not a right. Mr. Watson went on to say that there was a"war and the council was writing
their own rules and taking the vote away from the people." He went on that Rod Plaza has no
objections to where the dock was located last year.
Don Sherburne Jr. of 4529 Tuxedo Boulevard lives across the street from this area for 43 years. He
believes the dock could be positioned further south than the proposed configuration. He doesn't
believe that one resident should get all the space freed at the inconvenience of others on a common
area. He stated that if the dock were moved further south two slips, the boats could get in and out
easier. He stated that it would be less of a safety issue and they should move it closer to Plaza's
property.
Hanus asked how it was less safe where it was proposed. He asked the people to get to the point.
He stated that no one so far had come up with the real reason why the people don't want it moved.
The Mayor suggested it be moved in front of where Mr. Watson's dock was now. Hanus stated that
might work on paper/board, but it won't work on the beach. Mr. Watson said the configuration was
about 10 feet further north of where he is. He was 15 feet from the light pole.
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
Janet Petersen asked about other's views. She stated that they had a picnic down at the Park last
Sunday. They had a beautiful view of the lake. If the dock is placed there, the view will be
obstructed.
Dean Sulander stated that at the last Council meeting when the park issue came up for Philbrooke
Park the decision was to leave it as it was, a quiet neighborhood park. Now, he said, you want to
come and destroy this quiet neighborhood park. He doesn't understand how the two are different.
He feels the Council is talking "out of both sides of your mouth."
The Mayor asked Mr. Watson for the petition. Mr. Watson stated that every family with kids signed
this petition that they did not want the dock changes. Only one individual was undecided. Nine
people circulated the petition-everyone on the dock.
Hanus asked what configuration they were told about. Mr. Watson stated that it was Option A and
B from the last Council meeting. That was what they had then. He stated he didn't see any positives
to the move. "The kids get screwed, the people and boats on the dock get hammered, and Rod says
to leave it as it was last year."
Hanus asked how the people and boats on the dock would get hammered. Mr. Watson explained that
in slip #10 he has a boat and a dock behind him. That means he will have to dock sideways and the
boat will hammer against the dock in the wind. Fackler commented that several people had stated
this to him also. Parking the boat sideways will not work.
Hanus stated that Mr. Erlandson parked sideways and he didn't get hammered. Mr. Erlandson stated
that while that might be true in most weather, in the storms there were times when he did. Further,
he stated that it was very difficult to maneuver his boat in.
Mr. Watson stated "why not table and work on over the next year." Hanus stated that "past
experience has shown that the people are not willing to work together for a solution. It was hard as
a Council to stay in the same "rut" month after month. He stated if we do table it and begin working
on it in October, do you think everyone can agree with a configuration they can live with?
Mr. Watson stated that when you jam it down our throats with little to no notice, people don't want
to work it out now. He stated, "the City Council is doing its best to ram it down our throats now.
That's the only reason people are unwilling to work it out now.
Mayor Meisel stating the City Council was becoming known as the "bad guys." She doesn't think
that is the case. They are trying to work this out, but no one is working with them.
A citizen asked why not put the additional people on another commons. There is a concern about
safety. Originally the dock was configured with nine boats, it was supposed to get down to seven.
Now it is up to twelve.
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
Weycker asked what it is that needs to be worked out. This is totally different than the original
configuration of nine slips that was supposed to revert to seven when two boats lef~ the program.
Why does the size need to be increased, she asked. Hanus responded that it was to try to keep the
people that were there in the neighborhood.
Weycker disagreed, she stated that some of the people from Roanoke Commons needed to drive to
get there.
Brown called a point of order that things were getting argumentative.
Bob Schmidt of 4708 Island View Drive stated that they should eliminate the non-abutters. Then the
only people to realize the privilege would be the abutters.
Dean Sulander that when the multiple dock was put in three years ago, it created a lot of upheaval.
However, he stated, we were able to work it out. We did not dig in our heels and came to an
agreement. The first year became a problem when they added the additional slip. Enlarging the dock
is what made it a "marina."
Hanus asked that the people be logical. A marina was not what was intended. "Let's get this thing
in the water and work it out."
Don Scherbum, Sr. has a concern about the park. He has heard the equipment in the park is to be
moved. The Mayor stated that was rumor only. Mr. Scherbum stated that the entire neighborhood
was concerned. If any thing should be moved, the parking lot should be moved across the street. He
said the park is very important to the community. He is glad to work with the City, he said he would
even take over the park maintenance at his own expense.
Elsa Watson of 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard stated that she wants the dock as it is. She stated, "we were
promised out own dock."
The Mayor stated that the ordinances needed reviewing. Everyone should have access to the
commons if anyone did stated Ms. Watson. We have a good relationship with Rod and want to keep
it that way. We were all happy with the way the dock was. "You are digging in your heels. Don't
change it."
Hanus stated that he did not agree that Mr. Plaza was content with the way it was. He believes there
is a miscommunication somewhere. He will not support putting the dock back in the way it was.
Brown asked if they used the configuration shown on page 1630 for this year and worked with the
neighborhood to work out a"better" plan for next year that meet everyone's concerns would Hanus
10
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
vote for it. Hanus responded that he would agree provided it isn't put in beyond the 143-foot pre-
negotiated location and provided that City Council doesn't mind working with this again.
Brown suggested that the City work with four neighborhood representatives. He was willing to
represent the neighborhood.
Weycker asked why they were working with Hanus and not the Dock Commission. Hanus stated that
he was the one contacted on the issue last year. Weycker asked why he didn't go through the Dock
and Park Commissions first. She stated for the public that Hanus bypassed the two appropriate
advisory boards prior to coming to the City Council. By doing that, she stated, the multiple slip dock
configurations is not in alignment with the City's Comprehensive Plan. That called for seven slips
not twelve. Twelve overtakes the beach and makes it a "marina." There are three beaches on the
island including this one. She feels this is creating another "Al and Alma's" situation. She asked the
attorney to rule on the City's responsibility on liability if anyone were to get hurt.
The initial configuration went in on a one-year trial period. The resulting issues were never addressed
such as the shallowness. Now it has been there three years and they are adding more slips. Why not
fix the problems she stated.
Hanus stated that they are adding more multiple sites every year so that was a non-issue. As for
going to the Park Commission, the beach is not impacted. This is a park/beach at the end ora road
and is a neighborhood park. It is a small park complex, not a large park area. He did not see a
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Weycker stated that the park area complex was never discussed in the conceptual plan for the
multiple dock. They never talked about using more parkland or wrapping around the beach.
Additional slips were never discussed. Hanus stated that another part of the plan discussed a larger
complex. But, stated Weycker, the trial was on a small neighborhood park.
Brown stated that the rope was separating the beach area and the dock area. Could the rope be
extended over further to keep the docks from entering, he asked. Fackler stated it could be and you
could use an upright buoy with an anchor of double bricks to stop something from floating into the
area.
Hanus stated that the conceptual plan was just that, a concept. They need to be flexible and change
and manage the programs efficiently. This allowed that area to have a triple use: park, swimming
beach and docks. Nothing is permanent he stated, everything is changeable. One needs to change
with the times.
Brown asked if they could assign a lifeguard down there.
Fackler stated the lifeguard had been taken from this area and used elsewhere. He could talk with
Tim Pipekorn and see what his recommendation is.
11
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
Mayor Meisel asked what would happen if they moved the dock fifteen feet closer to the light pole.
Hanus stated that it was outside the pre-negotiated area of 143 feet. It doesn't open up the beach
any, he stated, but does help visually. He suggested just moving the stick over. Mayor Meisel
indicated she felt this would make a safer beach.
Ahrens suggested moving the stick back to between slips 7 and 8. The mayor agreed.
Mr. Watson posed the following question to the Council. You have had all the users say we will
work together towards a mutually acceptable plan. Leave the dock as it is. The City Council is
elected and works for the people. They have totally ignored what the people want.
Another citizen stated they thought they lived in a democracy and that the majority should rule. The
mayor indicated that this was not to please just one person, but to open it up for more.
Marlene Straley, a lakeshore owner from the north side said she didn't think they were concerned
about their visibility or how the dock would affect their property, the Council was only concerned
about the one person.
Several citizens asked why fix what works. Hanus said it doesn't work ,that's why. The response
was, it doesn't work according to one person. This same citizen wanted to know why the Docks
commission didn't review this. Weycker stated that it certainly should have gone to that advisory
committee first. Hanus stated that if it had to pass two other committees/boards/commissions, it
would be July before the dock was put in.
Hanus stated that the individual slips and depth of water and distance fi-om the beach had not
changed.
John Helgeson of 3124 Tuxedo Boulevard asked if they had a list of people with boats to be on that
dock. The answer was no. He is concerned about the 36-foot boat. There will problems anywhere
on the dock with this boat. Brown suggested that "maybe your boat is too large for the dock
system."
The mayor came back to the need to review the ordinances.
Ahrens suggested extending section one towards the shore. That would give him room for his boat
and protect the beach more.
Mr. Helgeson stated that would work for him, but he still couldn't see why the dock had to change.
He asked if the reason was to relocate people from Roanoke onto this dock. He still wanted to know
why they couldn't work with what was there and change for next year. Hanus responded that Plaza
12
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
has absorbed the entire dock far too long. The citizens asked why he (Plaza) wasn't at the meeting.
Mr. Helgeson stated he felt like the City Council was holding this over their heads, if they didn't
agree, then the docks wouldn't go in at all. Ahrens stated that they needed to fit 12 boats into the
dock. Mr. Watson stated that if they left it as it was, there would 11 of the 12 boats there. Hanus
asked where they should locate the other people, elsewhere in the City.
Weycker asked the attorney if this was still impacted by the Roanoke area.
Dean came back after attempting to listen to the tape (which had been switched offunbeknownst to
the Council in the audio/visual room upstairs and therefore there was no taped record), and stated
that when this discussion had begun he was approached with the question of whether or not there was
a conflict of interest on the Council. Ahrens asked him that question herself. He didn't think at the
time there was an issue.
When the question was asked about where do we locate the other people in the city by Hanus, he still
did not see a connection to Devon. Therefore, he still does not see a conflict of interest if Ahrens
remains on the Council for this discussion.
The Mayor made a motion which was:
MOTION made by Mayor Meisei, seconded by Brown to put in the
configuration as it was on page 1630 with the accommodations for an extra
section onto number 1 to accommodate a 36 foot boat. The stick would be
located 13.25 feet from the light post. The Beach area would be roped offfrom
the rest of the area and this would be revisited in October to determine how it
worked. This season would be a trial period.
In conjunction with his second, Brown asked that a representative
neighborhood group work with people from the City to come to some
compromise through the summer rather than waiting until October. Four
neighborhood representatives, one City Council member, one Parks
Commission member, and one Dock Commission member was suggested. At
least one of the .neighborhood representatives needed to live in the neighbor
hood, the other three could be on the dock or residents or both.
The Mayor accepted Brown's amendment.
Discussion
Hanus asked that along with the motion be an amendment which would direct the City Attorney to
draft an agreement between the City of Mound and the neighbor to the south of Pembroke Park,
13
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
Rodrigo Plaza Navarrette at 4539 Island View Drive. This document will state that Mr. Plaza agrees
that the city may freely utilize a portion of the property in front of the Plaza property for city dockage
in either a single or multiple configuration without contest. In exchange for this promise of no
contest in the future, the city will agree that it will not expand, extend, or shift the dock/boat complex
area beyond a point 143 feet southwest along the shoreline as measured from the north property line
of Pembroke Park.
Weycker went on record to say that this was "truly a scary precedent" that the City would allow
themselves to be tied to a particular limit on public property. She feels this will become an issue and
follow them through discussions on all the different commons. She asked Dean what the City's
liability would be if anyone got hurt because of the configuration they set up.
Dean stated that he couldn't comment on the configuration, but surely, if it was set up to deliberately
be unsafe and someone was injured, the City would have liability.
Hanus also asked that along with the motion, the money be released to pay for the dock.
The Mayor accepted the 143-foot guideline.
Weycker stated "beware, it is a sad thing that we are doing. I believe that will eliminate the beach
and kids won't use because it will be too dirty. It is another "Al and Alma's" situation.
The motion was called. Motion carded 4-1. (Weycker stated she was very opposed and voting nay.)
Mr. Watson stated "you have just shown us that we have nothing to do with governing the City of
Mound and once again 3 yahoos have hurt us."
Mark Cita stated that he found it interesting that a council member can just pre-negotiate an
agreement with one individual without considering others or even including them in the negotiations.
Dean stated that if by "pre-negotiate" he meant discuss, a person could do this. However, he
cautioned them to remember that he was only one vote.
Tim Hollenberger of 4512 Clyde Road stated that the City Council did not even consider the 90
signatures on the petition as indicating their preference. Since that was the case, why would four
members of the council make a difference.
Weycker publicly pointed out that there was nothing recorded on this discussion via video or via tape.
Neither one were functioning. This will not be shown on the public video.
The following people volunteered to work with the neighborhood: Stan Straley, John Mundt, Dean
Sulander, Todd Rask, Tim Williams. Brown volunteered again from the City Council.
14
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Barb Casey of 4704 Island View Drive wanted to know why it was in the City's best interest to
remove her dock and Albrecht's dock last week. Mayor Meisel discussed the decision made last
meeting regarding Roanoke Commons.
Ms. Casey asked where the study from the Docks Commission was and why they were not used.
Hanus stated that it was a hot, legal issue that had to be resolved. In cases like that, it doesn't do
much good to use the advisory committees. Weycker indicated that until this issue, the advisory
committees were always used.
Renae LaFortune of 4677 Island View Drive indicated that not everyone in the room was opposed
to the dock. She wanted the Council to know that she was not opposed and that there were two
sides to the "story." She also stated that she very much enjoys using the park system, however, she
recognizes that Pembroke Park is lacking in facilities. She has been taking her children to Plymouth
to play, but has recently contacted Fackler for suggestions of another park to use. She has started
using Dundee Park and feels this is a very good park and the neighborhood protects it. She thanked
the Council for considering "all" citizens' viewpoints.
RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ON FENCE/TRELLIS
STRUCTURES
Gordon covered the information the Planning Commission passed on to the Council regarding fences
and trellises. The Planning Commission reviewed this issue on April 26, 1999 at their regular
workshop meeting. The decided to not change the way the ordinance reads.
Ahrens stated that in the minutes it notes that none of the cities that Gordon researched have a
definition spelled out regarding fences and that Mound Staffwas asked to use"common sense" when
they were reviewing a situation involving something that could be considered a fence. She found it
interesting that all cities regulated fences, but did not define them. She asked if the definition for
fences was removed from the ordinance, wouldn't it make it easier for the staff.
Brown stated that the Planning Commission did not see a problem leaving the definition in. Ahrens
pointed out that because of the materials cited in the ordinance, she could put a wrought iron
enclosure around her yard and it would not be considered a fence. Weycker asked if there was a
problem with the definition. Ahrens indicated that it needed changing to include more or to be
dropped entirely from the ordinance.
15
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
Gordon stated that he has worked with communities that do not have a definition and if there was a
question, the normal default was the dictionary definition. Hanus stated that it still becomes an
interpretive issue. Gordon stated that our ordinance is basically that, a definition from the dictionary.
Without it, there could be issues if Staff'tried to enforce something also.
Hanus stated that by not having a definition, Staffis allowed to look at the intent of the structure and
the person placing it at the same time.
Dean stated that if there were to be change, the law would require the entire process to be completed.
In this case, it means that the Council could say that the Planning Commission had their "shot" at the
ordinance or that they could allow the Planning Commission to take one final view at it. Then a
public heating would be required. Brown stated he thought the Planning Commission would like to
review it again.
Hanus suggested that either the materials not be listed or a phrase such as "other acceptable materials
be added." The Mayor said they needed to give Staff credit for common sense.
Gordon suggested that when the Comprehensive Plan was finished, a zoning ordinance review was
needed. He suggested that this issue could wait until then. Dean suggested that would be okay,
however, it should be within the next year.
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON LAKESIDE
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Gordon indicated that this was a Planning Commission discussion item that initiated from the Hunt
Boat House case. In his research, other communities ruled on both sides about evenly. The DNR
stated that they look to the City for insight on these issues and if the City wants this to be reflected
in the ordinance, they may have to "give up something else." This would open up the opportunity
for the DNR to review all the codes again. Therefore, the Planning Commission wanted to leave the
codes as they are written for lakeside accessory structures.
Hanus stated that in the Hunt case, the roof was rotting. Because it was a structural issue, the
Planning Commission reviewed. The owners wanted to replace the shingles. Planning Commission
said they couldn't. The Building could stay, but the roof would have to go. Hanus has a problem
in that one rafter was broken and needed fixing. Otherwise, it was a sound structure. But they
needed a building permit. Now it is non-conforming and they need a variance. The Mayor made
some additional comments on the Hunt case.
Weycker asked how the accessory buildings fit in with the Shoreline management for the DNR.
Gordon stated that the model allows lakeside accessory structures close to the lake. Hanus stated
16
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
that the City's regulations do not always match the DNR's. In fact, often they are stricter. However
the DNR signs offon the City's.
The Mayor asked about the comments made by DNR's hydrologist as found on page 1661. She
requested that perhaps she could come in and speak with the Council about what changes the City
might have to make or give up if they were to change the Lakeside Accessory Structure ordinances.
There was some additional discussion regarding boat houses and the different philosophies people
have about them. For example, Ahrens likes boat houses along the Lake. She thinks they add
character.
Frank Weiland of the Planning Commission stated that the reason the Hunt case was denied was not
just the roof. It was denied because the owner had been warned that he would need a building permit
and he went forward anyway. "He didn't play ball all along."
The Mayor discussed her boat house and the issues she has with snow. She asked if she could repair
the roof. Weiland stated that the structure could be repaired for up to 50% of the overall value over
a lifetime. Mayor Meisel asked if she could put up a brace
Gordon stated that if the support structure were modified in any way, then the ordinances wouldn't
support it. The Mayor said that didn't make sense. Hanus said that was because fixing the support
structure was considered adding life to the structure. Again, it could be repaired up to 50% of the
value over it's life time. Structure repairs normally take more than 50%.
The Mayor stated the ordinance needed review and the Council needed more information from the
DNR about issues they would need to "give up."
Hanus suggested after further discussion that the issue be sent back one more time to the Planning
Commission with these minutes and they should hold a study session on it and perhaps bring in the
area hydrologist for comment.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Financial report for April as prepared by Finance Director, Gino Businaro.
B. Letter from City of Excelsior, thanking the Mound Fire Department for their help in containing
a fire on main street of Excelsior on April 25, 1999.
C. LMCD mailings.
D. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 1999.
17
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
E. Letter from Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church asking that the City consider using the name of
Father Francis Jager when renaming Auditor's Road after the improvement.
(The Mayor will respond with a letter to them regarding this.)
F. Letter from C. Scott Thomas of Minnetrista, who was appointed to the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District Board of Managers.
G. Action alert from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding levy limits. Letter sent to Gen and
Steve regarding this.
H. Notice from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding Tax Increment Financing
legislation.
I. Update from Suburban Rate Authority on Area Codes.
J. Reminder: HRA meeting, 7:00 p.m. prior to the Regular City Council meeting, May 11, 1999.
K. Reminder: Committee of the Whole meeting, Tuesday, May 18, 1999, 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
Brown again brought up the Pembroke Park committee and offered to be the City Council
representative on the committee. The mayor stated that they would address this at the Committee
of the Whole meeting.
Dean had an add-on information piece on the letter from Michael Gavin regarding the Devon
Commons issues. Mr. Gavin has respectfully asked the Council to reverse their decision. Dean will
draf~ a response to Mr. Gavin and fax it over to him tomorrow.
Clark stated that she received notice that Triax is finalizing things to purchase Media
Communications. As a result, there will not be public cable available for a while.
Brown stated that bids were being taken at the Builders Exchange on May 13* for the demolition on
the Community Center.
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Weycker to adjoum. Motion
carried 5-0. Meeting was adjoumed at 11:10 p.m.
18
May 25, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND LOT SIZE VARIANCES IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE,
AT 2925 HOLT LANE,
BLOCK 6, LOT 5, MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY,
PID# 23-117-24 42 0074
P & Z CASE #99-12
WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael Stoltenow, has applied for front yard setback and
lot size variances as listed below in order to allow construction of a conforming detached
garage at 2925 Holt Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existing/Proposed Reauired Variance
Lot Area 5222sf 6,000sf 778sf
Front Yard (Holt) 12.9' 20' 7.1'
Front Yard (Fairfield) 14.4' 20' 5.6'
; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single or Two Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setback of 6 feet
for lots of record; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed detached garage would be built in a conforming location and
would meet all required setbacks; and,
WHEREAS, the hardcover after construction will be under 40 percent for this lot of
record property; and,
WHEREAS, the property does not currently have a garage on location; and,
May 25, 1999
Stoltenow - 2925 Holt Ln
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has unanimously
recommend approval of the variance recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance listed below as recommended by the Planning
Commission in order to construct a conforming detached garage.
Existinq/ProDosed Required Variance
Lot Area 5222sf 6,000sf 778sf
Front Yard (Holt) 12.9' 20' 7.1'
Front Yard (Fairfield) 14.4' 20' 5.6'
e
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to
Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in the resolution remain as lawful,
nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section
350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construct a conforming detached garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 5, BLOCK 6, MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, S~bdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Acting City Manager/City Clerk Fran Clark, Daren Jensen (2625
Wilshire BIvd), Kirk & Kelly Geadelmann (1709 Baywood Lane), Mike & Chris Stoltenow
(2925 Holt Ln), Michele Berglund (5138 Hanover Rd), Eisa Watson (4610 Tuxedo Blvd),
Ted Metz (1601 Bluebird Ln), Clyde Bonnema (5513 Bartlett BIvd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-12: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, LOT SIZE,
HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFROMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2925
HOLT LANE, BLOCK 6, LOT 5, MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY,
MICHAEL STOLTENOW, 61810.
PID # 23-117-24 42 0074.
Gordon presented the case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of
24' X 26' detached garage. The parcel is located on the corner of Holt Lane and
Fairfield Road. The following are the requested variances: 778 square feet on lot area,
7.1 feet for the front yard setback (Holt) and 5.6 feet for the front yard setback along
Fairfield. This lot currently does not have a garage on it, however, it has an apron. The
garage is proposed to be placed and utilized the existing apron. Hardcover after
improvements are less than 40%.
The existing house nonconforming setbacks do present a difficult situation for the
owner and they have existed for a number of years. The proposal is consistent with the
City's policy to allow each property a two-stall garage. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request.
Voss asked if Staff discussed with the applicant the possibility of downsizing the
garage. Gordon indicated that they did not.
Mueller verified the way the garage faced with the door towards the street.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Brown to recommend Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried: 9-0.
Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on
May 25, 1999.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Michael Stoltenow - 2925 Holt Lane
CASE NUMBER: 99-12
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5k
LOCATION: 2925 Holt Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to build a 24' x 26' detached garage on
his property. The parcel is located at the comer of Holt Lane and Fairfield Road. Associated variance
requests are as follows:
Existing~Proposed Required Variance
Lot Area 5222 sf 6,000 sf 778 sf
Front yard (Holt) 12.9' 20' 7.1'
Front yard (Fairfield) 14.4' 20' 5.6'
The lot is a lot of record and is undersized for the single family district requirements. The existing
front yard setbacks are also nonconforming at 12.9 and 14.4 feet. As proposed the detached garage
would be built in a conforming location. There is not currently a garage on the property. There is a
graveled area where parking needs are served. The new garage would be built in this location and
utilize the existing apron. Hardcover after the improvements would be below 40 percent.
DISCUSSION: Staff has no comments on the proposal. The existing nonconformities do present
a practical difficulty to the owner and have existed this way for a number of years. The proposal is
also consistent with the City's policy to allow each property a two-stall garage.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance request.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
PAID
APR 9 1999
CI~,~ I~c ~(~ol~l~e e: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
-q'~ City Planner
City Engineer
/--- ./~ Public Works
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
4.q-qq
Other
DNR
Address "/-~lZ_~'
Lot ~
Block
Subdivision ~,m~ ~
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA ~-~ R-3 B-1 B-2
Name ~l~'~ G
Address ~~ ~O~
Phone (H) ~ G~ (W) ~ ~ (M)
Case No. qq -- I('~
B-3
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
OWNER)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes,~[rno. If yes, list date(s) of application,
action
taken,
resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
\'~fl (Rev. 12-30-98)
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2
Do the existing structures comply with all,area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoningJ
district in which it is located? Yes (), No~),. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
..
SETBACKS:
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
.-Lakisido:
:
Street Fronta!
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
NSEW
NSEW
NSEW
e:
-LC) ft. _ &,q__ ft. '] ~iJ _ t.
~-O ft. ~t. ~4 ft. ,-~-.{~ ft.
/~ __ ft. ~,~ ft. ,'~-- ft.
__~ ~ft. ~ ft. ~ ft.
~' ' ft. ~ ft. ~ ft.
ft. ft. ft.
~ sq ft ~ sq ft ~q~ _sq ft
jS~,~ sqft I~ sqft ~.~ sqft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes)~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
't'-Ltoo small ( ) drainage ~. existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
(Rev. 12-30-98) ?
Variance Application, P. 3
o
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~l~t,. If yes, explain'
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No~0'. If
yes,
explsin;
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes~, No ~,). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature '~"'~'~C."~' ~-t~...,~
Date
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. 12-30-98)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. II 5¢~(o,(~ I'
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
x =
X =
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
DETACHED BLDGS ~ -7.~(~ X '7_.~ = (4~7_.~
(GARAGE/SHED) , X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .......... ' .......
DRIVEWAY, PARKINGD~ltj~' ~ ~ - I'L_ X ~ "CO = '~(o5
AREAS, SIDEWALKS, 5~[~'- g~' X <~ = ~3
ETC. X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE vO~-ra (x_~r b~-c~
UNDER / OVER (~dicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY V~tY..~- $-TOL.'T~7-X~ DATE
CERTIFICATE Of SURVEY
FOR MIKE STOLTENOW
OF LOT 5, BLOCK 6, MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
t EXISTINg HOUSE
'~~. ~ ff~991.l)
(9'91.1 ~991.0)
83°18' 33" E Ip, ,~
i- ~ ~ 97.87
~" .... 102.60
40
~--(990.8)
Z
-_J
,,.~(991.5)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 5, Block 6, Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly
o: denotes iron marker
(954.2): denotes existing spot elevction, moon sec level dotum
r~3~1: denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sen level dotum
Bearings shown ore bosed upon an as~urned datum.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the ~bove described property,
end the location of an existing house and shed thereon. It does not purport
to show any other improvements or encroochrnents.
G
HEL;EIVEI ~
AP~ - ~ 1999
COFYIN & GRONB~RG, INC. ~ ~ ~ ,~ o ~ feast.ed Civ, E~ins,r ~ L~ ~.y~ ~
~ lows of t~ StMe of M~esoto. DATE
~ T~ A~ ~ ~ m ~ 10/6/98
~~~ ~o..o,
612~141
96-~89
~k S. ~rg Uinnesot~ Lice~e N~er 12755
_1
~bt~
Ill:
?¥? .o,#- g~.
RECEIVED
APR - 9 1999
.~, CONT[
~' 7~~,.,. NC
SURVEY ON FILE? YES /~'~
I.OT OF RECORD? ~/ NO
YARD
IlOUSE .........
FRONT
SiDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
DIRECTION
R1 10,000/60 01 7,500/0
RI~ 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
ttR2 6,000/40.d S~ iOoOOO/6O
R2 14,000/00
R3 SEE ORD. 11 30,000/100
REQUIRED [ EXISTING/PROPOSED
1'O1' OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:,
VARIANCE
GAI~,GE, SIIED ..... DETACilED BUII.I)INGS
r.NT ~t~,4- N
FRONT N S E W
REAR N
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
This Zoning Informalion Shcel only summarizcs a ~rlion of file requircmcnls outlined in fl~e Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For fut~er info.alton, contact &e Cily of Mound
Planning ~partment at 472-06~.
"¸7
May 25, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND STREET FRONTAGE
VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING DETACHED
GARAGE,
AT 4420 RADNOR ROAD,
BLOCK 15, LOTS 3-4-5 AND THAT PART OF 6 LYING E OF W 20 FT THOF SUBJECT TO
ROAD, AVALON,
PID# 19-117-23 34 0093
P & Z CASE #99-13
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jerry Barelman, has applied for front yard setback and street
frontage variances as listed below in order to allow construction of a conforming detached
garage at 4420 Radnor Road; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existing/Proposed Rec~uired Variance
Street Frontage
Front Yard (IVD)
Front Yard (Radnor)
58.92' 60' 1.08'
28.5' 30' 1.5'
17.8' 20' 2.2'
; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square
feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setback of 20 feet for
lots of record on corner lots; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed detached garage would be built in a conforming location and
would meet all required setbacks; and,
WHEREAS, the hardcover is not an issue for this lot of record property; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed two car detached garage would replace an existing single car
garage with an overhang; and,
May 25, 1999
Barelrnan - 4420 Radnor Rd
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has unanimously
recommend approval of the variance recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance listed below as recommended by the Planning
Commission in order to construct a conforming detached garage.
Existin.q/Proposed ReQuired Variance
Street Frontage
Front Yard (IVD)
Front Yard (Radnor)
58.92' 60' 1.08'
28.5' 30' 1.5'
17.8' 20' 2.2'
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to
Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in the resolution remain as lawful,
nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section
350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construct a conforming detached garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 3-4-5 AND THAT PART OF LOT 6 LYING E OF W 20 FT THOF SUBJECT TO RD, BLOCK 15,
AVALON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
o
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Acting City Manager/City Clerk Fran Clark, Daren Jensen (2625
Wilshire BIvd), Kirk & Kelly Geadelmann (1709 Baywood Lane), Mike & Chris Stoltenow
(2925 Holt Ln), Michele Berglund (5138 Hanover Rd), Eisa Watson (4610 Tuxedo BIvd),
Ted Metz (1601 Bluebird Ln), Clyde Bonnema (5513 Bartlett BIvd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-13: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND STREET FRONTAGE; TO
CONSTRUCT A CONFROMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4420 RADNOR ROAD;
BLOCK 15, LOTS 3-4-5 AND PART OF 6, AVALON, JERRY BARELMAN, 37850,
PID # 19-117-23 34 0093
Gordon presented this case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of
24' X 24' detached garage. The parcel is located on the corner of Island View Drive
and Radnor Road. Associated variances are: 1.08 foot of street frontage; 1.5 foot
variance front yard setback on Island View Drive and a 2.2 foot front yard setback on
Radnor Road.
This lot of record is slightly short of the required lot width. Both existing front yard
setbacks are also nonconforming. There is an existing one stall detached garage with
an overhang. As proposed, the two stall detached garage would replace the existing
garage. The parcel has over 11,000 square feet in area, so hardcover is not an issue.
The existing house nonconforming setbacks do present a difficult situation for the
owner and they have existed for a number of years. The proposal is consistent with the
City's policy to allow each property a two-stall garage. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Glister to recommend Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried: 9-0.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on
May 25, 1999.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
l ln
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Jerry Barelman - 4420 Radnor Road
CASE NUMBER: 99-13
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-51
LOCATION: 4420 Radnor Road
EXISTING ZONING: One Family Residential (R-l)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to build a 24' x 24' detached garage on
his property. The parcel is located at the comer of Island View Drive and Radnor Road. Associated
variance requestS are as follows:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Street Frontage 58.92' 60' 1.08'
Front Yard (IVD) 28.5' 30' 1.5'
From Yard (Radnor) 17.8' 20' 2.2'
The lot is a lot of record that is slightly short of the required lot width. Both existing front yard
setbacks are also nonconforming. There is an existing one stall detached garage with an overhang.
As proposed the two stall detached garage would replace the existing garage. A 20 feet setback is
required from Radnor and would be maimained as proposed. The parcel has over 11,000 sf of area
so hardcover is not an issue.
DISCUSSION: Staff has no comments on the proposal. The existing nonconformities do present
a practical difficulty to the owner and have existed this way for a number of years. The proposal is
also consistent with the City's policy to allow each property a two-stall garage.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance request.
123 North Third S~xeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Ph. one: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
,)~ OWNER
City Planner V
City Engineer
Public Works
i5
Subdivision ~J~LI 0 ~'~
I
ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA
R-2 R-3 B-1
Name
Address
Phone (H)
Other
PAID
CITY OF MOUND
Application Fee: $100.00
DNR
Plat #
B-2 B-3
(M)
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
OWNER)
(W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.)'
Variance Application, P. 2
Cas.,o. qq--I
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.).'
SETBACKS:
~ Front Yard: ( N S(~)A/) ~ ft.
~'for,~' ~ Yard: (~_~E W) ~-~O ft.
~ Side Yard: (,~___~S EW~) /'/_~ ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S EkW__~ /.'~ ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ~ ft.
: (NSEW) ft.
~'~ Street Frontage: /~C,b ft.
Lot Size: sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft
REQUIRED
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
I-/. o~ ft. ~ ,~ ft.
/~_,~ ft. ~' ft.
~(_~ ft. ~- ft.
~ ft. ~ ft.
ft. ft.
~,q2 ft. /, Oo¢ ft.
sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage (X) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
describe:
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~X~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No (X). If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes (~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signatur,~
Applicant's Signature
Date
\"-~45 (Rev. 12-30-98)
Rpr 20 SS lO:04a Western Construction 612-$20-1172
APR. l?'1999 09:51 6122681270 BECKMAN ¢OULT[R #4408 P.002/002
p.2
CITY OF MOUND
NARDC0VER .CALCULATIONS`
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
· -PROPERTY ADD,ESS:
LOT AREA _
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for LOtS of Record') ....... I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings onlyl .. I
'Existing LOtS of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350;1225.Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A i~lan must be submitted
end approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHEDt
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS op~ decke 11/4' min.
opening botween boorda) wi~h a
.pervi~)ue ~urfece under ere
n~ oounted ae hard.var
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SO FT
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ............ . .....
x =
x =
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY. ETC ..................
X = /'-~/7',.,.
X = ;<~/!:~.
X = r,~. /~- __
TQTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHEE .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~ ~(indicate differenc~ ...............................
_BUILDING
srl~
DESCRIPTION
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
ARCHITECT
&/OR
ENGINEER
PERMIT APPLICATION
Business Name/Tennant
The applicant is: ~owner _~ntractor __tenant
Subdi~sion ~ ~ ~ ~ PID~
Address
Phone(H) ~7~--~37% (W) ~9-/17~ (M)
Company Name
Phone (H) ~O
Address
Phons (H)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 47:2-0600 Fax: 472-0620
(W) (M)
DESCRIBE WORK:
WORK: ]"~ (~-'~ VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE P~.RMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING. HEATING. VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZ~:~ IS NOT COMMENCED W1THIN I BO DAYS, DR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK 1S SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
F~R A PE~IO0 OF I80 DAYS AT ANY T1ME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
T1ME LIMITS ON BUrL:lNG COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING P~.RMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW C0NSTRUCT1 ON. REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO ,he 'J, Tr..-qGRS QF ANY ~bILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL ~E COMPLETED W1THIN ONE Ill YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE r-OR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE C~TY
COUNC;L MAY EXTEND THE T1ME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRI'~'EN REQUEST, OF THE PERMITTEE. ESTASUSHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
C~RCUMSTANCES BEYONO THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK ~-OR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE E~(TENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (3DJ BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE ENO OF THE ONE*YEAR PERIOD.
I HERESY C~j~TIF~ THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OP LAWS AND ORDINANCES .~OVERNINO
THIS ,TYPE 3F WORK W~LL SE COMPLJED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HER~N OR NOT. THE GRANT1NG OF A PE.RMIT DOES NOT aRESUME TQ GIVE AUTHORITY TO V1OLATE DR :ANCEL THE
PROV1SIOr~S OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL L~W REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONb'TRUCTI~.
PRINT APPLICANT°$ NAME APPLICA ATE
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////~u-uu;~~~ ...... ,,,,,~i~////////////////////////////
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDIZIONS &
CONSTRucTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV:
MAX OCCUPANT LOAD
SIZE {SO PT] t STORIES RRE SPRINKLERS REQUIREOt
: ~S CHEC~ BY: :' : ~OV~ BYtDAT~
REC~ED ~.Y / DATE; ] .
ZONING
CITY ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS
' ASSESSING
COPIED APmROVED
Construction Details
* 4" floating monolithic cement slab w/8" thick, 6" wide perimeter
· minimum 4" sand fill
· 4000~/6 bag mix/4% air-entrained
· 6x6x l O, wiremeah reinforced . .
· double Lr2" rerod around slab perimeter
· 1./2" x 9" anchor bolts, embedded 7", 6'0 oc and 1'0 from corner/sill plate joint
· 2' apron
~'rame
· 2x4 treated bottom plaxe
· 2x4 wall ~ 16" oc, triple smd corners
· ovefla .pped double 2x4 top plales w/double lapped comers
· double 2x12 overhead door header
· double 2x6 se.wice door/window headers
· 7/16" OSB wall aheathing
Siding
· .44 mil Vinyl siding
Roof
· 4/12 engineered factory trusses 24' oc
· 7/16" OSB sheathing w/H-clips
· 235# azphalt shirt,es
· 15# felt underlayment
Openings
· 2'8x6'8 steel service deor
· 16x7 steel overhead door
· aDminum slider window RO 46" x 20-3/4"
RECEIVED
APR 16 1999
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
/
/
/
,-slNCHM ARK'
'75~ CF ~A, NHOLE 98;.03
5
,x9;?~,¢,
69' ~'
RECEIVED
972
MOUND PLANN!NG & INSP.
CITY OF MOUND ~ ZONING INFORMATION SttEET
SURVEY ON FILE(?ES) NO
LOT OF RECORD?6YES)I NO
YARD ] DIRECTION
IIOUSE .........
FRO.T ( C C*C W
SIDE tN)SE W
SIDE N S E W
N $ E(W)
REAR
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N $ E W
SIDE N $ E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N $ E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
ZON1NG DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
t R1 10,000/60 } Bi 7,500/0
RIA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIRED [ EXISTING/PROPOSED
50'
10' OR 30'
4' OR6'
4' OR 6'
4'
50'
10' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
This Zoning Information Sheel only sumlnarizes a portion of U~e tequiremenm outlined in file Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For futSer info~ation, contact the City of Mound
!63.4
43
Planning Depart~nent at 472-0600.
J ' 2?
Z ZI I, .~.,
:2-
,, :., .~..~oso -., '-
I ~ I
~
ce)
0 I
r~
May 25, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE
AT 5513 BARTLETT BLVD,
E 40 FT OF LOT 13 & W 40 FT OF LOT 14,
AND ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT PLACE,
PID 24-117-24 23 0018,
P & Z CASE #99-16
WHEREAS, the applicants, Clyde and Denise Bonnema, have applied for a lakeside
setback variance to construct a conforming detached garage at 5513 Bartlett Boulevard; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existing/Proposed Recluired Variance
Lakeside 36' 50' 14'
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40
feet of lot frontage; and,
WHEREAS, the property exceeds the lot area and width requirements of the R-lA Zoning
District; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed detach garage would be in a conforming location; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution 96-27 is a variance to recognize a rear yard lakeshore setback in
order to construct an attached garage and Resolution 98-28 is a variance to recognize a rear yard
lakeshore setback in order to construct a season porch; and,
May 25, 1999
Bonnema - 5513 Bartlett Blvd
Page 2
WHEREAS, it has be recognized that Resolution #96-27 is in error and is no
longer applicable as follows:
The actual setback to the house from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) was 45 feet not 49
feet resulting in a variance of 5 feet +.
Resolution #96-27 incorrectly states the lot borders a publicly owned commons. The area
was actually a privately owned boulevard that has since been attached to the applicants
(and other adjacent owners) legal property descriptions and subsequently is no longer
subject to the rear yard setback requirement.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommend approval of the variance recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a lakeside setback variance listed below as recommended by
the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming detached garage.
Existing/Proposed Reauired Variance
Lakeside
36' 50' 14'
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the
owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of conforming detached garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on the
Certificate of Title No. 849365:
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 13 AND14, "THE BARTLETT PLACE" UPPER LAKE MINNETONKAAND THE
ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD DEDICATED IN SAID PLAT DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF BARTLETT BOULEVARD AT A POINT WHICH INTERSECTS
WITH A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 40 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 13,
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE SHORE OF LAKE
MINNETONKA, THENCE EAST ALONG THE SHORELINE OF SAID LAKE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH
THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT 22, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER
May 25, 1999
Bonnema - 5513 Bartlett Blvd
Page 3
170, THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EXTENDED LOT LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH BARTLETT
BOULEVARD, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BARTLETT BOULEVARD TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles
in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36,
Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be
used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Acting City Manager/City Clerk Fran Clark, Daren Jensen (2625
Wilshire Bird), Kirk & Kelly Geadelmann (1709 Baywood Lane), Mike & Chris Stoltenow
(2925 Holt Ln), Michele Berglund (5138 Hanover Rd), Eisa Watson (4610 Tuxedo Bird),
Ted Metz (1601 Bluebird Ln), Clyde Bonnema (5513 Bartlett Blvd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-16: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A
CONFROMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 5513 BARTLETT BOULEVARD; PART OF
LOTS 13 AND,14 AND ADJOINING ABANDONDED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT
PLACE, CLYDE BONNEMA, 61510,
PID # 24-117-24 23 0018.
Gordon presented the case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of
20' X 20' detached garage. The following are the requested variances: 14 foot
Lakeside variance. The lot is in a R-lA zoning district and exceeds the lot area and
width requirements. Hardcover as proposed would be under the 40% maximum
allowable requirement.
The existing lakeside nonconformity is a porch that was approved last year. The
proposed garage will need to meet the four-foot minimum side yard setback. The
adjacent property has a cabin located on the property line. At the time of the building
permit, the Building Official will address any fire code issues that may be present.
There is enough area to move the garage if a greater separation is needed between
buildings for fire protection. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the variance request.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma to recommend Staff's
recommendation.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Weiland indicated that you cannot punish the cabin owner.
Mueller felt there may be a better location on the property to locate the garage. He
feels it is too close to the street and doesn't want to set a precedence. He asked the
applicant to locate the garage further back from the street. He also reiterated that fire
codes must be followed.
Voss also feels there is a line of sight issue with the proposed location of the garage
from Bartlett Boulevard. He also would like to see it located further back on the
property.
The applicant indicated that the turn around on the property is located to the west of the
house and that's why the proposed garage is on the east side.
Burma stated that while he would also probably place the garage at a different location,
it is conforming and therefore the owner could locate it there.
The applicant has considered other locations and feels what he has done to his
property has enhanced the neighborhood. He feels that this is the only feasible location
for the garage that is fiat enough.
Clapsaddle indicated that he couldn't see the problem. Mueller indicated that on the
survey, there was no separation between garage and cabin shown.
Sutherland addressed Mueller that there were no fire codes that addressed adjacent
properties.
Clapsaddle called the vote. Motion carried 9-0.
Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on
May 25, 1999.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance request
OWNER: Clyde Bonnema- 5513 Bartlett Blvd.
CASE NUMBER: 99-16
ItKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5o
LOCATION: 5513 Bartlett Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting variance from the lakeside setback to built a
conforming 20 feet by 20 feet detached garage. The associated variance request is as follows:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Lakeside 36' 50' 14'
The lot is in a R-lA zoning district and exceeds the lot area and width requirements at 16,160 sf
and 85.13 feet respectively. Hardcover as proposed would be approximately 4989 sf, under the
40 percent allowable by 1475 sf. Except for the lakeside setback, the existing home, attached
garage and shed all meet zoning requirements.
The proposed detached garage would be built in a conforming location at least 8 feet from the
front property line and at least 4 feet from the side yard line.
DISCUSSION: The existing lakeside nonconformity is the porch that was approved last year.
The proposed garage will need to meet the 4 feet minimum side yard setback. The adjacent
property has a cabin that is located on the property line. At the time of building permit, the
Building Official will address any fire code issues that may be present. There is enough area to
move the garage if greater separation is needed between the buildings for fire protection.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance request.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date: ~/
City Council Date: ~
Distribution:
City Planner v/
City Engineer
Public Works
Other
SUBJECT Address
PROPERTY Lot //.~
LEGAL Block
DESC. Subdivision
ZONING DISTRICT R-1
PROPERTY Name ~/V~ ~,~
OWNER Address ~/~ )~a.~/~
Phone (H)
R-3 B-1
(W) ('('~ &3) '-]6/--.213~ (M)
AID
APR 2 0 1999 <:1 3
CITY OF MOUND ~--~C)~J
Application Fee: $100.00
DNRt,~
Plat # ~,?i ~/O
B-2 B-3
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
OWNER)
(W) (M)
Has an application ever bee..n m/ade for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ~es, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Variance Application, P. 2
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No.,J~f no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
NSEW
NSEW
NSEW
NSEW
NSEW
: NSEW
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ~-/'_~"' ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sq ft sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~,No (). If no, specify each
non-conforming
use:
o
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
( ) soil
~/existing situation
( ) other: specify
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Date ~(o]/~
?
Ma~ch 24, 1998
RESOLUTION #98-28
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING THREE SEASON PORCH
AT 5513 BARTLETI' BLVD,
E 40 FT OF LOT 13 & W 40 FT OF LOT 14,
AND ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLE'I-I' PLACE,
PID 24-117-24 23 0018,
P & Z CASE #98-10
WHEREAS, the applicants, Clyde and Denise Bonnema, have applied for a
lakeside setback variance to construct a three season porch addition to their home, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, and;
WHEREAS, the property exceeds the lot area and width requirements of the R-
lA Zoning District, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed porch does not meet the required setbacks for the
lakeside of 50 feet, the proposed setback is 36 feet and the variance requested is 14 feet,
and;
WHEREAS, the proposed porch lines up with adjacent homes on the lake
which is a consideration for the reasonable use of the property, and;
WHEREAS, Resolution 96-27 is a variance to recognize a rear yard lakeshore
setback in order to construct a conforming attached garage, and;
March 24, 1998
Bonnema - 5513 Bartlett Blvd
Pa~e 2
WHEREAS, it has be recognized that Resolution #96-27 is in error and is no
longer applicable as follows:
The actual setback to the house from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) was 45 feet not
49 feet resulting in a variance of 5 feet _.+.
Resolution #96-27 incorrectly states the lot borders a publicly owned commons. The
area was actually a privately owned boulevard that has since been attached to the
applicants (and other adjacent owners) legal property descriptions and subsequently
is no longer subject to the rear yard setback requirement.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a lakeside setback variance to construct a 12 by 18 foot
three season porch.
The City Council aUthorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain
as lawful~ nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of
Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a 12 by 18 foot three season porch.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on the
Certificate of Title No. 849365:
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 13 AND14, "THE BARTLETT PLACE" UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA AND THE
ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD DEDICATED IN SAID PLAT DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF BARTLE~r BOULEVARD AT A POINT WHICH INTERSECTS
WITH A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 40 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1 3,
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE SHORE OF LAKE
MINNETONKA, THENCE EAST ALONG THE SHORELINE OF SAID LAKE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH
THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT 22, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER
170, THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EXTENDED LOT LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION W1TH BARTLE'I-r
BOULEVARD, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BARTLETT BOULEVARD TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
March 24, ieee
Bonnerna - 5513 Bmtl~ Bird
Page 3
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded
by Councilmember Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Hanus, Polston and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember Ahrens and Jensen were absent and excused.
SS/BOB POLSTON
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION
AT 5513 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF LOTS 13 & 14
THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018
P&Z CASE ~96-27
WHEREAS, the owners, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, have applied for
a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming rear yard and
lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a conforming
20' x 30' garage addition, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA
Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City
Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot
front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record,
a 15 foot rear yard setback, and a 50 foot setback from the
ordinary high water elevation, and;
WHEREAS, the home is located 4 feet from the rear property
line resulting in an 11 foot variance. The subject lot boarders a
publicly owned commons area that has a width of approximately 45
feet. The home is approximata!y 49 feet from the ordinary high
water (Oh-W) contour resulting in a one foot variance, and;
WHEREAS, a side walk on the west side encroaches on the
neighboring property, however, due to topography, in order to
relocate the encroaching side walk, the steps would also need to be
moved which provides access to the dwelling, and;
WHEREAS, there is also a 12' x 8' shed on the property which
is located 3 feet from the side property line. The required side
setback is 4 feet. The applicant has agreed to relocate the shed,
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request
and unanimously recommended approval upon the condition that the
nonconforming shed be relocated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing
nonconforming rear yard setback of 4 feet and the
nonconforming !akeshore setback of 49 feet to allow
construction of a conforming garage addition subject to the
relocation of the existing nonconforming shed.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of
the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
2A.
The shed shall be relocated according to plan within one year
of this resolution passing date of 6-25-96.
Re~olution g96-64
June 25, 1996
e
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the prope~y to
afford the owners reasonabla use of their land:
Construction of a 20' x 30' garage addition.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
The West 40.00 feet of Lot 4, and the East
40.00 feet of Lot 13. "The Bartlett Place"
Upper Lake Minnetcnka.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property ~owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus
and seconded by Counci!member Jenesn.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
Mayor
Attest: Acting City Clerk
Resolution adopted: June 25, 1996
' , / i!~ ': '"' ;"
..~ .., , . ,,: ,:..~ ,,.-;
':" I I ' · ,. :., :..,. ,';,~'"';
,..: '"..... ' j .
i ', \ ,~1 -~l .
(~?~ ~,le
~ 'L[~isl'in$ Noose~~--", I'~ '~' '"'.... ~_~,, {~ ......... "'?'- "]":
¢ool,vo-rd' : ':'"'
~ , .--' ...... The portion of Lots 13 aad 14, "The Bartlett Place" Upper L~kc Mmnetonl
,,~IC~A.~,.~ boulevard dcdi~uted a, follows: Co~ ....... Utg o. thc sou~ line of Battler,
mte~sects with a line drawn pa.ndlel with and 40' west of the east line of~a
said parallel ~le and its ex 'ten.sion lo the shore of l.ak,~ Mmnetonka,
lake to r~ intersection with ~he southerly extetlsion of the west line of Lot
rua'nber 170, thence north along said ex'~w, nded lot line to its intersection wi:
soulhwesie~ty along the south lille o£ B',trtleM Boulevard to
~innetonkc~
I~q/IS|ON DA~
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
5341
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
CITY OF MOUND
Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The applicant is: ~wner ~contractor ~tenant
Subdivision /~ ~
Contact Person -~ ~ F//~ )¢// '
Phone IH) (WI (M)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (HI
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
(W) (M)
DESCRIBE WORK
Block Plat # (f~ I ~' ! C~
LUATION
3RK:
VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING, HEATING, VENT[LATING OR AIR CGNOITION[NG.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED I$ NOT COMMENCED W~THIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A ;SRIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
"I'~M E LIMITS ON BUILDING ¢OMPLE'i'ION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A I]UILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO IHE EXTErtlOR$ OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED W~THIN ONE I1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROP[RTY SHALL SE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A V~O~kTION OF "'HIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON W~ITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMI'~EE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMIT'TEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE F..XTENSlON SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30l BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PEPJOD.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPt.]CATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS TYPE OF WORK WlU. BE COMPLIED W~TH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PEP, MIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL TIlE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION DR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPIJ~ANT~ SIGNATURE DATE
~~~~~~~~l/HI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lIN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION 'TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP 1DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED AP=ROVED
UNITS
CHECKED BY:
ZONING
FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CiTY ENGINEER
YES I NO PUBLIC WORKS
APPROVED BY / DATE: ASSESSING
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
OWNER'S NAME: . ~[V'~
LOT AREA SO. Fr. X 30% = {for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA /~ /(~F~ SQ. Fr. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I &'~/~ ~/ I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
~/./ x ~,1 = / ~ ~7
/~. x /~ =
-~ x .~ =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
~' x /~ =
~0 x ~0 =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ........... · ......
DRIVEWAY, PARKING / ~ X /---/'~ = ~7/~0
AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ~o 2-o ':-/~o
~ ~,~- X ~ = /~
ETC. , '/~ X ~ = ~?~
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
TOTAL DECK .......................... ~
/'7 g~
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
SURVlW ON HLgt~ ¥g3~) NO
r OF RECORD? {YES)/ NO
YARD~ J DIRECTION
IIOUSE .........
FRONT (N> E
W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E{W)
SIDE N S E W
REAR b~rS~, E W
LAKE N~)E W
TOP OF BLUFF
REQUIRED
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
,.~1~10,000/60 B1 7,500/0
6,000/4U~y B2 20~000/80
R2 6,0OO/40 B3 10,0OO/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
EXISTING~ROPOSED
GARA(;E, SIIED ..... OR OTHER DETACItED
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
50'
I0' OR 30'
NFORMINO7 YES / NO / ? , I
BY:
Ti]is Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning (
Planning Department at 472-0600.
IDATED:
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
0'7
LO* bT.: O
VARIANCE
~,fay 25, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES
TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING LAKESIDE DECK
AT 2625 WlLSHIRE BLVD,
PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C,
PID 24-117-24 13 0013,
P & Z CASE #99-18
WHEREAS, the applicants, Daren and Jill Jensen, have applied for a front yard and side
yard setback variances for the existing house and garage to construct a conforming lakeside deck
at 2625 Wilshire,Boulevard; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard (house)
Front Yard (garage)
Side Yard (garage)
27.9' 3O' 2.1'
8' 20' 11'
1.3' 4' 2.7'
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning
District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and other
required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the property exceeds the lot area and width requirements of the R-1 Zoning
District; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed lakeside deck would be in a conforming location; and,
WHEREAS, the existing garage is angled in such a way to allow two cars to park in front
of it; and,
May 25, 1999
Jensen - 2625 Wi/shire Blvd
Page 2
WHEREAS, the existing non conformities present a practical difficulty to the owner and
have existed for a number of years; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommend approval of the variance recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a front yard and side yard setback variances listed below as
recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming lakeside
deck.
Existing/Proposed ReQuired Variance
Front Yard (house)
Front Yard (garage)
Side Yard (garage)
27.9' 30' 2.1'
8' 20' 11'
1.3' 4' 2.7'
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the
owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of conforming lakeside deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on the
Certificate of Survey, Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc., File No. 9783 ·
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT
C, DISTANT 8 2/10 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE SOUTH 47 DEGREES 49 MINUTES EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE 125 FEET,
THENCE SOUTH 9 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST TO THE SHORE OF LAKE
MINNETONKA, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SHORE TO A POINT BEARING SOUTH 5 DEGREES
49 MINUTES EAST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE NORTH 5 DEGREES 49 MINUTES
WEST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
May 25, 1999
Jensen - 2625 Wi/shire B/vd
Page 3
o
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Acting City Manager/City Clerk Fran Clark, Daren Jensen (2625
Wilshire Blvd), Kirk & Kelly Geadelmann (1709 Baywood Lane), Mike & Chris Stoltenow
(2925 Holt Ln), Michele Berglund (5138 Hanover Rd), Eisa Watson (4610 Tuxedo Blvd),
Ted Metz (1601 Bluebird Ln), Clyde Bonnema (5513 Bartlett Blvd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-18: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A
LAKESIDE DECK AT 2625 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD; BLOCK 1, PART OF LOT 1,
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, DAREN AND JILL JENSEN, 62030
PID # 24-117-24 13 0013
Gordon presented this case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of
a conforming lakeside deck. Associated variances are: 2.1 foot of setback from the
house; 11 foot front yard setback from the garage; and a 2.7 foot side yard setback
from the garage.
The proposed deck would be built in a conforming location approximately 10 feet from
the side yard line and 80 feet from the lake. There is a brick patio in this location
currently. The closest point of the garage to the property lot line is 8 feet, however, the
garage is angled in such a way to allow two cars to park in front of it.
The existing nonconformities present a practical difficulty to the owner and have existed
for a number of years. The deck will not enlarge any of the existing nonconformities.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the
variance request.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried: 9-0.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on
May 25, 1999.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
J'n-i
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance request
OWNER: Daren & Jill Jensen - 2625 Wilshire Blvd.
CASE NUMBER: 99-18
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5q
LOCATION: 2625 Wilshire Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting variances build a conforming lakeside deck. The
associated variances are as follows:
Front Yard (house)
Front Yard (garage)
Side Yard (garage)
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
27.9' 30' 2.1'
8' 20' 11'
1.3' 4' 2.7'
The proposed deck would be built in a conforming location approximately 10 feet from the
sideyard line and 80 feet from the lake. There is a brick patio in this location currently. Although
the closest point of the garage is 8 feet from the property line, it is angled in a way that allow two
cars to park in front of it.
DISCUSSION: Staff has not uncovered any real issues with the request. The existing
nonconformities do present a practical difficulty to the owner and have existed this way for a
number of years. The deck will not enlarge any of the existing nonconforming conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance request.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
CffYOFMOUNn
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
~ -~'~-q~ City Planner /-)r-o~'~-Cj ~
~- ~j-~ City Engineer Other
~- a,~:::}(~ Public Works
Case No.
DNR
Address
Lot ~?/'/
Block
B-1
B-2 B-3
Name'~ t~.
J;ll
Addr.ss4/~%' ~Ol'lqJ~")li¥., ~'1~ i 1~,~2,rl~, ~1~'
Phone (H}~-/.~'-- )L/O~ ~ ~ ~.~/2-'~ZD-~2_~Li/(M}
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
OWNER)
(W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes,J~l~. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P, 2
c s. o, qq- 8
3. Do the existing structures comply with all ar/e,a, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~ If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (~/~S E W
Side Yard: (N~E~
Side Yard: ( N
Rear Yard: ( N S E W
Lakeside: ( N(~E W
: (NSEW
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
~O, 0 ft. .~0, o ft. ft.
~/, 0 ft. /S-,~ ft. ft.
%/, ~) ft. /"), O ft. ft.
.... ft. ft. ft.
~-'-O, 0 ft. ~, ,-~ ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
/~ ~ 0 ft. /4 ~' 0 ft. ft.
/~R) S'/~ sq ft ~] ~'/(~ sq ft sq ft
.,~,,~,c~ sqft _~,(~/ sqft sqft
Does the present~se of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? YeseS, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No.j~ If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No)x~'. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes~(~, No (). If no, list some other properties which
are
similarly
affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Applicant s Signature
(Rev. 12-30-98)
MOSt Northerly
corner of Lot
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
;IFF M~'Z(;ER
14.7 \,
2 Story ~ . ~.~
Brick
w 5153
~-~eoson Porch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Beginning et o point in the northeasterly
line of Lot I. ~lock 1, SHIRLEY HILLS
UNIT C, distant 8 2/10 feet s~th~t~y
from the mo~t n~therly corner ther4of,
Olong ~old eoutheoiterly [l~e 125 feet,
thence South 9 ~rees 57 m~ute~ 4~..
seconds We~t to the ~hore of Loke
Mlnnetonka, lhence westerly ~g ~oid
~ore to · p~t beor~ South ~ Weel
4e minutes Eolt from the point of
beg~ln~ thence N~h ~ degrees 49
minutes West to the point of beginning.
D3MARS-GABRI~L
L&ND SIII~V~YOJ~, [NC.
3030 Hort)or Lone Ne.
I~hj~mouth, MN 55441
one: (612) 559-09M
~ECEIVED
APR - 8 1999
~, ~', ,,~ ~'~ & INSP.
ML)UNU ~ .......
'-[h-~-oouno~e~ Or-the ot~ove described lend Gad of the IocoGon of ~lt bu#d/nge. 9783
if Ooy, thereoo, ond oil visible encroachment, If any, from o~ on said Io~d.
M~n. Reg. No, 22414
eoo~-Poge
ze~/74
Scots
/~Hd £. Crook
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
SITE Subject Address
Business Name/Tannant
The a~plicant is:
LEGAL Lot
DESCRIP~ON Subdivision~ i~ (~y
Address
CONT~CTOR Company Name
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone IH)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
5341
CITY OF MOUND
Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
__tenant
!
Block ! Plat #
PID#
(w) (.~z.} /.~ <~-
(M)
Ucense #
(m)
(w} (M)
DESCRIBE WORK:
VALUATION
OF
WORK:
~,=';)// ~;OO, (..rD VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TIME LIMITS ON B U1LDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORM ED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMDD ELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO ~HE E~T=RIORS OF ANY iSUILQING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE I1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON VVRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMIT-TEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OI= THE PERMIT'TEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY {30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE (..,/ DATE
~~~~~~~~ill//~~~/~~~~
(?~FICt~E~U..._S~E,,_.ON,,.LY,).....SP_E,C~IA~L_ C.O. NIj)ITI_.O.NS_& ~O.MMENT~i:..~.~ ~ W~..,V"IO..Aq,('.o_., ,~,-.J::~ V~"~,
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED j APPROVED
BLDG SIZE (SQ Fl')
A E ,/ED Y / DATE; ':
ZONING
STORIES fiRE SPRINKLERS REOUIREO? CI'I'Y ENGINEER
U~S YES / NO PUBLIC WORKS
I~d~$ CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY/DATE: i : ASSESSING
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S
LOT AREA /-~/~/~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I ¥~'0 I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE X --
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTALDECK ..........................
X
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~(~q, ~ I
(~OVER (indicate difference) ...................... ~. I ~((~, EL) I
The ~ome Depot #2805, 400 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON,
Thu Apr 01 16:51:59 1999
File saved as: c:~c~esign~decks~4951402b.DEK
Deck Layout
MN 55420, (61
RECEIVED
APR - 8 1999
, _ ....... E: ,. ~.
The Home Depot #2805, e00 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON,
Thu Apr 01 16:51:59 "'~99
File saved as: c:\cqdesign\decks~4951402b.DEK
Post Layout for Deck 1
55420,
(61
17'
17'
1!
BdsePoirH
Deck
RECEIVEE
APR - 8 IS59
The Home Dep,~t //2805, 400 W 7ST!-t UT, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420, (612) 881-7020
Thu Apr 01 16:52:12 1999
File saved as: c:\cqdesign\decks\4951402b. DEK
Construction Specifications
Deck 1:
Constructio~ Method = Beam to Side ol Post
Footing Type = In-Ground with Pie,
Live Load = 60
Dead Load = 10
Decking Sp;~cing = 0.125 in
Joist Spacing -- 16 in
Beam Spacing = 93 in
Post Spacing = 86 in
Decking = 5/4X6 Untreated Wes[eln Cedars Standard
Beams = 2X10 ,40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2
Joists = 2X8 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2
Posts = 4X4.40 Tr, eated Soutl:,,rn Pine No, 2
Deck Height = 21.9688 in
Diagonal Bracing = No
Deck Skirt = No
J.oist Overhung -- 12 in
Beam Overhang = 12 in
Decking Dellection Factor = 36u
Joist Deflection Factor = 360
Beam Deflection Factor = 360
Pref Deckinq Size =
Pref Joist Size = none
Pref Beam Size = none
Pref Post Size = none
Stair 1:
Step Width = 131 in
Step Height = 21.9375 in
Step Rise ;- 7.3125 in
Step Run = 10.375 'in
Stringers = 2X10 .40 Treated 5,~,~tl~ern Pine No. 2
Risers = 1X6 .40 Treated Soutt~e~n Pine No. 2
Treads = 5/4X6 .40 Sealed Soul. l~erl~ Pine No. 1
Stair 3:
Step Width = 129 in
Step Height = 21.9375 in
Step Rise = 7.3125 in
Step Run = 10,375 in
Stringers = 2X10 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2
Risers = 1X6 ,40 Treated Soutl,ern Pine No. 2
Treads = 5 4X6 .40 Sealed Southe~ Pine No. 1
ECEIVED
APR 8
i OUI D & Ih!S,,
The Home Depot ~2805, 400 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420,
Thu Apr 0! 16:51:59 1599
File saved as: c:\cqdesi9n\decks~4951402b.DEK
Deck Dimensions for D~ck 1
(61
-23 ' 6"-
10' 10" - I 12' 8"
Deck I
27'
Sp,~ 'ing= 16 in. o.c.
Stair 1: kise = 7 in., Run -
Stair 3: bise = 7 in., Run =
The Home Depot #2805, 400 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON,
Thu Apr 01 16:51:59 '999
File saved as: c:~cqdes£gn~decks~4951402b-DEK
Post Layout for Deck 2
MN 55420, (61
8 ' 10" -
Deck 2' ,
10' ]0"
8 ±0"
BasePoint'
The Home Deput //2805, 400 W 79TH ,':;T, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420, (612) 881-7020
Thu Apr 01 16:52:18 1999
File saved as: c:lcqdesignldecks14951402b. DEK
Construction Specifications
Deck 2:
Constructio~ Method = Beam tu Side, ul Post
Footing Type = In-Ground with Pie,
Live Load = 60
Dead Load : 10
Decking Spacing = 0.125 in
Joist Spacing -- 16 in
Beam Spacing = 80 in
Post SpacinLI = 128in
Decking = 5/4X6 Untreated We::Lu~n Cedars Standard
Beams = 2X12 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2
Joists = 2X8 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2
Posts = 4X4 .40 Treated Soutl.,:rn Pine No. 2
Deck Height = 21.9688 in
Diagonal Bracing = No
Deck Skirt = No
Joist Overh~,ng = 12in
Beam Overhang = 12 in
Decking De~iection Factor =
Joist Deflection Factor = 360
Bearn Deflection Factor = 360
Pref Deckinq Size =
Pref Joist S~ze = none
Pref Beam Size = none
Pref Post Size = none
Stair 5:
Step Width = 93 in
Step Height = 21.9375 in
Step Rise :- 7.3125 in
Step Run = 10.375 in
Stringers = 2X10 .40 Treated S,~tl~ern Pine No. 2
Risers = 1X6.40 Treated Soutl,~n Pine No. 2
Treads = 5,"4X6 .40 Sealed Sou~en~ Pine No. 1
APR -
The Home Depot #2805, 400 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420,
Thu Apr 01 16:51:59 1999
File saved as: c:~cqdesign~decks~4951402b.DEK
Deck Dimensions for D~ck 2
(61
Deck 2
· iI
Joist S~,,,.'i~g = 16 in. o.c.
Stair 5: i Lse 7 in., Run = ~ i .
qEGEiVEE
APR - 8 '~:Z~,
i~lOUNJ.) PL~',!?!fi!r: & I~JSP.
The Home Depot #2805° 400 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON,
Thu Apr 01 16:51:59 '~999
File saved as: c:\cqdesign\decks\4951402b.DEK
Post Layout for Deck 3
MN 55420,
(61
? 0 ' 8"
BasePointl
The ttome Del¢,¢t //2805, 400 W 7!.. lH S1-, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420, (612) 881-7020
Thu Apr 01 16:52.:26 1999
FiFe saved as: c:\cqdesign\decks\4g, u 1402b. DEK
Construction Si,ecifications
Deck 3:
Construction Method = Beam ~,. Sid~ of Post
Footing Type = In-Ground
Live Load -- 60
Dead Load -: 10
Decking Spacing = 0.125 in
Joist Spacing = 16in
Beam Spacing = 104in
Post Spaci~,j = 61 in
Decking = 5/4X6 Untreated W~:sLurn Cedars Standard
Beams = 2X8 .40 Treated Sout~,,;rn Pine No. 2
Joists = 2X8 .40 Treated Soutl~ern Pine No. 2
Posts = 4~,~,t .40 Treated Southern, P~ne No. 2
Deck Height -- 30 in
Diagonal B~.cing = No
Deck Skirt = No
Joist Overhang -- 12 in
Beam Overhang = 12 in
Decking Dellection Factor = 360
Joist Deflection Factor = 360
Beam Deflection Factor = 360
Pref Decking Size =
Pref Joist Size = none
Pref Beam Size = none
Pref Post Size = none
APR - 8
The Home Depot #2805, 400 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON,
Thu Apr 01 16:51:59
File saved as: c:~cqdesign~decks~4951402b.DEK
Deck Dimensions for Deck 3
MN 55420,
(61
Deck 3
i0' 8"
10 '
Joist Sp,.~, lng = 16 in. o.c.
The Home Depot #2805, 400 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON,
Thu Apr 01 16:51:59 ' 999
File saved as: c:~cqdesign~decks~4951402b.DEK
Post Layout for Deck 4
MN 55420,
(61
19'
10"
· · 9' 11"
34'
3' 9" ·
1' 2" =mmm ~1'
Deck 4' ~,-~o~m
12' 10"
BasePoint
The Home Depot #2805, ~00 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON,
Thu Apr 01 16:51:59 1999
File saved as: c:~cqdesign\decks\4951402b.DEK
Deck Dimensions for Deck 4
55420,
(61
Dec'k 4.
· 11 ·
4'
The Home Depot //2805, 400 W 79 I H ST, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420, (612) 881-7020
Thu Apr 01 16:52:35 1999
File saved as: c:\cqdesign\decks\495'l.,02b. DEK
Construction Specifications
Deck 4:
Construction Method = Beam t~, Side of Post
Footing Typ~ = In-Ground with Pier
Live Load - 60
Dead Load = 10
Decki,LU Spacing = 0.125 in
Joist Spaci~,:l = 16 in
Bean~ Spacing = 24in
Post Spacing = 107 in
Decking = 5/4X6 Untreated W~stu,~ C,~dars Standard
Beams = 2,x8 .40 Treated Southe~,. Pine No. 2
Joists = 2X8 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2
Posts = 4X4 .40 Treated South,~, Fine No. 2
Deck Height = 30in
Diagonal Bracing = No
Deck Skirt = No
Joist Overhang = 12 in
Beam Overhang = 12in
Decking Dellection Factor = 360
Joist Deflection Factor = 360
Beam Deflection Factor = 360
Pref Deckinq Size =
Pref Joist Size = none
Pref Beam Size = none
Pref Post Size = none
Stair 7:
Step Width = 48 in
Step Height = 30 in
Step Rise = 7.5 in ,
Step Run :- lOin
Stringers = 2X10 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2
Risers = lX6 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2
Treads = 5 4X6 .40 Sealed So..thern Pine No. 1
CITY O17 MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIlEET
SURV£Y ON FILE?/YES )1 NO
R2
LOT OF RECORD?(Y~,~ NO R3
IIOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W ~_.~
FRO~ N S E W
SIDE N S E W /~
REAR N S E W 15'
LAKE N S E W (50'~
TOP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30'
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE~WIDTH:
~o,ooo/eo) Bx ?,soo/o
6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
14.000/80
SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTIt:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W f4'~J~R6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
This Zoning Information Shcel only summarizes a portion of tim ~equiremcnm oullincd in ~e Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For fur~er information, con.ct Ihe Cily of Mou~
Phnning ~partmenl al
~ O0~OC C
Z~~
,..'""- .,'
~ (,3) ~
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR THE
LYNMORE SUBDIVISION TWIN HOME PROJECT
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT,
LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A,
AT 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE
PID # 13-117-24 44 0032
P & Z 99-22
CASE #99-22
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June
8, 1999 to consider the approval of a Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit with variances
for the Lynmore Subdivision Twinhome project at 4901 Shoreline Drive located within the
R-2 Zoning District. · .:' ~ '
-~ '~
. ~ 144 ~'?< ' ~'" "' '"~ 1~ [ ~ ~ 4
45~' 45 < (~)
c o ~ ~
~ ~ 144
]35 ~ ."
All persons appearing at said hearing ~ ~~ .with reference to the abo e will be given the
meeting.
opportunity to be heard at this ~~, ~
.
~K~~~~g Secretary
Mailed to prope~y owners within 350 feet of affected prope~ on May 18, 1999
Published in the Laker, May 22, 1999
prmted on recycled paper
May 25, 1999
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
TO:
FROM:
SUBEJCT:
CITY COUNCIL
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
LICENSE RENEWALS - FOR COUNCIL PACKET MAY 25, 1999
The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is July 1, 1999 through June 30,
2000. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted.
CLUB ON-SALE
American Legion Post//398
VFW Post #5113
SUNDAY SALES
American Legion Post #398
VFW 'Post #5113
ON-SALE WINE
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
House of Moy
ON-SALE BEER
Mound Lanes
OFF-SALE BEER
By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell)
Malnstreet Market
PDQ Food Store
SuperAmerica
printed on recycled paper
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
May 19, 1999
Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Norwood Lane
Street and Utility Improvements Partial Payment
MFRA #8614
Dear Fran:
Enclosed is Machtemes'. Payment Request No. 1 for work completed through May 14, 1999 on the
subject project. The amount of this payment request is $44,693.70.
We have reviewed this request, find it in order, and recommend payment in the above amount to the
Contractor.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:pry
Enclosure
e:~nain:\8614\clark5-19
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra, com
Z
0
(J
0
._jO q>
O0 tr'
o
000~000000000000 ~ 0
ooo~oooooooooooo o
g ~oo ~ ~ ~
0000000 0
0000000 0
0000000
0000000 0
oo $~ ooggEoo E
0000000 0
0000000 0
oooo~g~ ~
0000000
0000000 0
o*og~
0000000000000000 0 0
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq q o
oooooooooooooooo o d
000~0000000000000
qqo.~.qo, qqqqqqqoo, q ~ g
~oo~ooo o~o~goo
o°'~°°°g°°~°~°°
~oo~ggg°°~°~°°g
Z
BILLS
Ray 25, 1999
Batch 9050
5,667.50
Batch 9051
TOTAL BILLS
181,998.64
$ 187,666.14
0 ZZ
~g
ooo
C:
0
0
~30
orn
z
Z
0
0
I
o
,0
Z
0 ~-'
z~ z Z ZZ ~ Z
mm
~ o~ o
I
al=
Z
>.
r-
ZZ I L~"3
oi
mi
z
rn
ZZ
, C
0
0
Z ~
! !
,oo°o°
° ~l? °
,43 0 -43 ZZ
.~ .~ ? I.°.° .
zo ZO ~0 ZO
Am ,m im
~Z
CZ
"ri
r'"
0
ZZ
m!
n in z !n -~I
C
0
z r'rl
0
0
O~ ~.n ~ ,0 0'. C~ 0'tL
ooooI
,.., b,t,.?~ t,, L,L, L,:::, LL, YL , oo, oo,, o
~l 0', c~ ,;,,, ,o ,,.n oo oo oo oo o0~ o ooi ~
I ~" I :~' I rl'l I I C:ZI I Z[ I ~i I ~l ~i CXZ
o o
c m
z
c
0
r-
r-
I I I I I
I ! I I I
IZ
0
,0 ~ o
0
Z
0
0
"''-I~,~ ...... ~...,, .o oo o
'~: *' '-' "'P Z ::
:
' ' ' ' 4 i, ~4 ' '1 ' '
,,:, ,=, ,=,!,=,
, , , , , i,, !£,,, , ,
nr'
I
~r~
z
ol
I
ii, oooooo
Engineering · Planning ' Surveying
RECEIVED
- 5 1999
MOUND PLANNFNG & INSP,
ME M 0 R A ND UM
DATE: May 4, 1999
TO:
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Driftwood Lane Drainage
MFRA #11781
As requested I have reviewed the petition requesting improvements to the drainage at the end of
Driftwood Lane and have the following comments and/or recommendations.
The City in 1954 vacated the southerly 130 feet of Driftwood Lane and according to the documents
available to our office did not retain any drainage or utility easements. The remaining portion of
Driftwood Lane was improved in 1980 with concrete curb and gutter and bituminous paving. The
plans called for a bituminous spillway to be constructed on a vacated portion of Driftwood Lane at
the end of the improved street.
Either the present or a previous owner had fill deposited at the end of the street, blocking the
drainage. Most of this material had now been removed, but some still does remain. A swale needs to
be constructed very similar to the one shown on the Certificate of Survey dated June 12, 1998
(revised 4-9-99) and prepared for Bob Steele by Coffin and Gronberg. It is my understanding that
this survey and accompanying calculations were prepared to show compensatory grading for fill
placed in the flood plain.
It is my recommendation that this request in the form of a petition be put on hold until all other
requests, such as variances, fill permits, etc. are finalized. If the City undertakes any project to
improve drainage which requires work with the vacated portion of Driftwood lane, permanent
draining and utility easements will be needed.
e:Lmain:\l 1781 :\sutherland5-4
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 ° fax 612/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra.com
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Michael
Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff
present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary
Deb Hawkinson.
Those absent: Jerry Clapsaddle (excused); Becky Glister (excused).
Public Present: Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane); Bob Steele; Gaylord Steele (207
Donne); Mr. and Mrs. James Smith (3153 Priest Lane); Jay Peterson (2667 Halstead
Lane).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA
WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX
DRIFTWOOD LANE, ROBERT STEELE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN.
PID # 13-117-24 44 0059.
Gordon reviewed the discussion held at the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission
meeting. The proposal is to add fill to the lot to increase the area to 5900 square feet of
buildable land, thus requiring a 4100 square foot variance from the required 10,000
square feet. The lot width is fifty-five feet short of the sixty-foot width requirement. The
proposed foundation with a finished floor would be at 933.8 feet elevation that is above
the elevation standards for floodplain areas.
At that meeting, Mr. Steele presented various situations in which the Commission has
granted variances with more stringent conditions. The Commission members asked to
review these cases before making any decisions. Thus, the application was tabled in
order for Staff to review these cases and bring their recommendations back to the
Commission. These cases included: Hicks: 92-014; Wigen: 96-04; Kelm: 98-09; and
92-57.
After review, Staff's recommendation did not change.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
Apdl 26, 1999
Gordon and Sutherland met with Ceil Strauss from the DNR Waters department and
Jim Hafner from the MCWD last week visiting the site. There continues to be issues
with the sea wall behind the property and the adjacent property. There are real land
issues that need to be addressed.
Mueller restated and verified Staff's position, that given all the current conditions and
factors, this land is considered unbuildable without recombination with other adjacent
properties although there is some concern that a lot recombination may not work either
without variances to lot area. Gordon stated that this is true, however, it would present
a much better situation than the current proposal. Staff would probably recommend
approval of a plan if several lots were combined.
Mueller asked if Staff has spoken with the City Attorney to declare this lot unbuildable
because of floodplain and seawall issues. The attorney is aware of the issues of the
case. The water issues and seawall issues are DNR and Watershed District issues and
are subject to their hearings.
Brown asked if in their talks with the DNR and Watershed, was the land originally filled
in all the way to the seawall. Gordon stated that was his understanding. Brown stated
that the seawall issue is a channel issue, not a stabilization issue of the land. If the
land were brought up to that level, he asked if it would be conforming.
Filling in the land is a one-time thing with the DNR and Watershed stated Gordon. He
believes it would be an on going, continuing problem since the soil is poor and the land
fill goes back into the lake.
Brown asked if concrete for the seawall would be better than steel. Gordon stated the
Planning Commission needed to stick to land use issues. Brown's point is that the
County built the seawall and said it was all right to build a home on the property. Now
the seawall has eroded and it becomes the City's problem. He doesn't see this as
valid.
Weiland stated that the seawall was built to keep the channel open, not to make the
land buildable. Page 47 of the meeting packet has the DNR's latest comments.
Mueller told Mr. Steele that since the last meeting, he has had time to review the
minutes and the cases that were brought to the Planning Commission's attention.
While the cases were similar, each was unique and weighed on its own merits. He had
some concerns regarding the property. When purchased, it appeared to be one parcel
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 1999
and two Tax IDs. On page 90, the deed is there with lots 10-11-12-13 on it. He wanted
to know how it was broken up. He also wanted to know what made a Tax ID a
buildable lot.
Gordon stated that in the City of Mound, a Tax ID did constitute a parcel of land. Lot 10
was a separate Tax ID prior to 1978 and lots 11-12-13 formed a second Tax ID prior to
1978. In 1995, lots 10-13 were transferred to Amy Steele and she then transferred lot
10 to Robert Steele.
Sutherland stated that in no shape or form did Staff every represent the lot as buildable
although they were separate Tax Ids. Mr. Steele stated that given his lawyers advice,
he purchased this in good faith with the understanding that it was a buildable piece of
property.
Brown pointed out that at this time, he did not believe that lot 10 was hooked up to
water and sewer. Mr. Steele stated that he was paying a sewer bill. Weiland believes
that what he is paying is a sewer assessment fee, not for sewer services themselves.
He believes that this property has a septic tank on it.
Brown asked if the cabin was currently vacant. He asked Mr. Steele if he could live
there. Mr. Steele said yes, the water was pumped over from his daughter's home and
he had thought there was sewer hooked up to it. He is not sure if it is up to code
Gordon referred back to earlier questions regarding filling in of the land. Even if it was
filled in all the way to the seawall and even if they felt it would stay put, there would still
only be 6400 square feet of buildable land. The code is 10,000. Even if it is a "lot of
record, "it does not guarantee it a buildable.
Burma had some concerns about the discussion. He wanted to know how the lot next
door was different. It was undersized and had a larger home on it. Gordon stated that
since there was an occupied house on it when the application was made, it is different
than a parcel with a vacant dilapidated cabin..
Burma also asked if the fact that relatives owned the adjacent lots if that clouded the
judgement of the commissioners. Gordon responded that the zoning code is in place
to bring up the housing standards
Sutherland stated that the Planning Commission could limit the use to a cabin. Per the
Comprehensive Plan, the non-conforming use could be removed. Staff is going forward
and eliminating these as they come up for review to heighten the standards aimed at in
the Zoning Amendments.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 1999
Brown stated that dealing with his property only are we going to say you cannot
improve your property. He doesn't think the City should block improvement of property.
By improving the property, the septic tank would be removed which raises another on-
going issue in the City.
Mr. Steele asked to speak. He raised the issue of Driftwood Lane and the fact that the
properties do not drain properly. The "road" drains on the properties since it was
abandoned and by building a swale, this issue would be resolved. He is giving
something to the City. He brought with him a petition from the residents along
Driftwood Lane regarding the drainage situation.
The petition states: "This petition is to inform the City of Mound that Driftwood Lane is in
need of a way to drain all the runoff from rain and snow. Currently since there is no
drain anywhere on Driftwood Lane, the water from the whole street goes to the end of
the road and settles at 2352 Driftwood Lane. This is ruining the foundation, as well as
the property. All of the below signed residents are in favor of having a swale put in to
remedy the situation."
Amy Steele
Richard and Linda Wigner
Kelly and Veronica Johnson
Robert Steele
2352 Driftwood Lane
2331 Driftwood Lane
2308 Driftwood Lane
23XX Driftwood Lane
Mr. Steele also plans to fix the seawall that will help contain his property and home.
Ms. Strauss from the DNR has verbally agreed to step aside from the 15' fill elevation
standard around the home and let the City rule.
By adding fill to his property, Mr. Steele is adding more land than exists today. He
believes this is a "fair and reasonable" use of his property.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to support staff's
position in working toward total conformity. However, until the
City can purchase this "Lot of Record" in order to maintain this
direction, recommend that the variances be granted.
Voss is sure that Staff, DNR, and Watershed District will work with applicant to ensure a
proper house is built.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 1999
Mueller wanted to note that the Glen Allyn application was under separate ownership at
the time of purchase. In this case, there was a contiguous owner when the Zoning
codes were enacted. This would give a legal way out of the issue. However, in light of
staff's comments making this a separate parcel since it was a separate lot, it thus
becomes a buildable property in his mind unless the City can purchase it. Mueller
would like this in writing from the City Attorney.
Brown will pass on the comments from the Planning Commission to the City Council
that an answer is wanted regarding the buildability since it is a separate Tax ID and
thus, parcel. He asked Staff to see if it was economically and feasible to purchase this
property to use as drainage form the other lots.
call to vote was taken.
Ayes: Burma, Voss, and Brown. Nays: Mueller, Michael, Weiland, and
Hasse. Motion does not carry.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff's
recommendation. Ayes: Mueller, Michael, Weiland, and Hasse.
Nays: Voss, Burma, Brown. Motion carries.
Chair Michael noted that this will come before City Council on May 11, 1999.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland,
Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official
Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Steve Stortz (3770 Enchanted Lane), Bob Steele ( 8515 Wood Lane,
Germantown, TN), Rhonda Eurich (5585 Sherwood Drive), Jeff Dilliner (2037
Commerce Boulevard), Tom Higus (2032 Bellaire Lane), Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood
Lane).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 97-39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON
CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, ROBERT STEELE, LOT
10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID # 13-117-24 44 0059.
Gordon presented the case.
This case came before the Commission in November 1997. At that time the applicant
asked the Commission to table the application to develop a more suitable proposal.
The request is for a variance in buildable lot size and for lot width variation, as well as
flood plan elevation.
The proposal is to add fill to the lot to increase the area to 5900 square feet of buildable
land, thus requiring a 4100 square foot variance from the required 10,000 square feet.
The lot width is fifty-five feet short of the sixty foot width requirement. The proposed
foundation with a finished floor would be at 933.8 feet elevation that is above the
elevation standards for floodplain areas.
The property owner has applied to the Watershed District to review the back fill
proposed for the property. The proposed grading plan does then come under the
jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A letter from Jim Hafner
provides comment on this issue.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
April 12, 1999
There is no relationship between the City's regulation for a fifteen foot "mounding"
around the home and the zoning setbacks. It is nearly impossible for this lot to meet
this regulation given the lot width. The variance request does not meet Mound's zoning
requirements nor advance Mound's development plans. Other options of combing the
property are available and would reduce the amount of variance. The ideal situation
would be to combine lot 10 with lots 11,12, and 13 for one buildable parcel.
Also, the soil conditions are poor, stated Gordon in his planning report dated April 12,
1999. Staff does not recommend this variance since it is such a large amount of
variance to standards. The fill issue is a secondary reason, since the conditions of the
lot indicated that placing additional soil on this property is a futile effort as it will
eventually be lost to the lake. Fill will also increase the drainage to adjacent properties
and could have a negative effect on homes that may already have foundation issues
due to the lake. Grading would only enhance this affect.
The record notes that a memorandum from Ceil Strauss, the area hydrologist at the
State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources arrived in the office on April 12,
1999. This memo was brought to the meeting for review. Based on her survey on April
2, 1999, this lot would require "net filling." She stands opposed to net filling in the
floodplain area and that this property would not meet the City's regulation of fifteen feet
from all directions of the house to have the property be within the elevation for the 100
year height.
Clapsaddle was excused at 9:15 p.m.
Mueller asked where the fill would be obtained from for this property. From adjacent or
contiguous properties stated the applicant. Wouldn't this create the need for a variance
on some of the other properties stated Mueller.
Sutherland responded that variances on other properties do not pertain to this case.
He suggested there may be other options such as using part of the lot, (his daughter
owns it) next door.
MOTION by Mueller to deny the request for a variance.
The owner discussed that the reason the lot did not meet minimum buildable size was
not a situation that was created by him. It was created when Hennepin County dredged
Seton Channel. In their letter dated August 10, 1998, the County stated that it was
responsible for maintenance of the seawall. In a letter from the City in 1938, they
abandoned the lot. The owner stated the soil was peat and it does sink.
To make sufficient land area to get to 5900 square feet, the owner proposes to dredge
67 yards of soil out of lots 11, 12, and 13 to fill lot 10. If his request is approved by the
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
Apd112, 1999
Watershed District, he will do three things, solve an existing drainage problem along
Driftwood Lane, he would put up a "beautiful" structure which replaces the existing
cabin, and he raises the lot elevation significantly.
Mr. Steele presented the Commission with a book showing pictures and documentation
of the issue along this neighborhood. He also brought with him samples of other
documentation which shows that the City has granted variances that were this great
before and that his lot should not be the exception.
Weiland stated that the owner to the north had a foundation, this home would not have
a foundation when the applicant discussed the floodplain issues. He believes the
situations sited by the applicant are different and therefore were somewhat mute to this
issue. Michael also stated that each case is based on its own merit. He would like the
staff, Sutherland, in particular to review the cases Mr. Steele is presenting in order to be
"fair and reasonable" in looking into this case.
The applicant stated he "didn't care why other properties had been granted the
variances they needed, but that they did approve those." Weiland stated that the
applicant didn't see all the ones that were not approved, either.
Commission members stated that the information in this book was pertinent and that
they liked it, however, they cannot make a decision this evening without reviewing
those cases. Weiland also asked for the plans for the dredging.and compensation land.
Burma stated the applicant should table his application so that the Commission
members can review the information in the book presented to them this evening from
Mr. Steele.
Mueller withdrew his motion to deny the variance request.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to table this application until Staff
has an opportunity to pull documentation on pertinent cases together and
share with the information with the Planning Commission. Motion carried:
8-0.
This will be an agenda item for the April 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. If any
correspondence needs to take place, Gordon stated that he would get in touch with Mr.
Steele.
May 26, 1992
RESOLUTION %92-57
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW REMODELING OF AN EXISTING HOME
AT 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %18-117-23 31 0006,
P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-014
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to
substantially remodel an existing home requiring the issuance of
four variances: 1) an 11 foot lakeshore setback variance, 2) a
5,200 square foot lot area variance, 3) a .7 foot side yard setback
variance for a proposed attached garage, and 4) a 1.5 foot side
yard setback variance for an existing concrete slab; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I,
Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code
requires a 50 foot lakeshore setback, 10,000 square feet of lot
area above the floodplain elevation, a 6 foot side yard setback for
an attached garage and a two foot side yard setback for a concrete
slab; and
WHEREAS, the property has a total lot area of 19,300 square
feet of which approximately 4,800 square feet lies above the
floodplain elevation; and
WHEREAS, all other setbacks are conforming and the property is
surrounded by Lake Minnetonka on three sides; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
has recommended approval of the lakeshore, lot area, and side yard
setback variances contingent upon the submittal of building plans
that identify a minimum floor elevation of 933.5 feet with a vote
of 6 in favor and 0 opposed. In rendering its opinion, the
Planning Commission adopted the following Finding of Fact:
The Planning Commission finds that the requested variances are
in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of
Ordinances and that the variances are the direct result of the
shape of the parcel over which the applicant has no control.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve an 11 foot lakeshore variance, a
5,200 square foot lot area variance, and side yard setback
variances of .7 and 1.5 feet, and a 35 foot street frontage
variance subject to the applicant submitting building plans
that identify a minimum finished f~oor elevation of,933.5
feet. The variances are approved to allow the substantial
86
87
May 26, 1992
remodeling of the existing residence.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code
with the clear and express understanding that the use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
a. Reconstruction of the existing home and garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
Lots 13 and 14, Block 1, Shad~wood Point.
0006
PID %18-117-23 31
Se
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paYing all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember smith
and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
th
The following voted in ' :
none.
At~e~st: City Clerk
87
The City Council 'of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, in the Council Chambers
at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea
Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present
were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark,
City Attorney Jim Larson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Park
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and the
following interested citizens: Phil & Vicki Davis, Dave Wisnewski,
Jeff McMurray, Archie Hanus, Dean Hanus, Mark Hanus, Melvin
Zuckman, Allen Schwingler, Jack & Joan Ronning, Steve Hicks, Mark
Bussey, Carole Munson, Geoff Michael, Bill Meyer, Jeff Vint, Mike
Roy, Roger Stephanson, and Mark Goldberg.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECYCLOTTO WINNER
The Mayor presented $300.00 Westonka Dollars to A1 Schwingler, 5301
Bartlett Blvd.
1.1 MINUTES
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve the
minutes of the May 12, 1992, Regular Meeting, and the Mary 19,
1.4
CASE %92-014: STEVEN & TAMARA HICKS, 2072 SHOREWOOD
LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 918-
117 23'31 0006. VARIANCE - ADDITION
The Building Official explained the request.
Commission recommended approval.
The Planning
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %92-57
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
REMODELING OF AN EXISTING HOME AT 2072
SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1,
8HADYWOOD POINT, PID %18-117-23 31 0006,
P & Z CASE %92-014
The Council asked that the 35 foot street frontage variance be
added to the proposed resolution.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MINUTES OF H MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COM}{IS$ION
MAY 11, 1992
Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland,
Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Mark Hanus, City Planner Mark Koegler,
Building official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James.
Council Representative Liz Jensen and Commissioners Jerry
Clapsaddle and Brian Johnson were absent and excused. The
following persons were also in attendance: Jack and Joan Ronning,
Steven Hicks, Jeff McMurray and Deb Baker, Peter Jacobson, Mark
Bussey, Jeff Vint, Dave Wisnewski, Jack Bolke, Janice Saunders, and
Vicki Davis.
MINUTES
The April 27, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes were presented for
changes and/or additions. Hanus requested a change on page three
of the minutes in the second paragraph, 5th line, to delete "has"
and replaced it with "created."
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by ross, to approve the
April ZT, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
CASE #92-014: BTEVEN & TAMARA HICKS, 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13
& 14, BLOCK 1, 8HADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 31 0006. VARIANCE -
addition.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a
variance to substantially remodel an existing home that abuts Lake
Minnetonka.on three sides of the lot. The total lot area is 19,300
square feet, however, a substantial portion of the lot appears to
lie below the floodplain which according to the Zoning Code, cannot
be counted as lot area. The existing home has a nonconforming
lakeshore setback and the existing detached garage has a
nonconforming side yard setback. The new construction will improve
the side yard setback, however, it will still require a variance
since the new garage will be an attached structure. The variances
being requested include an 11' lakeshore setback variance to the
east, a .7' side yard setback variance, and a lot area variance of
approximately 5,200 sq. ft.
Staff recommended approval of the lakeshore, lot area and side yard
variance as identified for the purpose of the substantial
remodeling of the existing home. Approval is contingent upon the
applicant submitting building plans that identify a minimum floor
elevation of at least 933.5.
If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation,
it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated
into the motion: In approving the variances subject to the stated
conditions, the Planning Commission finds the request in
conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances
and that the variances are the direct result of the shape of the
parcel over which the applicant has no control.
The Commission questioned if the concrete slab to the north of the
property line is required to meet a setback. It was noted that
Zoning Code Section 23.408 (3) b. requires that terraces meet a 2
foot setback and the definition for a terrace includes "patios."
Koegler noted that the proposed modifications to the Zoning Code
Planning Commission Minutes
May 1!, 1992
will not require that patios or slabs meet a 2 foot setback
requirement.
Mueller commented that a street frontage variance should also be
recognized as the property is required to have 60 feet of frontage
and only 25 feet exists.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend
approval of the variances as requested and as recommended
by staff, including a 1.5 foot side yard setback variance
for the concrete slab and a 35 foot street frontage
.variance. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City ~9~g!~_.9~__May 26, 1992.
Hoisington Group I. nc.
LAND USE CONSULTANTS
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: May 5, 1992
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Steven & Tamara Hicks
CASE NUMBER: 92-014
HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1t
LOCATION: 2072 Shorewood Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-l)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicants are proposing to substantially remodel an
existing home that abuts Lake Minnetonka on three sides of the lot. The
total lot area is 19,300 square feet, however, a substantial portion of the
lot appears to lie below the floodplain which according to the Zoning Code,
can not be counted as lot area. At the present time, the existing home has a
nonconforming lakeshore setback and the existing detached garage has a
nonconforming side yard setback. The new construction will improve the
side yard setback, however, it will still require a variance since the new
garage will be an attached structure. As proposed, the request involves
the following variances:
7401 Metro Blva. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960
Hicks Variance Request
Page 2
Existing or
Proposed
Lakeshore (East) 3 9'
Lot Area 4,800 sq ft*
Side Yard 5.3'
Required Variance
50'
10,000 sq ft 5,200 sq ft
* Lot area is a staff estimate based on the survey and the proposed
floor elevation of the remodeled structure.
COMMENT: The proposed reconstruction of the home will not change the
existing lakeshore setback. It will improve the side yard setback from 3.1
to 5.3 feet, however, when the garage is attached to the principal structure,
the required setback changes from 4 to 6 feet.
A substantial portion of the Hicks propertY lies within the floodplain of
Lake Minnetonka. As a part of the proposed improvements, the applicant
has indicated that the minimum floor elevation of the structure will be
raised to 934.,0. The Mound Floodplain Ordinance requires an elevation of
933.5 for areas around Lake Minnetonka.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the lakeshore, lot
area and side yard variance identified above for the purpose of the
substantial remodeling of the existing home. The staff recommendation for
approval is contingent upon the applicant submitting building plans that
identify a minimum floor elevation of at least 933.5.
If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is
suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the
motion: In approving the variances subject to the stated conditions, the
Planning Commission finds the request in conformance with Section
23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are the
direct result of the shape of the parcel over which the applicant has no
control.
82
May 14, 1996
RESOLUTION//96-50
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT
2332 DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 9,
SKARP'S EAST LAWN
PI]) 13-117-24 44 0058, P&Z gO6-04
WltEREAS, the owner, Richard Wigner has applied for a lot size and width
variance to allow construction of a new conforming dwelling, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family'
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 6 feet for lots
of record, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary highwater elevation, and;
WHEREAS, the existing lot width is 50 feet, the required width is 60 feet
resulting in recognition of a 10 foot variance, and;
WI-IEREAS, the required lot area is 10,000 square feet, the existing lot area is
7,248 +- square feet, this results in the recognition of a 2,752 square foot variance, and;
WFIEREAS, the existing sub-standard dwelling will be demolished, and;
WItEREAS, the proposed dwelling will be conforming to setbacks, and will be
a substantial improvement to the existing conditions on the property, and;
WHEREAS, all improvements are required to be in full conformance with the
floodplain regulations contained in the City Code and the State Building Code. Staff has worked
with the applicant on this issue and the plans are being revised to be in conformance with the
lowest floor elevation for lake Minnetonka of 933. The floodplain is being modified by being
filled, and it is also being compensated for 1/1 on-site. The proposed floodplain modifications
have been reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicant must obtain other agency approvals
as necessary, such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and impervious surface coverage are
conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval with a vote of seven in favor and two opposed.
Resolution ~6-50
Page 2
83
May 14, 1996
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 2,752 square foot lot area variance and a 10 foot lot width
variance to construct a new dwelling with the following findings: 1) The request with
minor modifications is conforming to the ordinance, and 2) with this proposal there will
be a substantial improvement to the existing condition of the property, and will result in
the elimination of two existing nonconformities, the detached garage and the
nonconforming side yard setback to the existing dwelling. Approval is subject to the
following conditions:
The driveway area, as proposed, must be reduced to allow for conforming
impervious surface coverage.
The driveway must be crowned in order to direct the flow of stormwater around
the side and towards the lake.
de
Approval from other agencies, as required, including the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
The area under the deck must be a permeable surface so as not to have a
nonconforming impervious surface coverage situation.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration of a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a conforming single family dwelling (30' x 50')
with an attached garage and a conforming deck (8' x 30').
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 9, Skarp's East Lawn.
84 :
Resolution ;~s56-50 Ma)' 14, 1996
Page 3
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Resolution adopted: May 14, 1996
Mayor
MINUTES - M. OUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 14, 1996
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, May 14, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen
and Phyllis Jessen. Also in attendance: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Edward J.
Shulde, Jr., Parks Director Jim Fackler and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong.
The following interested citizens were also present: Dan Grady, Suzanne Grady, Richard I.
Wigner, Wayne Ehlebracht, Beverly Barldey, Rodney Hein, Steve Bell, Ken Custer, Dorene
Hanson, Dan and Sandi Strot, Don Pedersen, Leah Weycker, Cathy Bailey, Bill and Dorothy
Netlm, Robert Lien, Marty and Marie Johnson, Gordy Tulberg, Ted Metz, leanette Metz, Danie
Watson, Chuck Champine, Mike Garberick, Denny Flack, Mike Gardner, Jack Korlath.
The Mayor opened the Meeting. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.10 CASE//96-04: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING - RICHARD WIGNER. 2332
DRIFTWOOD LANE. LOT 9. SKARP'S EAST LAWN. PID 13-117-24 44 0058.
Building Official Ion Sutherland stated the subject property needs a I0 foot width variance and
a 2,752 square foot variance. The property adjacent to this property is in probate court and
unobtainable by the applicant. The existing substandard dwelling will be demolished.
Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Iensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//96-50
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW DWELLING AT 2332 DRIFTWOOD L~NE,
LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID //13-117-24 44
0058, P&Z//96-04.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
181
MINUTES OF A .MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNLN'G COMMISSION
APRIl. 22, 1996
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss,
Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma, City Council Representative
Mark Hanus, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James.
The following people were also in attendance: Dick and LiMa Wi~er,' and Mike McCarville.
MIN'LTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 1996 were presented for approval.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of April 8, 1996 as written. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE 96-04: VARI.a2qCE FOR .NEW DWELLING, RICHARD WIGNER, 2332 DRIFTWOOD
LANE, LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID 13-117-24 44 0058
The applicant is seeking a variance that will allow the existing sub-standard dwelling to be demolished,
and permit a new dwelling with an attached,ara,,o o~ to be constructed in its place. The proposed dwelling
is conforming to setbacks, and is a substantial improvement to the existing conditions on the property.
The following nonconforming issues are listed below, along with staff's comments.
1)
Lot Width: The existing lot width is 50 feet, the required width is 60 feet resulting in
recognition of a 10 foot variance. There is adjoining property that is currently for sale. If 10
feet of the adjoining property could be obtained, the nonconforming width could be eliminated.
2)
Lot Area: The required lot area is I0,000 square feet, the existing lot area is 7,248+- square
feet, this results in the recognition of a 2,752 square foot variance. (same comments as above)
3)
Impervious Surface: The proposed impervious surface coverage is 9 square feet over the
maximum allowable of 40% for a lot of record with an approved drainage plan. The impervious
surface area could be reduced by narrowing the driveway slightly.
4)
Floodplain: All improvements are required to be in full conformance with the floodplain
regulations contained in the City Code and the State Building Code. Staff has worked with the
applicant on this issue and the plans are being revised to be in conformance with the lowest floor
elevation for Lake Minnetonka of 933. The floodplain is being modified by being filled, and it
is also being compensated for 1/I on site. The proposed floodplain modifications have been
reviewed by our City Engineer and his comments are attached to this report. In addition to the
City's requirements, the applicant must obtain other agency approvals, such as the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District.
182
Planning Commission Minutes
April 22, 1996
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to construct
a new dwelling with the following findings: 1) The request with minor modifications is conforming to
the ordinance, and 2) With this proposal there will be a substantial improvement to the existing condition
of the property, and will result in the elimination of two existing nonconformities, the detached garage
and the nonconforming side yard setback to the existing dwelling.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The driveway area must be reduced to allow for conforming impervious surface coverage.
The driveway must be crowned in order to direct the flow of stormwater around the side and
towards the lake.
3. Approval from other agencies, as required, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Sutherland added a comment that the adjacent property is for sale, so it may be possible that the applicant
could acquire additional land. to bring the lot size into conformance. Sutherland stated that the applicant
can speak on this issue.
We/land clarified that the proposal includes an g' x 30' deck. Sutherland confirmed that if it is pervious
and meets the ordinance it will not count as hardcover.
Pdchard Wigner, applicant, stated that they have made several attempts to purchase the adjacent property,
however, the owner/seller has not responded. A survey of the adjacent property was handed out to the
Commissioners for review.
Burma confirmed that the applicant could not purchase a portion of the adjacent lot unless the building
is removed.
Reifschneider had a question about side yard setbacks and staff clarified that the side yard setbacks for
the new construction are 6' and 10', for lots of record.
Mueller commented that the applicant has a~eed to reduce the hardcover, and if they purchase 10 feet
of the adjacent property they may loose their lot-of-record status. He would prefer not to see something
this close to both side lot lines, but would rather see a new house there, and believes their would be a
greater benefit, long-term to see the 40% hardcover maintained. Mueller wants to make sure the area
under the deck will be a permeable surface.
Mueller asked about vegetation screening and emphasized that our ordinance requires screening and
suggested that they consider applying this for any new house construction. Hanus referred to the letter
from the DNR which states, 'The structures on the lot should be screened from view on Lake
Minnetonka using existing vegetation, landscaping, color and other means approved by the city. In
accordance with the Mound shoreland ordinance, natural, unmowed vegetation should be allowed to grow
Planning Commission Minutes ~ Apr~l 22, 199~
within the 25 foot shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka.' Hanus questioned if it is their intent to allow
"natural unmowed vegetation." Mueller stated that he would interpret this to mean bushes and things that
are not mowed, and commented that the shoreland ordinances states "leaf-on vegetation."
Voss confirmed with the Building Official that the existing dwelling could be remodeled, even though the
structure is too small, has a poor foundation, and is nonconforming. Voss commented that by not
approving this variance they could be allowing a substandard condition to exist forever.
MOTION by Voss to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by
staff, including the condition that the area under the deck be a permeable surface
so as not to have a nonconforming impervious surface coverage situation. Motion
seconded by Mueller.
Wigner stated, with regard to the vegetation, according to the MCWD, anything he does has to be
approved by them, and it is his intention that the lot will stay the way it is.
Mueller expressed a concern about increased drainage onto the property where the cottage is to the south.
Sutherland stated that because that area is in the floodplain, they can't berm it, they could only resolve
it by using gutters.
'Weiland stated that he will :vote against the motion as he would like to see a letter from the people who
are selling the adjacent property stating that they can not buy any. Glister agreed. Wig-ncr stated that
the property has been tied up in probate for a year and that there is no one that will give him an answer.
Glister would like to see a denial in writing. Weiland agreed, he would like to know that they made an
honest attempt. 'Wigner asked, what if they agree to sell 10 or 15 feet, but he cannot afford? Glister
stated that cost is not a hardship.
Clapsaddle commented that this is a sound proposal, made in good faith, and suggested they vote on the
issue. Burma commented that he is also in support of the motion, considering the existing condition of
the property, the location and condition of the existing nonconforming shed on the street side, he is in
support of proposal.
Hanus called for the question.
Motion carried 7 to 2. Those in favor were: Voss, Clapsaddle, Mfichael, Mueller,
Burma, Reifschneider and Hanus. Weiland and Glister opposed.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 14, 1996.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of April 22, 1996
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jori Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
Richard Wigner
96-04
2332 Driftwood Lane, Lot 9, Skarp's East Lawn, PID 13-117-2444 0058
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance that will allow the existing sub-standard
dwelling to be demolished, and permit a new dwelling with an attached garage to be
constructed in its place. The proposed dwelling as noted on the survey (revised date 3-8-96)
is conforming to setbacks, and is a substantial improvement to the existing conditions on the
property. The following nonconforming issues are listed below, along with staff's comments.
1)
Lot Width: The existing lot width is 50 feet, the required width is 60 feet resulting
in recognition of a 10 foot variance. There is adjoining property that is currently for
sale. If 10 feet of the adjoining property could be obtained, the nonconforming width
could be eliminated.
2)
Lot Area: The required lot area is 10,000 square feet, the existing lot area is 7,248 +-
square feet, this results in the recognition of a 2,752 square foot variance. (same
comments as above)
3)
Impervious Surface: The proposed impervious surface coverage is 9 square feet over
the maximum allowable of 40% for a lot of record with an approved drainage plan.
The impervious surface area could be reduced by narrowing the driveway slightly.
prJnted on recycled paper
~taff Report
Wigner
Page Two
4)
Floodplain: All improvements are required to be in full conformance with the
floodplain regulations contained in the City Code and the State Building Code. Staff
has worked with the applicant on this issue and the plans are being revised to be in
conformance with the lowest floor elevation for Lake Minnetonka of 933. The
floodplain is being modified by being filled, and it is also being compensated for 1/1
on site. The proposed floodplain modifications have been reviewed by our City
Engineer and his comments are attached to this report. In addition to the City's
requirements, the applicant must obtain other agency approvals, such as the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request to construct a new dwelling with the following findings:
1) The request with minor modifications is conforming to the ordinance, and 2) With this
proposal there will be a substantial improvement to the existing condition of the property,
and will result in the elimination of two existing nonconformities, the detached garage and
the nonconforming side yard setback to the existing dwelling.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
The driveway area must be reduced to allow for conforming impervious surface
coverage.
The driveway must be crowned in order to direct the flow of stormwater around the
side and towards the lake.
Approval from other agencies, as required, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heat~l by l~e City Council on May 14, 1996.
- 1 60
PHONE NO.
/~D STATE OF
EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5510~LEN
772-7910
· .
February 12, 1996
Mr. Jon Sutherland
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
RE:
Richard and Linda Wigner Variance Application, (City #96-04),
Lake Minnetonka (27-133P), City of Mound, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
We have reviewed the Wigner variance request (received January 31,
1996) for 2332 Driftwood Lane. We do not object to the variance
and have the following comments:
The ground level at the lakeward side of the proposed home is
at 930.9' (NGVD, 1929). This is below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 933' (NGVD, 1929) that the City
of Mound uses for Lake Minnetonka. The proposed home must
conform with the Mound floodplain regulations.
The structures on the lot should be screened from view on Lake
Minnetonka using existing vegetation, landscaping, color and
other means approved by the city. In accordance with the
Mound shoreland ordinance, natural, unmowed vegetation should
be allowed to grow within the 25' shore impact zone of Lake
Minnetonka.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance
application. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to
contact me at 772-7910.
Sincerely,
Joseph G.
Richter
Hydrologist
JGR/kl
C·
City of Mound Shoreland File
,,V:,czql c "
)~--,)~ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR:
RICHARD WIGNER
LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lot 9, Skarp's East Lawn
denotes Iron marker found
denotes iron marker set
(nj,): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum
Bead~gs shown are based upon an assumed datum.
rhis survey intends to show the boundaries of the above
described property, and the locations of the existing and
proposed houses. It does not pupport to show any other
improvements or encroachments.
RECEIVED
.~ Corns & GRDNBERC, INC,
(d2-17~.~14l
I hereby certify thai this sur','ey was prepared by me or under rn,~' direct super-
vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Eng{neer and Land S~rve. yor under
the laws of lhe Slale of Minneso)a,
Mark S. Cronber~ Minnesola License Number 12755
March 24, 1998
RESOLUTION ~98-32
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD,
STREET FRONTAGE, LOT SIZE, AND HARDCOVER
VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE
AT 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE,
LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT
PID 18-117-23 23 0007,
P & Z CASE g98-09
WHEREAS, the applicants, Douglas and Dennis Kelm, have applied for a lakeside,
front yard, side yard, street frontage, lot size, and hardcover setback variances to construct an addition
and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and
60 feet of lot frontage, and;
WHEREAS, the required setbacks for lakeside is 50 feet, front yard 30 feet, side yard
6 feet, street frontage 60 feet, lot size 10,000 square feet, and hard cover is 2,872 square feet, and the
variances would be 44 feet, 8 feet, 3.3 feet, 10 feet, 2,820 square feet, and 187 square feet
respectively, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to build a 12 by 33 foot two-story
addition to the existing home with an attached garage, and;
WHEREAS, the existing boathouse foundation is deteriorating and will be
removed within 2 years from the date the resolution is filed, and;
WHEREAS, there have been two previous variances on the property. Resolution 77-
516 granting a Lake Front Variance and Expansion of a non--conforming use. Resolution 72-102
granting a side yard variance, and;
WHEREAS, the existing deck is a safety concern, it will be removed and be replaced
by a new conforming deck, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed project is a substantial improvemem to the property and the
scope of the project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lake front residential project, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a lakeside, front yard, side yard, street frontage, lot size,
and hardcover setback variances with the following conditions:
The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey dated 2-2-98 be
removed.
March 24, 1998
o
b. The cost of the repair to the foundation of the boathouse not to exceed 50% of
the structure's value.
C., A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by
the City Engineer.
d, The Lakeside deck be removed and any recOnstruction shall be conforming to
current zoning setbacks.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain
as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of
Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Building a non conforming 2 story addition with attached garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System 1997 Tax Book, Report PI433401'
LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT
ThiS variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
o
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded
by Councilmember Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Hanus, Polston and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmembers Jensen and Polston were absent and excused.
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
MOUND CITY COUNCIl. MINUTES- MARCH 24, 1998
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 24, 1998
The City Council of the City of l~ound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular' Session on
Tuesday, March 24, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker.
Councilmembers Ahrens and Jensen were absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John
Cameron and Secretary Jodi Rahn and the following interested citizens: Sharon Gehrman-Dfiscoll,
Robin Scholer, John Gabos, Steve Behnke, Tom Stokes and Matthew Mankey.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited.
1.14
CASE 98-09: VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE AND
SETBACKS, TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED
GARAGE, DENNIS KELM. 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT, P[D 18-117-23 23 0007.
The Planner reviewed the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following
conditions:
a. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey dated 2-2-98 be removed.
b. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to be approved by the City Attorney to ensure
the removal of the boathouse within 2 years from the date the resolution is filed.
A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by
the City Engineer.
The lakeside deck b~ removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming to current
zoning setbacks.
The applicant has since reconsidered and would like to have item b. removed from the resolution. He
is proposing to make foundation and structural repairs to the boathouse. The Planner stated that any
structural repairs to the boathouse would require a number of separate variances.
The Council asked if the cost of repairs would exceed 50% of the structure's valu6. The Building
Official did not feel repairs would exceed the 50%.
The Council asked that item lb. be removed from the proposed resolution and the following be added:
The applicant to suitably repair the foundation of the boathouse at a cost not to exceed 50% of
the structure's value."
Hanus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution as amended above:
RESOLUTION #98-32
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCES TO
RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORNflNG LOT SIZE AND
SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE,
DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK
2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 318-11%23 23 0007
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Minutes. Mound Planning Commission
March 9, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orr Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss.
Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary
Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus.
Public Present: Dennis Kelm, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Dave Willette, David Holm, Robert
Wroda, Henry Reintz, Muriel Reintz, Larry & Rita Meehan, Jerry & Pamela Neumann, Chris
Stuhr, Scott Hoelscher - US West.
Meeting called to order 7:55 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael.
Chair Michael called for a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Gerald Reifschneider
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the February 9,
1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5 - 0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE #98-09: VARIANCE, TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE AND
SETBACKS, TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED
GARAGE, DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0007
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case.
The applicant is requesting a number of variances for an addition and attached garage to
the existing home. The property is located at 1916 Shorewood Lane and is zoned R-1. A
summary of the proposed variances is outlined below.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission ·
March 9, 1998
Existinq/Proposed Reauired Variance
Front Yard 22' 30' 8'
Side Yard (east) 2.7' 6' 3.3'
Lakeside (boat house) 6' 50' 44'
Street Frontage 50' 60' 10'
Lot Size 7,180 sf 10,000 sf 2,820 sf
Hardcover 3,059 sf 2,872 sf 187 sf
The improvements the applicant is proposing are substantial. A 12 by 33 foot two story
living space will be added to the front of the home. The east wall of the addition will
match the existing wall. The west addition wall will extend 9 feet past the existing wall of
the house. On the front of the addition a 24 foot by 22 foot attached garage is proposed.
The garage is a front entry and would maintain a 22 foot setback from Shorewood Lane.
The driveway would be located on the existing gravel parking area.
A number of other improvements are also proposed to the existing structure to bring it up
to date. These include new windows, doors, siding, electrical, plumbing, and flooring.
The home will be re-roofed with the proposed home and garage projects. The basement in
the home is currently about 6.5 feet in height. The home will be raised 18 to 20 inches
increasing the basement height to 8 feet.
There is a two level boathouse on the property that is about 9 feet from the 929.4 contour
and 1 foot frown the side yard lot line. The boathouse structure is in reasonable condition
however, the foundation is in poor condition with a number of visible cracks and bows in
the concrete walls. The first floor is below the minimum building elevation of 933 feet. It
appears that the boathouse is used as storage for miscellaneous household items at the
present time.
The home has a deck on the lakeside of the house that also wraps around the west side of
the home. Upon visiting the site, the Building Official noted the deck was an immediate
safety concern. A portion of the flooring on the west arm of the deck has collapsed due to
rotting. A number of the other floorboards are in similar condition. Although it is not
indicated in the application as being part of the project, the applicant has stated that it will
be replaced along with the improvements. The existing deck is setback approximately 62
feet from the lake. The owner has indicated the new deck will most likely be smaller than
the current.
The lot is undersized for the R-1 zoning district which is typical of lots along Shorewood
Lane. Almost every lot has 50 feet or less of lot frontage and is short of the required
10,000 sf lot size by 2,500 sf or more.
Minutes - Mound Plann/ng Commission
March 9, ~998
Past variances for the property include a side yard variance in 1972 and a lakefront
variance in 1977.
The proposed project is a substantial improvement to the property. The existing home is in
a state of decline and would have continued as such if left alone. Staff is in agreement
that the proposal is a positive improvement for the property and surrounding neighborhood
and the scope of the project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lakefront
residential project.
There is not currently a garage on the property for parking cars. A gravel parking area
adjacent to the street serves as parking for the residents. The 22 feet proposed setback of
the garage is adequate for parking a vehicle in front of the garage without intruding into the
street. Although an attached garage must meet principle structure setbacks, the garage
would meet setback requirements if it were detached.
The boathouse on the property is a nonconforming structure as regulated by the Shoreland
Management Ordinance. The City has worked to comply with these regulations by working
with property owners to remove these structures when possible. A visual inspection of the
boathouse showed it to be in a state of decline. Because the code will not allow structural
work to the boathouse, its condition will continue to deteriorate. The boathouse appears to
serve some usefulness as storage for household items. With additional square footage in
the house, there could be storage room for those goods. Staff would like to take a position
of asking the applicant to remove the boathouse to comply with the code. Given the scope
of the house project, allotting some time for its removal may be an approach to consider.
This would allow the owner to focus resources on the house project first before taking on
another substantial project. The applicant has stated that he would like to use the top floor
of the boathouse as a screened porch. Staff discussed with the applicant the intent of the
ordinance and other options for a lakeside patio.
Another related issue with the removal of the boathouse of benefit to the property is a
decrease in hardcover. If the boathouse were removed along with the concrete sidewalk,
the hardcover would be within 74 sf of meeting 30 percent for the lot.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey be removed.
2. The existing boathouse be removed within 2 years of the date of the resolution.
3. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City
Engineer.
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission ~'
March 9, 1998 ~
Discussion:
Weiland asked what the side yard setback requirement would be for the deck facing the
lakeside. Gordon stated that there is a 6 foot setback requirement. The applicant stated
that he would be willing to make the deck conforming.
Weiland and the applicant discussed the boathouse removal. There was further discussion
on the construction of the new deck be in a conforming location.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to accept Staff recommendation with the
following alterations: Item #2 to read: 2. An easement approved by the City
Attorney be placed on the existing boathouse to ensure the removal of boathouse
within 2 years of the date the resolution is filed. The addition of item #4. Should
read: 4. The Lakeside deck be removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming
to setbacks. Motion carried 5-0.
This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998
14:44
March '1 g, 1998
~oo~
RECEIVED
MAR 1 8 1998
City o'Mound
53411{ay~'ood Road
Moun, t,M'N55364
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
Dear .~ irs.
An is5 le has been raised by Doughs Kelm, regarding Paragraph 1, item b and therefore i submit the
follox~ lng:
1) D, ,uglas Kelm wishes to keep the boathouse. He likes to use the upper three-season porch section of
the bc ~thouse for outdoor relaxation. And due to several medical issues that have occurred during the past
few y, ;~rs, his physicians recommend that he spend as little time as possible in direct sunlight. The medical
condi~ ions include heart attacks, high blood pressure and diabetes.
2) T ~e existing structure at 1916 Shorewood lane was rcmodeled prior to being purchased by the current
Owne 's. The previous remodelLng was not completed to code and because of this there are several
probh ms causing rapid deterioration to the subject property. Therefore updates are mandatory at this time.
3) In :re£crencc to the proposed variances on thc subject propers: All variances were cxisting prior to this
reque: 'c except the following:
1.) $ feet frontage less than 30' for an attached garage.
2) E i~rdcover over 30 percent- This will meet the 40 percent requirement for existing structures upon
c ,repletion of the proposed work, The proposed hard<over calculation of 3059 square feet will
a ;tually bc 2028 upon completion. Part &the work will bclude the removal of 120 square feet of
p ,rio and the removal ofa 101 square loot deck on the street side &thc property.
There ~ore there ~s only one new variance being requested on the subject property.
4)
for th
1
~e condition of the Boathouse is unchanged from that of which it was at the time of purchase except
following:
During the past winter, the west wall has sustained some ground pressure damage, which extends
up the wall approx. 1 $ inches. The cost to repair this is rather inexpensive in comparison to
building a new three-season porch. Estimated cost to repair is $500.00 dollars.
Current regulations allow repair~ to a structure up to a maximum of 50% oft_he structures value.
For which we feel is approximately $2,500.00 dollars. Other individuals that would purchase such
a property have supported this value.
Cond
also f
adv¢]
~sion: The removal of this structure will create significant expenses. Not only for the destruction but
the rebuilding ora new structure with similar uses. The removal of the structure will also
:ely affect the market value of the subject property
Regu afions allow for minimal repairs to such a structure
The 1: :oposed remodel of the subject residence will create hi,er tax revenue through higher property value
and v ~ll enhance the neighborhood appeal,
We a k for the councils leniency on this issue ,-,nd request that paragraph 1, item b, be removed from the
prop< sed resolution.
Dcnn ~ Kelm
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
i'n]l
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: March 9, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance request
OWNER: Douglas and Dennis Kelm - 1916 Shorewood Lane
CASE NUMBER: 98-09
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5h
LOCATION: 1916 Shorewood Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND.: The applicant is requesting a number of variances for an addition and
attached garage to the existing home. The property is located at 1916 Shorewood Lane and is
zoned R- 1. A summary of the proposed variances is outlined below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 22' 30' 8'
Side Yard (east) 2.7' 6' 3.3'
Lakeside (boat house) 6' 50' 44'
Street Frontage 50' 60' 10'
Lot Size 7,180 sf 10,000 sf 2,820 sf
Hardcover 2,872 sf 2,872 sf 187 sf
The improvements the applicant is proposing are substantial. A 12 feet by 33 feet two story
living space will be added to the front of the home. The east wall of the addition will match the
existing wall. The west addition wall will extend 9 feet past the existing wall of the house. On
the front of the addition a 24 feet by 22 feet attached garage is proposed. The garage is a front
entry and would maintain a 22 feet setback from Shorewood Lane. The driveway would be
located on the existing gravel parking area.
A number of improvements are also proposed to the existing structure to bring it up to date.
These include new windows, doors, siding, electric and plumbing, and flooring. The home will
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Kelm Variance Request
March 9, 1998
be re-roofed with the proposed home and garage projects. The basement in the home is currently
about 6.5 feet in height. The home will be raised 18 to 20 to inches increase the basement height
to 8 feet.
There is a two level boathouse on the property that is about 9 feet from the 929.4 contour and 1
feet from the sideyard lot line. The boathouse structure is in reasonable condition however, the
foundation is in poor condition with a number of visible cracks and bows in the concrete walls.
The first floor is below the 933 feet floodplain elevation. It appears that the boathouse is used as
storage for miscellaneous household items at the present time.
The home has a deck on the lakeside of the house that also wraps around the west side of the
home. Upon visiting the site, the Building Official noted the deck was an immediate safety
concern. A portion of flooring on the west arm of the deck has collapsed due to rotting. A
number of other floorboards are in similar condition. Although it is not indicated in the
application as being part of the project, the applicant has stated that it will be replaced along with
the improvements. The existing deck is setback approximately 62 feet from the lake. The owner
has indicated the new deck will most likely be smaller than the current.
The lot is undersized for the R-1 zoning district which is typical of lots along Shorewood Lane.
Almost every lot has 50 feet or less of lot frontage and is short of the required 10,000 sf lot size
by 2,500 sf or more.
Past variances for the property include a sideyard variance in 1972 and a lakefront variance in
1977.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
Ao
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
Bo
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
D. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
Kelm Variance Request
March 9, 1998
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The proposed project is a substantial improvement to the property. The existing home is in a state
of decline and would have continued as such if left alone. Staff is in agreement that the proposal
is a positive improvement for the property and surrounding neighborhood and the scope of the
project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lakefront residential project.
There is not currently a garage on the property for parking cars. A gravel parking area adjacent to
the street serves as parking for the residents. The 22 feet proposed setback of the garage is
adequate for parking a vehicle in front of the garage without intruding into the street. Although
an attached garage must meet principle structure setbacks, the garage would meet setback
requirements if it were detached.
The boathouse on the property is a nonconforming structure as regulated by the Shoreland
Management Ordinance. The City has worked to comply with these regulations by working with
property owners to remove these structures when possible. A visual inspection of the boathouse
showed it to be in a state of decline. Because the code will not allow structural work to the
boathouse, its condition will continue to deteriorate. The boathouse appears to serve some
usefulness as storage for household items. With additional square footage in the house, there
could be storage room for those goods. Staff would like to take a position of asking the applicant
to remove the boathouse to comply with the code. Given the scope of the house project, allotting
some time for its removal may be an approach to consider. This would allow the owner to focus
resources on the house project first before taking on another substantial project. The applicant
has stated that he would like to use the top floor of the boathouse as a screened porch. Staff
discussed with the applicant the intent of the ordinance and other options for a lakeside patio.
Another related issue with the removal of the boathouse of benefit to the property is a decrease in
hardcover. If the boathouse were removed along with the concrete sidewalk, the hardcover would
be within 74 sf of meeting 30 percent for the lot.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested subject to the following conditions.
1. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey be removed.
2. The existing boathouse be removed within 2 years of the date of the resolution.
3. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City Engineer.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
DENNIS KEL
LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
4
~ou.~
WOoD
LF~A~eRI~BN OF PREgISES:
Lot 5, B~ ~ Shadywood Point
(~43.0}: ~tes existing spot devotion, me~ se~ level datum
: d~otes ~oposed spot elevation, mean see level datum
B~ shown ~ ~sed ~ an a~u~d ~tum.
This ~vey intends to show the bou~aHes of t~ above des~d property,
the ~ati~ of on exbting house ~ boathouse, ~d the Iocat~ of all vis~
"~r~ov~" t~rmon. It do~ not ~port to ~ow any oth~ ~ov~nts
ar
I hereby ~rlik.' that this surv~ was I~l~r~l by ~ m un~ my d~ su~r-
Ihe laws o[ t~e Sate of Minim.
I
o^n 2'2'q$
~^,' I'-- 2o'
SENT BY: DNR METRO; 4-12-99 9:04AM; 6127727573 => : #2/2
DNR WA TERS
DATE: 4/1 2199
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Office Memorandum
TO.'
FROM:
Jori Sutherland, City of Mound
Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist
PHONE; 651-772-7914 FAX: 651-772-7977
SUBJECT: Case #97-39, Robed Steele, 23xx Driftwood Lane, Mound
I recommend denial of the current request. Mr. Steele references the 2 letters I sent in 1997 and
calls the first a form letter. It was not a form letter; it was a denial recommendation based on the
facts I had available. My follow up letter (12/26/97) gave more detail after viewing the site, but
Mr, Steele is misinterpreting my letter if he believes I am supportive of the proposal. I stated that
we would not insist that the proposal be denied just on the fact that the lots are contiguous
nonconforming lots under the same ownership. There are other reasons besides the contiguous
nonconforming lots issue to deny this request.
Based on the survey I received 412199, there is net filling in the floodplain. When I visited the sit,,
earlier, I said I had no objection to filling in a few of the holes that caused tripping, but I object.
to net filling in, the floodplain intended to transform an unbuildable lot into a buildable lot. The
Watershed District's rule that one-inch of material may be placed as a one-time privilege is
intended to allow smoothing of an area being landscaped, not as a way to get around their basic
requirement that there be no net filling in the floodplain.
The proposed grading does not meet the city's floodplain regulation requirement to have the
ground within15 feet (from all directions of the house) at the 100 year elevation or higher on either
side of the house, or at the lakeside corners. The city's ordinance does not allow a various to be
given for a lesser degree of flood protection than that required by the ordinance.
Thanks. Please call me if you have any questions.
C:
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Jim Hafner
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
BOB STEELE
LOTS 10, 11, 12, AND 15, SKARP'S EAST
AND PART OF VACATED EAST AVENUE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
[.~); .. /.,,,,~ .. e;evoUon, meo..co level dolum
LAWN
Lo/- la
-- (7
FtECEIVEE
APR 1 2 1999
i~IOUND DLA~!N!~!G &
';offin & Groaimr~, ~
482 Tamarack Ave,
Long Lake, MN 55358 ....
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 12, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Robert Steele
OWNER: Robert and Suzanne Steele- 8515 Woodlane, Germantown, TN
CASE NUMBER: 97-39
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-05g
LOCATION: 2352 Driftwood Lane
EXISTING ZONING: One Family Residential (R-l)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has requested to reactivate this case from its tabling in November
1997. As you remember, the applicant requested the case be tabled at that meeting so more
information could be provided. The application used initially is still valid and a new survey of the
property is provided.
The request is for a variance to lot area, lot width, and floodplain fill elevation standards as follows:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Lot Area 5900 sf 10,000 sf 4100 sf
Lot Width 55' 60' 5'
Grading within the floodplain fringe is required to be at 932'
for a distance of 15' fi.om the point where the grade meets the
foundation. 931.5' is proposed for 5' on two sides and 15' on
a third.
The survey shows a proposed foundation with a finished floor elevation of 933.8 feet which meets
residential structure elevation standards for floodplain areas. The survey also indicates new contours
after grading and compensation area in the vacated portion of Driftwood Lane. The property
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#97-39 - 2352 Driftwood Lane
April 12, 1999
consisting of lots 11, 12 and 13 is not part of the application. This was somewhat confusing during
the last review. This property is however, part of the application to the watershed district in order
for its owner to sign off on the compensation area. Although this issue is related, the district will
determine this much on its own merit as it is not directly fled to our land use case. What we need to
resolve is the land use issue.
Lot 10 has lot of record status as it has been a separate tax parcel since at least 1978 according to
Hennepin County records. It is currently owned by Robert and Suzanne Steele who have held title
since 1997. Prior to that, Amy Steele owned the lot from 1995 to 1997 and Vernon Jensen from
some time before 1978 to 1995. Amy Steele also owns the tax parcel directly to the south that
consists of lots 11, 12, and 13.
The property is undersized in both area and width for the R-1 district. As platted, disregarding
floodplain, the lot has 6570 square feet. Because the code requires that calculable lot area be above
931 feet, the lot has only 3200 square feet of area. As proposed, fill would be added to the property
bringing 5900 square feet above the flood elevation.
The City does not have jurisdiction over fill in the floodplain. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD) has review and permitting authority over any land alterations between the
floodplain fringe and floodway. The proposed grading plan does then need approval from the
MCWD. A letter from Jim Hafner provides comment on the application. I have talked with Jim
about the application on a number of occasions. His initial review of the application is somewhat
inclusive at this point because the applicant has not provided necessary soil volume calculations to
the district. Generally however, to meet rules, the amount of fill must be compensated with cut for
no net loss of storage area.
The 15 feet grading requirement for fill within the floodplain is a City regulation and is not adopted
by the watershed district. There is no relationship between this regulation and zoning setbacks. It is
nearly impossible for this property to meet this standard given the lot width. It is unclear why this
standard is in the code. It was probably taken from a model floodplain ordinance that was intended
for large lots located along a river rather than a controlled storage facility.
DISCUSSION: The variance request for lot area and width does not meet zoning code requirements
or advance Mound's community development goals. The City's policy on undersized lots is to
require they comply with area and width standards when a new home is built. This is also consistent
with the City's policy to work towards total conformity of all applicable zoning, subdivision, and
building codes to ensure quality development. Although the lot has existed as a lot of record since
at least 1978, that in itself does not guarantee development rights. Since the property was platted,
the City has established higher standards that all new development is required to meet. Other options
of combining the property are available and may reduce the amount of variance.
The soil conditions on the property are poor. This is also tree of the rest of the peninsula stretching
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
#97-39 - 2352 Driftwood Lane
April 12, 1999
south. Staff has not uncovered documented records on the history of the property, although it is
commonly believed to be a dredge spoils site from Seton Channel. This is evidenced by the sea wall
that surrounds the perimeter and the pockets of soil that are sinking. With proper engineering and
building techniques, a home can be built to withstand unsuitable soil conditions. Over building an
area that has poor soils however, can only lead to more instability of the land because of increased
building load and increased water run-off. The cracks in the foundation of the adjacent one story
house are indicative of the conditions. This house also appears to be below the finished floor flood
elevation minimum. It would require extensive work to bring it into conformance, not to mention
the lot is also undersized and short on width.
The ideal solution to this case is to combine lot 10 with lots 11, 12, and 13 for one buildable parcel.
It appears the result would be a parcel that would meet lot width and approach lot area standards.
This approach is not always possible due to property ownership, but in this case may be closer to a
reality because of the relationship of the owners. Although ownership is not a basis to require
combination, it could be more convenient transaction if the owners entertained it as an option.
Staff does not recommend approval of the variance as requested largely on the basis that the lot area
is a substantial deviation from the district minimum. The proposal does not advance zoning code
standards or community development goals. If this lot were part of an adjacent parcel, a lot split
would not be approved unless it satisfied code requirements. The fill issue is a secondary issue to
the case. Although fill is proposed to almost double the current lot area, the conditions of the site
suggest that additional placing additional soil on site is a futile effort as that it will eventually be lost
to the lake. Fill will also increase drainage to adjacent properties and could have a negative impact
on the homes, especially the one-story house that has foundation problems. If a variance is approved,
it would seem appropriate to keep the existing grade in tact as much as possible to prevent further
disruption to the area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that Council
deny the variance request.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
/ '1o
...... Apr, 8, 1999' 6'28AM MCCOMBS ~RANK ROOS"
...... ' 'No, 1611--P, 2/3
£ngineering · Planniflg · Surveying
MEMORANDUM
DATIh
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 8, 1999
Jon Suthcrland, Planning and Zoning
John Cameron, City Engineer
City of Mound
Variance Application
2350 Driftwood Lane
Lot 10, Skarp's East Lawn
Cas~ No. 97-39
MFRA #11781
As requested, we have reviewed the engineering concerns of this application and have the following
comments and/or recommendations. The survey used for our review is dated August 5, 1997 with
the latest revision of March 31, 1999.
As pointed out in my memo of September 2, 1997, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD) uses 931.5 as the regional flood elevation for Lake Minnetonka and
does not allow any fill to be placed below that elevation, unless compensating volume is
provided. The latest survey submitted does not appear to provide the necessary
compensation. The fill calculations submitted were for an earlier survey that did not .show
the proposed house. The application will need a permit from the MCWD to place fill
'within the flood plain.
15050 25rd Avenue lVort# . Plymouth. Minna$ota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 o fax 612/476-8552
e-mail: mfra@mfra.com
'Apr, 8,1999":'$'38AM ......... MCCOMBS PRANK
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
April 8, 1999
Page 2
"'No,
The Ci~ of Mound use 931.0 as the regional flood elevation as per the Flood Insurance
Rate Map developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Section 300:15 of
the Mound City Code regulates all activity in the flood plain. Subdivision 4 -
Development Standards does not appear to prohibit placing fill within the flood plain as
long as the standards listed are met. Subdivision 4F requires that "the finished fill
elevation shall be no lower than one foot below the Regulator)- Flood Protection
Elevation and shall extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the limits of the
structure constructed thereon." The survey submitted does not meet this requirement;
however a variance could be requested. It appears this 15 foot requirement may be
intended for protection of the structure, especial!..y..where moving flood waters may cause
erosion, which would not be the case here.
The proposed grading shown in the vacated portion of Driftwood Lane is primarily to
remove the remaining material that was stockpiled in this area. This grading will also
provide better drainage from the end of the improved portion of DriIiwood Lane and keep
water from running into the garage of the existing home.
4. Additional silt fence would be needed and the silt fence shown must be moved toward the
channel if this project proceeds.
As previously mentioned, the existing "cabin" on the property is served only with
saniuary sewer. If a new house is built, a new water service will need to be connected to
the City main in Driftwood Lane.
A revised survey showing all this information must be submitted at the time of building
permit application, if a variance is granted. It must also include all other data required in
the City's "Certificate of Survey Requirements."
e:hn~n:\ 11'/~ l~utherlancl~-7
APR-O?-1999
14:46 MINNEHAHA CREEK
Minnehaha Creek
W~TERSHED 6124710682
Watershed District
P.02/02
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & lg, Navarre
MEMORANDUM
Mall:
2500 Shad~ood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: ($12) 471-0590
Fax: (512) 471-Q6S2
Email:
admin @ minnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www.minnehahacreek.org
Board of Managers
James Ca[ktns
Lance Fisher
Monica Gross
Thomas W. LaBounly
Thomas Maple, Jr.
Malcolm Reid
Date: April 7, 1999
To: Kri Linquist, City of Mound Planning and Inspections
From: Jim Hafner, District Technician ~ ....
RE: Kobert Steele, 23xx Driftwood Lane, Mound, MCWD Permit/$97-143
Wc have recently received a request from Mr. Steele to reopen his permit request.
However, thc materials submitted in connection with this request have not
provided sufficient information. We have discussed the nccd for 'further
information with Mark Oronberg, Coffin & Gronberg, who is representing Mr.
Steele.
S~ecifically, the summary of proposed cut and fill volumes appeared to use the 1"
of topsoil allowed under MCWD Rule C as top dressing for seed or sod as a de
minimis fill amount. This is not the intent of the rule. Therefore, we have
requested a revised site plan showing location and volume of proposed excavation
and fill for the proposed project.
Another concern is the eroded portion of the shoreline on the west side of the
property immediately north of the seawall on lot 13. In previous discussions with
Mr. Steele it has been emphasized that the seawall end must be capped off and rip
rap or some other acceptable means of shoreline protection must be implemented
to prevent further erosion of the shoreline and the yard.
At this time Mr. Steele's permit application has not been scheduled for a MCWD
Board of Managers meeting. We are waiting for the revised calculations and site
plans as well as proof of preliminary approval from the City of Mound.
Please call mc at (612) 471-6282 with any further quest/ohs.
Lo, er',
TOTAL P.B2
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
BOB STEELE
OF LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
20
0
hi
fS'O,o ,'
i ,'.~0
/
Lot 10, Skarp's East Lawn '~ ~
o : denotes iron marker
(g~o.9) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
j~ : denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey intends to shaw the baundaries of the above described property,
and the proposed tacation of a proposed house thereon. It does not purport
to show any other improvements or encroachments.
LOT AREA = 6570 SQ. FT. / ~¢~ ~/,~'( ?~,.o: s~'~! ~-,¢.~-r
PROPOSED HOUSE = 1370 SQ. FT.. PROPOSED DRIVE = 420 SQ. FT..
PROPOSED WALK = 4O SQ. FT.= /~'Jo SQ. FT. TOTAL = zz85 %
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS : I) GARAGE = 933,5
2) TOP OF FNDTN, + LOWEST FLOOR - 933.8
GCareN & GRONBERG, INC.
hl2-473-4141
?-
/
/
/
HEGEIVED
APR- 1 1999
I hcrcb~ cvrlifv Ihal Ibis survey was prcp,~red by mc or undt'r rm direcl super-
v~sion, nnd Ih,it I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under
thc law~ al dw ~tatc <if Minnesota
97-oo~
February 15, 1999
Mr. Jon Sutherland
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 1999
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
Dear Mr. Sutherland,
This letter is to request that my variance (case ~97-39) be put back on the agenda. I'm enclosing
some new information to be put into the file for the planning commission to review.
Mynew request will still be to re-grade lots 11, 12 & 13, and reconstruct the existing home on lot
#10. After our last meeting at the planning commission, I have come up with a simpler plan that
requires only two variances.
One variance would be lot width, wherein we only have 55 feet, and the requirement is 60
feet. Therefore, a five-foot variance is required. This is not uncommon for this lakeshore
area in Mound.
The second variance would be for lot size. We are proposing a swale be built on lots #l 1 &
#12 to provide drainage from the street to the lake. This should re-direct all the runoff from
the street that presently accumulates on our property. The material from digging this swale
will be moved to lot #10, and bring this lot to the 931ft. level. By doing this, the total area of
lot #10 will then be 6100 sq. ff. At present, the lot size requirement is 10,000 sq. ff. causing
us to request a 3900 sq. ff. variance. See enclosed Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. survey and cubic
yard information.
This 3900 sq. ff. variance is not unusual in the city of Mound. Refer to resolution it 92-57
where a 5200 sq. ff. variance was allowed. R was determined that the livability of the
residential property would be improved by the authorization of their alteration to a
nonconforming use of the property. Hence to afford the owners reasonable use of their land.
Our understanding is that a one-inch seabed or re-grading allowance on land in the flood plan
is allowed as a one-time privilege. On lots #11, 12 & 13, we request this one-inch addition to
the land to complete the re-grading and redirection of the lots toward the new swale. And on
lot #10, we would use this approximate 20 cubic yards to compensate for the foundation.
Therefore no swale will be needed on lot #10, as in our previous proposal for this
compensation.
Regarding the DNR letter in your staff report, I found out that it was simply a form letter issued
without viewing the property. Ceil Strauss has now been out to see the land and wrote a letter
dated December 26, 1997, which is enclosed. Upon reading this letter, you can see that the DNR
is now more responsive to the needs of this property than as stated in your staff report.
I am having Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. mail to you directly, a survey showing the drainage plan,
swale and cubic yard calculations. Please put me back on your scheduled agenda for March, if
possible.
I expect to hear from you soon. Please call if you have any questions, at 901-766-4644, or at
home, 901-759-1190.
Thank you,
Bob Steele
M nnesota Department of Natural Resources , ,,,;,,
DNR Waters, Metro Region- 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, IViN
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 ',c ~//]/~ep
December 26, 1997
Mr. Jon Sutherland
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Robert Steele Variance Request (Case #97-39), Lake Minnetonka - Seton Channel (27-133-14), City
of Mound, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
A comment letter by Peter Leete, of this office, was sent regarding Case #97-39 on September 8, 1997. Since
that time, I have had an opportunity to view the site in question with Mr. Steele and have had discussions
regarding the peculiarities of this site with Minnchaha Creek Watershed District staff and thc staff person
who oversees the DNR Shoreland regulations statewide. Based on this additional information, I have the
following points of clarification and comments to offer:
Requirement to combine nonconforming contiguous lots that have been under the same ownership
~ince ci~ adoption of Shoreland Regulations - As is discussed in "A T~chnical R_epon on Managing
Nonconformities in the $horeland Management District" (July 1995 by DNK Waters)*, the main
issues related to the requirement to combine small lots are: pgteauate, sewage treatment, safe water
su~oly ~ad meetin~ reauixed setbacks. In unsewered areas, the Department has taken a very hard
stand on the requirement to combine nonconforming lots since there is a direct relationship between
size of the lot and adequate treatment of sewage/quality of the water supply.
Therefore, we will not insist that the variance be denied just on the basis of the lots being contiguous
nonconforming lots under the same ownership. However, each of the lots must have sewer, water
and be able to meet the required structure setbacks. In addition, the requested variances must address
other applicable local requirements and meet the spirit and intent of the city's zoning regulations
(consistent with neighborin~ properties, etc.).
* Note: The city shouM have received a copy of this report in September 1995. Let me know ifyou need a
copy forwarded.
Clarification on DNR Direct Jurisdiction - The filling proposed on the property appears to all be
above the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of 929.4' for Lake Minnetonka. The DNR does not
have direct jurisdiction above the OHW. Any repairs or extensions to the retaining wall would be
under DNRjurisdiction, however, the General Permit issued to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District allows the District to address DNR permit requirements/concerns as part of the District's
permit process. Therefore, as long as the required District permit is obtained, a separate DNR permit
would not be requixed.
DNR Information: 612-296-6157, t-800-766-6000 · TrY: 612-296-5484.1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Emplo)er
Who Values Diversity
Printed on Rec.~cled Paper Containing a
Minimum ol II)G Ponl-Consumer Waste
Mr. Jon Sutherland
Case #97-39
December 26, 1997
Page 2
~:loodplain issues - Both the city and the Watershed District have direct jurisdiction over the
floodplain on this site, and different flood elevations are used to address the different requirements.
It is my understanding that there are two main issues: (1) having the proposed structures meet
floodplain requirements, and (2) falling to "restore" portions of the yard that have sunk over the
years.
The DNR would strongly recommend denial~ of any structure proposal that does not meet the
minimum elevations required by the ci.ty s floodplain ordinance (i.e., lowest floor at Re~u~atorv
Flood Protection Elevation, and fill at the flood elevation or higher for at least 13' feet fro~
structure), which are based on State and Federal law. W,e would not object ifbuildable land is
created by moving fall from other parts of the site, as long as no excavation occurs below thc 929.4'
elevation continuous with Lake Minnetonka.
The question about filling in the floodplain to recover sunken land is the jurisdiction of the ~
Watershed Distric[ The Watershed District rules do not normally allow for net fi~'n~
supportive if the Watershed District allowed a variance from their rules for some filling to address
the existing sink holes and uneven areas that could be a safety concera. In regards to raising the
sunken part of the yard any further, I offer the following points for the Watershed District to
consider: (1) the DNR allows recovery of land that has been lost below the OHW in the previous five
years due to erosion, etc., (2) it is the general consensus that this land was originally swampy area
that was made into "upland" with dredge spoil in a way that would not be permitted under current
state laws, (3) if any net filling is allowed, it should not be for the purpose of allowing land that
would be unbuildabl¢ to become buildable.
The comm~xlts in this letter address DNK Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments
should not bc construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project.
Please contact me at 772-7914 should you have questions.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
CCS
¢:
Robert Steele /
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Jim Hafner
Ed Fick, DNR Waters - Central Office
RECEIVEb
1999
Coffin & Glop. berg, lite.
482 Tamarack Ave.
LorJg Lake, MN 55356
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
BOB STEELE
OF LOTS 10, 11, 12, AND 13, SKARP'S EAST LAWN
AND PART OF VACATED EAST AVENUE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
COFFIN & GRONBERG ................................ :,,,~
;,~,..
RECE1VEE',
MARl? '1999
~ViOUND ':(ANN!N': ~ INSP.
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road -
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471-0590
Fax: (612) 471-0682
Email:
admin@minnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www.minnehahacreek.org
Board of Managers:
John E. Thomas
President
C. Woodrow Love
Vice President
Pamela G. Blixt
Treasurer
Monica Gross
Secretary
Thomas W. LaBounty
Thomas Maple, Jr.
Malcolm Reid
District Office:
Diane P. Lynch
District Administrator
Minnehaha Creek
Watershed
Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life
November 19, 1997
Mr. Bob Steele
8515 Wood Lane
Germantown, TN 38183
RE: MCWD Permit Application No. 97-143
Dear Mr. Steele:
District
The above mentioned permit application was removed from the agenda of the
November 13, 1997 MCWD Board of Managers meeting. As required by District
Rule A, an applicant must have received preliminary municipal approval prior to
any action by the MCWD Board. Your application was on the November 13
agenda in anticipation of receiving approval from the City of Mound Planning
Commission on November 10, 1997. However, your application was tabled at
that meeting which resulted in removal from the MCWD agenda.
,The Board did hear your request asking them to consider the proposed placing of
fill on the Driftwood Lane property as restoration and not fill in the floodplain.
They suggested that you provide a site survey showing elevation contours, and
present a formal plan for the proposed work. A decision could not be made until
these exhibits had been reviewed by District staff and a new recommendation
made to the Board.
We have received the site survey showing spot elevations. A full review will take
place when a project proposal is received. You are reminded that no further
action can be taken on your proposal to remove the existing structures, alter the
floodplain, and build a new house until the City has given a preliminary approval.
Please call me at (612) 471-0590 with any questions.
Sincerely,
~" Jim Hafner
District Technician
Printed on recycled paper containing
c:
Jon Sutherland, City of Mound
Steve Schmunk, Wenck Associates
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jim Hafner, MCWD
FROM:
Steve Schmunk, P.E.
RE:
Engineer's Technical Review, Summary. and Recommendations for MCWD
Permit Application 97-143, Robert Steele, Mound
DATE:
November 6. 1997
At your request we have reviewed the above referenced application for technical compliance
with MCWD rules.
Rule C applies.
Engineer's Review:
This project involves the construction of a single family residence on a small site in Mound. To
construct the house the applicant needs to fill approximately 15 cubic yards of floodplain. ]'his
fill will be compensated onsite by an equal amount of floodplain cut.
The applicant also wishes to place fill behind the seawall on his property where significant
erosion has taken place. Because the file did not contain enough information to support this
request, we did not review the seawall work as part of the permit application. Information such
as elevations, estimated amount of fill needed for the job, reason for (and timing of) the loss of
land behind the seawall, and method of repair of the open end of the seawall are examples of the
type of information needed for this review.
Engineer's Recommendation:
Approval and permit issuance to do the requested floodplain work associated with the house
construction, excluding from this permit the seawall work.
Rule J: 2.9 hrs
(':\I ;oglam Filcs\eudola lilc\Altach\O7-143.doc
I I/06/97
NOV-10-199? 11:50 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 6124710682 P.03/05
MCWD PERMIT APPLICATION: 9%143
Applicant: Robert L. Steele
-2352 DriRwood Lane
-Mound. MN 55364
2344 Driftwood Lane, Mound
Location:
PID:
Applicable Rules:
Rule C. Floodvlain alteration
REPORT DATE: 11-06-97
Representative: Coffin & Gronberg
482 Tamarack Avenue
Lone Lake. MN 55356
Subwatershed: U-I 0
SubSubwatershed:
Exhibits Received: Site plans
Cut / fill narrative Mailing labels
Noticing Requirements: Mailed to re,dents w/in 600' of project on
Wetland Conservation Act Notice mailed on
11-6-97
Reviewed by: Mike Panzer, Andrew Syverson. Steve Schmunk, Jim Hafner
Project Review Status by Other Governmental Units:
DNR General Permit:
Recommendations: Approval and permit imuance to do the requested floodplain work associated with the house
construction, excluding from this permit the seawall work.
Review & Summary: This project involves the construction ora single family residence on a small .nite in Mound.
To construct the house the applicant needs to fill approximately 15 cubic yards of floodplain. This fill will bc
compensaled onsite by an equal amount of Iloodplain cut.
The applicant also wishes to place flu behind the seawall on his property where significant erosion has taken place.
Because the file did not contain enough information to support tllis request, we did not review the seawall work as pan
oft. he permit application. Information such as elevations, estimated amount of fill needed for thc job, reason for (and
timing of) lhe loss of land behind the seawall, and method of repair of thc open end of the seawall are examples of the
type of information needed for this review.
Rule J Time*: Staff $57.50
Engrs $232.00
Legal
Mailing coats $27.88
Total to date: $317.38
Rule J lees listed in this report may not be the final total incurred for the application.
Minutes - Planning Commission
November 10, 1997
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
Those present: Vice Chair Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Gerald
Reifschneider, Becky Glister, Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent and excused:
Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff Present: Assistant
Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and Planning Secretary Kris
Linquist.
Public Present: Tom Alexander, Bob Steele
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 27, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Mueller stated that were comments read "truth and zoning" should state, "truth-in-
housing." Corrections have been noted and corrected.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to approve the Minutes of the
October 27, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried .
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 97-39: Variance to construct a non-conforming dwelling, Robert Steele,
23XX Driftwood Lane, Lots 10, Skarp's East Lawn, PID 13-117-24 44 0059
Applicant requested to table this case at this time, he would like some more time to
gather information regarding this case before it is heard by the Commission.
Minutes - Planning Commission
November 10. 1997
Mueller stated that there are 3 members not here this evening and that maybe this
should be delayed until all members can be present to hear the case in its entirety.
A vote was taken and it was 3-3, it was decided to hear the case tonight, with the
understanding that it will be tabled in the end.
Building Official Jori Sutherland reviewed the case.
The applicant, Robert Steele, is seeking variances on lot area, impervious surface,
and lot width in order to allow construction of a new Single Family Dwelling. The
proposed dwelling is conforming to the required setbacks for this parcel which is a
lot of record. The existing dilapidated old cottage would be removed as part of the
proposal. In the event the variance is approved, the floodplain modifications will
require other agency approvals and this is addressed in the City Engineers report.
This property is located in the R-1 zoning district which requires a minimum street
frontage/lot width of 60 feet, a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and
building setbacks of 30 feet for the front, 6 and 10 foot to the side for lots of
record, and a 50 foot setback to the lake.
Included in the staff report are the comments of the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) who has recommended denial. Attached as staff's exhibit//1, (3
pages) is the Realtors advertisement just prior to the applicants purchasing of the
property, this information identified the subject property (tax parcel//59) as being
under one owr~ership with the adjacent parcel to the south (//60). The owner is in
the process of filing to change the title over to a family member as noted in the
submittle documents, the city currently has no control or regulation over this
process.
Nonconforming issues and comments:
1) Lot Area: The area of the lot is the area above the flood elevation of 931 as
defined in the zoning code (section 350:310, Subd. 78.). This area is noted by the
surveyor as 3,200 square feet, 10,000 is required in the R-1 zone resulting in a
variance request of 6,800 square feet.
Comments: The nonconformity of lot area is substantial and both the adjacent
parcels are also substandard to lot area. The adjacent lot//9 to the north received
a variance via resolution //96-50 and the background of this case is included in your
packet. In comparison the current and the previous case the lot areas are similar
however the use of the property and the conditions of each case are quite different.
When the current applicant purchased this property the applicant had control over
both parcel //59 and //60, both parcels on their own are substantially
nonconforming to lot area and occupied by a large amount of floodplain. One
Minutes - Planning Commission
November 10, 1997
option available would be to combine the nonconforming parcels, demolish the old
cottage, and develop a proposal for one dwelling that is more consistent with the
lot area provisions,
2) Lot Width: The existing lot width is 49 feet, 60 feet is required resulting in a
variance request of 11 feet.
Comments: Combination of the parcels and elimination of the old cottage would
result in a minor improvement to the lot width. The County Plat Map needs to be
revised to reflect the apparent vacation of a portion of Driftwood Lane.
3) Floodplain: A substantial portion of this and adjacent property is in the
floodplain. The applicant is proposing to fill and compensate on site, the City
Engineer has addressed this issue in his report.
Comments' According to the ordinance floodplain area cannot be used to calculate
lot area.
GENERAL COMMENTS: The criteria for granting variances requires that in order to
grant a variance a finding of hardship or practical difficulty must be made and also
that specific circumstances exist as outlined in Section 350:530. In this case staff
cannot support a finding of hardship or practical difficulty as there are other options
available to the applicant such as combining this property with the parcel #60 to
the south that is also nonconforming to the floodplain and lot area. A combination
of the parcels 'would be more consistent with the City Zoning Code, and also with
the Comprehensive Plan statements related to the removal of nonconforming
situations when possible regardless of whether they result from lot size, structural
type or setbacks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission
recommend denial of this case based on the conditions as stated above. If the
Commission concurs with this recommendation a list of findings should be made
that are consistent with this recommendation.
DISCUSSION:
Voss questioned what the differences between lots 9 and 10. Sutherland stated
that Wigners house (Lot 9) was occupied and repairs could have been made instead
of building a new one. They also had a nonconforming garage. It was the use of
the property that sets the properties apart.
Hanus questioned why that particular section was zoned R1 and not R1A. It was
decided that it was probably due to the way the rest of the area is zoned.
Weiland questioned why was lot 10 separated without having the required 10,000
Minutes - Planning Commission
November 10, 1997
square feet. Sutherland stated that on the original plat, lot 10 had its own PID
number and lots 11-12-13 had one PID number and had the same ownership.
Mueller stated that it is all under one legal description and doesn't understand how
lot 10 can be divided off from the rest of the parcel without applying for a
subdivision.
Applicant, Bob Steele, 8515 Wood Lane, Germantown TN, purchased the property
for himself and his daughter, his daughter lives in the house on lot 11. On page 8,
//2 regarding Lot Width show on survey on page 22, the survey states that the
frontage is 55 feet. He stated that he will probably have another survey showing
the street vacation. Made comments regarding the usage of the adjacent property.
The difference between lot 9 and 10, lot 9 already had a foundation where the
cottage on lot 10 does not. Sutherland stated that he needs to make a correction
on page 8, //2 regarding lot width that it is 55' instead of 49' but needs to be
verified by an updated survey. Mue~er questioned the vacation of the road. Steele
stated that the original plat at Hennepin county shows that it was platted for his
property. Steele stated that he didn't feel that the use of the property was
disclosed to him by the realtor. He stated that most of the homes on Driftwood are
non conforming. Stated he filed for title on lot 10 two months ago. He currently
has the titles. Lot 10 was owned by separate owner previously. He stated that the
DNR stated that they may not have the jurisdiction to give a recommendation. His
response to the Planning Commission is he would like to table the case until he can
get some more information together for the Planning Commission. He feels that
since the varia'nce was given to lot 9 that the Commission should do the same for
his case. Some of the ground has been eroded away over time.
Hanus questioned why the property was not subdivided to make lot 10, 10,000
square feet. Steele stated that it would lose its lot of record status.
Mueller stated the comprehensive plan to Mr. Steele.
MOTION to table Voss, seconded by Weiland to table this case as per the
request of the applicant. Motion carried 6-0.
CITY N D
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
Planning Commission Agenda of November 10, 1997
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jori Sutherland, Building Official ~
SUBJECT:
Variance to Construct a Nonconforming Dwelling
APPLICANT:
Robert Steele
CASE NO. 97-39
LOCATION:
23XX Driftwood Lane, Lots 10, Skarp's East Lawn
PID 13-117-24-44-0059
ZONING:
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Robert Steele, is seeking variances on lot area,
impervious surface, and lot width in order to allow construction of a new Single Family
Dwelling. The proposed dwelling is conforming to the required setbacks for this parcel
which is a lot of record. The existing dilapidated old cottage would be removed as part
of the proposal. In the event the variance is approved, the floodplain modifications
will require other agency approvals and this is addressed in the City Engineers report.
This property is located in the RD1 zoning district which requires a minimum street
frontage/lot width of 60 feet, a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and building
setbacks of 30 feet for the front, 6 and 10 foot to the side for lots of record, and a
50 foot setback to the lake.
Included in the staff report are the comments of the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) who has recommended denial. Attached as staff's exhibit//1, (3 pages) is the
Realtors advertisement just prior to the applicants purchasing of the property, this
information identified the subject property (tax parcel //59) as being under one
ownership with the adjacent parcel to the south (//60). The owner is in the process
of filing to change the title over to a family member as noted in the submittle
documents, the city currently has no control or regulation over this process.
Nonconforming issues and comments:
printed on recycled paper
1) Lot Area: The area of the lot is the area above the flood elevation of 931 as
defined in the zoning code (section 350:310, Subd. 78.). This area is noted by the
surveyor as 3,200 square feet, 10,000 is required in the R-1 zone resulting in a
variance request of 6,800 square feet.
Comments: The nonconformity of lot area is substantial and both the adjacent parcels
are also substandard to lot area. The adjacent lot//9 to the north received a variance
via resolution//96-50 and the background of this case is included in your packet. In
comparison the current and the previous case the lot areas are similar however the
use of the property and the conditions of each case are quite different.
When the current applicant purchased this property the applicant had control over
both parcel //59 and //60, both parcels on their own are substantially nonconforming
to lot area and occupied by a large amount of floodplain. One option available would
be to combine the nonconforming parcels, demolish the old cottage, and develop a
proposal for one dwelling that is more consistent with the lot area provisions.
2) Lot Width: The existing lot width is 49 feet, 60 feet is required resulting in a
variance request of 11 feet.
Comments: Combination of the parcels and elimination of the old cottage would result
in a minor improvement to the lot width. The County Plat Map needs to be revised to
reflect the apparent vacation of a portion of Driftwood Lane.
3) Floodplain: A substantial portion of this and adjacent property is in the floodplain.
The applicant .is proposing to fill and compensate on site, the City Engineer has
addressed this issue in his report.
Comments: According to the ordinance floodplain area cannot be used to calculate lot
area.
GFNFRAI COMMFNTS: The criteria for granting variances requires that in order to
grant a variance a finding of hardship or practical difficulty must be made and also
that specific circumstances exist as outlined in Section 350:530. In this case staff
cannot support a finding of hardship or practical difficulty as there are other options
available to the applicant such as combining this property with the parcel //60 to the
south that is also nonconforming to the floodplain and lot area. A combination of the
parcels would be more consistent with the City Zoning Code, and also with the
Comprehensive Plan statements related to the removal of nonconforming situations
when possible regardless of whether they result from lot size, structural type or
setbacks.
STAFF RFCOMMFNDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission
recommend denial of this case based on the conditions as stated above. If the
Commission concurs with this recommendation a list of findings should be made that
are consistent with this recommendation.
JS:kl
UcCombs Frank Hoos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FILE NO.:
Jon Sutherland, Planning & Zoning
John Cameron, City Engineer
September 2, 1997
City of Mound
Variance Application
2350 Driftwood Lane
Lot 10 Skarp's East Lawn
13-117-24-0059
Case #97-39
MFRA #11781
As requested, we have reviewed the engineering concerns of this application and have the
following comments and/or recommended actions.
It is my understanding that the application will be modified and a revised survey submitted
which will show only Lot 10 as the subject property. If this is not done a minor subdivision
would be required since Lot i 0 is presently a separate tax parcel.
The area of Lot 10 as platted is approximately 6,500 square feet. The City Zoning
Code only recognizes that portion above the 100 year flood elevation as buildable
area, which in this case is approximately 3,500 square feet. The 100 year flood
elevation as set by FEMA is 931.0.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) uses 931.5 as the regional flood
elevation for Lake Minnetonka and does not allow any fill to be placed below that
elevation, unless compensating volume is provided. The plan as submitted appears to
provide for this compensation; but a permit must be granted by the MCWD.
An Equal Opportunity Ernployer I1~1~0
Jon Sutherland
September 2, 1997
o
Utilities. The existing "cabin" on the property is presently served with city water by a
service connected to the service for the adjacent lot. If a new home is built, it would
need its own water service connected directly to the city watermain. Them is an
existing sanitary sewer service for this lot from the city main in Driftwood which can
be used for the proposed construction. A revised survey showing all this information
needs to be submitted at the time of building permit application. It must also include
all other data requested in the City's "Certificate of Survey Requirements," such as
existing and proposed elevations.
eSmain:\ 1178 l\suth9-2
September 8, 1997
Ms. Kris Linquist
City of Mound
534 IMaywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
,. $£p 18. D
Sep~mb~ 8, 1997 Mo~d Plug Co~ssion M~t~& Ci~ of Mo~ He~ep~ Co~
Dom' Ms. Linquist:
Wc have reviewed thc agenda items slated for review at thc September 8, 1997 advisory planning
commission meeting and have comments on two agenda items:
Case #97-39. The property owner (Steele family) proposes to split one of the four lots they own for
the development of a single family home. Thc Mound City Ordinance specifically states (Section
350.415) that Lots of Record may be used for single family detached dwelling purposes provided thc
proposal meets all setback and minimum area requirements. We would object to this proposal if any
variance is required that would make any remaining lot nonconforming. Contiguous lots under the
same ownership can only be split if each separated lot meets all the standards and requirements for
individual lot usc. If the proposed lot split does not meet standards and requirements for individual
lot development, then thc DNR will object to this proposal.
Case #97-41 and #97-45 (Chuck Downey property). The same comments for Case #97-39 apply.
Lot 7 is not being proposed to be developed at this time. However, what is thc long-term plan for
this lot? Would it be buildable without variances?
The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project.
Please contact mc at 772-7910 should you have questions.
Hydrologist
PAMt/~
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Jim Hafner
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta
Hennepin Conservation District, Ali Durguno~iu
DNR In formation: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 · TrY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opporlunily Employer ~, Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Who Values Diversity ~ll~l~ Minimum of I0% PosI-Consumer Waste
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
AID
AUG 6 199~
CIT~O 'MD F UND
^pplicaflori-F~e: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
City Planner DNR
City Engineer Other
Public Works
N... Block
Address
Lot
Subdivision '~/4/ffr-'C4
ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-IA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
Name ~0~%1~ ~ ~flfi~ ?J,~ ~L~
Address ) ~S ~
aone(H) qol~95q-llqa (w) qo/-Td.b'-q6~ (M)
APPLICANT Name ,~~8~f~7"; 5a¢-'~N3"Z d ,4-1~Y 5T-'~;.LE
L
(IF OTHER Address
TH^N Phone (H) (W) (M)
OWNER)
1. Has an application ever been made ,foff zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (*'5 no. If yes, list date(s) of avplication, .gction taken, re.solution
~mbe_r.(s) and r~rovide cop, ies of_resolutions. MOT- '7-0
D~tailed, descripton 9f prgposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No._
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
AND
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (NSE{~
Side Yard: ((~)S E W ) .
Side Yard: ( ~(~)E W )
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lakeside: ( N S I~W )
· (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
'30 ft. 570 ft. ft.
I0 ft. /0 ft. ft.
(o ft. z,, ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
5'-0 ft. 5'0 ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
/ O) ~ ,O~,,.,sq ft b ~'7 o ft 3 4t-..5~ q ft
~O-qoT.,sq ft ,29,'7 .sq ft o .sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (), No (/~. If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
(I/) too narrow ( ) topography ()/soil
too small ( ) drainage (b4 existing situation
too shallow ( ) shape., ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No.
o
Was the hardship described above created by the action of any,on,,e having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No tV). If yes, explain:
7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change,_, such as the re!oqation of a road? Yes (,~
No (). If yes, explain: 'TI'l/.5 L/~I~D i.5 ?/ql~T Of' ~ ?~'"_[VtM. X4L~. 0~r_.3"c~/w2A~
8. Are the conditions of hardship fo[/whichy, ffu request a variance peculiar only to the property described
. in this petitio,n~ Yes,(), No i[4'. If nj~,,list some._.other properties which are similarly affecte,.d?_ .:--,..--
Pr 106o) Pl~gtz$c o~ i-o7- ~.q '/V6XT' l.)(~P.. 0.~?3 IB~! C-F' L437" Y'.ZAi~; ! t
' h5 h L3o /9 .[-I0$s6 IW I'J£ L% C,F Rf-p.,9 /P.._ £//0!09'.I-5. NQtOTCO]OFOk,%
',,~]Oo [7-OtM3 '~.,qRTcV /,q 771T- i~Loof) ~MI.,d. 09:36 4~ ~llo-our
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith 'are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature~ ,~--~ Date ~1 5/~'7
Applicant's Signature ~~~~'~ Date ~'¢ ~'7
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA ~70
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
_SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I~
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... [
SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH
~f'3 I-'1'
i
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X --
X =
X --
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I_- I ~ 7~: .'1
UNDER / OVER Q~licate difference) ...............................
September 15, 1997
John Suthefland
City of Mound
Mound, Minnesota
Dear John.
This letter is to provide additional information to you on my variance application to build a
new single-family residence on Lot 10 of Skarp's East Lawn.
I have applied to the MCWD not only for the building on Lot 10, but also to restore Lots
#10, I l, 12 & 13 to their original elevation of 40 years ago, when the sea wall was first
installed. In this process, I have found information that clearly shows the hardships
surrounding Lot #10.
I have included with this information the following exhibits.
l. A copy of the original registered plat from the Hennepin Surveyors office.
4.
A copy of a land survey showing where the reclaimed land should be done.
Photos of the property taken in the early 1960's.
A copy of the letter filed with Hennepin County showing that the city of Mound
vacated the southerly I30' of Driftwood Lane.
The original plat is provided in order to show you several things. First, that this property
was registered in 1920, and that the sea wall was built at, er the original plat. This means
that the peninsula of Seton Channel is actually a ~an-made area confined now by the sea
wall around Lots 10, 11, 12 & 13.
I have included the present land survey to show the proposed land area to be reclaimed. It
is important to understand just how much of this land has eroded away! These lots
accumulate almost all of the water mn-off.from DriRwood Lane. When the city vacated
the I30', no provisions for run-offwere made, consequently, and to this day, the water and
snow has been allowed to erode, sink and compact these lots. Remember, that due to the
sea wail, this water remains within our property. It cannot run back uphill, nor can it run
beyond the sea wall which holds it in. Thus, our property has eroded below its original,
intended elevation.
The photos that I have enclosed show clearly that the level of land was much higher than it
is now. The lawn was level and above the top of the sea wall. The house foundation on
Lot #l 1 was higher, and the patio as well as front step have sunken. Picture ti4 relates to
Lot # 10 showing that the land at that point matched the sea wall height. After reviewing
these photos and visiting the property, one can plainly see the erosion that has taken place.
The biggest part of the erosion process suffered by these lots over the last 40 years, has
been due to the run-offwater fi.om Driftwood. When the city vacated this property, no
provisions for water and snow run-offwere made. We want to reclaim our land, much of
which might be above the 931' level, and build a lovely new home on Lot #I0. We feel all
of this will beautify the peninsula on Seton Channel. As you know, two other new homes
have just been completed next door to Lot # 10. Our home will only continue the
improvements to this area.
Granted, in order to build on Lot#10, we need the variances requested. When this land is
reclaimed to a higher elevation, there will be more land area at 93 I' or above. Please use
this information when considering our variance request!
Sincerely,
Bob Steele .
NRY-21-.97 ~,IED 04:49 PN HENNEPIN TERN FST FR× NO, 612 831 2486
14~'f-2~-97 ~F...D 04:13 Pl"i PL,ql,iET DEfit,i!S F¢.;~ NO, 61220,40753
............. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
T~,Is is to cert{fy thlmt
P, 06/08
?,Oa
N? 8t7621
REGISTRATION
now the mvner~a) gf an ear,rte in tee ~mgle of e~d In l~ foll~ing descri~ ta~ situated In t~ ~Unty of ~nnapl. a~
of U~,t~~-- - '
roll.lng rlg~ or ~nces ~bs~n~ ~ p~ed in ~e ~en~fou~h ~t~ of ~n ~ ~.~mlng the ~ls~n ~ ~
~:; .'3~' gr?
~.:'.:.;;'r;i:,;;.m: ':. ;>~ I ¢ H_E 0;4
. ( ,0~.~ ~
JA14-12-95 I~RI 17:14
b~OV--
BURl{ET REALTY B' VILLE
F R I I 1 = ~ I ~:URNET
FAX 1'{0, 6124352935 ~. u4
~m~.nULE B - s~C~o~ 2
No. 95-19394
A!
~ EXCEPTIONS:
1. ~h~ ~ ¢1~i~ of parties in po~se~slon rot. ~h~ b~ ~ ~1~
~s~ion of ~e ~e.,
~1 ~ e~~ or ~ ~ ~~e ~ ~e f~ta ~1o~,
a. Ali restrictiw oovenants affect/ag the alxa, e described
b. All levied ara/or ~nding s~_./al assessments.
d. Ea~e~ents or clai~ of easemen~ a~£eo~i.~ ~ch~ ~a~bject prC~.
e. mghts or claims of parties in [:x~eee~sim not s~ ~ ~ ~
857
$
pierce offered the following resclution and .moved
its adoption:
%HEREAS, the owner of th, property abutting the
southePly 130 feet of East Lm: ~, according to the plat
thereof in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and
for Hennepin County, Minnesota, has requested the council
of the Village of Mound in s petition dated October 5,
195~ to vacate said street according to law, and
WIIEREA$, a public hearing was held on November 8,
195~ before the Village council in the Village Hall on
such petition after due published and posted notice had
been given by the clerk on October 1~, 195~ and all pep-
eons interested were given an opportunity to be heard,
and
W~.EREAS, it appears that it will be for the best
interest of the Village to approve such petition,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That such petition ia
hereby granted and the said street abo~-~ descloibed is
vacated as a public street.
Wenkstern seconded tbs motion and the roll being
called, the vote was aa follows:
Pierce Aye
Wenkstern Aye
Li~ts Aye
Behmler Aye
And so the motion wag carried.
I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
copy of the minutes of ~he Village of Mound Council meeting
of December13,1954.
S86464
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
BOB STEELE
OF LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
o
t~
~-
20
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
Lot 10, Skarp's East Lawn ~
/
/
/
o : denotes iron marker
(g~o.g) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
~ : denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum
Bearings shown are based upon on assumed datum.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property,
and the proposed location of a proposed house thereon. It does not purport
to show any other improvements or encroachments.
LOT AREA = 6570 SQ. FT. , ~ ,~,~ ~/.o: ~ ! ~.~.
PROPOSED HOUSE = 1370 SQ. FT.. PROPOSED DRIVE = 4~ SQ. FT..
PROPOSED WALK = 4o SQ. FT.= /,~?o SQ. FT. TOTAL --Zzg~ %
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS : 1) GARAGE = 933.5
2) TOP OF FNDTN. + LOWEST FLOOR = 933.8
PROPOSED FILL BELOW 931.5 CONTOUR = 20 CU. YDS.
PROPOSED CUT TO CREATE NEW
FLOODPLAIN (BELOW 931.5 CONTOUR) = 20 CU. YDS.
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FILE? [0-~)'~'
REQUIRED STREW FRONTAG~DTH: ~(~ I
REQUIRED SETBACKS
ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA:
o,o o ?
EXISTING LOT DEPTH:
PRINCIPAL BUILD~G/HOUSE
FRONT: N S E[W) ?'3(~ ~'
FRONT: N S E
w
R~R: N S E W 15'
LAKESHORE: ~0~]measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: J O ~
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
4' or B'
4' or 6'
4'
50' (measured from O.H.W.)
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE: LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: TOP OF BLUFF:
HA?~C_.OV~ER CONFORMING? YES/NO(//~) IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES
BY :~ne~
I his Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a port~on of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
(4)
5D '
..... 13~g. 42 RES .........
.......... g0VT LOT8
CT',
0
Paul Kirschner Welcomes You to
2352 DRIFTWOOD LANE, Mound
Bedrooms
Baths
Living Room
Family Room
Kitchen
Master Bedroom
Second Bedroom
Porch
2
1
13 x 18
10 x 16
8x13
11 x 12
9x 12
10 x 15
$139,900
* Style
Rambler
* Exterior Wood
Hardboard Masonite
* Lake Front Location
* Main Floor Bedroom
FEATURES
* Garage
One Car
Attached
* Bathrooms
Main Floor Full Bath
* lteat
Forced Air
* Fuel
Natural Gas
* Eat-In Kitchen
* Porch
* Appliances
Range/Oven
* Water
City Connection
* Sewer
City Connection
Foundation Size
Finished SqFt
Lot
Year Built
School District
Taxes
PROPERTY
832 Tax Year
832 Tax with Assessment
295X223X226X150APPR Assessment Pending
1955
277
4989
Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
Office: 435-4218
REALTY::'
96
4989
N
13-J-tiN-1996 11:45
#1
SUPPLEMENT WITHOUT PHOTO
LIST # 1146039 SUP # 1 ADD 2352 DRIFTWOOD LANE
THE ULTIMATE IN PRIVACY!! FOUR CONNECTING LOTS WITH
LAKESHORE ON LAKE MINNETONKA - BETWEEN KARRISONS BAY AND
COOKS BAY ON SETON LAKE.
THE 2 BEDROOM RAMBLER CURRENTLY LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY
COULD BE RENOVATED TO BECOME YOUR DREAM HOME.
THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE LOTS. ONCE YOU
TAKE A LOOK YOU'LL AGREE THERE'S TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL HERE.
DON'T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY.
CALL LISTING AGENT WITH A_NY QUESTIONS.
*** PAUL KIRSCHNER 435-4218
PID #1311724440059 = LOT #10
PID #1311724440060 = LOT 11, 12, & 13
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
VERNON JENSEN ESTATE
OF LOTS 10-13, sKARP'S EAST I.AWN, AND TRACT A. R.t_~ NO. 281
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
· e: denotes iroJ tir~er found
1'
~UG-21-97
FOR V ~,LUA~LE CONS~EILATtON, A.I~ Marie.,qttele- ia ~ir~le peremn. Gtantor(.~), hereby eo.x,e:,(s) end
t. Ih, reft ~ -,.StorJ¢.,.,d S.a,.ne M. S~, as j~int wnant~ C-mute~s), real property in ~ County,
~ril~l ~ follows:
l~ot I0, Sk~rp's E~l Liawn.
--, Il I
8TATEOFMINNF_$0TA
¢o~osH.~,q,t~:P~ MOUND PLANNING & II~iSP.
'lime foreguing was acknowledged 1~Fote me tMs I~ f~dm/of AuSust, 19~)7, by Ar~y Marie Steele. n ~{.{{e p~rson, '..:
NOTAEIAL $1~JV~'OR SF.A~ (oR OIH[R 1Tl'l~ Oe. lb~NK)
MRY-21-97 NED 04:48 PM .HENNEPIN TERM FST FR× NO, 612 831 2486
~hY-21-g? NED 04:14 PI{ PLRI'IET DF_.HHIS F~ ~0, 6122040753
............. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
NO. ~7~5
certify t~ot
P, 04/08
844765
St~t~ ef M{n~e~ot~, t~ wit:
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
Apdl 26, 1999
In small communities, such as Mound, the Planning Commission and the Board of
Zoning Appeals are the same group of people. A way to reduce process time would be
to designate the Board of Appeals as the approval body. In this situation, the Council
would still retain its authority as the appeal body on cases where the applicant wishes
to have the Board of Appeals decision heard. This would one way to reduce the
review process for the applicant. Staff feels that these added streamlining provisions
and process enhancement will not compromise overall community goals. These
proposed strategies accurately represent the trends happening in the review process.
The also will give the Staff, the Commission, and the Council have more time to
address broader community planning issues such as comprehensive plans, zoning
updates, downtown redevelopment, and many other issues.
After discussion by many commissioners, the consensus was in favor of the
streamlining and process enhancement suggestions by staff.
MOTION by Brown, second by Weiland, to recommend Staff's
suggestions to the City Council and let them decide.
Weiland stated that he would like to see a trial period of trying these strategies before
recommending,that City Council pass this on outright. He believes the balance
between appointed and elected officials must be looked at.
Mueller asked that attorneys be present at controversial cases. Gordon stated that the
attorney's information is gathered upfront in the staff report. If more is needed, the
issue is tabled and then the attorneys are contacted.
Gordon stated that the Code enhancement could be handled by amending the
language to the codes. A year's trial time period is difficult because of the ordinances
that would require changing.
Brown and Weiland withdrew the motion.
Staff was requested to bring back ordinance draft language for the zoning code
enhancements and later address the process enhancements.
2
1 50
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mil
i ln
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff
Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner
April 19, 1999
Zoning code streamlining
There has been an on going discussion about the need to review streamlining provisions in the
zoning code as they apply to residential construction. This discussion was formalized with a
Council motion to have the Planning Commission revisit the streamlining provisions and provide
a recommendation on how they can be further enhanced.
The current streamlining provisions were adopted in mid 1996 with the intentions of reducing the
number of variance cases while still upholding Comprehensive Plan goals and the intent of the
zoning code. The zoning code (Section 350:420) currently allows streamlining either by a
previous variance approval within 15 years or by compliance with percentage of the required
yard or lot standards. The intent of streamlining was to reduce the number of cases that were
"slam dunks." S/afl knows the existing provisions have reduced the number of variance requests.
The sheer volume of construction activity over the past few years however, has kept the case load
high. The following two tables give a comparison of cases before streamlining was adopted in
1996 and the case load after adoption. The tables show the number of variance requests has
increased from an average of 39 per year pre-1995 to 44 per year after 1996.
Variance Cases 1990- 1995 before streamlining provisions
1990 20
1991 45
1992 48
1993 41
1994 49
1995 30
Totals 233 (39 per year)
225 or 97%
The intent of this review is to evaluate the streamlining process to see if any revisions are
needed. Included in your packet material are spreadsheets of all variance cases since 1995. Each
of these cases did not qualify for streamlining for one reason or more. The nonconformity is
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Zoning Code Streamlining
April 19, 1999
usually due to insufficient yard setbacks or lot standards. In a smaller percentage of cases,
floodplain standards trigger the nonconformity. Another specific area that commonly triggers
variance review is a lakeside setback of accessory use.
In reviewing the yearly summary sheets, one area that really jumped out at staff was the number
of cases where the proposed construction was conforming and a variance was granted. Of the
total 142 cases reviewed since 1996, 49 cases or 35 percent involved a review of conforming
construction through additions or alterations. All of the 49 cases reviewed were approved by both
the Planning Commission and City Council. The following table is a summary of the packet
material.
Variance cases 1996 to present after adoption of streamlining provisions
1996 48 15 15
1997 4O 13 13
1998 50 19 19
1999 to date 4 2 2
Totals 142 (44 per year) 49 49 or 35% of
total cases
reviewed
Note: When the Planning Commission recommended approval of a case with
conformirig construction, the Council approved it 100% of the time.
There has been recent discussion at the Planning Commission and Council that variance cases
with conforming construction appear to be a "rubber stamp" approval because they are always
approved. There is also some sentiment that it is a hassle to the applicant to go through the
review process when the outcome seems known. The review variance process requires the
applicant to complete an application, provide addresses of adjacent property owners for mailing
labels, and provide a updated survey of the property with improvements.
The major reason Mound has reviewed nonconformities is to ensure proposals meet the goals of
the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. This process has been a tool over the years in helping
the City transition from a cabin community to a community with typical year round housing
stock. Many of the tough decisions to realize this goal have been made in cleaning up the
community. The City has a practice of requesting that other noncompliant property issues that
are related to the request be brought into conformance. This process has assisted with property
compliance issues related to a request.
If the Planning Commission and Council were to entertain allowing streamlining of cases with
conforming improvements, the following could result:
· Loss of review authority over related noncompliant property issues.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
Zoning Code Streamlining
April 19, 1999
· A reduction in the number of variance cases.
· Lose some ability to advance comprehensive plan and zoning goals.
· A reduction in staff time spent on review.
· Possibly allow nonconformities to exist longer than they would if a review were required.
· Spend more time on community wide planning projects.
Given the past direction on streamlining, here are some options staff would suggest to further
enhance streamlining:
Code Enhancement
Modify the nonconforming use section to allow a nonconforming structure to be expanded if the
expansion meets all applicable city code requirements. This would include approval of
conforming accessory buildings and principal structure additions. Them are probably at least
three exceptions where a review would be needed. These would include:
1. Floodplain issues
2. Shoreland Impact Zone
3. Impervious Surface
Again, these would be part of meeting all applicable code requirements.
Process Enhancement
The review of,voting on conforming construction cases shows that when the Planning
Commission recommends Council approval, the Council will approve the variance resolution in
every case. In many small communities such as Mound, the Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Appeals are the same group of people. One way to reduce the process time would be to
designate the Board of Appeals as the approval body thereby keeping the Council free of any
review for variance cases. There are Cities that have adopted this structure and find it works well.
In this situation, the Council would still retain its authority as the appeal body on cases where the
applicant wishes to have the Board of Appeals decision heard.
Summary
Staff has explored ways streamlining can be further enhanced and still not compromise overall
community goals. The code enhancement and process enhancement strategies seem to accurately
represent the trends happening in the review process. We feel these two approaches will also help
staff, the Commission, and Council have more time to address broader community planning
issues such as the comprehensive plan, zoning updates, downtown redevelopment, and many
others.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
ILl
ZZOZOZOZOOZOOOOZZOO~ZZOOOO~OOOZ
ILl
Z
o
o
wwww:no
o
OZ
C
0 OZOOOZOOZZZOOOOZ~ZZZZZOZZZZZ
uJ
o,,9§
ZOZZ~ZZZZZOZZZZZZZ
~'z~ z
Z ZzzoooZOZ
Z
0
O) O30
~- .c: 7
ZOO0
zzoz~Zzozzzzz~ooo
Onnz
ooOzo00
ZZ ZZ
LU LU Z LLI I.LI
ZOZ~OOO~iZZZO
o~O§
o
OZ
(D CD Z CD (D (D Z ~ (D Z (D 0 (D (D (D
o
r'
._ ,__. Z
×~o~
ID II
t.-
ZZ ZZZ ~ ZZZZZZZ
May 21~ 1999
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council ~/"~"~~"/
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director ~-~- U
SUBJECT: Establishing Pilot For Personnel
Program~ Watercraft
At Avalon Park Multiple Slip Dock.
The Dock and Commons Advisory Committee (DCAC) has been
looking into requests from current site holders at the
Cities Multiple Slip Docks to have sites established for
personnel watercraft. In doing so the DCAC has sent out a
survey to abutting property owners and site holders for
their input. It was determined from the survey that each
Multiple Dock location and design is unique, so the ability
of adding the personnel watercraft varied.
Results from the survey and input from the site holders at
Avalon Park was positive in allowing a pilot program to be
set for the 1999 boating season. The DCAC has recommended
that four sites be designated with conditions restricting
watercraft/lift size to 75 square feet, current site holder
only, application procedure based on a lottery and fees to
run $50.00 plus the LMCD fee.
Because the boating season is already upon us the DCAC is
asking that this Pilot Program be expedited. I am submitting
this memorandum prior to the minutes from the May 20, 1999
DCAC meeting which will address many other issues and give
you more background.
At this time the request from the DCAC would need Council
approval~to list four temporary slip location on the Dock
Location Map, set the site/boat fees and allow staff
discretion in working with applicants to utilize the sites
by May 28, 1999.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me at
472-0611
printed on recycled paper
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Ken~ Dab;eh
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoda
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Liii McMillan
Orono
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wert
Greenwood
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 ° TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085
tv[-'ayIU'~, 1999 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TO:
FROM:
Lakeshore Weekly News
Atto: Legal Department
(Fax # 473- 0895)
Roger ' W~-7~dministrtafive Technician
SUBJECT:
Public Heating Notice (5/13/99 Edition)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PUBLIC IIEARI~G NOTICE
7:00 PM, May 26, 1999
Tonka Bay City Hall
4901 Manitou Road
City of Mound
New Multiple Dock License & Variance Applications
Seton Bluff/Black Lake, Lake Minnetonka
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public
t;eai'ing to consider new Multiple Dock License and Variance
Applications from the Ci~' of Mound. The propes~ app~cafions ~e for
variance from LMCD length requirements.
Details available at the LMCD office, 18338 Minnetonka Blvd.,
Deephaven, MN 55391.
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Co~sumer Waste
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/~lmcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 1999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners On/in Burma, and Greg Eurich, and Council
Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector
Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent were: Commissioners Frank Ahrens and Mark Goldberg
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chair Funk announced that Kenmore Commons will not be considered in the discussion
for multiple slip dock locations because of feedback from the public at the meeting on
Saturday.
Commissioner Hanus added that the neighbors did indicate that they are willing to try to
relieve the setback problems in some other way, sometime in the future.
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Burma, seconded by Hanus, to approve the minutes of
the March 18, 1999 DCAC meeting as amended: Page 4, Paragraph 3, Change
to read: Council Representative Hanus stressed the importance of presenting
the information in such a way to insure people that these plans are not
absolut, es and that we want their thoughts and ideas. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Agenda approved as amended: Switch numbers 5 & 6; Add item 6B:
ENCROACHMENTS STATUS REPORT
DISCUSS: ADDITIONAL MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS AT CARLSON
PARK AND HIGHLAND END PARK
Chair Funk stated that the feedback resulting from the public meeting held on Saturday,
April 3 indicated there were some issues at Highland End that still had to be worked out,
but generally favorable. Though turnout for Carlson Park was fairly small, the feedback
received was also generally favorable.
Chair Funk opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Bill Voss, 2608 Kildare Road stated he is an abutting dock holder at Kenmore Common.
Mr. Voss expressed disappointment in the voluntary way that the City is approaching the
multiple slip dock at that location. If the LMCD has problems with the site, Mr. Voss feels
the City should be more proactive and do something about it. The Kenmore Commons
docks are not in good shape, and improvement in any way is necessary. Mr. Voss
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
April 15, 1999
requested that the Kenmore site be revisited and the City take a more proactive approach
to get something done.
Commissioner Hanus asked if Mr. Voss is suggesting that the City make it happen, with
neighborhood input of course, but still make it happen.
Mr. Voss stated yes, he believes a strong, decisive approach is needed, especially in this
situation as people are hesitant to speak up, afraid of offending their neighbors, etc.
Chair Funk reiterated that the issue at Kenmore is not dead, but as only two sites were
originally going to be done this year, the opposition to Kenmore made the decision of which
two areas to proceed with very easy to make. He noted that Kenmore can be considered
again after Carlson and Highland End are complete. Funk asked for discussion on the
Carlson site.
Dave Gorman, 2440 Chateau, stated he is in favor of the multiple dock. Mr. Gorman asked
how the City would go about eliminating a boat at Carlson. He explained the multiple dock
has space for 12 boats and 13 are there now. Mr. Gorman also asked if the dock
approach would be gated.
Park Director Fackler stated that the approach would be gated. Regarding the number of
boats, that decision has not been made yet, but chances are that a sharer on a current
dock would pr,obably have to find another site.
Mary Goode, Bartlett Boulevard, corrected some statements she had made at the meeting
on Saturday, which were taken note of by the affected Commissioners and Staff.
Mr. Gorman asked if there would be any additional cost to dock holders when the multiple
docks went in.
Commissioner Hanus stated that there would be no fees in addition to what is being paid
now.
John Rogers, 2430 Lost Lake Road, stated he is in support of the multiple dock at Carlson
Park. He is the sharer at Carlson and knows that he may then have to move, but is still in
favor because it will improve the area. Mr. Rogers stated he would like to stay in the
system and get a spot on Lost Lake but currently no one is willing to share. Mr. Rogers
pointed out that there are several docks that have no boats, but the holders are still
unwilling to allow a boat on their dock.
2
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
April 15, 1999
Andy Beran, 5075 Windsor, stated he also shares a dock, but is still in favor of the multiple
slip docks. Mr. Beran stated he has a lift and a canopy, and has heard that the lift will be
okay to use, but the canopy is not.
Park Director Fackler explained that the use of lifts has not been ruled out as long as it fits
in a space, but the canopy may not be able to be used.
Commissioner Burma asked if Mr. Beran would still be in favor of the multiple dock even
if he cannot have his lift and/or canopy.
Mr. Beran stated he would prefer to keep the lift, but if not he would still be in favor of the
multiple dock.
Pat McGrath, 2400 Chateau Lane, stated he has shared a dock at Carlson for years, and
is concerned about how the decision will be made, who will stay, and who will have to go.
Chair Funk stated that they are going to keep people in the system that are now in it, so
if you are in the system now you have priority over anyone new.
Mr. McGrath questioned how the City will determine who gets which site.
Park Director Fackler stated that he would assign them, basically, in the same order as
they are now, or the users of the multiple dock could work it out for themselves if they wish.
All the docks will be basically the same size and space.
Mr. McGrath asked if "no fishing" signs would be put up.
Park Director Fackler stated that the sign would probably indicate that it was a "member
only" dock and the gate will help keep the general public off the dock. "No fishing" signs
will not be put up because the users of the docks are allowed to fish there.
Commissioner Hanus stated that on County Road 19, it has been evidenced that the gate
does help.
Chair Funk stated that a decision on Carlson and Highland End will be made tonight, if
possible, as time is running out to start these projects.
Bruce Cawlings, 4986 Bartlett, thinks the multiple dock is an excellent idea and will improve
the area greatly.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Chair Funk asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding Carlson site. Hearing none,
he then asked for discussion regarding Highland End site.
Mike Savage, 3125 Highland, indicated he was unable to attend the April 3 meeting, and
has some questions. He stated he has one boat and a sea-doo and asked if he can have
a spot for both of them with the new dock.
Commissioner Hanus asked if the sea-doo was currently being kept tied to his dock.
Mr. Savage replied that it was. Also, he wondered about the quality of the dock, if it is
manufactured by a private vendor, and if it will be taken out every year as kids use the hill
for sledding and snowmobiling. Mr. Savage stated he would be strongly in favor of this
dock being removed every year. He asked if there is a provision for someone who has a
space on a dock, but does not use it, and if there were going to be hours for the docks
since they technically are City property.
Commissioner Hanus answered that some discussion had taken place on Saturday
regarding having a small craft on some of the shallow waters around the docks. There is
potential for it, but no firm decision has been made.
Park Director Fackler stated that manufacturing companies will be approached for quotes
for the docks. The City looks for a reputable company. He advised that the current
company is ye, fy good, takes care of moving the docks in and out, and gives a guaranteed
price for a certain time span if the City signs a contract with them for this service. Also, the
dock would be open at all times for users that have keys to the gate.
Commissioner Hanus remarked that if the quality or aesthetics are in question, anyone can
get the sites of existing docks from City Hall and take a look at them.
Chair Funk stated that in regard to a provision to remove people who have a dock, but do
not use it or keep a boat there, this subject has not been discussed at all but may need to
be put on a future agenda.
Commissioner Hanus agreed that it should be looked into. He commented that people that
are not using their docks should not be in the system. Hanus also stated that the dock at
Highland End would have to be removed every year, and the City proposes to store it on
site, in the brushy area, to keep the sliders safe.
Bobby VanDell, 3117 Highland Boulevard, stated he was very much in favor of the multiple
dock. However, he presented information from John and Effie Patterson, who could not
be in attendance. They had sent a design that they favor, and had stated that if not this
4
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
April 15, 1999
design, they would not be in favor of the multiple dock. Mr. VanDell also pointed out that
there are currently three people who want larger boats and asked if the multiple dock would
accommodate them.
Park Director Fackler presented the drawing submitted by the Pattersons and stated that
it would not work well because the dock extends out and the boats are moored parallel to
the shore, which makes the closer slips problematic when the water level drops.
Pat Sullivan, 5960 Ridgewood Road, stated he is in favor of the multiple dock, but would
need an end space to accommodate his larger boat.
Paul Schultz, 5769 Ridgewood Road, stated he prefers the City's dock plan, and it seems
it will be able to handle all the boats. Mr. Schultz also brought up an issue with the
floodlight that shines on the boats. He advised that two to three years ago, the floodlight
was removed and replaced with a regular street light, which no longer shines at the boats,
but shines into his windows. Also, there is a fee for this light that made sense when it was
a floodlight, but it is no longer a security for the boats. Mr. Schultz stated he would like to
see the light removed or moved closer to the boats.
Mr. Savage addressed this issue, stating that when the light was installed it was also for
the neighborhood kids, to provide light when they went sliding and skating after school in
the winter. Mr. Savage suggested that something could be put on the light to keep it from
shining into Mr. Schultz's house.
Commissioner i:unk stated that he would like to keep the focus of the meeting tonight on
multiple docks. The issue with the light can be put on the next agenda, when discussing
encroachments.
David Mangen, 5975 Ridgewood Road, stated he would like to see the multiple dock
installed to improve the area, but being an abutter he would like to keep his own separate
dock.
Mr. Schultz stated that, as an abutter, he would keep his own separate dock, but likes the
multiple plan for the improvement it would bring to the area.
Park Director Fackler addressed some concerns from others about wanting spaces for
larger boats. Fackler stated that, as much as the City may want to, it cannot do everything
for everyone. The vast majority of the boats will work with the current plan and those are
the boats that need to be used to make plans. Also, adding or moving the docks at a later
date is very difficult and decisions need to be made before installation.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
April 15, 1999
Hearing no further public input, Chair Funk closed the Public Hearing at 8:$.~
p.m.
Chair Funk stated that there seems to be a lot of support for'the multiple dock at Carlson,
with some concern for the one boat that will lose space there.
Mr. Rogers stated he would be happy to be removed from Carlson if he could get a spot
at Lost Lake.
Commissioner Hanus stated that there is a very shod time limit here, and suggested
finding out if there is any space on Lost Lake where Mr. Rogers keep his boat, possibly
where someone is keeping a dock without a boat.
Mr. Rogers stated he has discussed sharing with his neighbors at Lost Lake and many of
them seem quite misinformed about many policies regarding the dock program.
Commissioner Burma suggested that Stafffind out who is not using their docks, and inform
them that it does not go with the house, as they may be keeping the dock and paying the
fee with that assumption. Also, it should be explained that there are other people who
would like to use the dock for their boat. Perhaps, Staff could also contact the person that
Mr. Rogers talked to and let him know what the correct policy is, and that it is okay to share
a dock.
Commissioner'Hanus asked how confident Staff is that a spot can be found for Mr. Rogers
if he has to vacate at Carlson. '.
Park Director Fackler stated that there may actually be a spot at Carlson that has not been
used for the last couple of years which Mr. Rogers may be able to get.
Commissioner Burma suggested that Mr. Wolfe could put his canoe on the inside of the
multiple dock, and it wouldn't hurt to ask.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated he believes that Mr. Wolfe wants to get a larger boat to
put in his spot.
Commissioner Eurich asked about the issue of the boat lift, if that needed to be decided
before voting on the multiple dock.
Commissioner Hanus stated that the issue has not been addressed specifically, but simply
put, if it fits, use it. If not, it cannot be used. Also, the proposed configuration at Carlson
had been changed from two access points to only one access point.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Hanus, to initiate installation of the
Multiple Dock at Carlson, and direct Staff to look into finding a space for Mr.
Rogers. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Hanus, to initiate installation of the
Multiple Dock at Highland End, and direct Staff to make sure docks can be
stored on site. Motion carried unanimously.
4. DISCUSS: LMCD RULES GOVERNING SET BACK
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Representative, summarized the regulations regarding the length of
the docks, setbacks, and any other regulations that affect Mound in general. Mr. Nybeck
suggested examining the policy regarding bigger boats, as the LMCD has seen several
problems that stem from putting bigger and bigger boats on docks.
Commissioner Hanus questioned the double side setback requirements. He noted that
Mound's docks are licensed Commercial, but they look, and are used, as private docks.
Mr. Nybeck stated that the Code would need to be changed to address those issues, and
suggested contacting the LMCD to begin the process.
Chair Funk asked if the grandfather clause covers the docks or the sites.
Mr. Nybeck stated that it would depend on density. If the actual density did not change at
a site, then new docks would be covered under the clause. Adding density would change
that.
Park Director Fackler stated that all of the new multiple dock configurations would be taken
to Mr. Nybeck before beginning the job to make sure everything is going to conform to the
LMCD regulations.
10:00 p.m. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Eurich, to extend the meeting
for 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Voss asked how the situation is at Kenmore Commons in regard to LMCD setback
regulations.
Park Director Fackler explained the layout there and that the setbacks are not clear right
now.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
Mr. Nybeck suggested that, possibly in ,June, he could accompany Staff on a visit to
questionable sites, such as Kenmore Common, and make some recommendations.
Mr. Voss again stated strongly that he would like to see Kenmore Commons under
consideration for improvements.
Commissioner Hanus stated that it is too late this year to consider Kenmore, but it can
definitely be discussed again for next year.
5. DISCUSS: ADDITION OF SECOND WATERCRAFT PROPOSAL
Commissioner Hanus began by asking the citizens present if they were in favor of a
second watercraft at their dock, and they indicated yes, they are. Hanus then asked what
they thought would happen if a complex could only accommodate two personal watercraft
and more wanted a spot, would that be a big negative to having any.
Carolyn Schmidt, stated she currently has two slips. One is used for a boat at all times and
one has a personal watercraft in it, at Avalon.
Park Director Fackler stated that the information needed now is what is acceptable to the
users, and if there would be additional cost.
Paul Glenn, 4600 Cumberland, stated he went into the multiple dock system last year and
they had discussed personal watercraft at that time. It was decided that there was room
for four, and if someone wanted those spaces the users would work it out between them.
Ms. Schmidt stated that last year, when the multiple dock was agreed to at Avalon, it was
with the understanding that they could put personal watercraft there as long as all users
agreed.
Commissioner Burma stated that since each multiple dock has its own configuration, they
are going to have to be addressed individually.
Commissioner Hanus answered that the overall policy needs to be directed before any
individual sites can be decided.
Commissioner Burma suggested that each dock be decided by the users, as long as there
is no additional expense to the City.
10:15 p.m. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Burma to extend the meeting
for 45 minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
April 15, 1999
Commissioner Hanus stated that if, at some point, the personal watercraft becomes a
problem, they could be taken out of the system at that time.
Commissioner Eurich stated he is hesitant to make a commitment to add personal
watercraft to Avalon without first creating an overall policy.
Commissioner Burma stated that the issue would have to depend on interest at each
individual site.
Commissioner Hanus answered that regardless of the situation at individual sites, a policy
is still needed to provide guidelines.
Chair Funk stated he would not like to deny the watercraft at Avalon for lack of a general
policy.
Commissioner Burma suggested making a one year acceptance of four personal watercraft
at the Avalon site, and use that year to make a general policy.
Park Director Fackler stated that Staffwould need some direction to begin writing a policy,
such as definition of a personal watercraft and fees for keeping one at a multiple dock.
Commissioner Hanus stated that no vote could be taken on Avalon tonight if Commissioner
Burma abstains because his watercraft is in the dock complex under discussion. A quorum
would not be available.
Commissioner Burma stated that he did not feel the need to step down, as it is not just his
watercraft in question, but a temporary policy for the Avalon site in general. But, if the
other Commissioners felt he was too involved, he would defer to their wishes.
Commissioner Eurich stated he would rather get a general policy written before making any
decisions on individual site, Avalon included.
Chair Funk asked what would be involved in putting the personal watercraft on the dock.
Park Director Fackler stated that the dock locations would have to be added to the system,
a fee, if any, would have to be established, and a policy would need to be written.
Commissioner Hanus stated he feels that this discussion is moving much too quickly to
make any kind of a motion for the Avalon site. He suggested it needs more discussion and
it needs to be a priority.
MOunds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
April 15, 1999
Commissioner Burma pointed out that this issue came to the DCAC in April last year and
it wasn't even put on the agenda until July. Also, there was no information in the packet
regarding this agenda item tonight. ,
Park Director Fackler stated that the surveys which were sent out were going to be used
for a lot of the information, but did not come back in time.
Commissioner Burma answered that he was very frustrated that the background
information was not distributed, such as past meeting minutes and past written requests
from the users of the Avalon site.
Commissioner Hanus stated that the DCAC should probably not deal with any more
multiple projects until this issue is straightened out. All the background data should be
included with next month's packets and the discussion at next month's meeting should be
a very high priority.
Chair Funk stated that at this time the rest of the agenda items, as well as the continued
discussion of the personal watercraft issue, would be forwarded to next month's meeting.
6. REVIEW: PROCEDURE MANUAL
Forward to the May DCAC Agenda
6B.
ENCROACHMENTS STATUS REPORT
Forward to the May DCAC Agenda
7. DISCUSS: MAY DCAC AGENDA
See above.
8. FYI
J
A)
B)
c)
D)
E)
F)
LMCD INFORMATION
POSC MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
A VISION FOR LOST LAKE
COPIES OF RETURN SURVEYS
MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR
REPORTS
]0
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 15, 1999
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
C) DOCK INSPECTOR
No report at this time.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Eurich, to adjourn the meeting at 10:45
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
10.
]!
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
MAY 15, 1999
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, John Beise, and Norman Domholt, and City
Council Representative Leah Weycker (arrived at 8:15 p.m.). Also present were Park
Director Jim Fackler and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent: Commissioners Tom Casey and Christina Cooper.
Since a quorum did not exist at 7:30 p.m. it was decided to hear from Mr. Bert Haglund
regarding the Island Park Hall Proposal TSP One, Inc.
Mr. Bert Haglund of TSP One, Inc. presented his letter that outlines the study that TSP
plans to do at Island Park Hall. Mr. Haglund expressed interest in hearing from Mr. Al
Greene in regard to the history and indicated he would like to be notified when Mr. Greene
is rescheduled. TSP has interest in restoring the building so learning about the history
would be of help. Mr. Haglund asked about the schedule or deadline for this study.
Chair Meyer stated that the information is needed for historical designation and funding
options. Island Park Hall is a very high priority for the POSC, but it is unknown which
direction to take. Chair Meyer suggested TSP recommend a direction to the POSC and
possibly suggest fairly Iow cost repairs that are necessary and can be done in the year
2000.
Commissioner Beise stressed the importance of keeping a schedule to begin in 2000 and
indicated he would not like to see this request for funds put off now, or in upcoming years.
Park Director Fackler stated the budget season is started in June and it would help to have
some specific information by that time. Fackler indicated he would like to see some of the
information by mid-June so a plan can be made for upcoming years.
Commissioner Domholt suggested asking for all that is wanted for Island Park Hall and
then hope for the best as far as how much City Council is willing to budget.
Mr. Haglund stated the ultimate goal needs to be defined also, such as how true to the
original the repairs should be, or if this building is going to end up being utilized in all 4
seasons and so on. Mr. Haglund pointed out that the appearance could be very true to the
original, but updates could still be done.
Commissioner Domholt asked what happens if an estimate turns out to be Iow, after the
fact.
Park Director Fackler recommended asking for the high end when getting the estimate
since that practice has generally worked in the past.
Consensus was reached to receive estimates for improvements to the roof, doors,
windows, heating and air conditioning systems, and possibly a sign for the front of the
building describing what is being done.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission May 13, 1999
Mr. Haglund stated he could get estimates for these projects by mid-June.
Park Director Fackler advised that outside excavation needs to be done fairly soon since
water is draining towards the building and leaking in.
Commissioner Domholt asked Mr. Haglund if he had seen the duct work inside the building
that needs to be removed. Mr. Haglund replied that he had, and would recommend
removing it very early in the project.
Park Director Fackler then suggested a sign that could be changed, so that specific
projects could be advertised as they take place.
Commissioner Beise stated this kind of sign would work well because pictures from the
inside could be posted also, so people can see what, about the building, is worth
reclaiming as many people will not see that looking at the outside.
Park Director Fackler asked if Mr. Haglund should come back to the POSC for another
meeting.
Chair Meyer pointed out that the June meeting is the parks tour and suggested Mr.
Haglund give Mr. Fackler the estimates to add into the budget.
Mr. Haglund agreed that the Commissioners may not need to preview the estimates if
certain assumptions are understood, such as, replicating the appearance but using
updated materials or styles, to keep the integrity of the historical building, but update it for
better use and longer life.
Councilmember Weycker asked if Mr. Haglund had ever been involved in State or
Nationally registered historical buildings.
Mr. Haglund answered that he had, and they have certain guidelines that need to be
followed. He explained if Island Park Hall is to be registered, it may effect the project in
some areas.
Commissioner Domholt expressed concern over any restrictions that may be imposed after
registering.
Councilmember Weycker stated there are none.
Since a quorum now existed, Chair Meyer called the meeting to order at 8:30 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 8, 1999 POSC MINUTES
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to approve the minutes of the
April 8,1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as amended.
2
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission May 13, 1999
Page 9, Paragraph 8, last sentence: "Taking the benches out
because they are not safe may make it better for current users."
Motion carried unanimously.
2. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 22. 1999 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Beise to approve the minutes of the
April 22, 1999 Park and Open Space (POSC) Special Meeting, as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. AGENDA CHANGES
The agenda was approved with the following amendment:
1. Remove Item #4, to be rescheduled
4. PRESENTATION: HISTORY ON ISLAND PARK HALL - AL GREENE
Item rescheduled, possibly for July, as Mr. Greene was unable to attend.
5. REVIEW: ISLAND PARK HALL PROPOSAL TSP ONE. INC.
See above, before meeting was convened.
6. DISCUSS: YEAR 2000 CAPITAL OUTLAY
Chair Meyer presented the list devised from the May 6, 1999 Workshop.
Commissioner Beise stated he would like to see the Island Park Hall request itemized so
Council may consider different projects separately, rather than an all-or-nothing approach.
Commissioners Domholt and Beise expressed unease regarding the process with which
budgeting is done and presented to the City Council. General discussion followed
explaining the process and the reasons for this current discussion.
At this point, the list was reviewed item by item, with suggestions, concerns, and changes
made as follows:
IP Hall Restoration
Itemize the estimates received
from TSP One. Inc.
Improve exiting roadside trails and bikeways
a. Funds for Staff to research with County
Park Director Fackler pointed out that Staff dollars may not be needed for
this information, and since that is the case. this should not be a budget item.
3
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission May 13, 1999
bo
Funds for cooperative city-county efforts to complete
Park Director Fackler will find out if the County is wholly responsible for the
marking and upkeep of roadside trails. If this is the case, this also should not
be a budget item.
Playground Equipment at Swenson Park $30,000
OR Spread over 2 years, Phase I and Phase II
Planning Director Fackler ~)ointed out that a phase I and II plan would not be
feasible un/ess 2 separate areas are planned, as the project is looked at
according to space ava#able, with equipment designed for the particular
space.
Commissioner Beise would also recommend that a ~)lan for the
improvements be done to show specifics before requestino these funds.
Inventory Property (Public and Private) $ 5,000
Council member Weycker stated that this inventory may have been included
in the Comprehensive P/an Proposal, and the company who provided this
service may yet have to ~rovide this inventory as well, she will check into
this.
Parkland Acquisition
a. Bond Referendum Study
$ 5,000
Chair Meyer explained that these funds would be for research for interest in
Mound in a Bond Referendum for Parks. Rather than the current wording.
it was decided to refer to this ste/:) sim/:)ly as a SURVEY.
1. Staff and Planner funding to develop a
management plan for City open space. $5,000
Commissioner Beise stated that certain lots in the City may be able to have
a designation change, from non-designated City Owned property, to
Park/and.
Chair Meyer stated that the City Planner may be able to provide direction and
a more accurate do#ar amount for this ~roiect.
2. Cleanup costs of existing Public Parcels
Community Skating Rink (Staff)
$ 5,000
Crescent Park
A. Point erosion repair, restoration & plantings
$ 2,500
Chair Meyer stated that more information is needed on what kind of erosion
control and repair is available.
Prairie - Contractor for planning & estimate $1,000
Sediment Pond (Area Stormwater Treatment)
4
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission May 13, 1999
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Music In The Park
Adopt-A-Green Space Support (flower, plants & soil)
$20 per group towards plants
4 Park Benches (1 per N.C.A.)
Lifeguard Jackets, shirts & visors (Tim P.)
Repaint Parks Garage, w/City Logo
Gutter and Downspout repair
$ 2,500
$1,000
$ 6OO
$1,000
$ 4,000
5-year Comprehensive Plan Expansion Assistance
Park & Rec. ($1,000 per year for 5 years) $1,000
Chair Meyer stated this is basically for Engineering and consulting fees.
$ 4,000
More Park Staff (one seasonal full-time)
$ 2,000
Line Basket Ball Courts
$ 2,500
$ 150
Depot/Mound Bay Park Information Sign
& Highland Parks
(Engineer will need to do elevation) $20,000
Counci/member Weycker stated the dollars for this are way too high, as her
understanding of this project was to just drag the ground, possibly fi/ting in
ruts, no levering or changing of elevation.
Two new rescue tubes (Tim P.)
Sorbo
Park Director Fackler stated he will look into the cost for this project as
described bY Weycker.
$ 2,000
Avon Park (2 swings)
Trees in Parks $1,000
Council member Weycker /:)ointed out that this item would be a good one to
approach the VFW's and other alternate funding resources.
7. REVIEW: CHANGES TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chair Meyer presented the revised copy of the Comprehensive Plan, which was received
tonight by most of the Commissioners. Meyer stated he had compared the copies before
the meeting, and all the changed discussed at the last meeting had been made. The next
step is a motion to send this information to the Planning Commission.
5
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
May 13, 1999
Motion made by Beise, seconded by Meyer, to accept the May 6, 1999 draft of
the Comprehensive Plan and to forward this draft to the Planning
Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
8. POSCJUNE AGENDA
Chair Meyer pointed out first that Thursday, May 27 is the Tyrone Park Spruce-up night,
at 6:30 p.m., and asked Staff to put a notice in the paper alerting any neighbors who may
want to come out to comment, help, or ask questions. Also, the June meeting will be the
Parks Tour, and Commissioners Domholt and Beise will not be in attendance.
Commissioners Domholt and Beise stated they have plans to visit all of the parks in Mound
sometime in the near future to become acquainted with all the areas and the needs of
each.
Chair Meyer asked that any agenda items for the July meeting be given to him by June 5th,
so he is able to have the agenda done. Rescheduling Al Greene is one possibility for July.
Commissioner Domholt stated one agenda item should be the Parks Resource Guide.
Another Park Spruce-up will also be scheduled, possibly for Swenson Park.
Chair Meyer tabled discussion at 10:00 p.m. Motion made by Weycker,
seconde'd by Domholt to continue the meeting until 10:15 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
a. DCAC Minutes
b. City Council Minutes
c. Planning Commission Minutes
d. LMCD Information
e. Music In The Parks Information
f. Monthly Events Calendar
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council Representative
Councilmember Weycker reported on Swenson and Philbrook Parks. The City Council
decided no improvements other than removing the benches at both parks. Also, the City
Council voted to move the Pembrooke Dock over onto the beach. Citizens are quite upset
about it and may approach the POSC regarding this. There was a petition against the
change, but it did pass, and will likely be evaluated after a year.
Chair Meyer stated that water depth is the reason for the change.
6
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission May 13, 1999
Councilmember Weycker also pointed out that the City Manager had resigned, so many
problems have arisen due to the change.
Chair Meyer reported that "March for Parks" went well, and about $650 has been raised
so far. Also, Mount Olive Church cleaned up the City owned property next to them, but
they did not come to the City for a permit first. They had chipped up most of the brush and
the bill will be turned in to the City at the suggestion of Chair Meyer. Hopefully, their
actions will encourage this initiative to help clean up.
Park Director Fackler stated he is concerned about this, as generally this type of cleanup
and trimming needs to go through Staff first, as it is public land.
Commissioner Beise pointed out that the people were not even sure they Were on City
property.
Councilmember Weycker also expressed concern about paying this bill, and that they did
not receive a permit for the cleanup.
Commissioner Domholt agreed, stating that the general public cannot get the idea they can
spend City money, and after-the-fact present a bill to the City.
Chair Meyer agreed this would be a bad precedent, but this is a special case, as the mess
cleaned up was on Church and public property jointly, and the initiative to do the clean up
is very appreciated. Chair Meyer noted in closing that the Council had passed by the
recommendations of the POSC and the DCAC and voted to move docks in front of the
Commons areas to give abutters more space.
b. Park Director
No report made a this time.
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Domholt to adjourn the meeting at
10:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
7
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Acting City Manager/City Clerk Fran Clark, Daren Jensen (2625
Wilshire Blvd), Kirk & Kelly Geadelmann (1709 Baywood Lane), Mike & Chris Stoltenow
(2925 Holt Ln), Michele Berglund (5138 Hanover Rd), Eisa Watson (4610 Tuxedo Blvd),
Ted Metz (1601 Bluebird Ln), Clyde Bonnema (5513 Bartlett Blvd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 26, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to accept the minutes as
p.resented. Motion carried: 9-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-11: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO RELEASE A
PORTION TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY TO BE SOLD TO ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNER, XXXX HANOVER ROAD; BLOCK 9, LOTS 29 AND 30, WHIPPLE, CITY OF
MOUND, 37970
PID # 25-117-24 12 0064
Gordon introduced the property as one that is located on the north side of Hanover
Road at the east end. It is characterized as a steep hillside with heavy vegetation and
is undeveloped. The slope averages almost 50% and there are a number of large trees
on this property. The lot area is approximately 14,260 square feet and there is 109 feet
of frontage on unimproved Hanover Road. The parcel is owned by the County/City
having been a tax forfeiture property.
The adjacent property owner, Michele Berglund, inquired about some type way to
preserve this property as it was. After review by the Park Commission, the issue was
turned back over to the City to work with the Minnesota Land Trust to secure a
conservation easement. However, the parcel is not large enough. The City Council
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
reviewed and made a motion to recombine the portion that is not wetlands to Ms.
Berglund.
As a result, the property has been surveyed and split into two proposed parcels. Parcel
A contains the land laying below 932.1 feet would be retained by the City as wetlands.
Parcel B is everything above 932.1 feet and is approximately 5995 square feet. As the
adjacent property owner, Ms. Berglund intends to purchase the property. She has paid
for the survey to date.
Since this property does not meet lot area and lot depth requirements of 6000 square
feet and 80 feet respectively, it is nonconforming and the current practice is to not to
approve nonconforming subdivisions. However, since this property is proposed to be
combined with the parcel adjacent to it, the situation could be considered differently.
The proposed Parcel B is also considered a bluff under the Shoreland Management
Ordinance which would preclude any building and provide protection to the vegetation
or grade. A conservation easement could be written which would not allow any removal
of vegetation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor
subdivision request with the following conditions:
1. Combination of lots 27, 28, and Parcel B into one tax.parcel.
2. A conservation easement be placed on Parcel B to protect grading and
vegetation and restrict construction or buildings of any type.
3. The existing shed be moved off of Parcel B.
Fran Clark, Acting City Manager, stated that because it is a tax forfeiture, it should be
handled differently than a nonconforming parcel. It should be released to the County
for sale to the adjacent landowner, Ms. Berglund.
Weiland indicated that Parcel A would be land locked if this subdivision went through.
Clark indicated that it was already land locked today since it was part of the wetlands
and Hanover Road was undeveloped at this location. Gordon stated that since it would
be protected as a bluff, there could be no buildings on it anyway.
Voss asked how much land would result when combining lots 27, 28, and Parcel B.
Approximately 16,000 above the 932.1 foot level. He asked if making it one tax parcel
would prevent someone from coming in and subdividing it into two parcels. Gordon
stated that was why the conservation easement was recommended so that there could
be no buildings on it.
2
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Mueller asked if making it a conservation easement would preclude it from being a
buildable area. Yes, stated Gordon. Mueller then asked if part of lot 27 could be
combined with Pamel B to make it a buildable lot.
Gordon stated that lots 27 and 28 could be combined to make a buildable area, except
for the part under water. Possibly part of these two lots could be a bluff also.
Mueller asked if the bluff area was considered in the total square footage. Gordon said
it was. Mueller stated that there was 14,000 square feet which could easily be split and
he did not want to see that happen.
Clark stated that there wasn't a road there today.
Suthedand stated that once it becomes a conservation easement, although it might
have the square footage requirements, he doesn't feel it can be build on.
Mueller stated that if it was reconfigured, it could be a buildable area. Sutherland
agreed and understood where Mueller was coming from. He stated that the problem
was that it didn't come through the normal planning process for staff and Planning
Commission review and they possibly could have put a conservation easement on lot
28.
Mueller stated that the City could still keep this land and there wouldn't be that issue.
Voss asked what was wrong with subdividing and having two new homes if the lots and
homes meet the zoning requirements. Brown asked a similar question. Gordon stated
that the lot was difficult to subdivide into two buildable lots.
Mueller stated that it was too crowded already and maybe a conservation easement
would work.
Sutherland stated that he was unable to locate the survey of the home for lots 27 and
28, so he couldn't say for sure what was buildable or not.
Voss stated that someday a subdivision would be asked for and they would be
questioned as to why it was a conservation easement. Gordon stated that it was
difficult to play out different scenarios and the current proposal is for purposes of
protecting Parcel B.
3
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Mueller asked why the City was trying to sell the property. Gordon indicated that Ms.
Berglund had approached the City with the request as a way to protect the bluff. Clark
responded that it was one way to get tax forfeiture property back on the tax rolls.
Clapsaddle asked if the property sat alone would it be subject to being built upon.
Gordon stated not as it. Clapsaddle said the "salvation of this property is not incumbent
on this subdivision."
Clark indicated that she explained the same thing to the applicant. However, the
applicant wanted to "make sure nothing happened to it." Additionally, since one of the
goals is to get tax forfeiture property back on to the tax rolls. Finally, she stated that the
applicant had paid all the costs thus far for survey and application.
Ms. Berglund stated that she chose to purchase the property knowing that in her
control, it could be preserved. She wanted to maintain the view and scenery for her
family. She is aware of the "Al and Alma's" issue and did not want to see that happen
again. She thought she had the "go-ahead" from previous dealings with City and
thought it was a done deal.
Michael asked if it was unbuildable now. Gordon stated yes. Michael indicated that it
was less expensive to keep as City property. Fran stated that she brought this case
before the Planning Commission as a "courtesy." The action to sell it was approved by
City Council last year. She wouldn't even have had to bring it before them tonight.
Brown stated that was a different Council and a different Planning Commission.
Mueller stated that State laws mandated that any publicly held land be reviewed by the
Planning Commission to validate that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for
the City prior to selling it to a private party. Since the City Council approved it last year,
he felt they acted in error legally by not bringing it before the Planning Commission.
Clark disagreed with him and reiterated City laws (1980's) which strive to get tax
forfeiture land back on tax rolls.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to table the issue until
an attorney could clarify the issue legally.
Discussion
Clapsaddle believes that by selling the property, the City is creating more problems
than they would by keeping it.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
A call for the question was made. Ayes: 8-1 (Voss voting Nay). Motion carried.
Mueller suggested that perhaps they could recommend to keep the land and not to sell
it, but they could reimburse the applicant her expenses.
Sutherland stated that the normal procedure is to bring in survey of existing
configuration and proposed configuration. This application is missing half the
information. Clark did go and find the survey for Suthedand.
Mueller stated they still needed legal advice on this issue. Clark indicated that the City
Attorney was at.the City Council meeting last year when this was approved. She
indicated that he recommended this action.
Michael indicated that it would go on the docket as soon as possible. Clark indicated
that she could and would send this in right now.
There was some further "heated" discussion between the Acting City Manager and the
Planning Commission members. Chair Michael called the meeting back to order.
CASE # 99-12: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, LOT SIZE,
HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFROMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2925
HOLT LANE, BLOCK 6, LOT 5, MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY,
MICHAEL STOLTENOW, 61810.
PID # 23-117-24 42 0074.
Gordon presented the case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of
24' X 26' detached garage. The parcel is located on the corner of Holt Lane and
Fairfield Road. The following are the requested variances: 778 square feet on lot area,
7.1 feet for the front yard setback (Holt) and 5.6 feet for the front yard setback along
Fairfield. This lot currently does not have a garage on it, however, it has an apron. The
garage is proposed to be placed and utilized the existing apron. Hardcover after
improvements are less than 40%.
The existing house nonconforming setbacks do present a difficult situation for the
owner and they have existed for a number of years. The proposal is consistent with the
City's policy to allow each property a two-stall garage. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request.
Voss asked if Staff discussed with the applicant the possibility of downsizing the
garage. Gordon indicated that they did not.
Mueller verified the way the garage faced with the door towards the street.
5
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Brown to recommend Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried: 9-0.
Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on
May 25, 1999.
CASE # 99-13: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND STREET FRONTAGE; TO
CONSTRUCT A CONFROMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4420 RADNOR ROAD;
BLOCK 15, LOTS 3-4-5 AND PART OF 6, AVALON, JERRY BARELMAN, 37850,
PID # 19-117-23 34 0093
Gordon presented this case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of
24' X 24' detached garage. The parcel is located on the corner of Island View Drive
and Radnor Road. Associated variances are: 1.08 foot of street frontage; 1.5 foot
variance front yard setback on Island View Drive and a 2.2 foot front yard setback on
Radnor Road.
This lot of record is slightly short of the required lot width. Both existing front yard
setbacks are also nonconforming. There is an existing one stall detached garage with
an overhang. As proposed, the two stall detached garage would replace the existing
garage. The parcel has over 11,000 square feet in area, so hardcover is not an issue.
The existing house nonconforming setbacks do present a difficult situation for the
owner and they have existed for a number of years. The proposal is consistent with the
City's policy to allow each property a two-stall garage. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Glister to recommend Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried: 9-0.
Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on
May 25, 1999.
CASE # 99-16: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A
CONFROMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 5513 BARTLETT BOULEVARD; PART OF
LOTS 13 AND 14 AND ADJOINING ABANDONDED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT
PLACE, CLYDE BONNEMA, 61510,
PID # 24-117-24 23 0018.
Gordon presented the case.
20' X 20' detached garage.
An application has been submitted to allow construction of
The following are the requested variances: 14 foot
6
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Lakeside variance. The lot is in a R-lA zoning district and exceeds the lot area and
width requirements. Hardcover as proposed would be under the 40% maximum
allowable requirement.
The existing lakeside nonconformity is a porch that was approved last year. The
proposed garage will need to meet the four-foot minimum side yard setback. The
adjacent property has a cabin located on the property line. At the time of the building
permit, the Building Official will address any fire code issues that may be present.
There is enough area to move the garage if a greater separation is needed between
buildings for fire protection. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the variance request.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma to recommend Staff's
recommendation.
Weiland indicated that you cannot punish the cabin owner.
Mueller felt there may be a better location on the property to locate the garage. He
feels it is too close to the street and doesn't want to set a precedence. He asked the
applicant to locate the garage further back from the street. He also reiterated that fire
codes must be followed.
¥oss also feels there is a line of sight issue with the proposed location of the garage
from Bartlett Boulevard. He also would like to see it located further back on the
property.
The applicant indicated that the turn around on the property is located to the west of the
house and that's why the proposed garage is on the east side.
Burma stated that while he would also probably place the garage at a different location,
it is conforming and therefore the owner could locate it there.
The applicant has considered other locations and feels what he has done to his
property has enhanced the neighborhood. He feels that this is the only feasible location
for the garage that is fiat enough.
Clapsaddle indicated that he couldn't see the problem. Mueller indicated that on the
survey, there was no separation between garage and cabin shown.
Sutherland addressed Mueller that there were no fire codes that addressed adjacent
properties.
7
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Clapsaddle called the vote. Motion carried 9-0.
Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on
May 25, 1999.
CASE # 99-18: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A
LAKESIDE DECK AT 2625 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD; BLOCK 1, PART OF LOT 1,
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, DAREN AND JILL JENSEN, 62030
PID # 24-117-24 13 0013
Gordon presented this case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of
a conforming lakeside deck. Associated variances are: 2.1 foot of setback from the
house; 11 foot front yard setback from the garage; and a 2.7 foot side yard setback
from the garage.
The proposed deck would be built in a conforming location approximately 10 feet from
the side yard line and 80 feet from the lake. There is a brick patio in this location
currently. The closest point of the garage to the property lot line is 8 feet, however, the
garage is angled in such a way to allow two cars to park in front of it.
The existing nonconformities present a practical difficulty to the owner and have existed
for a number of years. The deck will not enlarge any of the existing nonconformities.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the
variance request.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried: 9-0.
Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on
May 25, 1999.
CASE # 99-19: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER;
TO CONSTRUCT A 2"D STORY DECK ABOVE EXISTING PATIO AT 1709
BAYWOOD LANE; BLOCK 4, LOT 3, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, KIRK
GEADELMANN, 61968
PID # 23-117-24 21 0086.
Gordon presented this case. An application has been submitted to allow construction of
a conforming lakeside deck. Associated variances are: 8.4 foot front yard setback and
the lowest floor elevation below 931.4 feet.
8
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
The proposal is to build a conforming lakeside deck that would wrap around the house
the northside of the house as well. The front yard setback is currently non-conforming
at 21.6 feet as is the lowest floor elevation which is lower than 931.4 feet at the south
corner of the house. Hardcover is currently above the 40% for lots of record at 44.4%
The deck improvements are less than 50% of the value of the home. Per historical
permit records, no other improvements have been added since the house was built.
The existing nonconformities present a practical difficulty to the owner and have existed
that way since the house was built. At this point, the deck is less than 50% of the
house's value and the home would require conformance to finished floor flood elevation
standards. The owner's builder has indicated that the landscaped area (rock) will be
removed and replaced with mulch beds. If a mesh fabric undeday or perforated poly is
used, 1770 square feet of the hardcover will be removed and bring the total impervious
surface down to 28%. The property would then conform to shoreland management
ordinance requirements for impervious surface. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend Staff's
recommendation.
Weiland asked if the improvements were cumulative or started over each year. Gordon
stated they wer, e cumulative over the lifetime of the structure.
Mueller asked what the distance was between the shed and ordinary high water mark.
Sutherland indicated that it was 52 feet and it is riprapped at this location. The owner
stated that he sealed 80 feet from the riprap to put the steps in
Mueller stated that the ordinary high water mark of 929.4 feet is required to be shown
on the survey for applications.
Weiland asked if he could amend the motion that the shed must be conforming, Staff
could give the permit. If not, then it would need to be brought back to the Planning
Commission.
The applicant had the impression that everything was in order. Mueller asked why Staff
didn't require this. Sutherland indicated that it was an oversight and apologized. The
riprap is a definite line that creates the shoreline. It is man-constructed. They
measured a little pocket behind the dprap that was 929.4. Staff felt this was a non-
issue since it was measured more than 50 feet from the lake.
Mueller indicated that there was enough area under floodplain elevation and that this
case was a direct correlation to an earlier one considered last Planning Commission
9
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
meeting. Consistency must be maintained and therefore, this request must be tabled.
The commissioners need the calculable area.
Sutherland requested that the variance be allowed to go to City Council and as a
courtesy, this issue would be updated at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mueller asked if construction was allowed below the floodplain. The deck and the
house are considered as a contiguous structure and therefore, you would have to report
to FEMA this variance. Staff felt that it would not have to be reported since a cubic yard
of floodplain storage would not be lost.
In reference to an earlier case, Mueller spelled out a scenario that would have met
ordinances, but would not be acceptable to the City. Therefore, he feels the issue must
be tabled until all information is in.
Clapsaddle requested a straw vote to see where all the other commissioners stood on
this issue.
Clapsaddle
Voss
Hasse
Weiland
Michael
Burma
Glister
Mueller
Brown
sees the concerns and would vote to table
agreed to table, however, explained the issue more fully to
the applicant regarding consistency
no comments
no comments
no problem with voting tonight
table
table
table
no problem in voting tonight
Ciapsaddle withdrew his second to the motion and Weiland withdrew his motion.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to table this issue until all
information is in. Motion carried: 9-0.
Gordon indicated that this issue would return to the Planning Commission at the first
meeting in June.
The applicant asked why the deck wouldn't work. Mueller responded that the decision
was not that it wouldn't work, but that the application was incomplete and part of the
property is floodplain. In a recent decision, he stated, the Planning Commission denied
a building permit for another lot in the floodplain area. There needs to be consistency
10
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
and thus, they need more information to make a decision. The 931.5 foot mark is
missing from the survey, that is a mistake by the surveyor.
Hasse asked the applicant to just dig a test hole four foot deep. That might reveal a
problem. The applicant stated that the neighbor's deck is closer to the lake and was
only built two years ago. He thought he was being safe to leave a larger area of space
and that by taking out some hardcover to meet the requirements.
Mueller stated that the application had to be based on calculable area and that was an
unknown at this point. Gordon reiterated his apology that Staff did not catch the
missing information. He believes that it is possible depending upon how much area is
below 931.5 feet, there may not be sufficient area for less than 40% hardcover. He
doesn't see the property as a problem, but they do need all the correct information to
make a decision.
Sutherland stated that they looked at with the setback in mind. He doesn't believe the
deck actually impacts the shoreline or the floodplain. However, stated Mueller, we need
to protect the process and the ordinances. Need more detailed information, he
reiterated.
Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the Planning
Commission or) June 7th and they would schedule it as a City Council agenda item on
June 8th,
Clapsaddle was excused at 9:30 p.m.
DISCUSSION
STREAMLING/PROCESS ENHANCEMENT
Gordon introduced the topic of streamlining and/or process enhancement to the
Commission again for discussion. He had formed some suggested language changes
to the ordinances and presented them to the commissioners. The suggested changes
are as follows:
Streamlining Options
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structure
may be improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure
provide that any nonconforming detached accessory structure and the
11
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
principal structure are in sound condition as determined by the Mound
Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be
compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. of the Mound Zoning Code
or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval.
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses
Subd. 9.A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion
meets all applicable city ordinance requirements.
Process Enhancement
Section 350:510. Board of Adjustment
Subd. 1. The Board of Adjustments shall be the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hear and act on all variances to this
ordinance.
Clark asked the Planning Commission to bear in mind that one objective is to be "user-
friendly to the applicant."
Brown commen, ted that as a new person on the Planning Commission, they were user
friendly and attempted to be equally fair to all applicants.
Some discussion was held regarding the first Board of Appeals considered this
evening. Clark stated that yes, the property belonged to the State, but that Mound was
the caretaker of that property. Mueller still wants an attorney's opinion.
Brown stated that to get things done properly and to get them done right, the correct
procedure of going through the Planning Commission must be done. Clark felt that in
some cases, this was a duplication of efforts. Tonight she was here as a courtesy to
the Planning Commission.
Brown stated that all processes should work with in the established system. He felt this
one bypassed the proper procedure.
Sutherland stated "Staff's position is to not promote too strongly the applicant's
(position). Our position is to respond and give the Planning Commission the
information they need and sometimes we may disagree with you guys, but other times
you show us that we miss something, so the bottom line is whatever you ask for, we
need to treat you with courtesy and not be argumentative and not try to sell a case too
12
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
hard. So we would like to have the opportunity to keep our relationship good with these
guys.
Chair Michael brought the meeting back to streamlining.
Mueller asked why they were looking at Subd. 11 and not 9 or 10. Gordon stated that 9
and 10 address principal buildings. Mueller stated then the staff would have total
control of these situations. Why are we asking this, because of staff's workload he
asked.
Gordon stated that it started as a Council directive to look at further ways to streamline
processes based on the voting habits over the past three years. Whether or not it
benefits the community has not been determined. Mueller feels it will help the citizens
since there would be a shorter waiting period from application to permit.
Gordon stated that he was before the Commission just asking if this is what they want
to do. He has presented two options. Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses: Subd. 11.
and Subd. 9.A. If the Commission does not want to do this, this process would stay the
same and they could look at other areas to streamline.
Sutherland stated that the community goals were admirable. The fact is, he stated, we
haven't abided ,to the community goals and Comprehensive Plan to eliminate some
steps over the past couple of years. So by doing some of this, the Planning
Commission would have the time to do some special projects sUch as housing
redevelopment. He mentioned some funds the city has transferred to a joint community
account and then cities can apply for a grant from this fund.
Mueller feels the Planning Commission is part of the checks and balances. For
example, the last Board of Appeals case looked at tonight would not have come before
our board.
Brown suggested that the'Staff prepare a "Consent Agenda" like they have on the
Council. Then if a commissioner would like to look more closely at an issue, they could
pull it off for further separate discussion. It would be similar to tonight. Four of the six
cases passed with little to no discussion. The other two required discussion. If this had
been a Consent Agenda, those two would have been pulled and the others passed in
"bulk."
Weiland stated that was what they did now. Mueller agreed and stated they would
rather have the information presented to them to decide. Weiland pointed out that the
Planning Commission had a responsibility to the City Council to have reviewed these
cases prior to passing on.
13
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Sutherland suggested a one year trial of the streamlining. Many felt this was not what
they wanted.
Voss believed that a new city manager will be requiring more of the Planning
Commission in the way of special projects and so forth as Sutherland had stated.
Brown echoed these thoughts.
Glister stated it was important to speed up the process and be more user friendly to the
applicant. But, she feels lots of eyes reviewing something is good.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to agree to 350:510, but that
the other would remain the same.
A discussion was held about charging an additional modest fee if an applicant wanted
to appeal to the City Council. The purpose is not to just recover staff time, but to
encourage the applicant to really think out why they are appealing the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Gordon stated that if the commissioners were comfortable with the change, he would
bring before the City Council for review prior to bringing back to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing after he does some additional "tweaking" to the
language.
Weiland wanted to let it be known that he was really against this motion.
The vote was called. Motion carried: 5-3 (voting nay: Michael, Weiland, Hasse).
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to add some language to the
ordinance that would really put some teeth into the Planning
Commission's ability to make decisions, but that would not deter the
applicant. This could be a modest fee. Also the applicant would
need to show a mason for appeal.
Brown stated that he really had some issues with that. Sutherland pointed out that
normally (98-100% of the time) Staff was in agreement with the Planning Commission
and the City Council on recommendations. This was an effort to help speed the
process and eliminate unnecessary extra work.
There was additional discussion on the value or correctness of additional fees for an
appeal. This included some comments by Weiland that perhaps the building permit
14
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
fees were too Iow. Sutherland stated that the fees were adapted from a State fee
schedule which is followed by most municipalities. They were compatible with other
cities.
A call on the motion resulted in a Motion carried: 6-1.
INFORMATION
Included in the packets are the following informational items:
Minutes from the April 13, 1999 City Council Meeting
Monthly Report from April
Joint Mound/Minnetrista Planning Commission Minutes from March 29, 1999
Voss wanted to comment and go on record regarding the offense he took at comments
directed at realtors earlier in the meeting. He is proud of his profession and believes
that few professions require such additional and continuing education. The profession
is governed by strict guidelines. Mueller agreed.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Mueller to adjourn this
meeting at 10:25 p.m. Motion carried 8-0.
15
06:53A Chery3 Fougeron
March 29, 1999
612-472-0103 P.02
?ECEIVEO
Subject: Lakeshore lot #5 is for sale!
Dear lVir. and Mrs. Fougeron,
We want to notiOy you that our lakeshore lot #5, (legal; Lot 5, Block 4, Replat of Harrison
Bay Shores) is for sale! This lot is located adjacent to your property. We know that you
have a very special intereu in this property and we just wanted to give you the first
opportunity to purchase it.
The City of Mound approved our four lots with the Harrison Bay Replat Development at
the same time your lot was approved. Our lots are shown on the Current Mound City
Zoning Map. The City of Mound zoned our lots exactly the same way they zoned your
lot. The City of Mound zoned our four lots as R-l, approved for Single Family
Residential Homes. The City of Mound inaalled infrastructure for our lots includia8:4 ·
sewer main system, water laterals, a street called Three Points Boulevard, curb, gutter,
and sidewalks. Mound City Ordinance 350:620. Single Family Residential (R-l) Subd. i
clearly states: "Pu~ose (R.I~ The purpase of this district is m allow for the
continuation of e. xis~ing residential development and the infill of existing lots in
residential areas t~ the City where services are available" We paid for all costs
assessed for ali capital improvements installed by the City of Mound to allow the infill
and development of our four lots.
Lot #5 doesn't have any wetland or floodplain constraints e4Tecting the construction area
for a single family home. This lot includes a beautiful view of Jennings Bay across the
street.
We obtained four professional appraisals from Real Estate Experts familiar with Lake
Minnemnka properties. We would be willing to sell you lot #5 for the amount of.' On...~e
Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars - ~;125,000.00. 'rYs.-s ~ot.,"~e ~.,.11 ~ &,,-,¢~-e,Q ~"'"'
Please contact me as soon as possible if you are interested in purchasing lot 5. We will
be listing our property with a Real Estate Agent in the near future. We can eliminate the
cost of additional Real Estate Sales eommissioa costs if you purchase this lot directly ·
from us in the near future.
We'may be willing to discuss financing terms wkh a respectable down payment. We are
committed to selling or developing all lots this Spring.
Sincerely,
Timothy Becket
Cc:
Dale and Lorell Becket
Paul Haik
John Quist
Edward Schukle
Mound City Mayor and Council Members
Owners of Lot 8
Attorney
V.P, Ban' Engineering
Mound City Manager
M3y-17-99 06:53A Cheryl Fougeron
612-472-0103
P.O. 3
?EC, EiVED
May 17, 199')
MAY i7 1999
MOU ,IO PLANN!NG & !NSP.
Timothy B~ckcr
University of Wisconsin - Stout
PO Box 790Menomonie, Wisconsin 54751-0790
Your letter of March 29, 1999, concerning the availability of the progeny referred m as "lakeshore lot 5
(legal: Lot 5, Block 4, Replat of Han-ison Bay Sho~)" has b~n received. Your interest in selling the
property is noted, has generated some interest and g~nerates the following questions.
1. You state that thc progeny "do~sn'! ha,,~ any wetland or floodplain constraints affecting the
construction area for a single family home.' In Ires! discussioms with the City of Mouad, and
thc Lake Minnetonka Conversation District, I have be~n advised that there is wetland and/or
floodolain constraims. Please forward writ,an information that clearly states thru thc land is
free and clear of any constraints.
2. A few years ago, approximately 1994, fill was added to the property, and rip rap added to
the lakeshorc. Was this work completed in accordance with appropriate permission and
pcrmit~ from the City of Mound and the Lake Minnetonka Conversation District? I$ the
property now in compliance ~ith the the.~ l~rmits and or gui&lines? Please rorward
written coufirmation showing the compliance and clearance of all permits and relatexl
dc~;'umentation. Inci~ntatly. since the addition of the fill, flooding has oecunv, d on my
property at various times. Since the flc~xting did not occur prior to thc work you completed
on your property, it ia assunuxl that tl~ change in elevation to )~ur property has created the
p,-oblern. Ia there something that can be
3. The listed price you have quoted in your lexter is somewhat higher than the appraisals we
have rer~ived from two land specialists we have conta~ed. I have noticed that you have
used supplies (envelopes) associated aith the Univemity of Wisconsin - Stout. in sending
your corres~,~utence. Is the University ~__~__,ociated with the ownership or sale of the property
in any fashion that would generate a favorable tax situation to warrant tl~ higher pric~ you
are asking?
4, In conversations with represe, auatives of the City ol' Mound, I have Ix.~n led to b~lie~¢ that
theu: are some o~ta~les to ~onstruaion of ~u.sing on the prolxrt~ you have describea:L
Please forward the al:gn'olmat~ ~k~:umentation d~aring the lm~rty for constru~on, along
with current a~'als yoa ma~ have received fzom the ~ity in the la~ two
5. It is my ua~rstanding tha~ there are currently metering devigs an tl~ proper~ for the
I;U~ or monitoring tl~ soil water table or some such thing Plcas~ forward the official
results ot' the moaitoring r~sults so ! ~aa have my experts ~,~b7.e the results. Based on this
~nalysia we ~an &'termine fl~ viability nf constngtion on the i~ rabje~t to
¢laimtxl in your corresporuVnce ~ated March 29, 1999.
Thank you for thinking about ms in your de. dm to sell the property. Aa submitted to Mr. Haik at the
con¢l~ion of the lawsuit you filed against us, ] am prel:a~ to resubmit a similar off~ ~o purchase the
property that was made a{ that time. If you have convincing information on the important issues I have
raised that will =___-~'_ount for an increase in price pla advise so we ~ dctumfine a rradisti¢ price and our
in, rest in further put~t of thc property. If it makes more sense for you to dispose of thc 'land in it's
gntirety, advise and I w/ii discuss potential options with Mr. Overstreet.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
May 24, 1999
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council ~'~~~~'
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Purchase of Jim Ahlbrect~ Dock.
As directed by the City Council I have made arrangements
with Mr. Ahlbrect to purchase his dock. There are fifteen to
seventeen regular sections at $100.00 per-section and one
double-wide section at $125.00. The cost will range from
$1,625.00 to $1,825.00 depending on the section count.
Crepeau Dock will allowed the city a credit towards the
cities recent purchase of the docks that were installed at
Carlson and Highland End Parks.
Mr. Ahlbrect has requested that this be approved by the City
Council at the May 25, 1999 Council Meeting and payment made
as soon as possible.
printed on recycled paper
BRAUNTM
INTERTEC
April 29, 1997
~un Int~rf~c
6801 Washington Avenue South
P.O. Box 39108
Minneapolis, ~nne~ot~
&I$~41~600 F~: ~41~151
Engineer~ and 5cienrist~ Serving
Built and Na~uraJ Environments~
Projec~ BABX-97-187
Mr. Robert Steele
8515 Woodlane Drive
Germantown, TN 38138
Dear Mr. Steele:
Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Residence, 2350 Driftwood Lane, Mound,
Minnesota
As you authorized on April 14, 1997, we have completed our geotechnical evaluation for the
proposed single-family residence in Mound, Minnesota. The purpose of the evaluation was to
assist you and your consultants in desiguing foundations and preparing plans and specifications
for construction of the proposed home. In this letter we provide a summary of our results and
recornn~endations. More details regarding our results, recommendations and methods are
provided' in the attached report.
Summary of'Results
Three standard penetration test borings were completed near the proposed building area. The
general soil profile consisted of 2 to 7 feet of topsoil, fill or swamp deposits underlain by
clayey alluvial soils and sandy lean clay glacial till extending to the boring termination depths.
Groundwater was observed in all three of the borings at depths ranging from 1 to 2 feet below
the existing ~ade.
Summary of Recommendations
We recommend removal of topsoil, swamp deposits, soft clays and previously placed fill in the
building and oversize areas. Based on the soil borings, the natural clay soils which are of
medium or stiffer consistency are judged suitable for support of the anticipated fill and building
loads. After removal of the unsuitable soils, we recommend the bottom of the excavation be
observed by an engineer.
With the recommended soil correction completed, it is our opinion the structure can be
supported on spread footings desired to exert a maximum net allowable pressure of
2,000 pounds per square foot.
Mr. Robert Steele
Project BABX-97-187
April 29, 1997
Page 2
General
Thank you for the opportUnity to be of service on this project. If we can provide additional
assistance or observation and testing services during construction, please call lohn $iekrneier at
(612) 9424955 or Gregg Jandro at (612) 9424945.
Sincerely,
'~John A. Siekmeier, PE Project Engineer
Princil~al .Engineer
Attachment:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report
c: Mr. Mark Gronberg
Coffin & Gronberg Associates
I
!
!
f:.\jas\wke :mja~babx\g¢o~t\97187
FUTURE LAND USE - COMMITMENT TO PLANNING
Between now and 2000, Mound's commercial and residential segments
will see additional growth and the city will continue to be placed
in the position of approving new developments. Due to past
platting practices, the ci~ will also continue to face significant
numbers of variance requests on an annual basis. It is the general
policy of the City of Mound to enforce codes and ordinances. Many
of these ordinances such as the zoning code, impact land use
related decisions.
Mound is committed to creating an attractive, suitable environment
in all residential, commercial and industrial areas. In
residential areas, this commitment means eventual removal of non-
conforming situations regardless of whether or not th~ result from
lot size, structural ~pe or setbacks. Commitment to attaining
such a goal is difficult because the process that is involved is
very long term.
A consistent series of short term decisions is needed to realize
long term objectives. Short term decisions are frequently
difficult because th~ are often emotionally charged. In the past,
the Ci~ of .Mound has approved variances on a consistent basis
providing that the lot area fell within 90% of the area required
~ ordinance. This comprehensive plan is dedicated to the
attainment to the goals and policies that are found elsewhere in
this document. In keeping with that overall goal, all variances
will be reviewed on the basis of the specific merits of the case
and variances will not be granted solely on the basis of near
compliance with lot size requirements.
43
11-4-97
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARD CASE 97-39 ROBERT STEELE, 23XX
DRIFTWOOD LANE.
INFORMATION FROM VARIANCE CASE 96-04 RICHARD WIGNER, 2332 DRIFTWOOD
LANE.
RESOLUTION 96-50: LOT SIZE AND WIDTH VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING.
VARIANCE APPLICATION, MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 22, 1996 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING, AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM CASE
96-04.
CERTIFICATE
City of Mound
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
RECEIVED
J U N 0 3 199~;
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that:
As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from
which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed.
2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record.
I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the
original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the
date indicated in said extract, including any resolutions adopted at such
meeting, insofar as they relate to:
RERESOLUTION ¢f96 -50
RESOULTION TO APPROVE A LOTDWEL 't~slzgi~ TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
2332 DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN
PID 13-117-24 44 0058, P&Z ~96-04
Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notic,e thereof as
required by law on:
14TH
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the sale of said City, this
day of NAY ,19 96
CITY CLERK
seal
82
TRANSFER ENTERED
NSNNEPIN COUNTY
JUN · 1~
KI:~OLUTtON ff96-50
May 14, 1996
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT
2332 DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 9,
SKARP'S EAST LAV~N
PII) 13-117-24 44 0058, P&Z//96-04
WttEREAS, the owner, Richard Wigner has applied for a lot size and width
variance to allow construction of a new conforming dwelling, and;
WI~REAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 6 feet for lots
of record, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary highwater elevation, and;
WHt~REAS, the existing lot width is 50 feet, the required width is 60 feet
resulting in recognition of a 10 foot variance, and;
WH2EREAS, the required lot area is 10,000 square feet, the existing lot area is
7,248 +- square feet, this results in the recognition of a 2,752 square foot variance, and;
WHY_.ILEAS, the existing sub-standard dwelling will be demolished, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed dwelling will be conforming to setbacks, and will be
a substantial improvement to the existing conditions on the property, and;
WttEREAS, all improvements are required to be in full conformance with the
floodplain regulations contained in the City Code and the State Building Code. Staff has worked
with the applicant on this issue and the plans are being revised to be in conformance with the
lowest floor elevation for lake Minnetonka of 933. The floodplain is being modified by being
filled, and it is also being compensated for 1/1 on-site. The proposed floodplain modifications
have been reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicant must obtain other agency approvals
as necessary, such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and impervious surface coverage are
conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval with a vote of seven in favor and two opposed.
t/a~olutioa/~96-50
[t3
May 14, 1996
NOW, TltEREFORE, BE IT R.ESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota as follows:
The City does hereby ~m'ant a 2,752 square foot lot area variance and a 10 foot lot width
variance to construct a new dwelling with the following findings: 1) The request with
minor modifications is conforming to the ordinance, and 2) with this proposal there will
be a substantial improvement to the existing condition of the property, and will result in
the elimination of two existing nonconformities, the detached garage and the
nonconforming side yard setback to the existing dwelling. Approval is subject to the
following conditions:
The driveway area, as proposed, must be reduced to allow for conforming
impervious surface coverage.
bo
The driveway must be crowned in order .to direct the flow of stormwater around
the side and towards the lake.
Ce
Approval from other agencies, as .required,
Watershed District.
including the Minnehaha Creek
do
The area under the deck must be a permeable surface so as not to have a
nonconforming impervious surface coverage situation.
o
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to ali of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration of a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a conforming single family dwelling (30' x 50')
with an attached garage and a conforming deck (8' x 30').
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 9, Skarp's East Lawn.
Resolugon t~96-$0
· May 14, 1996
This variance shall be recorded with the County ReCorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how thiS'pfiUperty may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of ~ing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Resolution adopted: May 14, 1996
Mayor
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of April 22, 1996
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official _~~
Variance Request
Richard Wigner
96-04
2332 Driftwood Lane, Lot 9, Skarp's East Lawn, PID 13-117-24 44 0058
. R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance that will allow the existing sub-standard
dwelling to be demolished, and permit a new dwelling with an attached garage to be
constructed in its place. The proposed dwelling as noted on the survey (revised date 3-8-96)
is conforming to setbacks, and is a substantial improvement to the existing conditions on the
property. The following nonconforming issues are listed below, along with staff's comments.
1)
Lot Width: The existing lot width is 50 feet, the required width is 60 feet resulting
in recognition of a 10 foot variance. There is adjoining property that is currently for
sale. If 10 feet of the adjoining property could be obtained, the nonconforming width
could be eliminated.
2)
Lot Area: The required lot area is 10,000 square feet, the existing lot area is 7,248 +-
square feet, this results in the recognition of a 2,752 square foot variance. (same
comments as above)
3)
Impervious Surface: The proposed impervious surface coverage is 9 square feet over
the maximum allowable of 40% for a lot of record with an approved drainage plan.
The impervious surface area could be reduced by narrowing the driveway slightly.
printed on recycled paper
Staff Report
Wigner
Page Two
4)
Floodplain: All improvements are required to be in full conformance with the
floodplain regulations contained in the City Code and the State Building Code. Staff
has worked with the applicant on this issue and the plans are being revised to be in
conformance with the lowest floor elevation for Lake Minnetonka of 933. The
floodplain is being modified by being filled, and it is also being compensated for 1/1
on site. The proposed floodplain modifications have been reviewed by our City
Engineer and his comments are attached to this report. In addition to the City's
requirements, the applicant must obtain other agency approvals, such as the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request to construct a new dwelling with the following findings:
1) The request with minor modifications is conforming to the ordinance, and 2) With this
proposal there will be a substantial improvement to the existing condition of the property,
and will result in the elimination of two existing nonconformities, the detached garage and
the nonconforming side yard setback to the existing dwelling.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
The drivew'ay area must be reduced to allow for conforming impervious surface
coverage.
The driveway must be crowned in order to direct the flow of stormwater around the
side and towards the lake.
Approval from other agencies, as required, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 14, 1996.
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
City Engineer DNR
Other
Please type or print the following information:
Ad'ess of Subject Property
Lot
Addition
District
Owner's Same'~
Owner's Address '~3-3
Block
Use of Property:
-.- t ~ 3-,...),4 -,--/q -OOS"'o°
r)ay :P~on,, ,Z4 7 ~' 3 '~ q ~
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address ~-~__~ 1~ Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, J~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
q, p l-h
Iq&a,
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~ If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: (o ~ ft. :5' ~D ft. / O ft.
Lot Size: ]O)O00 sq ft q~t4~ sq ft ~'7,5"~;1. sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
too small ( ) drainage ~g) existing situation
too shallow (2~) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain:
o
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~ If yes, explain:
8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No j~ If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing s.~ch notices as nfay be required by law.
Owner's Signature/~''}~~/~/'' Date~//~~
Applicant's Signature Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA ¢~/~ ~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH
HOUSE ,~'~ ~) X ~ 0 =
X =
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted es hardcover
OTHER
SQFT
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
P=~OARED BY DATE
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR:
RICHARD WI~NER
LOT g, SKARP'S £AST-LAWN
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
/
i/;
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lot 9, Skarp's East Lawn
e: denotes iron marker found
o: denotes iron marker set
(tJ,,): denotes existing spot elevatxon, mean sea [ev.e~ .datum
/~: denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
Th~s surve~ ~nten~s to sho~ t~e Dound~ries o~ t~e ebove
described property, an~ tl~e locations e~ the ex~st~ng
proposeQ ~ouses. ~t ~oes not pupport Lo s~o~ eny olher
~mprovements or encroec~ments.
RECEIVED
';,~C PL/~','flllg~ & INSI).
I hereby certify that this survey waspreparvd by. me ur .rider tm" direct super-
vls~on, and that I am a ~ul)' r~'~ster~ Civil En~in~.r and I.md S(,rvc~yor
Ihe laws o( ll~e ~late of Mlnn~'*ol*
Scole 1/4" = 1'
FT-ont, E 1 evot, i on
Scale 1/4" ' 1'
L ~ nclm W, Onm~
2851
MounLaln
Tuxedo Blvd. Mound, Mn. Tel.
Design
(612-472-1285)
ADDRESs:
Dr', oooa Lo.r
SURVE ON -51
REOUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: ~O ¢
EXISTING LOT WIDTH:
ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA;
LOT OF RECORD7 YE~NO / ?
EX,ST,NG 'OT .E.T.. IzlO,
EXIST~,_LOT AREA.~,,)
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE
FRONT: N S E W ~ ·
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W ~'~ ·
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W 15'
LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: ~O ·
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
BUILDID,G/HOUSE
FRONT: N
FRONT: N
SIDE: W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE: ~: ~, ~ ' ~ ~lO~
.~ TOP OF BLUFF: -' ~J-J~ ' -JO D~
HARDCOVER CONFORMING? [ ~rl::a / NO / ?
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W ~ '/
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: ,50' (measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES/~/~7 ~'
BY.~/~ DATE: 1-50 -q G
I hisGeneral Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a port~on of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Departme.nt at~.72=06.0_Q.
,' _.= :.:_J
V (~0)
o ,.D 'o
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRII 22, 199
CASE 96-04: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. RICHARD WIGNER. 2332 DRIFTWOOD
LANE, LOT 9. SKARP'S EAST LAWN. PID 13-117-24 44 0058
The applicant is seeking a variance that will allow the existing sub-standard dwelling to be demolished,
and permit a new dwelling with an attached garage to be constructed in its place. The proposed dwelling
is conforming to setbacks, and is a substantial improvement to the existing conditions on the property.
The following nonconforming issues are listed below, along with staff's comments.
l)
Lot Width: The existing lot width is 50 feet, the required width is 60 feet resulting in
recognition of a 10 foot variance. There is adjoining property that is currently for sale. If 10
feet of the adjoining property could be obtained, the nonconforming width could be eliminated.
2)
3)
Lot Area: The required lot area is 10,000 square feet, the existing lot area is 7,248+- square
feet, this results in the recognition of a 2,752 square foot variance. (same comments as above)
Impervious Surface: The proposed impervious surface coverage is 9 square feet over the
maximum allowable of 40% for a lot of record with an approved drainage plan. The impervious
surface area could be reduced by narrowing the driveway slightly.
Floodplain: All improvements are required to be in full conformance with the floodplain
regulations contained in the City Code and the State Building Code. Staff has worked with the
applicant on this issue and the plans are being revised to be in conformance with the lowest floor
elevation for Lake Minnetonka of 933. The floodplain is being modified by being filled, and it
is also being compensated for 1/I on site. The proposed floodplain modifications have been
reviewed by our City Engineer and his comments are attached to this report. In addition to the
City's requirements, the applicant must obtain other agency approvals, such as the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District.
Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to construct
a new dwelling with the following findings: 1) The request with minor modifications is conforming to
the ordinance, and 2) With this proposal there will be a substantial improvement to the existing condition
of the property, and will result in the elimination of two existing nonconformities, the detached garage
and the nonconforming side yard setback to the existing dwelling.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The driveway area must be reduced to allow for conforming impervious surface coverage.
The driveway must be crowned in order to direct the flow of stormwater around the side and
towards the lake.
3. Approval from other agencies, as required, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Sutherland added a comment that the adjacent property is for sale, so it may be possible that the applicant
could acquire additional land to bring the lot size into conformance. Sutherland stated that the applicant
can speak on this issue.
Weiland clarified that the proposal includes an 8' x 30' deck. Sutherland confirmed that if it is pervious
and meets the ordinance it will not count as hardcover.
Richard Wigner, applicant, stated that they have made several attempts to Purchase the adjacent property,
however, the owner/seller has not responded. A survey of the adjacent property was handed out to the
Commissioners for review.
Burma confirmed that the applicant could not purchase a portion of the adjacent lot unless the building
is removed.
Reifschneider had a question about side yard setbacks and staff clarified that the side yard setbacks for
the new construction are 6' and 10', for lots of record.
Mueller commented that the applicant has agreed to reduce the hardcover, and if they purchase 10 feet
of the adjacent property they may loose their lot-of-record status. He would prefer not to see something
this close to both side lot lines, but would rather see a new house there, and believes their would be a
greater benefit, long-term to see the 40% hardcover maintained. Mueller wants to make sure the area
under the deck will be a permeable surface.
Mueller asked about vegetation screening and emphasized that our ordinance requires screening and
suggested that they consider applying this for any new house construction. Hanus referred to the letter
from the DNR which states, "The structures on the lot should be screened from view on Lake
Minnetonka using existing vegetation, landscaping, color and other means approved by the city. In
accordance with the Mound shoreland ordinance, natural, unmowed vegetation should be allowed to grow
2
Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996
within the 25 foot shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka." Hanus questioned if it is their intent to allow
"natural unmowed vegetation." Mueller stated that he would interpret this to mean bushes and things that
are not mowed, and commented that the shoreland ordinances states "leaf-on vegetation."
Voss confirmed with the Building O~cial that the existing dwelling could be remodeled, even though the
structure is too small, has a poor foundation, and is nonconforming. Voss commented that by not
approving this variance they could be allowing a substandard condition to exist forever.
MOTION by Voss to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by
staff, including the condition that the area under the deck be a permeable surface
so as not to have a nonconforming impervious surface coverage situation. Motion
seconded by Mueller.
Wigner stated, with regard to the vegetation, according to the MCWD, anything he does has to be
approved by them, and it is his intention that the lot will stay the way it is.
Mueller expressed a concern about increased drainage onto the property where the cottage is to the south.
Sutherland stated that because that area is in the floodplain, they can't berm it, they could only resolve
it by using gutters.
Weiland stated that he will vote against the motion as he would like to see a letter from the people who
are selling the adjacent property stating that they can not buy any. Glister agreed. Wigner stated that
the property has been tied up in probate for a year and that there is no one that will give him an answer.
Glister would like to see a denia/in writing. Weiland agreed, he would like to know that they made an
honest attempt. W'igner asked, what if they agree to sell 10 or 15 feet, but he cannot afford? Glister
stated that cost is not a hardship.
Clapsaddle commented that this is a sound proposal, made in good faith, and suggested they vote on the
issue. Burma commented that he is also in support of the motion, considering the existing condition of
the property, the location and condition of the existing nonconforming shed on the street side, he is in
support of proposal.
Hanus called for the question.
Motion carried 7 to 2. Those in favor were: Voss, Clapsaddle, Michael, Mueller,
Burma, Reifschneider and Hanus. Weiland and Glister opposed.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 14, 1996.
· MINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT WATERSHED~BOUNDARY ~
~11~'~~~ Gray Freshwater Center, Navarre
~ -"="" 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 37
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331.
Phone: 612J471-0590 Fax: 617./471-0682
BOARD OF MANAGERS: John E. Thomas, President; Pamela G. Blixt, Vice President; Martha
S. Hart/iel, Secretary; Thomas W. LaBounty, Treasurer; Monica Gross; C. Woodrow Love; m~N~S-°~"~" / ~-- ·
Thomas Maple, Jr. '
April 30, 1996
Permit Application No. 96-65:
Applicant: Richard James Wigner
2332 Driftwood Lake
Mound, MN 55364
Location: City of Mound, T-117N, R-24W, Section 13, SE 1/4
Purpose:
Floodplain alteration with compensatory excavation to allow replacement of
existing house on the property with a larger one.
Dear Richard James Wigner:
At the regularly scheduled April 25, 1996 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit
application was reviewed along with the following exhibits:
1. Permit application 96-65 received April 1, 1996.
2. Certificate of survey with grading plan dated March 18, 1996 received March 28, 1996.
3. Letter from the DNR stating they have no objection to the variance (lot size) received March 15, 1996.
Action was taken approving your permit application pending receipt and staff approval of a silt fence detail
and Rule J fees in amount of $136.50.
Please note that due to size and complexity of certain projects, the Board requires that site inspections be
conducted. In these cases, the applicant is required to pay to the District a fee equal to the actual costs of
field inspection of the work, including investigation of the area affected by the work, analysis of the work,
and any subsequent monitoring of the work. These costs are referred to as Rule J fees.
Please be advised that the project is not authorized until the above has been submitted and you have been
notified of permit issuance.
Sincerely,
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Engineers for the District
?& ....
Alan A. Mackenthun
AAM/Ijv
cc: Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. City of Mound
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
District Director Eugene R. Stronmaen, Assistant District Director Suzanne M. Weedman
.... Word~LRW04296.LIr-AAM-Ijv
PHONE NO.
I~D STATE OF
EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN
772-7910
February 12, 1996
Mr. Jon Sutherland
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Richard and Linda Wigner Variance Application, (City #96-04),
Lake Minnetonka (27-133P), City of Mound, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
We have reviewed the Wigner variance request (received January 31,
1996) for 2332 Driftwood Lane. We do not object to the variance
and have the following comments:
The ground level at the lakeward side of the proposed home is
at 930.9' (NGVD, 1929). This is below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 933' (NGVD, 1929) that the City
of Mound uses for Lake Minnetonka. The proposed home must
conform with the Mound floodplain regulations.
The str~ctures on the lot should be screened from view on Lake
Minnetonka using existing vegetation, landscaping, color and
other means approved by the city. In accordance with the
Mound shoreland ordinance, natural, unmowed vegetation should
be allowed to grow within the 25' shore impact zone of Lake
Minnetonka.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance
application. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to
contact me at 772-7910.
Sincerely,
,_ ~.. ,' ,:;_ c~, ~-g-<~c-
Joseph G. Richter
Hydrologist
JGR/kl
C:
City of Mound Shoreland File
,K~ql e c- "
1 35
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Permit Application No. 96-65 April 19, 1996
Applicant:
Richard James Wigner
2332 Driftwood Lake
Mound, MN 55364
Location:
City of Mound, T-117N, R-24W, Section 13, SE 1/4
Purpose:
Floodplain alteration with compensatory excavation to allow replacement
of existing house on the property with a larger one.
Applicable Rules: Rule C - Floodplain Alteration
Exhibits Reviewed:
1. Permit application 96-65 received April 1, 1996.
2. Certificate of survey with grading plan dated March 18, 1996 received March 28, 1996.
3. Letter from the DNR stating they have no objection to the variance (lot size) received March
15, 1996.
Staff Review and Summary:
The project involves removing an existing house on the site and replacing it with a larger one.
The site is within the Subwatershed Planning Unit U-10, LM-38. The project requires placing 15
cubic yards of fill in the flood plain with the same amount of compensatory excavation. The
project is to go before the Mound City Planning Commission on April 22, 1996. The City has
expressed some reservations about the redevelopment due to the small lot size and other
properties nearby that may proceed with similar projects. The project meets District standards
for floodplain alteration.
Recommendations:
Approval pending receipt and staff approval of the following.
1. A silt fence detail.
Project Review Status by Other Governmental Units:
The project is on the agenda for preliminary approval from the City of Mound planning
commission at the April 22, 1996 meeting.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
MEMORANDUM
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Board of Managers
Wenck Associates, Inc.
April 19, 1996
Engineer's Report and Recommendations for Permit Applications to be considered
at the April 25, 1996 meeting.
The following applications have been reviewed by the Engineers' and in his/her opinion meet all
applicable roles.
Approval is recommended based on the exhibits submitted by the applicant and the summary
information contained in this report.
Permit Application No. Applicant Palte Number
96-65 Richard James Wigner Page 1 of 6
96-71 Carlson Real Estate Company Page 2 of 6
96-73 Roger Hunwardsen Page 3 of 6
96-77 Dave Haug Page 4 of 6
96-78 Department of Natural Resources Page 5 of 6
96-79 Boulder Properties Page 6 of 6
TO
IdcCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Engineers, Planners, Surveyors
15050 23rd Ave. N., Plymouth, MN 55447-4739
61~476-6010 Fax 61~/476-8~32
WE ARE SENDING YOU
Leller of Trnn~lnillnl
,1,1~' Attached [] Under separate cover via FedEx
[]
[] Messenger the following items:
[] Shop Drawings
[] Copy of letter
[] Prints [] Change Order [] Specifications
[] Plans [] Samples []
::::o ~ :~: ~::::::::::::: ::::: ::: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :::: ::: ? :::: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ? ::: ::::::::: :: :::: :: :: :::: :::~:::: :3::: 3::: :: ::: :~: :::::::::: ::::: :: :B:::: :: :: :: :::: ::~::::: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
,~o~e ~o ~To'~ ~~ '~ ~ ~ '~ t~ 'T~
COPY TO SIGNED:
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly not~ us at once.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 14, 1996
1.10 CASE//96-04: VARIANCE FOR ,.NEW DWELLING - RICHARD WIGNER, 2332
DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PI]) 13-117-24 44 0058.
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the subject property needs a 10 foot width variance and
a 2,752 square foot variance. The property adjacent to this property is in probate court and
unobtainable by the applicant. The existing substandard dwelling will be demolished.
Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g96-50
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW DWELLING AT 2332 DREFTWOOD LANE,
LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID //13-117-24 44
0058, P&Z g96-04.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
in--ii
l ln
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 26, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance request
APPLICANT: Jim Smith
OWNER: James Smith - 3153 Priest Lane
CASE NUMBER: 99-10
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-05i
LOCATION: 3153 Priest Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-I)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: A variance application has been submitted to allow construction of a second
story addition. The variances requested are as follows.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Lot Area 9200 sf 10,000 sf 800 sf
Lakeside 34.1' 50' 15.9'
Lowest floor elev. 931.3' 933' 1.7'
932' grading 0' 15' 15'
Existing nonconformities include lot area which is estimated at 9200 square feet, the lakeside
setback, grading at an elevation of 932' 15 feet from the building, and the basement floor elevation.
The lot area as originally platted was over 12,000 square feet when the house was built in the late
1960's. It is difficult to determine, but at some point after platting probably during construction, a
swath of land was removed between the house and the lake. This swale was probably used as a
means to easily gain access to a basement garage for boat storage. The basement has since been
enclosed and remodeled and any track system in the swale has been removed.
The house is setback 50 feet from the lake and a 14' by 18' deck reduces the setback to 15.9 feet.
The deck is in need of some minor maintenance such as decking boards. A new stairway was
recently built to replace the existing. The Building Official has noted a handrail needs to be installed
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#99-10 - 3153 Priest Lane
April 26, 1999
for it to meet code. Further work to the deck may be classified as structural work and under the code
would need to meet building and zoning code requirements.
The existing house is tri-level design that would become a quad-level with the proposed
improvements. The proposed building plans show the 24' by 24' addition would be located over the
garage. The addition would not extend out past any of the existing garage walls so setbacks would
remain unchanged. The space would be used as a master bedroom. The value of the improvements
are less than 50 percent of the value of the home. The applicant sites the addition as a needed
improvement to make the house more marketable and to solve the roof problem over the garage. The
roof over the garage is sagging because the trusses were cut during the installation of a garage door
opener. The applicant also indicates that water is leaking into the garage over the electrical box. A
portion of the roof has been reshingled but apparently has not stopped the water leakage.
DISCUSSION: This case is complex as there are jurisdictional issues from the City, the DNR, and
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The existing nonconformities appear to have existed since
the house was built. Since that time, the City has adopted floodplain and shoreland ordinances that
impact the property. If the house were built today, the basement would be required to be above 933'
and the deck would be allowed at its current size. The grading work that occurred would need a
permit from the MCWD.
The City's flood plain ordinance allows the existing basement elevation to remain as is unless
improvements t6 the house are 50 percent or more of the value. Based on the value of the home,
$60,000 of work could be done without requiring conformance to elevation standards. The
percentage is cumulative and runs with the property.
The DNR has a flood plain regulation standard that is somewhat different than the City's. The
language generally states that when improvements are proposed over a foundation that does not meet
the flood elevation standards, the floor elevation must conform. The DNR is consulting there staff
to make a ruling on this standard. We expect to have a letter addressing it at the meeting.
The DNR may also require additional fill in the swale to bring the elevation up to 932' for a distance
of 15 feet out from the patio. This requirement would also bring it to the attention of the MCWD and
require a review. If fill were placed here, compensation would be required elsewhere. This 15 feet
of elevation is intended to keep an elevated area around a home if a 100 year flood event occurred
and people needed to be rescued. Because there are other areas on the lot well above this elevation,
it may not be practical for rescue purposes. It would however, increase the flood protection of the
basement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance requests with the following conditions:
1. The approval is conditioned on a favorable review by the DNR.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
#99-10 - 3153 Priest Lane
April 26, 1999
The variance does not recognize the existing lakeside setback for the deck. If structural work is
needed to the deck, a deck with a 10 feet depth would be allowed. The new lakeside setback
would be limited to 42 feet.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Inl
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mound City Council
Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner
May 19, 1999
Zoning code streamlining and process enhancement
The current streamlining provisions were adopted in mid 1996 with the intent of reducing the
number of variances without sacrificing community housing goals. (Streamlining provisions are
found in Section 350:420 subdivisions 9 and 10 of the zoning ordinance.) The Council directive
was to review how these provisions have worked and to evaluate ways to improve on them. The
Planning Commission has spent the last 2 meetings reviewing this item and is forwarding on
their findings for the Council to review.
During the last 3 years under streamlining provisions, there has been an increase in case load.
Staff believes this increase is more attributable to the current housing market and economic
conditions than it is to code provisions. The provisions have in fact, reduced the number of
variance cases. Without them, the case load would have been even higher than current.
Staff presented two options to the Planning Commission that posed ways to make streamlining
and the variance process more efficient. Both approaches were based on the trends that have
occurred over the last three years. The first option, streamlining, provides additional language to
the current provisions by allowing streamlining of all conforming construction regardless of
existing structure setbacks, lot area or width, or structure condition. Exceptions to this provision
would be properties with nonconforming lakeside setbacks, floodplain, and hardcover issues.
Although the Planning Commission agreed that cases with conforming construction were
approved virtually all of the time, a review was still needed to clean-up the few problem cases
and have an extra set of eyes. Motion was not adopt additional streamlining provisions and keep
the current language in place as written.
The second option Staff presented was intended to reduce the process time for variance case
review. We termed this approach "Process Enhancement." Essentially what this would do is give
the Planning Commission review and approval authority over all variances to Zoning and
Subdivision Codes. Under this approach a variance review would be reduced from a month or
more to as little as two weeks from the time of application. The current powers of the Planning
Commission as a recommending body would change those of an approval body. A draft of
suggested language is on the following page. Council would retain the powers as the appeal body
for any applicant who wished to appeal the Commission's ruling. The Commission motioned to
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Zoning Code Streamlining and Process Enhancement
May 19, 1999
move forward with the proposed process enhancement and also add language to place a fee on
any appeal to Council.
If the Council concurs with the Commissions findings, language would be drafted and public
hearings would be held to consider its adoption. The following are the options suggested by Staff
and considered by the Planning Commission.
Streamlining Options:
#1 - Allow construction of conforming detached accessory structures only. Leave current
language in subd. 9 and 10 except for minor modifications. New subd. 11 would read as
follows:
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structures may be
improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure provided that any
nonconforming detached accessory structure and the principal structure are in sound
condition as determined by the Mound Building Official. Furthermore, impervious
cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the
Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance
approval.
#2 - Allow conforming additions to nonconforming structures. Existing subd. 9 and 10 would be
repealed and replaced with the following:
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 9. A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion meets all
applicable city ordinance requirements.
Process Enhancement:
The Planning Commission would act as the review and approval body for all variances to Zoning
and Subdivision Codes. The Council would retain appeal authority if the applicant wished to
appeal the Board of Adjustment's decision.
Section 350:510 Appeals and thc Board of Adjustment and Appcals.
Subd. 1. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall be the City Council Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission shall hear and advisc thc City Council of its
findings and determinations, act on all variances to this ordinance.
Current language is struck out. Additional language modifications to Section 350.'510 and
350:530 would be made to keep language consistent.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
1 4q
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Acting City Manager/City Clerk Fran Clark, Daren Jensen (2625
Wilshire Bird), Kirk & Kelly Geadelmann (1709 Baywood Lane), Mike & Chris Stoltenow
(2925 Holt Ln), Michele Berglund (5138 Hanover Rd), Eisa Watson (4610 Tuxedo BIvd),
Ted Metz (1601 Bluebird Ln), Clyde Bonnema'(5513 Bartlett BIvd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
DISCUSSION
STREAMLING/PROCESS ENHANCEMENT
Gordon introduced the topic of streamlining and/or process enhancement to the
Commission again for discussion. He had formed some suggested language changes
to the ordinances and presented them to the commissioners. The suggested changes
are as follows:
Streamlining Options
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structure
may be improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure
provide that any nonconforming detached accessory structure and the
principal structure are in sound condition as determined by the Mound
Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be
compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. of the Mound Zoning Code
or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval.
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses
Subd. 9.A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion
meets all applicable city ordinance requirements.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Process Enhancement
Section 350:510. Board of Adjustment
Subd. 1. The Board of Adjustments shall be the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hear and act on all variances to this
ordinance.
Clark asked the Planning Commission to bear in mind that one objective is to be "user-
friendly to the applicant."
Brown commented that as a new person on the Planning Commission, they were user
friendly and attempted to be equally fair to all applicants.
Some discussion was held regarding the first Board of Appeals considered this
evening. Clark stated that yes, the property belonged to the State, but that Mound was
the caretaker of that property. Mueller still wants an attorney's opinion.
Brown stated that to get things done properly and to get them done right, the correct
procedure of going through the Planning Commission must be done. Clark felt that in
some cases, this was a duplication of efforts. Tonight she was here as a courtesy to
the Planning Commission.
Brown stated that all processes should work with in the established system. He felt this
one bypassed the proper procedure.
Sutherland stated "Staff's position is to not promote too strongly the applicant's
(position). Our position is to respond and give the Planning Commission the
information they need and sometimes we may disagree with you guys, but other times
you show us that we miss something, so the bottom line is whatever you ask for, we
need to treat you with courtesy and not be argumentative and not try to sell a case too
hard. So we would like to have the opportunity to keep our relationship good with these
guys.
Chair Michael brought the meeting back to streamlining.
Mueller asked why they were looking at Subd. 11 and not 9 or 10. Gordon stated that 9
and 10 address principal buildings. Mueller stated then the staff would have total
control of these situations. Why are we asking this, because of staff's workload he
asked.
2
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Gordon stated that it started as a Council directive to look at further ways to streamline
processes based on the voting habits over the past three years. Whether or not it
benefits the community has not been determined. Mueller feels it will help the citizens
since there would be a shorter waiting period from application to permit.
Gordon stated that he was before the Commission just asking if this is what they want
to do. He has presented two options. Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses: Subd. 11.
and Subd. 9.A. If the Commission does not want to do this, this process would stay the
same and they could look at other areas to streamline.
Sutherland stated that the community goals were admirable. The fact is, he stated, we
haven't abided to the community goals and Comprehensive Plan to eliminate some
steps over the past couple of years. So by doing some of this, the Planning
Commission would have the time to do some special projects such as housing
redevelopment. He mentioned some funds the city has transferred to a joint community
account and then cities can apply for a grant from this fund.
Mueller feels the Planning Commission is part of the checks and balances. For
example, the last Board of Appeals case looked at tonight would not have come before
our board.
Brown suggested that the Staff prepare a "Consent Agenda" like they have on the
Council. Then if a commissioner would like to look more closely at an issue, they could
pull it off for further separate discussion. It would be similar to tonight. Four of the six
cases passed with little to no discussion. The other two required discussion. If this had
been a Consent Agenda, those two would have been pulled and the others passed in
"bulk."
Weiland stated that was what they did now. Mueller agreed and stated they would
rather have the information presented to them to decide. Weiland pointed out that the
Planning Commission had a responsibility to the City Council to have reviewed these
cases prior to passing on.
Sutherland suggested a one year trial of the streamlining. Many felt this was not what
they wanted.
Voss believed that a new city manager will be requiring more of the Planning
Commission in the way of special projects and so forth as Sutherland had stated.
Brown echoed these thoughts.
Glister stated it was important to speed up the process and be more user friendly to the
applicant. But, she feels lots of eyes reviewing something is good.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by ross to agree to 350:510, but that
the other would remain the same.
A discussion was held about charging an additional modest fee if an applicant wanted
to appeal to the City Council. The purpose is not to just recover staff time, but to
encourage the applicant to really think out why they are appealing the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Gordon stated that if the commissioners were comfortable with the change, he would
bring before the City Council for review prior to bringing back to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing after he does some additional "tweaking" to the
language.
Weiland wanted to let it be known that he was really against this motion.
The vote was called. Motion carried: 5-3 (voting nay: Michael, Weiland, Hasse).
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to add some language to the
ordinance that would really put some teeth into the Planning
Commission's ability to make decisions, but that would not deter the
applicant. This could be a modest fee. Also the applicant would
need to show a reason for appeal.
Brown stated that he really had some issues with that. Sutherland pointed out that
normally (98-100% of the time) Staff was in agreement with the Planning Commission
and the City Council on recommendations. This was an effort to help speed the
process and eliminate unnecessary extra work.
There was additional discussion on the value or correctness of additional fees for an
appeal. This included some comments by Weiland that perhaps the building permit
fees were too Iow. Sutherland stated that the fees were adapted from a State fee
schedule which is followed by most municipalities. They were compatible with other
cities.
A call on the motion resulted in a Motion carried: 6-1.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
April 26, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Michael
Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff
present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, and Secretary
Deb Hawkinson.
Those absent: Jerry Clapsaddle (excused); Becky Glister (excused).
Public Present: Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane); Bob Steele; Gaylord Steele (207
Donne); Mr. and Mrs. James Smith (3153 Priest Lane); Jay Peterson (2667 Halstead
Lane).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
DISCUSSION,
STREAMLINING
Gordon stated that there was a need to review the streamlining provisions in the zoning
code as they apply to residential construction. This discussion was formalized with a
Council motion to have the Planning Commission revisit the streamlining provisions and
provide a recommendation on how they can be further enhanced. He further discussed
the caseloads that had been looked at since 1996 when streamlining was first enacted.
They have gone up in number, but he believes this is due to increased activity versus a
negative reflection on streamlining. A review of the voting on conforming construction
cases shows that when the Planning Commission recommends Council approval, the
Council will approve the variance resolution in every case.
Code enhancement has been added, which modifies the nonconforming structure to be
expanded if expansion meets all applicable city code requirements. This would include
approval of all conforming accessory buildings and principal structure additions. There
are probably at least three exceptions where a review would be needed: floodplain
issues, shoreland impact zone, impervious surface.