The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-06-22AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1999 7:30 P.M. MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. 7:30 P.M. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE 2. APPROVE AGENDA. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. CASE//99-19: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A 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, PID# 13-117-24 21 0086 . . . 2156-2176 *B. CASE//99-20: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE; LAKESIDE, SIDE YARD, AND HARDCOVER SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH AND A 2~D STORY OVER THE PROPOSED SCREEN PORCH AT 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE; BLOCK 1, LOTS 13 & 14, SHADYWOOD POINT; STEVE HICKS, PID# 18-117-23 31 0006 ......................... 2177-2202 *C. CASE# 99-23: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE; LAKESIDE AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING LAKESIDE DECK AND SIDE YARD DECK AT 1969 LAKESIDE LANE; BLOCK 11, LOT 3, SHADYWOOD POINT; THOMAS RAYMOND, PID# 18-117-23 23 0049 ......................... 2203-2221 *D. CASE# 99-24: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO YARD SETBACK AND HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A 2~' STORY ADDITION OVER EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 2040 ARBOR LANE; LOT 9, SUBDIVISION SKARP LINDQUIST RAVEN- LOT 1 & 32; 2153 GENE AND GRETCI-IEN AgEGGLEN, PI-D//13-117-24 41 0038 ......................... 2222-2239 *E. CASE//99-08: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE; FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A 2sD STORY HABITABLE SPACE AT 6049 RIDGEWOOD RD; BLOCK 6, LOTS 22 & 23, THE HIGHLANDS; JOHN TIMBERG, PID# 23-117-24 34 0003 ......................... 2240-2260 *G. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF AFTER THE FACT QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION SIGN PERMIT FOR WESTONKA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION ................ 2261 *H. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR BASS RED MAN FISHING TOURNAMENT - WEIGH-IN ONLY AT MOUND BAY PARK - SUNDAY, SEPT. 19, 1999 ........................... 2262 *I. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR CROWN COLLEGE FOR THE USE OF MOUND BAY PARK ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999 .................. 2263-2264 MOTION TO SET THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS: (SUGGESTED DATE FOR BOTH - JULY 13, 1999) 1. CASE//99-21: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; TO ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER, WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE, PROVIDE TWO ROOMS FOR THE HEAD START PROGRAM, AND BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN; 2451 FAIRVIEW LN; TRACTS A - G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY # 739 & THAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D; ST. JOHN'S CHURCH PID # 24-117-24 12 0014 & 24-117-24 12 0058 .......... 2265 o ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 350:420: REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACED BY NEW LANGUAGE ...................... 2266 *L. RESOLUTION REQUESTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 30, 1999 DUE DATE FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AMENDED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POLICY PLAN. 2267-2268 2154 e 7. 8. A. Be Eo Fe *M. RE~OI~.Er4ON CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY OF MOUND ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF HE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR TOWN SQUARE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF CFIF) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 THEREIN AND THE PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 24. 1999 .................. 2269 *N. PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... 2270-2290 COMMEN~ AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. DISCUSSION: WATER & SEWER AGREEMENT WITH MINNETRISTA - WARA PROJECT - SOUTH SAUNDERS LAKE 2291-2299 DISCUSSION - DATE FOR COOKOUT. DISCUSSION- DATE FOR COFFEE AND ROLLS WITH BUSINESSES. INFORMATION & MISCELLANEOUS Financial Report for May 1999, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director ................................... 2300-2301 L.M.C.D. Mailings ................................. 2302-2346 Letter from GTE regarding the recent sale of its local telephone operations in Minnesota to Citizens Utilities Corporation .................. 2347-2349 Notice from Hennepin County regarding their tobacco licensing Public Hearing to be held on July 6, 1999 at 2:00 P.M. They County has sent letters to all of our currently licensed establishments ..................... 2350-2364 Notice from the League of Minnesota Cities of the recommended maximum 5 % dues increase for next year ............................. 2365-2366 Update from City Engineer regarding Mound's Inflow and Infiltration Loan/Grant from the State of Minnesota ..................... 2367-2368 1999 Elected Officials Salary Survey from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities ..................................... 2369-2378 Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 1999 ................ 2379-2394 2155 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO. 6110 E~LUIE ClIRCLI::: DRIVE, SUITE 140 M~NNETONKA, MN 55343 (612) 930-3100 · Fax (612) 935-086Z Watts (888) 411-1134 June 9, 19.99 Virgina MacCharles RE/MAX Al Excellence 2477 8hadywood 1~ oad Orono, M2~ 55331 Re: Westonka Schools City of Mound I am a broker representing the City &Mound and their HRA Board. Please be advised that it is the intention &the lIKA to offer to purchase the Westonka School Districts propel ty you have listed. 'It is the intent of the HRA to offer the asking price of S l,g00,000.00 with payment in cash, This offer is for all three parcels, the existing building sites, the adjacent house and the open area which currently includes open space and athletic fields. This offer is contingent upon approval by the HRA Board. The Board's next meeting is /une 22, 1999 and the staffis recommending acceptance by the Board al that meeting. Upon their approval a formal offer will be wr/tten. The desire to secure this property by the HRA is to relocate the existing downtown Post Office there, to preserve and protect open space and to provide some developmea~t to compliment the downtown. Would you please convey this to your client the School Board, Thank you. Stuart "Bud" Storm President ex:: Fran Clark - City Manager Pat Meisel -ItRA Chair [ ~ Nnf Successfully serving Our clients since 1972 ] £0d 09P MB]DBOM NOA~NISIOH 8£898££-E~9 Square .. Mound, MN L A K E M I N N E / ? i Redevelopment Project Area figure 7 9 June 22, 1999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND LAKESIDE SETBACK, LOT AREA AND LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING LAKESIDE DECK AT 1709 BAYWOOD LANE, BLOCK 4, LOT 3, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID 13-117-24 21 0086, P & Z CASE #99-19 WHEREAS, the applicant, Kirk Geadelmann, has applied for a front yard and lakeside setback, lot area and lowest floor elevation variances for the existing house to construct a conforming lakeside deck at 1709 Baywood Lane; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard (house) 21.6' 30' 8.4' Lot Area 6,320 sf 10,000 sf 3,680 sf Lakeside (accessory) 47' 50' 3' Lowest Floor Elevation 931.1' 933.5' 2.4' 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 house is a one story rambler with a walkout basement which is below the Regulatory Flood Plain Elevation (RFPE) of 933.5 feet; and, WHEREAS, the hardcover as indicated on the May 17, 1999 survey is correct as shown at 51%. The owner will be removing the rock landscaping around the house which will bring the total hardcover down to about 2,340 sf or 37%; and, June 22, 1999 1709 Baywood Lane- Gea~emann Page 2 WHEREAS, the proposed lakeside deck would be in a conforming location; and, WHEREAS, the proposed deck improvements are less than 50 percent of the value of the home. The permit history indicates no other improvements have occurred since the house was built; and, WHEREAS, the existing front yard and flood elevation non conformities do present a practical difficulty to the owner and have existed this way since the house was built; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and 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 lakeside setback, lot area and lowest floor elevation variances listed below as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming lakeside deck with conditions: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard (house) 21.6' 30' 8.4' Lot Area 6,320 sf 10,000 sf 3,680 sf Lowest Floor Elevation 931.1' 933.5' 2.4' Conditions: 1. The deck addition be limited to a deck only. 2. The shed meet the 50 feet lakeside setback. 3. The property conform to 40% hardcover requirements. 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. 10336 · LOT 3, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. June 22, 1999 1709 Baywood Lane - Geadelmann 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 , 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 June 14, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent: Frank Weiland Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane, Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, # 432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.) with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood Lane. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE May 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as amended. Motion carried: 8-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 99-19: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A 2"D STORY DECK ABOVE EXISTING PATIO AT 1709 BAYVVOOD LANE; BLOCK 4, LOT 3, REPLATE OF HARRISON SHORES, KIRK GEADELMANN, 61968. PID # 13-117-24 21 0086 Staff has been working with applicant to get accurate information reflected on the survey for this variance request. The applicant has requested variances to build a conforming lakeside deck. The variances needed are 8.4 foot front yard; 3,680 foot of lot area, 3 foot lakeside accessory variance and 2.4 foot for lowest floor elevation. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 The proposal is to build a deck which would wrap around the north side of the house. The existing house is a one story rambler with a walkout basement which is below the Regulatory Flood Plain Elevation of 933.5 feet. The hardcover as indicated on the survey dated May 17, 1999 is 51%. The owner will remove rock landscaping around the house which will bring the total hardcover down to about 37% of the lot area and in compliance. Improvements to the deck are valued at less than 50% of the home's value. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the variance request with the following conditions: 1. The shed meets the 50 feet lakeside accessory structure setback. 2. The property meets the 40% hardcover requirement for lots of record in the Shoreland Management Zone. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend staff recommendation. Mueller is concerned over the total lot area square footage. He is cognizant of the fact that they can allow continuance of existing structure within the floodplain. However, he believes a precedent will be set allowing expansion of structure within the floodplain area if this is approved..He is opposed to building in the floodplain and several recent cases the Planning Commission has ruled on have resulted in a negative vote for the applicants. This needs to be considered for the future. Gordon stated that the code does allow to add to the structure if the value doesn't exceed the fifty percent value of the home. Chair Michael wanted to know what the hardship was the precluded a variance. Gordon stated that the existing home has existed since around 1965, prior to the ordinances. Since it has been occupied all that time, it is grand-fathered. Gordon stated that he does not see this as precedence setting. Each situation that comes to staff and the Planning Commission comes with its own set of variables to consider. Mueller stated that in past cases, they have required the applicants to raise the elevation of the floor to meet floodplain guidelines. Gordon indicated that was in cases where the addition was greater in value than fifty percent value of the home or due to other criteria. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 The applicant pointed out that the neighbors recently constructed a deck similar to what they are proposing without raising the floor elevation. Sutherland stated that this may be the first case where the value of the addition did not exceed the fifty percent mark that the Planning Commission has reviewed. Additional discussion was held about how a deck would impact the floodplain since only the posts were in the ground. However, stated some commissioners, a deck soon can become a three seasoned porch, a four seasoned porch and then living quarters. After further discussion, Brown called for a vote on the motion. Voting Aye: Brown, Glister and Voss. Voting Nay: Clapsaddle, Michael, Hasse, Mueller and Burma. Motion failed. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss (for discussion only), to recommend staff recommendation and limiting the addition to a deck only (for future). Mueller still feels that by allowing this, even a deck, a precedence is being set to allow expansion and building into a floodplain area. He feels past decisions will come back to haunt the commission. For example, he stated the recent case on Driftwood. One of the goals of the Planning Commission is to bring outdated buildings into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He sees this as working against that goal. Neither the applicant nor Brown see this as building into the floodplain. The applicant feels it will enhance his home and Brown sees this as placing posts into the floodplain only with the water being allowed to come in and flow out. Michael stated that his concern was the one the neighbor was allowed to be built previously. If they were in the floodplain, why were they allowed to build without bringing the floor level into compliance. Sutherland stated that staff is consistent in their handling of cases and stick to the fifty percent value regulation in floodplain settings. Clapsaddle called the vote. Voting aye: Clapsaddle, Voss, Hasse, Michael, Glister, and Brown. Voting nay: Mueller and Burma. Motion carried. 3 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 14, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance request OWNER: Kirk Gradelman ~ 1709 Baywood Lane APPLICANT: Out of the Woods Inc. CASE NUMBER: 99-19 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5r LOCATION: 1709 Baywood Lane 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: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Frout Yard 21.6' 30' 8.4' Lot Area 6,320 sf 10,000 sf 3,680 sf Lakeside (accessory) 47' 50' 3' Lowest Floor Elevation 931.1' 933.5' 2.4' The proposal is to build a conforming lakeside deck that would wrap around the north side of the house as well. The house is a one story rambler with a walkout basement which is below the Regulatory Flood Plain Elevation (RFPE) of 933.5'. Hardcover as indicated on the May 17, 1999 survey is correct as shown at 51%. The owner will be removing the rock landscaping around the house which will bring the total hardcover down to about 2',340 sfor 37%. The deck improvements are less than 50 percent of the value of the home. The permit history indicates no other improvements have occurred since the house was built. DISCUSSION: The existing front yard and flood elevation nonconformities do present a practical difficulty to the owner and have existed this way since the house was built. The 123 North Third Slxeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99-19 1709 Baywood Lane June 14, 1999 proposed deck is not more than 50 percent of the homes's value so conformance to finished floor flood elevation standards is not required. By removing the landscape rock, the property will conform to shoreland management ordinance requirements for impervious surface. The lakeside shed is setback 47 feet from the OHW which is within the 50 feet setback by 3 feet. The building could be moved closer to the home to conform to setback requirements. The Planning Commission could also grant a variance if there is a practical difficulty present. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request with the following condition: 1. The shed meet the 50 feet lakeside accessory structure setback. 2. The property meet the 40% hardcover requirement for lots of record in the Shoreland Management Zone. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 OUTLOT ONE ,.9 /0" 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 ManageflCity 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 # 99-19: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A 2"~ 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. 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 underlay or perforated poly is used, 1770 square feet of the hardcover will be removed and bring the total impervious Mound Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 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 were 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 60 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 riprap 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 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. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 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 Clapsaddle 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 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 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 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 on June 7"~ and they would schedule it as a City Council agenda item on June 8th. Clapsaddle was excused at 9:30 p.m. 4 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: Kirk Gradelman - 1709 Baywood Lane APPLICANT: Out of the Woods Inc. CASE NUMBER: 99-19 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5r LOCATION: 1709 Baywood Lane 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: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 21.6' 30' 8.4' Lowest Floor Elevation Below 931.4' The proposal is to built a conforming lakeside deck that would wrap around the north side of the house as well. The house is a one story rambler with a walkout. The front yard setback is nonconforming at 21.6 feet as is the lowest floor elevation which is lower than a 931.4 feet spot elevation at the south comer of the house. Hardcover is currently above the allowable 40 percent for lots of record at 44.4% The deck improvements are less than 50 percent of the value of the home. The permit history indicates no other improvements have occurred since the house was built. DISCUSSION: The existing front yard and flood elevation nonconformities do present a practical difficulty to the owner and have existed this way since the house was built. At this point the proposed deck is not more than 50 percent of the homes's value that would require conformance to finished floor flood elevation standards. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 The owner's builder has indicated that all of the landscaped area that is rock will be removed and replaced with mulch beds. If a mesh fabric underlay or perforated poly is used, 1,770 sf of hardcover would be removed and bring the total impervious surface down to 2,985 sf or 28%. The property would then conform to shoreland management ordinance requirements for impervious surface. 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 Ph, one: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER t- CITY OF ~OUND ~q ~ Application Fee: $100.00 }1(~Add ress Lot _% Block ~ Subdivision ~ ~" ~ PID# I ")) -I i-'J-,,"g,L,l, ZONING DISTRICT ( R-1 Name ~-~ ~,~q- Address Phone (H) (W) Case No. C1 --jq DNR ~ R-1A R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 (M) APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Has an applicatio~ ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~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 11~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)' SETBAC KS: REQUIRED Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW : NSEW Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: lO' ft. iO' ft. ft. SD' ft. ft. ft. ~OiOOt;~ sq ft 2)~-ii, ~ sq ft REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) 2},1~ ft. ~,~ ft. R. ft. I,Clft. q. ft. , ft. ft. ft. ~0 ft. ------ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. /~z ~'~'~ sq ft ~ sq ft ~ ~5 sq ft ~q3,Z sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify (Rev. 12-30-98) Variance Application, P. 3 C,e,,,o. qq q 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 fl), 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 Applicant's Signature (Rev. 12-30-98) Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) REOEi'VED APR 2 2 1999 PROPER7 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. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT Jk x aJ = x = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... F~ x \o = ~o~ TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. _~ x 3 = ,;~ x ¢;o= TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I I UNDER / OVER (~ di a ference) ~. ' .-.°.-C.~- ................. . PREPARED. ' -- ,~7 DATE z"/'//~/O/~ ' % SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD I IH)USE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET / ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/V:IDTH: (R1 10,000/60~ B1 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. I! 30,000/100 DIRECTION [ REQUIRED I EXISTING/I'ROPOSED N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E w NS E W 15' 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE GARA(;E, SllED ..... OR ()TILER DETACHED FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' ORG' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' '~- HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% -ct' CONFORMING? YES / NO I ? I By: [DATED: -- BUILDINGS This Z.ning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound .Planning Department at 472-0600. ~.~ BayWood Lane Reolat of Harrison Shores Helland ~f~~ ~ ~C~.~lct ~,~,,,~ Block 4 WATER SOFTNER #2205 8-26-92 Plbg. Permit 84-52(6-20-84) Roofing Perm~l~n~7[~~e-~4-87) June 2~ 1999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND FLOODPLAIN GRADING STANDARD VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING FIRST LEVEL PORCH AND SECOND STORY ADDITION ABOVE THE PORCH AT 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, BLOCK 1, LOTS 13 & 14, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 31 0006, P & Z CASE #99-20 WHEREAS, the applicants, Steve and Tamara Hicks, have applied for a lakeside and side yard setback, and floodplain grading standard variances for the existing house to construct a non conforming 1st level porch and a 2® story addition above the porch at 2072 Shorewood Lane; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks: Existing/Proposed ReQuired Variance Lakeside (west) 42' 50' 4' Lakeside (east) 32' 50' 17' Side yard 5.2' 6' .8' Floodplain grading standards of 932' around the structure 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, 30 feet front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and, WHEREAS, most of the proposed addition will be built within the floodplain fringe area (929.4' to 931.5'). The existing finished floor elevation of the home is at 933.7 feet and the proposed addition would also meet this elevation which is above the RFPE of 933.6 feet; and, WHEREAS, the property was granted a variance in 1992 (Resolution # 92-57) for remodeling and elevation of the existing home and the proposed improvements would further encroach into lakeside setbacks; and, June 22, 1999 2072 Shorewood Lane - Hicks Page 2 WHEREAS, the proposed improvements require additional variances for lakeside setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the lot is irregular in shape and the peninsula does limit the placement of structures on the lot; and, WHEREAS, the side yard hardcover including the concrete pads and shed are planned to be removed with the project which are considered hardcover. Total hardcover on the property would be 40% which is the allowable maximum for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended 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 and side yard, and floodplain grading standard variances listed below as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a non conforming first level porch with a second story addition over it. Existing/Proposed Re(~uired Variance Lakeside (west) 42' 50' 4' Lakeside (east) 32' 50' 17' Side yard 5.2' 6' .8' Floodplain grading standards of 932' around the structure 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 non conforming first level porch and second story addition over it. This variance is granted for the following legally 'described property as stated on the Certificate of Survey, Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., Job No. 99-170 · LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. June 22, 1999 2072 Shorewood Lane - Hicks 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. 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 , Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: City Clerk I Mayor Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent: Frank Weiland Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane, Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, # 432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.) with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood Lane. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE May 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as amended. Motion carried: 8-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 99-20: VARIANCE; LAKESDE; SIDE YARD, AND HARDCOVER SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH AND A 2"D STORY OVER THE PROPOSED SCREEN PORCH AT 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE; BLOCK 1, LOTS 13 AND 14, SHADYWOOD POINT; STEVE HICKS, 61980. PID # 18-117-23 31 0006 Gordon presented this case for the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting variances to add a nonconforming first level porch and second story addition above the porch and existing living area. The associated variances include lakeside (west); 4 feet, lakeside (east) 17 feet; sideyard, 0.8 feet; and floodplain grading standards of 932 feet around the structure. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 The first floor addition would replace the current deck location. The shortest lakeside set back is 42 feet and is an existing condition. All side yard hardcover including the concrete pads and shed are planned to be removed with this project which would bring the hardcover under the requirements for this lot. Most of the proposed addition will be built within floodplain fringe area. The foundation would need to meet the flood plain standards on both the existing (which does meet the guidelines) and the proposed addition. Grading elevation guidelines would apply to the addition requiring an elevation of 932 feet within fifteen feet out from the foundation. In order the avoid MCWD fill and compensation rules, no changes to the grading are proposed. The lot is irregular in shape and the peninsula does limit the placement of the structures on the lot. The owner indicates that the improvements carry with the character of the house and therefore, the other conforming locations are not practical given the form of the house and the retention of a large tree that otherwise would be lost. Staff feels that a variance from the floodplain grading standards would be appropriate in this case. These standards are intended to ensure there is adequate dry land surrounding the structure for evacuation purposes during extreme flooding. The driveway would serve as a good staging area if this occurred, Staff recommends Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council approving the variances as requested. Mueller asked where the covered porch would be in relationship to the lake. Michael asked if this lot was being overbuilt. Gordon answered that with the setbacks alone, perhaps, but with the hardcover requirements, no. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend Staff's recommendation. Voting Aye: Glister, Clapsaddle, Voss, Hasse and Burma. Voting Nay: Michael, Mueller, and Brown. Motion carries. This will come before the City Council on June 22, 1999. Brown feels the lot is being overbuilt and thus voted in the negative. The applicant presented photos on how he is trying to build around an older large tree and submitted them for the record. 2 0 0 n 0 I ll|Oj Z '<~ z / // / / / I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 0 Z _6¸ Z ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILEO/ LOT OF RECORD? YES I YARD IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF CITY OF MOUND NO NO DIRECTION N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W RiA R2 R2 R3 REQUIRED ZONING INFORMATION StIEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SlZE/WIDTtl: 10,000/60) Bi 7,500/0 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 14,000/80 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 IEXISTING/PROPOSED 15' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTIt: LOT DEPI'It: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS 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' IO' OR 30' IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES / NO /O lEI,': ~-~-t, ]DATED: Thi.n Zoning Information Sheel only sununarizcs a portion of the requirements ou~Jincd in I~¢ Cily of Mound Zoning O~,diaance. For furlher informfilion.j,;onhlg&.l~g__(.:i_ty of Mound P!anning Department al 472-0600. I ~ o~ Z ! o / ,, W ~'111 III CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROBER~Y ADDRESS: Q_WNER'S NAME: L-AN E LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. J J LOT AREA 2 O., ~'¢O SO: FT; 'X 40'%"-=' (for L6ts Of Re-Cord*) ....... I ~' ,~3 ¢ 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 outlin.ed.in Zon!ng Ordinance Section 350:.1. 225,Su.bd:.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 decke (1/4" min. openin~ between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted es hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT x = 7_56o TOTAL }-lOUSE ......................... = = TOTAl_ DETACHED BLDGS ................. x = 272 7 × : x : t67 TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. x = x = TOTAt.DECK .......................... X = TO TOTAL OTHER ............. : ........... -ALL CONr--.~'T,E %zz7 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I 6gzI I UNDER / OVER (indicate difference.)..= .-........=.. ,...;..-.... .... .~.,., ...'...,.-.'. · . · I ! .I 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 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. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk ss/Skip Johnson Mayor 87 May 26, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-57 ¢3EIVF_.D I~,~uu,,~u F'L.~",!'j!~u'm ~ ~!Cp RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW REMODELING OF AN EXISTING HOME AT 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE; LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINTv PID ~18-117-23 31 0006, P&Z CASE NUHBER 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-l, 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 WHE~, 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 varianoes 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 ll*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 floor elevation of 933.5 feet. The variances are approved to allow the substantial PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 14, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance request APPLICANT: Steven and Tamara Hicks - 2072 Shorewood Lane CASE NUMBER: 99-20 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5s LOCATION: 2072 Shorewood Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting variances to add a nonconforming first level porch and second story addition above the porch and existing living area. The associated variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside (west) 42' 50' 4' Lakeside (east) 32' 50' 17' Sideyard 5.2' 6' .8' Floodplain grading standards of 932' around the structure The property was granted a variance in 1992 for remodeling and elevation of the existing home. The proposed improvements require additional variances for lakeside setbacks. The first floor addition would replace the current deck location. Setbacks to the foundation are similar to the existing at 41 feet on the east side however, the added porch will reduce it to 32 feet. The shortest lakeside setback on the west side is 42 feet and is an existing condition. The addition on the west side would meet the 50 feet setback requirement. The side yard setback remains unchanged at 5.2 feet. All sideyard hardcover including the concrete pads and shed are planned to be removed with the project. Proposed hardcover is 5,389 sf, under the 6,060 requirement for this lot of record by 671 sf. Most of the proposed addition will be built within the floodplain fringe area (929.4' to 931.5'). 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99-20 - 2072 Shorewood Lane dune 14, 1999 Although our code does allow construction within this area, all structures must meet the regulatory flood plain elevation standard (RFPE) of 933.5 feet. The foundation would need to be built to flood standards as well. The existing finished floor elevation is 933.7 feet and the new construction would need to abide to this elevation. Grading elevation guidelines would apply to the addition requiring an elevation of 932' fifteen feet out from the foundation. To avoid MCWD fill and compensation rules, no changes to grading are proposed. The applicant has submitted building elevation and interior floor plans. The porch overhangs on each side are intended to keep a consistent architectural theme. Although they are not enclosed, they are measured for setback purposes. The lot is irregular in shape and the peninsula does limit the placement of structures on the lot. The owner indicates that the improvements carry on the character of the house. There are other locations a conforming addition could be built, but were not practical given the form of the house and a large tree that would be lost. DISCUSSION: The proposal will add bulk to the home making it a full two story. Although within the allowable height range for residential homes, it is an expansion in a nonconforming area. Given the irregular shape of the lot and the limited expansion possibilities, the proposal is reasonable. The east side porch is less obtrusive than an enclosed room space and could be viewed as a lakeside deck allowance normally granted in situations where there are structure setback issues. A variance from floodplain grading standards would be appropriate in this case. These standards are intended to ensure there is adequate dry land surrounding the building for evacuation purposes during extreme flooding. The driveway would serve as a good staging area if this occurred. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 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 5B364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE usE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Engineer Case N o.O~ Phone(H) Other SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot ! I q- LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT ~R-~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 PROPERTY Name ~T~Y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I'~ OWNER Address ~O~ ~~OO~ ~~ I ~o~ APPLICANT Name (iF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) OWNER) (W) (M) 1. Has an application ever been m~de for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this propert¥?~'~¥es, { ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all ar~, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), NgA~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): --l~-o~ Il' ~ ICi/ SETBACKS' REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE~ (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E ~-~d_~ ft. ~ ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N ~-~CO ft., ' ~. ;= ft.~ ' , ft. Side Yard: ~'~ ft. ' ~ ft. Roar Yard: - W ) j~/~ ft. -z/, '7 ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N(~E W ) ~-(~ ft. ~ ft. ft. ~"/~: (NSEW) ~0 ft. . ~__ft. -- ft. Street Frontage: //n~) ft. ~L'). ft. ,7-~ ft. Lot Size: /,~/,~:,~ sq ft ~Av~ 0o~ _q ft ~ .sq ft Hardcover: t/~Ot~p(~_ 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? Y~), 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? t..~o narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: I ( ) topography ( ) drainage v(,--)~ape ( ) soil situation pecify ~ ~I-IZ:~ (Rev. 12-30-98) Variance Applicat}on, 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)7 Yes (), ~,~(.-)~'if yes, explain: Was the hardsh~jp created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for~vhich 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 o~ the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or p~ans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the ent~ in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~ Applicant's Signature Date Date (Rev. 12-30-98) June 22, lggg PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD AND LAKESIDE BOATHOUSE SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT TWO CONFORMING DECK ADDITIONS AT 1969 LAKESIDE LANE, BLOCK 11, LOT 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0049, P & Z CASE #99-23 61980 WHEREAS, the applicant, Thomas Raymond, has applied for a side yard and lakeside boathouse setback variances to construct two conforming deck additions at 1969 Lakeside Lane; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks: Existing/Proposed Re(3uired Variance Side yard (house) 4.5' Side yard (detached garage) 4.3' Lakeside (boathouse) 20' 6' 1.5' 6' 1.7' 50' 30' 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, 30 feet front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and, WHEREAS, the proposed decks, lakeside and streetside, are both conforming to setback requirements; and, WHEREAS, the hardcover would remain unchanged and below the 40% allowable maximum by 1800 sf; and, June 22, 1999 1969 Lakeside Lane - Raymond Page 2 WHERI::AS, the existing lakeside boathouse has existed on the property for a number of years and was recognized previously in Resolution #96-40; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and 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 side yard and lakeside setback variances listed below as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct two conforming deck additions. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side yard (house) 4.5' Side yard (detached garage) 4.3' Lakeside (boathouse) 20' 6' 1.5' 6' 1.7' 50' 30' 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 two conforming deck additions. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on the Certificate of Survey, Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., Job No. 96-010: LOT 3, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. o This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. June 22, 1999 1969 Lakeside Lane - Raymond Page 3 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: Attest: City Clerk Mayor Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill ross, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent: Frank Weiland Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane, Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, # 432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.) with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood Lane. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE May 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as amended, Motion carried: 8-0, BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 99-23: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFROMING LAKESIDE DECK AND SIDE YARD DECK AT 1969 LAKESIDE LANE; BLOCK 11, LOT 3, SHADYWOOD POINT; THOMAS RAYMOND, 62030 PID # 18-117-23 23 0049. Gordon presented this case. The applicant has requested variances to add two conforming deck additions. Those variances are: side yard (house), 1.5 feet; side yard (detached garage) 1.7 feet; lakeside boathouse, 30 feet. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 The proposed decks lakeside and streetside are both conforming to setback requirements. Hardcover remains unchanged at below the 40% requirement. The existing lakeside boathouse has existed on the property for a number of years and was recognized in previous resolutions. It is anchored to footings which meet floodproofing requirements for accessory structures with floor elevations less than 933.5 feet. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variances requested. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Mueller to recommend Staff's recommendation. Motion carries 8-0. Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on June 22, 1999. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 14, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance request APPLICANT: Thomas Raymond- 1969 Lakeside Lane CASE NUMBER: 99-23 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5v LOCATION: 1969 Lakeside Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting variances to add two conforming deck additions. The associated variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Sideyard (house) 4.5' 6' 1.5' Sideyard (detached garage) 4.3' 6' 1.7' Lakeside boathouse 20' 50' 30' The proposed decks lakeside and streetside are both conforming to setback requirements. Hardcover would remain unchanged, below the 40% allowable by 1800 sf. The existing lakeside boathouse has existed on the property for a number of years and was recognized previously in Resolution //96-40. It is anchored to footings which meets floodproofing requirements for accessory structures with floor elevations that are less than 933.5 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Plannin. g Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 DNR WA TERS DA TE: TO: FROM: 6/2/99 Jon Sutherland, City of Mound Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist STATE OF MINNESOTA Office Memorandum i-~ECEIYED JUN - 3 199g MOUNO PLANNI,tVG & INSP. PHONE: 651-772-7914 FAX: 651-772-7977 SUBJECT: City of Mound Applications for June 14, 1999 Planning Commission Case #99-08 - John Timbera, 6049 Ridgewood Road (Priest's Bay: 27-133-02) The proposed construction must meet the City's floodplain regulations. The information in the packet I reviewed did not include adequate topographical information to verify that the City's floodplain standards are met. DNR has no comment on the front and side yard setback variance requests. Case #99-23 - Thomas W. Raymond. 1969 Lakeside Lane (Harrison's Bay; 27-133-15) Verify floodplain standards are met. As long as no improvements are proposed to the existing boathouse, we do not object to allowing it to remain as an existing nonconforming structure. DNR has no comment on the side yard setback variance requests. Case #99-24 - Gene & Gretchen Abeqalen, 2040 Arbor Lane (Harrison's Bay; 27-133-15) There is a considerable amount of impervious surface on this lot. Although the proposed project does not increase the imperviousness, a reasonable effort should be made to reduce the impervious surface and improve upon the existing nonconformity. The applicants and staff may already have some ideas, but obvious areas to look at for potential conversion to vegetated areas include the 25-30' wide gravel driveway (that leads into the 20' wide garage) and the patio area. DNR has no comment on the side yard setback variance request. Please call me if you have any questions. C: 27-133-02 File 27-133-15 File 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: Case No. C)~ City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner V' City Engineer ~' Public Works v/' Other DNR ~ SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER (Address [.Ox ~0 q Lot ~ Block t ~ Subdivision ~ PID~ ~ - ~ ZONING DISTRICT Name ~ ~~ Address [~ ~ ~ Phone (H) Plat # B-1 B-2 1COrOT- R-lA R-2 R-3 B-3 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 for this property? '~yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution procedure number(s) and provide copie§ of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Re¢ 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'~ 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: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: NS NS NSEW) : NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. - ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. --~3 ft. ~ o ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft ,, Does the pres~ use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes/J:X~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 anyon~elhaving property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1 982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: Was the har. dship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: o .9. 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 fbr the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature . C ' Date Applicant's Signature Date (Rev. 12-30-98) RESOLUTION g96-30 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 1969 LAKESIDE LANE LOT 3, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT PID 18-117-23 23 0049, P&Z CASE//96-06 WHEREAS, the owners, Anthony and Jennifer Palesotti, have applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling and boat house in order to construct a conforming addition on the lake side of the dwelling and a conforming entry deck on the street side of the dwelling, and; WI:W~AS, the subject property is a lot-of-record located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback for the dwelling, a 20 foot front yard setback for the detached garage, a 4 foot side yard setback for the detached garage, side yard setbacks for the dwelling of 6 feet and 10 feet, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water (OHW) for structures, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is in good condition; it has a nonconforming side yard setback of 4.5 feet to the west, resulting in a 1.5 foot setback variance, and due to practical difficulty it is unlikely, due to the proposed addition, that this nonconforming setback can be eliminated at this time, and; WHEREAS, the existing boat house is in good condition;, it has a nonconforming setback of 20 feet +/- from the OHW, resulting in a 30 foot setback variance, and due to the good building condition and lack of good site availability, it is unlikely that this nonconforming setback can be eliminated at this time, and; WHEREAS, moving the existing boat house to any conforming location on the lot would not be practical, either immediately in front of the dwelling, greatly hindering the lake views or east of this position, reducing the lake views of the neighbor to the east, and; WHEREAS, any of the conforming locations on the lot would likely kill or severely harm one or more of the largest trees on this lot further exposing this structure, and; WHEREAS, given the nature of the open and flat yard space, if this structure were properly screened in its existing location, there would be less visual impact than if it were moved to an unscreened, conforming location, and; WHEREAS, there will be no extension or expansion of any nonconformities anywhere on the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Resolution g96-30 Pag~ 2 March 26, 1996 The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming 4.5 foot side yard setback to the dwelling and the existing nonconforming 20 foot +/- setback to the lakeside of the boat house, to allow construction of a conforming addition, subject to the following conditions: The applicants shall submit a drainage plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. be The applicants will screen the boat house as approved by the Building Inspector prior to final inspection of the new addition. 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. 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 property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 12.8' x 28.8' two story addition, 12' x 12' three season porch, and a 16.8' x 12' deck on the lake side of the dwelling, and a conforming entry deck on the street side of the dwelling. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 3, Block 11, Shad)wood 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. e 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 Ha.nm and seconded by Cotmcilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens and Hanus. Jessen and Polston were absent and excused. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Jensen May-or Certificate of Survey fur Anthony & Jennifer Palesotti of Lot 3, Block ii, Shadywood Point Hennepin County, Minnesota ./ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PR'EMISES SURVEYED: Lot 3, Block 11, Shadywood Point. This survey intends to show the boundarie~ of the above des£ribed property, and'the locatio~ of an existing house, garage, and boathouse thereon. and the location of all existing visible "hard- cover"'tl~ereon. It doe~ uot purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. · : Iron marker found o "': Iron marker set Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. COFFIN & GR,O, NBERG, INC, t,)2 I hereby ct'ttiIy that this survey was p~t'parcd by me ~,~' tmdeT my din.x-t vision, and Ihal I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and L,md fiun'eyor trader the laws of the Stale o( Minnesota. Mark S. G,mberg Minnesota I.icense Ntm~ber 127q~ sc'^L~ to..~(~ 9GOIO Certificate of Survey for Anthony & Jennifer Palesotti of Lot 3, Block ii. Shadywood Point Nennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PR'EMISES SURVEYED Lot 3, Block 11, Shadywood Point. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above des£ribed property, and' the location of an existing house, §an,~.ge, and boathouse thereon, and the location of all existing visible "hard- cover"~thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or (encroachments. · : Iron marker found o ' : Iron marker set Bearings shown are based upon an assumed da(um. ~--'~__ COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC, hl2-473-4141 I hereby ee~ti(y that this survey was prepared b> me ur under my direct super- vision, and thai I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws t~( ~he Stale of Mhmvs~ta. Mark S. Gmnberg Mmnesola License Number 12755 nut 1'8'96 scale 1"=20, lois no 96010 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA I1 ~--~L,~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. 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. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE X X X TOTAL HOUSE ~..~.~,..~.0,,(~.. ~. g,,.J(..~.~ DETACHED BLDGS ~~. t~, ~ X ~, ~ = ~ ~ ~, ~ (GARAGE/SHED) ~~ ~ X ~ = ~O. ~ DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................. X = X X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER ~,~ TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (~NDER~OVER (indicate difference) ............................... BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SITE Subject Address Business Name~ennant The a~glicant is: ~GAL Lot ~ DESCRIPTION Subdivision S Phone IH) ~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone' 472-0600 Fax: 47Z-0620 Plat # CONTRACTOR Company Name Contact Person Address Phone IH) (Wi (M) license # ARCHITECT Name &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone (WI (MI CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: VALUATION OF WORK: VALUE APPROVED'.' SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REC~UIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR A~R CONC1TIONINQ. P~,M[TS BECOME NULL AND VOiD ~F WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED ~S NOT COMMENCED W~THIN 1 BO DAYS, OR tF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK. [$ SUSP~-NOED DR ABANDONED FOR A PERICD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. TIME L~M~TS ON BUILDING COMPL~i'ION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A ~UILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS TQ 7~= ;~(, :,~iORS OF ANY 5UILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE Ill YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON OBTAINING THE =ERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERT~ SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY C0UNC:L MAY F-XTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYON0 THE CONTROL OF TI-IE PERMIT'TEE PREVENTED CDMPL~-~'ION OI= THEWORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY 130l BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. I HERE~Y CERTIF'¢ THAT l HAVE READ AND E~XAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO 8E TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THiS T'VPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TD 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 SIGNAT~.~ ////////////////////~/////////////////////////~///////////~/////////////////~/~~~~////~~~~//////~~/////////////~////////////////////////!//////////////!///////// (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / OlV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED SIZE RECEIVED BY / DATE; % · STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED~ ~ UNfT$ YES I NO · PLANS CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY/DATE; ZONING CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ASSESSING CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET SURVEY ON FILE~'~I NO LOT OF RECORD? ~ NO YARD~ [ DIRECTION FRONTIIOUSE ......... (~)S E 9/ FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W(~?~ SIDE N SQW REAR N S E W LAKE ~E W TOP OF BLUFF R3 REQU1RED ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri 10,000~601 Bi 7,500/0 RIA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/B0 SEE ORD. il 30,000/100 IEXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOt DEPTtI: VARIANCE GARAGE, $1IED ..... DETACI1ED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W · SIDE N $ 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' 6'0.) 10' OR 30' ItARDCOVER 30% OR 40% This Zoning IIlformalioo Sheel only summarizes a portion of tile requirements oul)ined ill file Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For futfller information, contact thc City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. - ....... I C C June 22,~999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2040 ARBOR LANE, LOT 9, SUBDIVISION SKARP AND LINDQUIST RAVEN - LOT '1 & 32 PID 13-117-24 41 0038, P & Z CASE #99-24 62150 WHEREAS, the applicants, Gene and Gretchen Abegglen, have applied for a side yard setback and hardcover variances for the existing house to construct .a non conforming 2nd story addition at 2040 Arbor Lane; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side yard 4.1' 6' 1.9' Hardcover 4044 sf 3139 sf 905 sf 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, 30 feet front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and, WHEREAS, the lot is small, typical of properties in this neighborhood, at 40 feet by 182 feet; and, WHEREAS, most of the proposed addition would conform to the existing 6 feet side yard setback; and, June 22, 1999 2040 Arbor Lene - Abegglen Page 2 WHEREAS, the hardcover would remain unchanged at 51.5% as there is little opportunity to remove additional surface on the property. The proposed addition would not add hardcover to the property; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and 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 side yard setback and hardcover variances listed below as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a non conforming second story addition. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Side yard Hardcover 4.1' 6' 1.9' 4044 sf 3139 sf 905 sf 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 non conforming second story addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on the Certificate of Survey, Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., Job No. 99-167: LOT 9, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 32, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, 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. June 22, 1999 ;2040 Arbor Lane - Abegglen Page 3 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: Attest: City Clerk I Mayor Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent: Frank Weiland Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane, Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, Cf 432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.) with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood Lane. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE May 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as amended, Motion carried: 8-0, BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 99-24: VARIANCE; SIDE YARD SETBACK AND HARDCOVER TO CONSTRUCT A 2"D STORY ADDITION OVER EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 2040 ARBOR LANE; LOT 9, SUBDIVISION SKARP LINDQUIST RAVEN, LOT 1 AND 32; GENE AND GRETCHEN ABEGGLEN, 62150 PID # 13-117-24 41 0038 Gordon presented this case. The applicant is requesting variances to add a nonconforming second story addition. The associated variances are: side yard setback of 1.9 feet and a hardcover variance of 905 square feet. The proposal is to add a full second story to this 1-1/2 story house to include space for four bedrooms and a bath. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14. 1999 The existing footprint would be maintained. Most of the homes on Edgewater Drive are one and one half story or single story. Two story homes are becoming more prevalent on Arbor Lane. The lot is small and has typical properties of this neighborhood. The north side yard has a 4.1 foot setback which increases to 6 feet. The south side yard setback is currently 10.4 feet and would decrease to about 7 fee with the new structure. Hardcover would remain at 51.5% and there is little opportunity to remove additional surface on the property. The proposal presents the only feasible way to add living space to the home without further impacting hard cover. Most of the second story addition will be conforming except for one bedroom which would maintain the existing 4.1 foot setback. There is a "practical difficulty" according to staff to increase living space with any other options. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends Council approval of these variances as requested. Mueller clarified that there were no additions to the existing variances. Gordon stated that was true. MOTION by Mueller, 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 June 22, 1999. 2 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. imi l ln TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 14, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance request APPLICANT: Gene and Gretchen Abegglen - 2040 Arbor Lane CASE NUMBER: 99-24 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5w LOCATION: 2040 Arbor Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting variances to add a nonconforming second story addition. The associated variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Sideyard 4.1 ' 6' 1.9' Hardcover 4044 sf 3139 sf 905 sf The proposal is to add a full second story addition to this 1½ story home. The addition would include space for four bedrooms and a bath. Plans show the existing footprint would be maintained. Most of the homes on Edgewater Drive are single story or story and a half. Two story homes become more prevalent on Arbor Lane. The lot is small, typical of properties in this neighborhood, at 40 feet by 182 feet. A portion of the north sideyard has a 4.1 feet setback which increases to 6 feet. The south side yard is currently 10.4 feet and would decrease to about 7 feet with the new side entrance. Hardcover would remain unchanged at 51.5% and there is little opportunity to remove additional surface on the property. DISCUSSION: The proposal presents the only feasible manner in which to add living space without further impacting hardcover and/or setbacks. Although the hardcover is excessive, there is little opportunity to remove any without impacting the home or neighboring properties. The 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99-24 - 2040 Arbor Lane June 14, 1999 plastic underlay on the north side of the home helps drain this narrow sideyard which if removed could lead to foundation problems over time. The driveway is graveled and although considered as 100% hardcover, does absorb some percentage of water. Most of the second story addition will be conforming except for one bedroom which would maintain the existing 4.1 feet setback. Staff feels the applicant has a practical difficulty with the small and narrow lot and lack of options to increase living space. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variances as requested. 123 North Third S~xeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 DNR WA TERS DA TE: TO: FROM: 612/99 Jon Sutherland, City of Mound Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist STATE OF MINNESOTA Office Memorandum HECEIVED JUN - 3 1999 MOUND PLANN~G & INSP. PHONE: 651-772-7914 FAX: 651-772-7977 SUBJECT: City of Mound Applications for June 14, 1999 Planning Commission Case #99-08 - John Timberg, 6049 Ridgewood Road {Priest's Bay; 27-133-02) The proposed construction must meet the City's floodplain regulations. The information in the packet I reviewed did not include adequate topographical information to verify that the City's floodplain standards are met. DNR has no comment on the front and side yard setback variance requests. Case #99-23 - Thomas W. Raymond, 1969 Lakeside Lane (Harrison's Bay; 27-133-15) Verify floodplain standards are met. As long as no improvements are proposed to the existing boathouse, we do not object to allowing it to remain as an existing nonconforming structure. DNR has no comment on the side yard setback variance requests. Case #99-24 - Gene & Gretchen Abe~len, 2040 Arbor Lane (Harrison's Bay: 27-133-15) There is a considerable amount of impervious surface on this lot. Although the proposed project does not increase the imperviousness, a reasonable effort should be made to reduce the impervious surface and improve upon the existing nonconformity. The applicants and staff may already have some ideas, but obvious areas to look at for potential conversion to vegetated areas include the 25-30' wide gravel driveway (that leads into the 20' wide garage) and the patio area. DNR has no comment on the side yard setback variance request. Please call me if you have any questions. C: 27-133-02 File 27-133-15 File VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PAID CffY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Case No. qq'2q Distribution' 5-1§-q ci City Planner~/' 5-18-CIC~ DNR 5- ~6-~01 City Engineer ~ Other 5-t8-GG Public Works ~/ SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. (Address ~.~0 Lot Block PID~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 PROPERTY Name ~ OWNER Address~ Phone {H~) ~]~-Z~ (W)~0-~ [ (M) B-3 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zonmg procedure for this property? ( ) yes,'l~'no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. (Rev. 12-30-98) Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.)' Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o ,, 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 VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: NSEW SEW SEW NSEW NSEW : NSEW Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ~. I ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sqft ~~ sqft sqft Does the prese, n/t use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes t~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~) too narrow too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: L.O+ /'.~ '7110 ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage (~existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify ,40 w;de_ a.. d (Rev. 12-30-98) ' ~ Variance Application, P. 3 qq- q Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1 982)? Yes (), Not]~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~1~. 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 ~1. 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 fbr the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~ Applicant's Signature (Rev. 12-30-98) Date Date CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GENE ABEGGLEN LOT 9, SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST' S RAVENSWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA t RECEIVED MAY 17 1999 MOUND PLAN!I!NG & INSR JO~NO RECEIVED MAY 17 1999 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SITE LEGAL DESCRIP~qON OWNER CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT &/OR ENGINEER Business Name/Tennant applicant is: ,Z~owner The CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 ~contractor ~tenant Plat # Lot Block Subdivision PID# Contact Person b,>~ Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: QALUATION '~ S~ OLbO VALUE APPROVED: F WORK: SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING. VENTILATING OR AiR CONDITIONING. pC. RMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID ~F WORK OR CONSTRUOTIQN AUTHORIZED tS NOT COMMENCED W1THtN 1 BO DAYS, DP, IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF t80 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. TIM E L~MITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO B E PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REPAIRS, REM ODELING, AND ALTERATIONS TO ,NE :~XT=~IORS OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL 8E COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (lJ 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 WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMIT'FEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY 1301 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 WCRK 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. 43, "~ //I/IH/I/I/I////////////////////////// (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD BLDG SIZE |SO FTI ~' STORIES FiRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? # UN~T$ YES I NO RECEIVED BY / DATE: PLANS CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY I DATE: KL 5-1q-qq' ZONING CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ASSESSING COPIED APPROVED CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZO~) A17B(~i~ OWNER'S NAME: (~'NF. /~,~F___EA&uE.N LOt' AREA --7~L7 ~ SQ. FT. X 30% = LOT AREA LOT AREA (for all lots) .............. 7 ~ z~ 7 ~' SQ: FT:'X' 40%'- ="(for Lots Of Re-c'o'rd*) ........ SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) I 3 i 3R %.eFT." *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined.in Zoning Ordinance Section 3501_1225,Su.bd:.6. B...1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT TOTAL HOUSE ......................... I ~ q I DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVE'WAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as herdcover OTHER TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x = 684 x = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ITC .................. ,. x : x = 277 x = TOTAL DECK .......................... x = TOTAC OT~fiB ............. : ........... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I 4-O4--.-zF -~1 PREPARED BY ~'Orr'~/'t ~'. ~'J'2-~"4~'~': . II-,C,, DATE .f ~ uul CONCRETE INDUSI'I:ilF.~ Receiver's Name Company Fix Number ~'1'~ Date FACSIMILE 7545 Commerce StreelWesl PO Box 259 Corcoran, MN 55340 (612) 420-7755 (612) 420-6628 Sender's Name t~.,I,t,l~- ~' I~ Total ~ of Pages (includes cover sheet) The In~om~allon eonlalned In thll fecllmge Fl I:)dvlleged end eonfldeltlel I~fom~tlo~ Intended ol~ly t'o~ the uae of the I,".:lMdual or entlly named If the reader o1' thla mileage FI nol the Inleded lwclplerlt, tx the Ifllployel tX Igeflt reeporlllble to deliver 1o the recipient, you Ire hereby nollfled thai any dlssemlneJ, lon. distribution or copyfl~g of thle communication 11 Mrlclly pl'ohlblted. If you hive received ~ communlcallofl in errol', please Immediately noilly Lis by lelephorle a~ 812-420-~ and rmlum the oi'lglmlf message lo u,~ at the ad~ess lined above via the US Mall. GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SItEET Required Lot Wldl~h.' Existing Lot Width SETBACKS REQUIRED: PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT, N ' , W ¢~ FRONTI N S E W SIDEI N S E W ~ ~t N S E W ~ LAK~SNORE; (~meaeured from O.H.W.! EXISTING~dCD/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING of survey LOt of Record? yes._~ no. (frontage o~1 an improved public street) ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONT~ N S g W FRONT: N S E W SIDE~ N S g W 4' or 6' SIDE~ H S g W 4' OF 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE~ S0' (measured from ACCESSORY BUILDING FRONTI N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE~ N S K W SIDB~ N S E W REAR: N S g W LAKESXORE~ FRONT~ N S g W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S g W SIDE: N S g W R~AR: N S g W IS THIS PROPERTY CONFOREING? YES BY: NO %,,' ? ~. WILL THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS CONFORM? YES DA~ / ..... / NO ,40 ~ 14 - , (~) 45:50 66.6 · [~8)".. I0 · ARBOR LA 0 0 ~+ June 22,1999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING ATTACHED GARAGE AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A CONFORMING FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AT 6049 RIDGEWOOD RD, LOTS 22 AND 23, BLOCK 6, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 34 0003, P & Z CASE #99-08 61610 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Timberg, has applied fora front yard and side yard setback variances for the existing house to construct a non conforming attached garage with a second story addition and a conforming family room addition at 6049 Ridgewood Road; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks: Existing/Proposed Reauired Variance Front Yard 7.5' 30' 22.5' Side Yard 5' 6' 1' Side Yard (Shed) 1.7' 4' 2.3' Front Yard (detached garage) 6.8' 20' 13.2' 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, 30 feet front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and, WHEREAS, the existing detached garage and shed would remain unchanged; and, WHEREAS, the property consists of approximately 28,000 square feet above the 931' elevation of which approximately 5800 square feet is hardcover after is hardcover after the improvements or 20% of the lot area; and, June 22, 1999 6049 Ridgewood Rd - Timberg Page 2 WHEREAS, Staff has recommended approval of the side yard addition with conditions and recommended denial of the front yard addition; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval of the variance requested by the applicant; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. 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 nonconforming attached garage with a second story addition and a conforming family room addition. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 7.5' 30' 22.8' Side Yard 5' 6' 1' Side Yard (Shed) 1.7' 4' 2.3' Front Yard (detached garage) 6.8' 20' 13.2' 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 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 nonconforming attached garage with a second story addition and a conforming family room addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on the Certificate of Survey, Advance Surveying and Engineering, Co., Job No. 990041: LOTS 22 AND 23, BLOCK 6, THE HIGHLANDS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. June 22, 1999 6049 Ridgewood Rd - Tirnberg Page 3 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 June 14, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent: Frank Weiland Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane, Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, # 432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.) with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood Lane. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE May 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as amended. Motion carried: 8-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 99-08: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A 2"D STORY HABITABLE SPACE AT 6049 RIDGEWOOD ROAD; BLOCK 6, LOTS 22 AND 23, THE HIGHLAND, JOHN TIMBERG, 61610 PID # 23-117-24 34 0003 Gordon presented this case. The applicant is requesting variances to add a nonconforming attached garage and second story addition and a conforming family room addition.. The associated variances are as follows: front yard, 22.5 feet; side yard, 1.0 feet; shed (SY) 2.3 feet; detached garage (FY 13.2 feet. (note: some of these measurements have changed from the planning report dated June 14, 1999.) Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14. 1999 The proposal consists of two additions, the first is to push the existing attached garage out fourteen feet and add a full second story above it. The garage would remain a front entry but have a reduced setback of 10.2 feet. The second story would serve as a bedroom. Side yard on the east side would be reduced from over 11 feet to 5.5 feet. The second addition is located in the west side yard and is conforming. Although the survey does not show the 931 foot elevation mark, staff has not asked for a revision because of the expanse of the property. The house is not in the floopfringe and is elevated above the 933.5 foot mark. The applicant has worked on a couple of option s with staff for the attached garage. This location is the least nonconforming of the revisions. Staff has indicated that there is no hardship for this addition. This setback would also not allow a car to park in the driveway without extending into the right-of-way. The side yard addition is acceptable to staff and conforming. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval to the side yard addition and deny the front yard addition. The following conditions apply to the side yard approval: 1. Grading and drainage plans must be provided and aPproved by the City Engineer, 2. The lowest floor elevation must be provided upon completion. Mueller asked if the current 11.3 setback to the east was within code. Sutherland stated that a couple of different options have been discussed including putting the garage entry off to the side. Mueller indicated that he walks his dog along this road every night. He believes it is a tight area and this is located on a curve and by placing a second story out the front would be in the line of sight and produce safety issues. The side entrance to the garage would be much better in his opinion. He also believes that this should be one story. While he understands what Mueller is saying, the applicant does not feel that this would present a line of sight issue since this is one the side of the road going up the hill, not down. Mueller asked about putting the second story over the house rather than the garage. The applicant stated this would create other problems. He is trying to correct an 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 existing situation for the heat and oil system. The applicant feels that he is back far enough from the curb. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller to extend the Planning Commission to 11:15 p.m. Motion carried:7-0 (opposed: Voss). Gordon indicated that he sees other options for living space on this lot and has encouraged the applicant to explore other locations so that setbacks can be met. A significant amount of additional discussion took place over line of sight on Ridgewood Road and where the garage should enter and the second story addition above the garage. If off to the side, the view would be destroyed. Clapsaddle asked if this was the hardship. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to recommend to the City Council the side yard addition variances required and not the front yard with the garage having a side entrance and only one story high. He also motioned that the contour of the lot and configuration be such that it has the least impact on the line of sight from the road. Again, the applicant pointed out that he did not believe there was a line of sight issue. Mueller indicated that part of his reasoning was the precedence that would be set. Voss stated that he would be voting against this even though he seconded the motion since he feels if they allow one story, why not allow two. Brown called the question. Voting aye: Mueller, Glister, Michael. Voting Nay: Voss, Hasse, Brown, Burma and Clapsaddle. Motion failed. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend staff recommendation with conditions listed. Prior to vote, Mueller cautioned the commissioners to consider long and hard, the precedent of two story homes. He believes they are setting a precedent to "canyonize" Ridgewood Road. Voting aye: Clapsaddle, Voss, Hasse, Brown and Burma. Voting Nay: Michael, Mueller, Glister. Motion carried. 3 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-4H TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 14, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance request APPLICANT: John Timberg - 6049 Ridgewood Rd. CASE NUMBER: 99-08 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5g LOCATION: 6049 Ridgewood Rd. ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting variances to add a nonconforming attached garage and second story addition and a conforming family room addition. The associated variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front yard 10.2' 30' 20.8' Side yard 5.5' 6' .5' Shed (SY) 1.7' 4' 2.3' Detached garage (FY) 6.8' 20' 13.2' The proposal consists of two additions, the first is to push the existing attached garage out 14 feet and add a full second story above it. The garage would remain a front entry but have a reduced setback of 10.2 feet. Code requires a 30 feet setback. Detached front entry garages are allowed 20 feet. The second story addition would be used as a bedroom. Side yard on the east side would be reduced from over 11 feet to 5.5 feet. A 6 feet sideyard setback is required. The second addition is located in the west side yard and is conforming. The adc~ition would be used as a family room. The existing detached garage and shed would remain unchanged. The property as platted consists of 28,628 square feet which is at the 929.40HW as shown on the survey. The survey does not indicate the 931' elevation and staff has not asked the applicant to make this revision given the expanse of the property. Floor elevations are also not given but 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612)338-6838 p. 2 #99-08 -6039 Ridgewood Road June 14, 1999 again staffhas not rejected the survey. The house is not in the floodfringe and is elevated above the 933.5'. The Planning Commission can certainly ask the applicant for the additional information, but staff is comfortable with the information provided. DISCUSSION: The applicant has worked on a couple of options with the applicant for the attached garage. This set is the least nonconforming of the revisions. Staff has indicated to the applicant that there no hardship present for this addition. This setback would also not allow a car to park in the driveway without extending into the right-of-way. The side yard addition is acceptable to staff and is conforming. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the side yard addition and deny the front yard addition. The following conditions apply to the side yard approval. 1. Grading and drainage plans be provided and approved by the City Engineer. 2. The lowest floor elevation be provided upon completion. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 DNR WA TER$ DATE: 6/2/99 TO: Jon Sutherland, City of Mound FROM: Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist STATE OF MINNESOTA Office Memorandum i' ECEIYED J UN - 3 1999 MOUNO PLANNCNG & iAIS PHONE: 651-772-7914 FAX: 651-772-7977 SUBJECT: City of Mound Applications for June 14, 1999 Planning Commission Case #99-08 - John Timberg, 6049 Ridgewood Road (Priest's Bay; 27-133-02) The proposed construction must meet the City's floodplain regulations. The information in the packet I reviewed did not include adequate topographical information to verify that the City's floodplain standards are met. DNR has no comment on the front and side yard setback variance requests. Case #99-23 - Thomas W. Raymond, 1969 Lakeside Lane (Harrison's Bay: 27-133-15) Verify floodplain standards are met. As long as no improvements are proposed to the existing boathouse, we do not object to allowing it to remain as an existing nonconforming structure. DNR has no comment on the side yard setback variance requests. Case #99-24 - Gene & Gretchen Abegglen, 2040 Arbor Lane (Harrison's Bay: 27-133-15) There is a considerable amount of impervious surface on this lot. Although the proposed project does not increase the imperviousness, a reasonable effort should be made to reduce the impervious surface and improve upon the existing nonconformity. The applicants and staff may already have some ideas, but obvious areas to look at for potential conversion to vegetated areas include the 25-30' wide gravel driveway (that leads into the 20' wide garage) and the patio area. DNR has no comment on the side yard setback variance request. Please call me if you have any questions. C: 27-133-02 File 27-133-15 File VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PAID 4&$77 MAR,! 6 1999 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Address PROPERTY OWNER Applica~j~TnYFOeFe.JV/O~/)~0. 00 City Plannerv/' ,~_~-j_C/Cj DNR,,// 5_~J .Cji~ City EngineerV" Other :~'i'7-£~ Public Works V/ Lot ,,~,2 ~ ,,~ '5 Block ~ Subdivision ~,~ ~/~ ~ ZONING DISTRICT (R-g R-lA R-2 R-3 Name ~m ~~ ~m~ Address ~ ~ ~,~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Phone (H) ~ B-1 B-2 ;% B-3 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. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Iq x 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 (). 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: (~sEW, ~ ft. ~) t.Uc~.~, ft. Side Yard: (~W~/V) 'l 0 ft. r,'~-~l '~- ft. Side Yard: ( N S ) i:~ ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. ~r~,~' ~O.~'J : (N S E W) c5~(") ft. ~:) .~:~ ft. I~,.~ ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: ~l~/a~sq ft 1(5,~0~ sq ft ~ sq ft Hardcover: ~1 ~°°~ sq ft -~i I-1~2, sq ft - sq ft ft. o Does the pres,,e~t 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 ( ) too small ( ) drainage ~l~existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: (Rev. 12-30-98) c~[7~5b 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 ~X~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~L/~. 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. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date (Rev. 12-30-98) 75 - 277 7 - 22 - 7~ RESOLUTI(]~ NO. 75 - 277 RESCLUTICI~ DENYING FI~CE VARIATIQ~ (Lots 22 and 23, Block 6, The Highlands) WHEREAS, the owner of Lots 22 and 23, Block 6, The Highlands has requested permission to install a 6-foot fenc~ on the boundry line between his property and the park adjacent to his lot, and WHEllEAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the request be referred to the Perk Commission, and WHEREAS, the Park Commission at its meeting on July 17, 1975 recommended the den~al of a 6-foot fence, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOJND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That permission to install a 6-foot fence be denied. Adopted ky the Council this 22nd day of July, 1975 75 - 277 7 - 22 - 75 fi// 06/14/99 08:02 FAX CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS {IMPERVIOUS* $~RFACE COVERAGE) [~002 PROPERTY ADDRESS: .OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA ~)'~ ~ SQ. LOT AREA ~a~O SQ. LOT AREA SQ. · 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 pie3 must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT . TOTAL HOUSE ......................... DETACHED BLDGS o~£~..L¢ {GARAGE/SHED) "' ,.~ .~.~ X. TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY; PARKING AREAS; SIDEWALKS, ~ ~,~ - ~. TOTAL D~VEWAY, ETC ................ DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. openihg be~een%o~s) ~ a p~ibus surface under are X not counted as hardcover TOTAL DECK .......................... X TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAl. HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UND~ ~ OVER (indicate difference) ............................... ! I .1 BIZllqiq lq'Fl~t--l~r-i l CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET ON FILE?~ LOT OF RECORD? ~/,,// YARD IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE NO DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE~WIDTH: R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30.000/100 REQUIRED [ EXISTING/PROPOSED N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: VARIANCE ? GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' ItARDCOVER 30% OR 40% This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a poi-lion o[ the tequirementa outlined in die City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Departnlent at 472-0600. 06,10.,'99 15:27 FAX CITY OF ~OUND ~ ~c02 QUASi PUB[TC FUNCTION- PORTABLE SIGN JUN ! ~ 1999 City of Mound, 5341 Maywoo(:t Road, Mound: MN Phone; 472-0600 .=AX: 472-0620 PorTable signs used for The purpose of directing the public used ;n conjunction with a governmentaf unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the CiW Council. Signs shall be placed on [he prem;ses of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises es approved by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is exempt from alt fees. TY~E OF S~GN= ~a~ner ~ feet high x DESCRIBEREA~ON/PURPOSEFORREQUEST: DATES OF USE: wall m~unt /free s=anding , permanen: /~ fee~ ~£de = ,~ ~q~are feet Ap~rlioan='e Signature /i/i///III//II//II///I////t/I/,I/IIII. III~tlL//I,,/I,////~//////////f//////// APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON~ 05-11-99 Fran Clark Acting City Manager City of Mound We would like to request a permit to use Mound Bay Park for a bass tournament weigh in on Sunday September 19, 1999 The time of the weigh in will be 2:30 p.m. until approximately 4:00 p.m. We would need to set our weigh station prior to the 2:30 time. This would entail the use of the park at the launch end and the use of shoreline for the boats while they are weighing their fish. This is a Operation Bass Red Man event. The local contact person is: Dan Niccum P.O. Box 546 5547 Spruce Rd. Mound, MN. 55364 (h) 472-5054 Them will be approximately 50 boats in the tournament and the tournament will be easing off from another part of the lake. Multiple launch sites on the lake will be used. All anglers will be reminded they can launch but cannot park in the parking lot at Mound Bay Park, most will probably launch at Spring Park or North Arm landings. Thank you for your consideration. When permission is granted could you please furnish to us in writing at your earliest convenience as we need to forward that written permission to Hennepin County Sheriffs Dept. as soon as possible. ~ ,~'~~.You, Dan Niccum Crown College p.E CITY OF MOUND ,~3dl MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, ]~qlq]~SOTA 553~4 U~ of a pubUc Izark or commons by ~ny group consis~g of 15 or more individuals. II~ is not to in~l'fere v, lth traffic and general use of thc park or commons of tu b~ t,,c¥on~t thc ability of r~ police i~l maill~ini~g order. NO uOUOR OR BR .v~,_ MAY B~. USED IN ~ .OF 1'I~. CITY ~'AKK.~ OR Group is to ~u~vc aLl IR~gr and trtsh ~ provi(lc a dCl~ir to insure cie:ming up of the park ~,~. aun 01 ~ 11:~a Cro~n ColleCe (61g) ~6-~1~9 p.1 CROWN COLLEGE 6425 County Road 30 St. 13orfifacius, MN 55375-9001 612-440-4100 612-446-4 i 49 (FAX) # PAGES: Onch.li.g CONI"'IDENTIALITY NOTICE '1 he m lormation conu.d,~ed in this licsimilc I'rom Crown College, may be confidential clicnl communicatio,~. 'i'he informnliol~ ix inlende, d only 10r Ihe use of the i,~dividt, al or entity to whom it is ad~ressect. Il'you are not the addre.q.qee, o,' Ihe employee, Or ngem responsible to deliver thi.~ fac~imilc to its illtcndcd recipient, you arc hereby notified that any rcv~cw, u.~c, disclosure, copying or taking of uny action in reliance on the contei~ts of this inlbrmation is strictly prohibited, ll'you have received this COlllirlunJcatim~ in error, plea.qe nolify imn~cdiatcly by telephone and return thc original message to us at the address above via thc U.S. l'ostd Service. 'thank you. 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 CASE #99-21 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER UNTIL THE NEW BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED, TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE, TO PROVIDE TWO ROOMS FOR THE HEADSTART PROGRAM, AND TO BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, TRACTS A THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO.739 & THAT PART OF OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PIDS # 24-117-24 12 0014 & 24-117-24 12 0058 P & Z 99-21 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 22, 1999 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for utilizing existing space to accommodate the Westonka Senior Center until the new.building is constructed, to accommodate the Westonka Healthy Collaborative, to provide two rooms for the Headstart program, and to build a Memorial Garden located within the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. .. :::.~ · ~'-'~ 120 ~)~ (5~) - 100 ' ^'. L, ~ ~. 02':. " I ~;<~$$~:c.~'~:~,:.:.:~.>;~ ~ (55) ''~. persons appearin~ at said hoarin~ with reforonce to tho above will be ~iven th~ opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~ Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected pro 2, 1999 Published in the Laker, June 26, 1999 prinled on recycled paper 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 CASE //99-21 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER UNTIL THE NEW BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED, TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE, TO PROVIDE TWO ROOMS FOR THE HEADSTART PROGRAM, AND TO BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, TRACTS A THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO.739 & THAT PART OF OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PIDS it 24-117-24 12 0014 & 24-117-24 12 0058 P & Z 99-21 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, July 13, 1999 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for utilizing existing space to accommodate the Westonka Senior Center until the new building is constructed, to accommodate the Westonka Healthy Collaborative, to provide two rooms for the Headstart program, and to build a Memorial Garden located within the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. ~:'::::::~'~V-::-~-'~/'::::::):~. ~o (55 (~) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ I ~.::.:.:.:~.:.: .... ~.:. ::,.:...:~'~ ,~ (~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: X .~: .~ ',. (~' All persons appearing at said hearing with reference.to the ab,~,e will be [liven opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~ J~'~,~ / ~ ~~, Pl~ning Secretary Mailed to prope~y owners within 350 feet of affected proper~une ~, 1999 ~ Published in the Laker, June 26, 1999 the printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 350:420 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACED BY NEW LANGUAGE. 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, July 13, 1999 to consider the approval of repealing City Code Section 350:420, Subdivision 9 & 10 pertaining to non-conforming uses to be replaced by new language. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference/to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~~~/ ~~K~ri~Pi~ng Secretary Published in the Laker, June 26, 1999 printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYI/VOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 350:420 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACED BY NEW LANGUAGE. 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 22, 1999 to consider the approval of repealing City Code Section 350:420, Subdivision 9 & 10 pertaining to non-conforming uses to be replaced by new language. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. //~~//,~/~,~~... ~_~~uisY, Pla~0ling Secretary Published in the Laker, June 26, 1999 printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION 99- RESOLUTION REQUESTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 30, 1998 DUE DATE FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AMENDED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POLICY PLANS WHEREAS, state statutes (Minn. Stat. §473.175-473.871 (1996) requires that cities (townships) review and revise their comprehensive plans for consistency with Metropolitan Council policy plans; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has amended its policy plans; and has provided system statements outlining Council policy relative to the city (township); and WHEREAS, the City of Mound is required to review its comprehensive plan for consistency with the amended policy plans and to prepare a revised comprehensive plan for submission to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound previously approved a resolution requesting a nine month extension which would have required completion and approval of the plan by September 30, 1999. The Metropolitan Council subsequently granted the City a six month extension to complete a review and update of its comprehensive plan by June 30, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mound has scheduled and budgeted to complete a review and update of its comprehensive plan by September 30, 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mound requests that the Metropolitan Council grant the City of Mound an additional six month extension to the previously approved June 30, 1999 deadline to complete its comprehensive plan; circulate the revised document to the adjacent governmental units and affected school districts for review and comment; and, following approval by the planning commission and after consideration by the city council, submit the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review. The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by seconded by . and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereofi . and the following voted against the same: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified of the City of Mound, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 22nd day of June, 1999, with the original thereof on file in City Hall. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Administrator this __ day of June, 1999. · Acting City MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill To: Fran Clark, Acting City Manager From: Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner Date: June 17, 1999 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Extension The purpose of the attached resolution is to extend the deadline for approval of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Council approved a resolution in December of 1998 requesting a nine month extension to the Metropolitan Council deadline. The Metropolitan Council Board reviewed the City's request and granted a six month extension which puts the deadline at June 30~h. Eventhough the City requested n/ne months, the Council was at that time only willing to grant extensions in six month increments. This resolution requests an additional six months which would require final approval of the Metropolitan Council by December 21, 1999. This is Met Council's new target date to have all plans approved. As an update on the Comprehensive Plan, the Parks and Open Space. Commission has reviewed and recommended Planning Commission approval of the Park and Recreation element. A draft plan is slated to go to the Planning Commission for review at the June 28t~ workshop meeting. I would anticipate the Commission would continue review during July, possibly holding public hearing by the first of August where a recommendation would be forwarded to Council. We would like to review the Plan with Council possibly at the August COW meeting. When the Council is comfortable with the Plan, a public heating would be scheduled. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELPMENT PROGRAM FOR TOWN SQUARE, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 THEREIN AND THE PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council) for the City of Mound, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows- Section 1. Public hearing. This Council shall meet on Tuesday, August 24, 1999. at approximately 7:30 P.M. to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the Modification to the Development Prorogram for Townsquare Development District, the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing DistrictNo. 1-2, (a redevelopment distric0, and the proposed adoption of a Tax Tncrement Financing Plan therefor, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179,inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City: and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Program and Plan. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers and Associates. Inc., to prepare the Modification to the Development Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Program and Plan") and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and Independent School District No, 277. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than '0, nor more than 30, days prior to August 24, 1999. and to place a copy of the Program and Plan on file in the City Clerk' s office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Bills June 22, 1999 Batch 9060 264,787.31 TOTAL BILLS $ 264,787.31 ~ 0 0 .H 0 0 *-4 < I ! ! I C,. o 0 o Z'-" ~ C Z 0 ;::0 --I ~ ~ m ~ ~,' ~.n 'w. o o o ~.o z '-. '-. > z -. ',. '-. o -. ',. ', '-. z '-. '-. --. Z 0', Z 0', Z ~ -~ 0'. 0', Z 0', Z O~ Z ~ 0'. O, Z O~ 0". O ,,O O ~O O .4D O ,,G ,O O ~D O ~ O ,O ,O '43 O ,O ,43 CZ I O 0 0 0 ,jO · o I-' ...< 0 r~ 0 Z i o 7. ooo oo o,, go ~ {1"1 I 0 -t- O 0 Z 0 ~ n , C CD CZ Z n 'D 0'13 .-r I Z o o g § o g o oo I I I I I I I I 7.0 '-,.". ,.,:" ", G 0 r'... O ,, 0 ."',. ,3 0 000 t ~ oooo n~ I C gg I -< 0 Z c :;om I / {=2 n c; Z Z 0 C~ Z -.t 0 ~J Engineering · Planning · Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 18, 1999 Fran Clark, Acting City Manager John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound MinnetristaYlvlound Sewer and Water Agreement Wara Project - South Saunders Lake MFRA #12149 The City of Minnetrista has requested a summary of where, when, and how the funds collected as a connection fee will be used in Mound's Capital Improvement Program. The City of Mound's Water Supply Plan and the Water System Improvement update, both indicated the need for additional storage of approximately 300,000 gallons by the year 2005. They also anticipated that additional supply would be required by that date. The additional water supply requirement will face the City much sooner then 2005 with the addition of the Minnetrista development to the system and the loss of Well No. 3 with downtown redevelopment projects. In discussions with Greg Skinner, we would anticipate the new well should be constructed in the year 2000 with 2001 as the latest date. The Minnetrista development may also require the additional storage before the year 2005. For planning purposes, we would suggest using $190,000 for a new well and appurtenances. It must be understood that the actual cost to install a new well has a' number of variables that can greatly affect costs. At the present, the rough cost of elevated water storage is approximately $1.50 per gallon or $450,000 for a 300,000 gallon tower. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com Fran Clark, Acting City Manager May 18, 1999 Page 2 The City does not have any immediate plans for capital improvements to the sanitary sewer system. Most of the lift stations were upgraded within the last ten years. However, most of the system is over 35 years old and could easily require replacement of some of the mains or upgrades to the remaining lift stations. eSmain:\12149\clark5-18 .l To: Fran Clark From: Gino Businaro Date: May 18, 1999 Re: Water/Sewer Cost CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 John Cameron has asked me to take a look at the Water and Sewer Funds to determine what percentage of the cost to revenue can be attributed to direct operation, exclusive of personal services cost and payments to Metro Council. Water Fund: Looking at the last three years, the revenue in the Water Fund came in at approximately $450,000 and the cost at approximately $290,000. That is about 65%. We should add 10% for unknowns and other overheads for a total of 75%. Sewer Fund: Revenue in the Sewer Fund are coming in at approximately $950,000 and the cost at approximately $280,000. That is about 30%. Again we should add 10% for unknowns and other overheads for a total of 40%. My analysis is based on trends extrapolated from the Annual Report and the Budget Report. cc: John Cameron, City Engineer. printed on recycled paper WATER AND SEWER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MINNETRISTA AND MOUND This agreement made and entered into this __ day of May, 1999, by and between the City of Minnetrista, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota herein referred to as Mine ~,tnsta, and the City of Mound, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of ML:nesota, herein referred to as "Mound". RECITALS Both Mound and Minnetrista operate municipal sanitary sewer water systems serving their respective communities. The Metropolitan Council, Environmental Services Division provides for treatment and disposal of sewage collected in both communities. Based on the Comprehensive Plan of both communities it is economically advantageous for a portion of the land area within Minnetrista to have water and sewer service provided through the Mound utility systems. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide terms and conditions for this joint usage. The communities pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.59 have authority to enter into a joint powers agreement for utility services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter contained, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: Section 1. Affected Area - Mound agrees to allow Minnestrista to connect at its option to the Mound water and sanitary sewer mains to serve the land area within Minnestrista identified in Exhibit A. Section 2. Connection Costs - All construction costs associated with connecting to Mound sanitary sewer and water mains shall be bome by Minnestrista or their Developer. Section 3. Plan Approval and Construction Standards- Minnetrista shall submit to Mound detailed plans and specifications for the connections to Mound's water and sanitary sewer lines. All construction associated with the connections shall be in accordance with the City of Mound's standards. Both the plans and construction must be approved by engineers for both cities. Minnetrista agrees to provide Mound with record plans of all connections made to Mound's water and sewer mains. Section 4. Ownership of Sewer and Water System -Upon completion and final acceptance of the water and sewer system, ownership of all mains located within the Mound corporate boundary will transfer to the City of Mound. All mains and appurtenances located within the corporate boundary of Minnetrista shall be owned by the City of Minnetrista. Section 5. Connection Fees - The City of Minnetrista agrees io pay the City of Mound a connection fee per unit as follows: Sanitary Sewer Watermain $1,000.00/residential unit $1,800.00/residential unit Said fees shall be paid to Mound at the time water and sewer services are connected to each unit and are considered to be reimbursement of Mound's costs associated with availability charges for water towers, wells and mains. Section 6. Area Changes - Minnetrista will charge the developer area charges for the installation of the mains and keep for repairs and replacement of the main in the development. Section 7. i~tes and Billing - Minnetrista agrees to bill the property owners connected to its sanitary sewer and water systems served by the City of Mound and include a monthly surcharge sufficient to reimburse the city of Mound for providing water and sewer service. Said surcharge shall be computed as follows: Sanitary Sewer: amount equal to 30 percent of what a Mound customer would pay based on the billing rates as set by Mound ordinance. Water: amount equal to 80 percent of what a Mound customer would pay based on the billing rates as set by Mound ordinance. The City of Minnetrista shall be responsible for remitting the amount of said surcharge to the City of Mound quarterly along with documentation in a format as agreed upon by the two cities. The City of Minnetrista shall be responsible for payment of Metropolitan Council, Environmental Services Wastewater Service and Minnesota Department of Health charges. Section 8. Permits- Minnetrista agrees to obtain the necessary Metropolitan Council, Environmental Services, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Health or other State or Regional permits required prior to completing the utility connections. Permits for construction (e.g. building, plumbing) would be obtained from Minnetrista. Section 9. Infrastructure Capital - Initial construction of water infrastructure requirements would be paid for by the developer. Future replacement of the infrastructure will be the sole responsibility of Minnetrista. Section 10. Usage - The average daily water usage will be no more than 300 gallons per day per unit for the areas identified in Exhibit A. Section 11. Maintenance - The City of Minnetrista shall be responsible for routine inspection and maintenance of the sewer and water system located within their corporate boundaries, including semi- annual flushing of water hydrants. Hydrant use for purposes other then flushing or fire fighting shall be subject to the same rules and regulations applied by the City of Mound. Section 12. Water Meters - Water meters shall be provided by the City of Minnetrista. Section 13. Interruptions to Water Supply- The City of Mound shall not be liable for any lack of water supply to Minnetrista customers, in the event of repair of watermains or connection of new watermains or in the event of fire prevention, or any other cause, and such water supply may be interrupted for as long as is necessary to complete the necessary work. Mound practices and policies shall govern in operation e ithe system. Section 14. Future Service- If the City of Minnetrista constructs a utility system in the future that could serve this area, Minnetrista residems served by Mound would become Minnetrista customers; and thereupon the parties will be relieved of any further obligations under this agreement. Section 15. Notices- Any notice or other communication imo this Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered after it is dispatched by first class mail, postage prepaid or delivered personally to: City of Minnetrism, City Hall, 7701 County Road 110W, Minnetrista, MN 55364 City of Mound, City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Section 16. Binding Effect - This Agreement shall bind on the assessors and assign of the parties hereto. Section 17. Indemnification - Each City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other for any claim, action or liability due to its own negligence concerning any matter arising out of or relating to this contract. IN WITNESS THERE WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these presence to be executed the day and year first above written: CITY OF MINNETRISTA CITY OF MOUND City Administrator Acting City Manager Mayor Revised 5-13-99 ¢:'anain:\ 12149 5agreement5-10 Mayor COMPARISON OF AREeadTR UNK/CONNECTION CHAR GES ANDOVER SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION CHARGE AREA CI-~ta~RGE = $1,065/ACRE (AVERAGE 2 LOTS/ACRE) TOTAL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN CONNECTION CHARGE AREA CHARGE = $1,130/ACRE (AVERAGE 2 LOTS/ACRE) TOTAL WATERMAIN TOTAL SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN ST. MICHAEL SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION CHARGE' AREA CHARGE = $850/ACRE (AVERAGE 2 LOTS/ACRE) TOTAL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN CONNECTION CHARGE TOTAL SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN : PLYMOUTH SANITARY SEWER AREA CHARGE = $ 290/UNIT = $ 533/UNIT = $ 823/UNIT = $1,225/UNIT = $ 565/UNIT = $1,790/UNIT = $2,613/UNIT = $1,i 00/UNIT = $ 425/UNIT = $1,525/UNIT = $1,300/UNIT = $2,825/UNIT = $880/ACRE (BASED ON 2 UNITS/ACRE @ $440/USaT) THEREFORE IF PROPERTY AVERAGED 3 UNITS/ACRE, THE CHARGE WOULD BE $1,320/ACRE = $ 440/UNIT = $1,5SO/ACRE (BASED ON 2 UNITS/ACRE @ $790/UNIT) WATERMAIN AREA CHARGE = $ 790/UNIT TOTAL SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN = $1,230/UNIT MONTICELLO SANITARY SEWER AREA CHARGE = $1,250/ACKE (AVERAGE 2 LOTS/ACRE) TRUNK FEES MAY BE LEVIED AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WATERb ~AIN AREA CHARGE = $625/ACRE (AVERAGE 2 LOTS/ACRE) TRUNK FEES MAY BE LEVIED AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TOTAL SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN LAKEVILLE SANITARY SEWER AREA CHARGE = $665/ACKE (AVERAGE 2 LOTS/ACRE) UNIT CHARGE TOTAL SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN UNIT CHARGE · TOTAL SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN . 650/UNIT 313/UNIT 963/UNIT 333/UNIT 804/UNIT $1,137UNIT = $2,329fLYNIT = $3,466fU'NIT MOUND'S 1965 FEES PROJECTED TO 1998 USING ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD (ENR) CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX 1965 INDEX OCTOBER 1998 INDEX 971 5,986 5,986 + 971= 616% INCREASE 1965 FEI~ SANITARY SEWER UNIT CHARGE = $292/UNIT 1998 FEE X 6.16 = $1,798.02 OR $1,800/UNIT WATERMAIN TRUNK CHARGE LATERAL CHARGE SERVICE CHARGE = $17.21/UNIT = $4.87/LIN. FT OR $194.80/40 FOOT LOT $243.50/50 FOOT LOT $292.20/60 FOOT LOT = $65.61/SERVICE X 6.16 = $106.00 X 6.16 = $1,199.97 X 6.16 = $1,499.69 X 6.16 = $1,799.95 OR $1,200/UNIT OR $1,500/UNIT OR $1,800/UNIT RECOMMENDATION SANITARY SEWER coNNEcTION FEE = $1,000/LrNIT WATERMAIN CONNECTION FEE = $1,800/UNIT c:~main:\ 12149\charges I 0-20 CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT May 1999 41.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments May 1999 BUDGET REVENUE 1,253,280 0 4,550 1,940 114,000 15,503 960,560 0 59,700 14,339 100,000 9,402 63,500 21,406 133,560 0 12,000 1,027 YTD REVENUE PERCENT VARIANCE RECEIVED 0 (1,253,280) 0.00% 3,684 (866) 80.97% 49,422 (64,578) 43.35% 41,052 (919,508) 4.27% 22,462 (37,238) 37.62% 29,508 (70,492) 29.51% 22,707 (40,793) 35.76% 0 (133,560) 0.00% 5,377 (6,623) 44.81% TOTAL REVENUE 2.701.150 63.617 174.212 (2.526.938) 6.45% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 409,680 17,626 205,074 (204,606) 50.06% 127,600 29,734 56,891 (70,709) 44.59% 1,650,000 159,216 634,531 (1,015,469) 38.46% 451,000 31,462 170,032 (280,968) 37.70% 924,000 83,083 399,118 (524,882) 43.19% 5,100 50 530 (4,570) 10.39% 79,800 (4,625) 66,480 (13,320) 83.31% 06/11/1999 rev98 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT May 1999 41.67% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers May 1999 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE 73 000 4 000 1 500 196 900 3 150 64 800 176.020 27.550 103 480 1,048,010 4.960 224.370 472.050 82.690 170.950 38 410 20.000 181.740 PERCENT VARIANCE EXPENDED 2,994 31,359 41,641 42.96% 0 0 4,000 0.00% 2,128 2,957 (1,457) 197.13% 67,170 129,388 67,512 65.71% 0 0 3,150 0.00% 0 126 64,674 0.19% 11,102 54,335 121,685 30.87% 751 11,120 16,430 40.36% 16,730 55,213 48,267 53.36% 54,833 348,181 699,829 33.22% 22 956 4,004 19.27% 19,012 72,831 151,539 32.46% 37,814 222,813 249,237 47.20% 5,892 33,568 49,122 40.59% 22,523 68,245 102,705 39.92% 0 0 38,410 0.00% 0 24 19,976 0.12% 15,145 75,725 106.015 41.67% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2.893.580 256.116 1.106,841 1.786,739 38.25% Area Fire Service Fund 409,680 Recycling Fund 126,780 Liquor Fund 227,890 Water Fund 429,150 Sewer Fund 903,390 Cemetery Fund 6,970 Dock Fund 92,710 17,838 113,581 296,099 27.72% 13,023 50,379 76,401 39.74% 15,661 94,744 133,146 41.57% 22,776 189,295 239,855 44.11% 55,794 367,336 536,054 40.66% 1,472 1,576 5,394 22.61% 13,486 26,380 66,330 28.45% Exp-98 06/1111999 G.B. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, June 9, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES - 5~26~99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member request discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. · Wayzata Bay Charters, new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor License applications for the charter boat, No Regrets. 1. Public Hearing. 2. Discussion and/or Consideration. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (6/1/99- 6/15/99); B) March financial summary and balance sheet; C) Review of draft 2000 LMCD Budget; D) Additional Business; 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) 1998 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Survey, preliminary trend analysis from the MN DNR; B) Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance relating to charter boats; amending LMCD Code Section 3.07, subds. 2 and 3, and adding Section 3.07, subd. 10; C) (*) DBA Sunboats of Bayview, staff recommends full refund of $3,000 deposit for preliminary investigation; D) Additional Business; ~. WATER STRUCTURES A) Fine Line Design, Inc., Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of variance application for dock length and adjustment of dock use area from LMCD Code (handout); B) C) City of Mound, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and variance applications for dock length from LMCD Code (handout); Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to boat storage density and multiple dock facilities-on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03 (Update on 5~5~99 Workshop/Planning Session); D) Additional Business; EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE SAVE THE LAKE ADMINISTRATION A) Updates on pending litigation: 1. William Hawks v. LMCD 2. Stephen W. Farnes V. LMCD B) Additional Business; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 26, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall CAI.I. TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. ROLL CALL Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Lili McMillan, Orono, Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Bob Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Ronald Batty, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Andrea Ahems, Mound; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock Babcock reminded the Board of the annual Lake Inspection Tour at 7:30 a.m. on Saturday, 6/5/99. He circulated a draft itinerary of areas of the lake to visit during the Inspection Tour, noting Board members should contact the District office if there are other areas of the lake they would like to visit. He stated details of the Inspection Tour, including point of departure, will be forwarded by District staff once they are finalized. READING OF MINUTES - 5/12/99 LMCD Regular Beard Meeting MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the 5/12/99 Regular Board meeting as submitted. Babcock stated he had two friendly amendments he would like to make to the draft minutes. First, he stated the first paragraph on page 5 should read "He questioned whether deed restrictions are needed to support District action on variance applications". Second, he stated there was a typo in the first sentence in the second paragraph on the top of page 6. McMillan stated she had one friendly amendment in the last paragraph, second bullet point, on page 8. She noted it should read "To prohibit voice and stereo music on the boat in addition to live and amplified music in non-enclosed areas, unless in emergency situations". Foster and Partyka agreed to the friendly amendments. VOTE: Ayes (6), Abstained (3; Dahlen, Rascop, and Gilman); motion carded. Lake Minne~onka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 2~, 1999 PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5min.) Page 2 There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS · DBA Sunboats of Bayview, Consideration of new on-sale intoxicating liquor license applications for the charter boats, Excellabella and Her Excellency. Babcock opened the public heating at 7:10 p.m. He asked the applicant and public if they had any comments. Foster asked for background on the charter boats and why they want liquor licenses for them. Bob Ziton, President of TRBK, Inc., spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated they are currently operating both the Bayview Event Center and the Bayside Grill associated with this property. He added the company also is the exclusive caterer for the luxury suites at the Target Center. He noted his company is looking for a complementary business for his staff and that the charter business makes a lot of sense. He added the company is a tenant in which they lease from the property owner and that they have no association with them. He entertained feedback or questions from the Board. McMillan questioned whether there is a limit on the number of intoxicating liquor licenses that can be issued on lake Minnetonka. Winberg stated he believed that if the Board approves these two, there would be 12 liquor licenses approved with one pending. Nybeck stated when the licensing process for charter boats and liquor licenses has been completed, staff will forward a summary sheet to the Board and the charter boat owners for licensed boats and liquor licenses. Gilman noted there was a liquor violation last year in which the applicant agreed with the City of Excelsior to send staff to a training class. He questioned whether that had been completed. Ziton stated three staff members are scheduled to participate in a training class on 5/27/99. Foster asked when the liquor violation occurred. Ziton stated the violation occurred last summer at the Bayside Grill when an underage person was served. He noted the person who served the minor was fmed, the liquor license was suspended seven days, with one suspension day being commuted pending participation in the training class. He added they have done additional independent training of their employees because they take this matter very seriously. Foster asked for description of the P.A. and music systems on the boats. Lake Minnetonka Conservation D~rict Regular Board Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 3 Ziton stated they had a disc jockey on a cruise today that was totally in an enclosed area of the boat. He noted they are aware of the ordinances and intend to comply with them. Babcock stated the main concern of the Board is that a commercial activity is taking place generally in residential areas of the lake. He noted amplified music is one of the main concerns of residents who do not wish to be disturbed in their residential areas. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. MOTION: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to approve the new intoxicating liquor license applications for 1999 for the charter boats, Excellabella and Her Excellency. Rascop stated the staff memo indicated the sheriff's investigation was pending. He questioned whether it had been completed. Winberg stated staff recently has received results from Hennepin County for the preliminary investigation. He noted Hennepin County approved the investigation for the applicant for 1999. He clarified the authorized port of call for the charter boats is Bayview Event Center rather than the Port of Excelsior. Babcock questioned whether the investigation conducted by Hennepin County revealed the violation at Bayside Grill. Winberg stated it did not and that he believed it a basic routine check. Gilman stated the applicant has made efforts to cooperate with the City of Excelsior on the violation at the Bayside Grill. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. · Big Island Veterans Camp, new multiple dock license application to increase the number of Boat Storage Units from eight to 10. Babcock opened the public heating at 7:22 p.m. He asked the applicant and public if they had any comments. Mr. Michael Flanagan, a representative of the Big Island Board of Governors, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He provided background information on the Big Island Board of Governors, nOting the Veterans Camp is owned by veterans of the State of Minnesota. He noted the camp has been existence for 75 years and has approximately 7,000' of lakeshore frontage. He noted the proposed dockage, which consists of five docks storing 10 boats, is approximately 1,535' from the nearest extended lot line. He entertained questions or feedback from the Board. Babcock stated on the proposed site plan, it shows one boat being parked on each side of dock #1. He asked if they intended on parking on both sides of dock #1 and whether the proposed site plan needs to be amended accordingly. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 26, 1999 Page 4 Flanagan stated he was open to whatever the Board wanted to do. Ba~x:k suggested moving slip 9 to the other side of dock #1. Flanagan stated he would agree to that. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the new multiple dock license application for 1999 for Big Island Veterans Camp, subject to moving slips to the other side of dock #1. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. · Jennings Cove Dock Association, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a conforming structure Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. He asked the applicant and public if they had any comments. Mr. Kevin Johnson, President of the Jennings Cove Dock Association, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated the proposed changes are to reconfigure an existing facility to gain easier access and to make it more equitable for the homeowners. He entertained questions or feedback from the Board. Babcock asked for clarification from the applicant on boat storage on lots 16, 17, 18, 19, and outlot A associated with the multiple dock license. Johnson stated there are two Boat Storage Units on lot 19 and 18 BSU's on ouflot A. He added that there is no boat storage allowed on lots 16, 17, and 18. Nybeck stated one condition of Board in the original approval was that the riparian rights of lot 19 be transferred to the shoreline for the multiple dock license. He noted this condition was required to assure continuous shoreline and should be continued in this new application. There being no further comments, Babcock dosed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Foster asked the applicant if the shoreline from lot 19 has been approved to be transferred to the multiple dock license to ensure continuous shoreline. Johnson stated that it has been. Babcock stated that is a condition of the current license that should be maintained forward. Gilman asked for clarification on the proposed site plan to verify the dock does not extend beyond what LMCD Code allows for. Lake ~Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 26, 19~9 Johnson stated the proposed site plan stays within the template for the existing site plan approved. Babcock questioned whether the docks need to extend this far from the shoreline. Nybeck stated the Board has previously considered this facility as a non-conforming facility. He noted to make changes under this assumption, the applicant needed to utilize the "envelope concept". He added staff has further evaluated the multiple dock facility and has determined it is a conforming facility with regards to LMCD Code. He questioned whether the proposed site plan extends beyond the 100' mark from the 929.4' shoreline. Babcock stated that would be correct provided the 929.4 lake elevation is the same as the documented shoreline on the proposed site plan. He asked the applicant if they would be willing to bring the dock in, as needed, if there is a difference between the 929.4 lake elevation and the 100' rectangle documented on the proposed site plan. lohnson stated that wouM be okay. Babcock stated he believed an as-built survey, documenting the dock length from the 929.4' shoreline, should be a requirement of any Board approval. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the new multiple dock license for 1999 for Jennings Cove Dock Association, subject to: 1) the shoreline for the multiple dock consists of lots 16, 17, 18, 19, and outlot A, and 2) the applicant submitting an as-built survey documenting that the dock does not extend beyond 100' from the 929.4' shoreline. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Fine Line Design Group, Inc., application for variance from LMCD Code to extend dock length to 131' from the 929.4' lake elevation and to adjust the authorized dock use area (DUA) Babcock opened the continuation of the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. He noted there is additional information provided by staff and that there is a letter from the City of Mound relating to this. He asked the applicant and public if they had comments. Behnke reviewed the new site plan, noting the extended side site lines are more clearly defined. He noted they are proposing the storage of four watercraft at the dock, including two boats and two personal watercraft. He stated the City of Mound has discussed the adjustment of the dock use area from the extended side site line on the eastern side of lot 6. He noted the City of Mound has included a letter that waives its right to publication of a public hearing on this issue. He concluded he requested an adjusted dock use area variance, in addition to a dock length variance. He entertained questions or feedback from the Board. Ambrose arrived at 7:40 p.m. McMillan questioned whether dockage could be placed in the future on the eastern end of lot 6. Babcock stated that could not be done because the City of Mound had control of that shoreline. Lake ~Vlinnetollka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 26, 1999 Page 6 Behnke added the covenants would prohibit that. Babcock stated it appears the applicant has provided the details that are needed for the Board to make a decision on the variance requests. He added he believed the decision the Board needs to make is whether to grant such an extensive variance for adjustment of a dock use area. Dahlen asked the applicant if they arc proposing two or four BSU's. Behnke stated they are proposing four BSU's. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the application for variance from LMCD Code for dock length and adjusted dock use area. Kitchak stated some of the dock use rights of the City of Mound arc ~mpacted when a dock use area is adjusted as proposed. He asked ff the City of Mound has communicated concerns if a dock use variance is granted to the applicant. Foster stated the Board could approve a variance, provided it is conditional on continued approval by the City of Mound. Mr. Jim Fackler, Parks Director for the City of Mound, stated the City of Mound has addressed the requested dock use area variance request. He noted the position of the City is outlined in the letter from Ms. Fran Brown, Acting City Administrator, which consents to the request. Kitchak asked if the Board grants a dock use area variance, could it be changed in the future if the City of Mound changes its position on the issue. Babcock stated the decision of the Board would stand, unless a condition on the variance is placed on it. He noted this generally has not been done. Rascop stated the proposed application would use part of the authorized dock use area for the City of Mound. He suggested the Board needs to determine whether it would be appropriate for the City of Mound to change its position on the adjusted dock use area in the future. Babcock stated if the variance request to adjust the dock use area is granted, he believed it is permanent unless the Board places a specific condition allowing the City of Mound to change their position in the future. Foster recommended a friendly amendment to the motion that would require on-going approval from the City of Mound of the dock use area variance, with the City of Mound having the opportunity to withdraw its approval at any time. He added if the City of Mound would like to withdraw its approval Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 26, 1999 Page 7 for the dock use area variance, it would need to be done prior to January 1 of a calendar year for the upcoming boating season. Gilman agreed this friendly amendment to. Partyka suggested the Order should describe that the new extended side site line would extend parallel to the extended side site line that extends from lot 7. He recommended this as a friendly amendment. Foster and Gilman agreed to this friendly amendment. McMillan questioned how many boats should be stored at the proposed dock. Babcock expressed concern about storing two personal watercraft that close to emergent vegetation. He added he believed the request greatly exceeds what Code allows for and that he believed restricting the storage of watercraft to two is appropriate. Dahlen and Partyka concurred with Babcock that the storage of two watercraft is appropriate in this Babcock added an additional concern he has with storing more watercraft than two is that the channel is relatively narrow and is quite busy. He suggested it might be more appropriate to allow no more than two restricted watercraft to be stored or launched at this site AMENDED: Partyka moved, Rascop seconded to amend the original motion to allow no more than two MOTION two restricted watercraft to be stored or launched at this site. VOTE ON: AMENDED MOTION Motion carried unanimously. VOTE ON: ORIGINAL MOTION Motion carried unanimously on original motion as amended. · City of Mound, new multiple dock license and variance applications for variance from LMCD length requirements Babcock opened the public heating at 8:08 p.m. He asked the applicant and public if they had any comments. Jim Fackler spoke on behalf of the applicant. He noted both applications have been submitted because the City of Mound has been working with Fine Line Design, Inc. regarding dockage for the Seton Bluff Development. He noted the concept for six overnight storage and one transient slip, that will be further reviewed by Behnke, has been reviewed and approved by the Mound City Council. He entertained feedback or questions from the Board. Babcock asked for clarification on setbacks from the transient slip to the extended side site line. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 26, 1999 Page 8 Steve Behnke clarified the proposed site plan highlights an 85' side s~tback including the storage of a boat at the transient slip. He noted because the Code does not aflow for the storage of a boat in a side setback, the setback on the site plan should be amended to 75'. McMillan questioned how far the existing dock structure extends. Behnke stated it extends out to 100'. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Rascop questioned whether the proposed docks would increase the number of dock licensed by the LMCD for the City of Mound. Fackler stated the City of Mound is currently licensed for 590 BSU's. He noted all BSU's are not currently not being used and will be rolled in with its application for the 2000 boating season. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to direct the attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the application for variance from LMCD Code for aock length. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. SAVE THE LAKE A. Consideration of Committee recommendation to provide $4,820 of "STL' funds for the Hennepin Parks 'Life on Lake Minnetonka~ project Kitchak asked for a quick summary of the project and what it consists of. McMillan explained Hennepin Parks, in conjunction with Hamline Univeristy, is coordinating a teaching kit specifically on Life on Lake Minnetonka through the millennia. She noted the teaching kit would consist seven, one hour long programs that are being coordinated with schools in Deephaven, Minnetonka, Mound, and Orono at the middle school level. She stated they have received a grant from the Historical Society and that Hennepin Parks is providing significant in-kind services for the project. She reviewed the LMCD criteria for funding of projects with Save the Lake funds, noting she believed the project met five of them. Foster stated he had concern with funding the project for Hennepin Parks because he believed it is not the role of the District. He questioned whether the District should be providing this amount of funding for a Hennepin Parks project. He noted although the project has good merits in principle and would be good for kids, he would vote against it. Partyka stated he believed there is merit for the project because it is directly related to Lake Babcock questioned whether the lessons and supporting materials were completed by April, 1999. He expressed concern with retroactively providing funding for the project. He suggested reduced funding of Save the Lake funds might be more appropriate. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meetin~g May 26, 1999 Gilman stated he believed this is more of a Historical Society project and that he would vote against providing funding for it. Ambrose stated that he agreed with Partyka that the project has merit. Kitchak suggested the Board might want to consider partial funding for the project. Babcock suggested it might be appropriate to provide half of the funding for the remaining work to be done, subject to the District getting credit for the Save the Lake donation. MOTION: McMillan moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the Committee recommendation that the Board approve $4,820 in Save the Lake funds for the "Life on Lake Minnetonka" project, subject to the District getting credit for the donation to the project. VOTE: Ayes (7), Nayes (3, Babcock, Foster, Gilman); motion carried. Minutes and report from the 4/21/99 "STL" Advisory Committee meeting McMillan reviewed the minutes and provided a report of the meeting. They were accepted as submit',~l. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (5/16/99 - 5/31/99) Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. March financial summary and balance sheet Nybeck stated this agenda item had not been prepared and would be brought forward at the next Board meeting. MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to table the March fmancial summary and balance sheet until the next Board Meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Review of draft 2000 LMCD Budget Babcock stated the Board Officers reviewed the draft 2000 LMCD Budget at a meeting on Lake ]Vlinnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meetin~ May 26, 1999 Page 10 5/17/99. He noted a copy of the draft budget based on this meeting was included in the packet for Board review. He entertained suggestions or comments from the Board. McMillan asked for clarification on the time schedule to review the draft 2000 LMCD Budget. Babcock stated the following timetable was established by the Board at the 5/12/99 meeting: · (6/4/99)- Review of budget for member cities. · (6/9/99)- Review at Board meeting. · (6/16/99)- Comments due in District office from member cities. · (6/23/99)- Adoption of budget at Board meeting. · (7/1/99)- Certified budget forwarded to member cities. He noted member cities axe allowed by enabling legislation to require a public hearing after the 7/1/99 date if they have objections to the 2000 LMCD Budget. He suggested any fine tuning the Board might want to do should be done at this time. Rascop asked for clarification of the approximate $40,000 increase in budget from 1999 to 2000. Babcock stated this could be attributed mainly to the facts there is no transfer from the Administrative Fund to the budget this year and that a Boat Density Study and a User Attitude Survey is planned for calendar year 2000. He noted the Administrative Fund, which has a reserve around 41%, is below the policy agreed to by the member cities. McMillan questioned whether heavy growth season extension could be eliminated because it historically has not been used, excluding 1998. She suggested using reserve funds in these instances. Babcock stated heavy growth season extension is essentially a contingency fund. He suggested if the Board desires to change the reserve policy for Administrative and Exotics Funds, that should be discussed separately from the budget discussion. Rascop stated he would like to see more accurate numbers for populations of the 14 member cities. He suggested staff call the Metropolitan Council to get these numbers. Nybeck stated that taxable market values are from 1998 and that net tax capacity values are for 1998-99. McMillan asked for clarification of the $15,000 budgeted management plan implementation. Babcock stated an active boat count survey and a lake attitude survey are planned for 2000. McMillan asked for clarification of the $5,000 budgeted for zebra mussel expenses. Babcock stated the figures are related to operational expenses for the spraydown program. Gilman expressed concern about the rate of growth in the draft 2000 LMCD Budget when compared to the 1999 LMCD Budget. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 26, 1999 )le 11 Babcock stated a large portion of that increase could be attributed to the studies planned for Management Plan Implementation Nybeck stated it is more appropriate to compare the 2000 budget with the 1998 budget, even though a user attitude survey was not conducted that year. He noted you would need to go back to 1996 when both an active boat count and a user attitude survey were conducted by the LMCD. Foster stated the cities need to understand the LMCD has worked our reserves down to agreed upon levels. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to forward the draft 2000 LMCD Budget to the member cities for review. VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Gilman); motion carried. Babcock stated this will come back before the Board at the 6/9/99 meeting. D. Additional Business There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATION A. Consideration of staff recommendation for merit compensation adjustment for Administrative Assistant Diane Samis. Babcock introduced the agenda item, noting that Nybeck had prepared the information requested by the Board at the 5/26/99 meeting. He asked for background from Nybeck. Nybeck stated Samis has worked for the District since 10/27/97, noting there has been a significant increase in her work responsibilities since she has worked for the District. He noted this includes: · Supervision of District computer operations. · Assisting in responding to the public on general Code inquiries. · Organization of the Boat and Water Safety Education courses. · Assisting EWM Project Manager in the formulation of various summary sheets for harvesting data. · Assisting the Executive Director in the distribution and supervision of Secretarial/Clerical responsibilities with part-time Administrative Clerk. He recommended Board approval of a $1,000 merit increase for Samis retroactive to 5/1/99, adjusting her salary from $23,000 to $24,000 annually. MOTION: Rascop moved, Partyka seconded to approve a $1,000 merit increase for Diane Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 26, 1999 Page 12 Samis, retroactiVe to 5/1/99, adjusting her annual salary from $23,000 to $24,000. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. EWM/~O~CS TASK FORCE A. Minutes and report from the 4/9/99 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting Nybeck reviewed the minutes and provided a report from the meeting. The Board accepted them as submitted. B. Discussion of 1999 EWM harvesting plans. Nybeck reviewed plans for the 1999 EWM harvesting season. He made the following comments: Staffing for the program will be similar to past years with seven full-time and one part-time employees. Hourly rates for these employees will range from $9.00 for new employees to $16.00 for the Project Supervisor. He noted Marsh Gabriel, EWM harvesting mechanic, has agreed to return in 1999. Training for the employees is scheduled to take place on 6/16/99, with the harvesters launched the next day. Cutting is planned for 10 weeks .with overtime authorized where needed. · Permitting with the MN DNR for the harvesting and chemical treatments has been completed, with appropriate contracts awarded. · Harvesting priorities will continue to be to get people from unnavigable water to navigable water. MOTION: Rascop moved, Eggers seconded to accept the budget presented by staff for the 1999 EWIVl harvesting program. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report. The Board accepted the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Activity Report as submitted. B. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to charter boats; mending LMCD Code Section 3.07, sums. 2 and 3, and adding Section 3.07, subd. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Muting May 26, 1999 10. ~ge 13 Babcxx:k stated at the 5/12/99 meeting, there was significant discussion that the attorney incorporated in the draft Code amendment. He suggested two additional amendments include: · Under Section 3.07, Subd. 10 c, it should read "All watercraft passengers for hire must disembark all customers, passengers or patrons by 12:30 a.m. and must return to and be tied, moored o'r secured for the night at its home port by 1:00 a.m. · Under Section 3.07, subd. 3b, it should read ~other locations at a frequency of no more than once each year at any one location, except law enforcement personnel or employees". MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the first reading of thc ordinance amendment, with amendments as proposed by Babcock. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Section 3.021, Discussion of concerns relating to levels and timing issues for the "High-Water" Emergency Ordinance. Babcock introduced the agenda item noting a copy of the current ordinance and recent lake levels have been included in thc packet for Board review. He stated the lake level reading as of 5/26/99 was 929.80'. He noted the lake level reading was 929.80' as of 5/21/99; however, there were no lake level readings taken on 5/22/99 and 5/23/99. He concluded if thc lake levels were at or above the 929.80' on these two days, staff would be required to declare a high-water emergency on Lake Minnetonka. He asked for feedback from the Board on whether a high- water emergency should be required. The Board discussed whether the District should declare a high-water emergency. items discussed include: Some of the · Whether to declare a high-water emergency on 5/27/99 because there were not lake level readings taken on 5/22/99 and 5/23/99. · Whether there is a need to re-address the ordinance to discuss the lake level that triggers the high-water ordinance and the timings relating to it. The Board discussed the need to get input from the MCWD if the ordinance is re-addressed. · The difficulty in disseminating a high-water emergency to the public, including the enormous amount of District staff time involved and the difficulty of enforcing it. · The damage to the shoreline based on the current lake level readings and how it is impacted based on wave action and wakes. MOTION: RasCop moved, Partyka seconded to enforce the ordinance as written. Kitchak recommended a friendly amendment that would require the Executive Director to declare a high-water emergency as outlined in the ordinance. VOTE: Ayes (2i Partyka and Rascop); Nayes (8); motion denied. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 26, 1999 The consensus of the Board was to re-address the ordinance at a~ future meeting. directed to facilitate a public hearing for the second meeting in June. Page 14 Staff was D. Additional Business There was no additional business. ® WATER STRUCTURF3 A. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to new dock licenses and conversion of use docks, amending LMCD Code Sections 2.03, subd. 7 and 2.10, subd. 2 Babcock reviewed the draft ordinance amendment, noting it would not allow a minor change clause to be used when there is either a substantial change or a change in the land use behind the structure for conforming facilities. MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to approve first reading of the ordinance amendment, to waive second and third readings, and to adopt the ordinance amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to boat storage density and multiple dock facilities on I_ake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03 (Update on 5/5/99 Workshop/Planning Session). Babcock suggested the Board consider tabling this agenda item until the next Board meeting. MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to table this item until the next Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Meadowbrook Boat Club, staff recommends Board approval of 1999 renewal w/o change multiple dock license application MOTION: Kitchak moved, Gilman seconded to approve the 1999 renewal w/o change multliple dock license application for Meadowbrook Boat Club. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Additional Business Foster stated he had received a letter from the City of Deephaven relating to residents on the south side of the Carsons Bay bridge. He noted construction is planned in the near future on this bridge and those boats will not be able to navigate out from the south side of the bridge. He stated the City of Deephaven has requested the LMCD consider providing for temporary Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 26, 1999 Page 15 dockage at other municipal docking sites while the bridge is under construction. He concluded he would be attending a city council meeting in the near future, and he requested Board approval in concept, with final details of the temporary docking to be worked out in the future. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded that the Board in principle agrees to the request from the City of Deephaven for the duration of the re-construction of the bridge, in concept, provided that the details need to be approved by the Board in the future, and that a public hearing needs to be held if it is not done in a conforming manner. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck stated a June calendar of events was included in the handout folder to assist Board members. The Board discussed whether to hold a Workshop/Planning meeting to continue discussion on updating the Management Plan. The consensus of the Board was to hold a meeting in July and to direct staff to have a computerized copy available by this meeting. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNME~ There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE AGENDA 8:30 A.M., Friday, June 11, 1999 LMCD Office 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven 1. Introductions and Welcome; Review of Minutes from the 4/9/99 meeting; 3. Discussion of 1999 LMCD EWM harvesting plans; Discussion of 1999 LMCD zebra mussel plans; 5. Agency Reports: Area wide lake association reports; 9. Adjournment; 8. New business; 7. Old business; June 7, 1999 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: FROM: LMCD Member Cities 4 LMCD Board of Directors D~~¥~r/ ~ Gregory S. Nybeck, Executive SUBJECT: 1998 LMCD Audit Enclosed is a copy of the 1998 LMCD Audit, which was reviewed and accepted by the Board at its April 28, 1999 meeting. I will briefly detail the key highlights of it. The LMCD has five Fund Accounts established in the 1998 Audit, for a grand total of $766,784. This includes three Fund Accounts derived from levied dollars (Administrative, Eurasian Watermilfoil, and Equipment Replacement), and two Fund Accounts derived from donations (Save the Lake and New Equipment Acquisition). A breakdown of each Fund Account is detailed below: · Administrative $118,530 · Eurasian Watermilfoil $150,191 · Equipment Replacement $111,448 · Save the Lake $175,767 · New Equipment Acquisition $210.848 $766,784 The LMCD has an agreement with the member cities of a six-month reserve for the Administrative Fund and a 12-month reserve for the Eurasian Watermilfoil Fund. As of 12/31/98, there was a 39.6% reserve for the Administrative Fund and a 150% reserve for Eurasian Watermilfoil. Reductions to the Eurasian Watermilfoil Fund Account are budgeted for 1999 to bring it in compliance with the policy agreed to with the member cities. The LMCD received funds from the Freshwater Foundation in the Fall of 1998 move. The surplus of these funds have been set up as a liability and will off-set future rent increases, above inflationary rates, for around the next four years. There was a reduction of $39,040 from the in the Equipment Replacement Fund Account during 1998. This reduction was due to the refurbishing of the four LMCD Eurasian Watermilfoil harvesters. Feel free' to call the District office at 745-0789 if ~ou have any questions regarding the 1998 LMCD Audit. Your continued participation and support in District related activities are appreciated. ABDO ABDO EICK & MEYERS Certified Public .4c(vuntants & Consultants 7241 Ohms Lane Suile 200 Minneatx~lis. MN 5.5439 February 3, 1999 To the Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Excelsior, Minnesota Professional standards require that we provide you with the following information related to our audit Our Responsibility Under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Government Auditing Standards As stated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that the general purpose fmancial statements are free of material misstatement and are fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Our audit is designed to provide reasonable assurance of detecting misstatements that, in our professional jud~muent, would have a material effect on the financial statements taken as a whole. Consequently, our audit will not necessarily detect misstatement less than this materiality level that might exist due to error, fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets. As part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Such considerations were solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the fmancial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants. However, the objective of our tests was not to provide an opinion on compliance with such provisions. Significant Audit Adjustments For purposes of this letter, professional standards defme a significant audit adjustment as a proposed correction of the general purpose financial statements that, in our judgment, may not have been detected except through our auditing procedures. We proposed no material audit adjustments. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting or auditing matter that could be significant to the general purpose financial statements or the auditor's report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. . Issues Discussed Prior to Retention of Indeppndent Auditors We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the District's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. 612.835.9090 ,, Fax 612.835.3261 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District February 3, 1999 Page Two Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing our audit. Reportable Conditions In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District for the year ended December 31, 1998, we considered its internal control in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on internal control. However, we noted certain matters involving internal control and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the District's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements. A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all matters in internal control that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses as def'med above. However, we noted the following reportable conditions that we believe are not material weaknesses. Segregation of Duties Our study and evaluation disclosed that because of the limited size of your office staff, your organization has limited segregation of duties. A good internal control structure contemplates an adequate segregation of duties so that no one individual handles a transaction from inception to completion. While we recognize that your organization is not large enough to permit an adequate segregation of duties in all respects, it is important, however, that you be aware of this condition. Involvement by the Board in reviewing and approving checks, helps offset some of the weaknesses inherent in a small office. Overview of Activity in the Districts Funds General Fund The general fund had expenditures in excess of revenue totaling $19,752. This decreased the fund balance to $118,530. The largest area of variance was the legal fees. This category was $34,409 over budget. The fund balance currently is 39.6% of 1998 expenditures and transfers out. Most of the Districts' revenue is received in the first half of the year. In 1998, 57% of revenue was received by June. This would indicate the General Fund balance should be maintained at a level around 40 - 50% of planned expenditures to provide for cash flow and emergency needs. The current fund balance is adequate to meet working capital needs. The following graph shows the fund balance as it relates to expenditures over the last 3 year.s. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District February 3, 1999 Page Three Fund Balance and Expenditures $300,000 1996 1997 1998 · Fund balance · Expenditures Special Revenue Funds Save the Lake This fund received its revenue mainly fi.om contributions and interest on investments. Revenue was $35,903 and expenditures were $19,224. The fund balance increased $16,679 to finish at $175,767. Revenue has been ahead of expenditures by nearly a 2 to 1 ratio over the last two years. Eurasian Milfoil The fund balance decreased to $150,191. The harvester overhaul in 1998 was nearly $60,000 and was reimbursed fi.om the equipment replacement fund. The District has a policy of maintaining fund balance at 100% of planned expenditures. If the overhaul is considered as a one-time expenditure, the 1998 expenditure level is at $100,000. At this level, the fund balance is 150% of expenditures and is in excess of the District's fund balance policy. New Equipment Acquisition and Equipment Replacement The only activity in these two funds in 1998 was interest on investments of $9,820 for New Equipment and $3,931 for Equipment Replacement and net transfers out of $42,971 in equipment replacement. Other Items Year 2000 Issue The Year 2000 Issue results fi.om a computer's inability to process year-date data accurately beyond the year 1999. Except in recently introduced year 2000 compliant programs, computer programmers consistently have abbreviated dates by eliminating the first two digits of the year, with the assumption that these two digits would always be 19. Thus January 1, 1965 became 01/01/65. Unless corrected, this shortcut is expected to create widespread problems when the clock strikes 12:00:01 a.m. on January 1, 2000. On that date, some computer programs may recognize the date as January 1, 1900, and process data inaccurately or stop processing altogether. The Year 2000 Issue is likely to affect computer applications before January 1, 2000, when systems currently attempt to perform calculations into the year 2000. Furthermore, some soflxvare programs use several dates in the year 1999 to mean something other than the date. Examples of such dates are 01/01/99, 09/09/99 and 12/31/99. As systems process information using these dates, they may produce erratic results or stop functioning. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District February 3, 1999 Page Four The Year 2000 Issue presents another challenge - the algorithm used in some computers for calculating leap years is unable to detect that the year 2000 is a leap year. Therefore, systems that are not year 2000 compliant may not register the additional day and date calculations may be incorrect. Most of the District's finance software is already year 2000 compliant but it is important to review all areas where date- dependent computer information is needed and correct any deficiencies. We recommend the District implement verification procedures to test the accuracy of information received from its vendors, service providers, bankers, customers and other third-party organizations with whom it exchanges date- dependent information, because these organizations also must become year 2000 compliant. The District also should satisfy itself that vendors, service providers, bankers, customers and other third-party organizations will not experience problems relating to the Year 2000 Issue that could affect the District's operations or cash flow. Allocation of Salaries In the 1997 management letter, it was noted that no administrative salaries are allocated to any funds but the General. If work is done by administrative staff in other funds, for example Milfoil, their salary and benefits should be used in that fund. A predetermined percentage can be used to accomplish this. Also, any other expenses that benefit other funds should be allocated to that fund. We again recommended that this be done if management determines that significant time is being spent in other funds. This report is intended solely for the use of management. The comments and recommendations in the report are purely constructive in nature, and should be read in this context. Our audit would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system because it was based on selected tests of the accounting records and related data. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the items contained in this letter, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. We wish to thank you for the opportunity to be of service and for the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by your staff. February 3, 1999 Minneapolis, Minnesota ABDO, ABDO, EICK & MEYERS,LLP Certified Public Accountants LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS DECEMBER 3 l, 1998 II. III. INTRODUCTORY SECTION Board of Directors FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report General Purpose Financial Statements Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Group Combined Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - All Governmental Fund Types Combined Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - General and Budgeted Special Revenue Funds Notes to Financial Statements Combining and Individual Fund Statements Special Revenue Funds Combining Balance Sheet Combining Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Save the Lake Fund Eurasian Mil Foil Fund OTHER REPORTS Report on Compliance and on Internal ConSol over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Independent Auditor's Report on Legal Compliance Pa~e No. 2 3-4 5 6-7 8-13 14- 15 16- 17 18 19 20 - 21 22 INTRODUCTORY SECTION LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS DECEMBER 31, 1998 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Name Douglas Babcock Bert Foster Eugene Partyka Craig Nelson Andrea Ahrens Bob Ambrose Kent Dahlen Tom Gilman Lili McMillan Robert Rascop Herb Suerth Sheldon Wert Greg Kitchak Craig Eggers Member City Tonka Bay Deephaven Minnetrista Spring Park Mound Wayzata Minnetonka Beach Excelsior Orono Shorewood Woodland Greenwood Minnetonka Victoria Position on Board Chair Vice-Chair Secretary Treasurer Officer Officer Officer Officer Officer Officer Officer Officer Officer Officer -1- FINANCIAL SECTION LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 ' ABD0 ABDO EICK & Certified Public Accountants & Consultants 7241 Ohms Lane Suite 2(g) Minneapolis. MN 53439 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Deephaven, Minnesota We have audited the accompanying general purpose f'mancial statements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Deephaven, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 1998 as listed in the table of contents. These general purpose f'mancial statements are the responsibility of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these general purpose financial statements based on our audit. Except as discussed in the following paragraph, we conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the general purpose financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall general purpose fmancial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Because the District does not maintain general fixed asset records which provide complete accounting control over quantities and original costs of all equipment, it is impracticable to audit the accompanying financial statements of the General Fixed Assets Account Group, and therefore, we express no opinion on them. Government Accounting Standards Board Technical Bulletin 98-1, Disclosures about Year 2000 Issues, requires disclosure of certain matters regarding the year 2000 issue. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has included such disclosures in Note 6. Because of the unprecedented nature of the year 2000 issue, its effects and the success of related remediation efforts will not be fully determinable until the year 2000 and thereafter. Accordingly, insufficient audit evidence exists to support the District's disclosures with respect to the year 2000 issue made in Note 6. Further, we do not provide assurance the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's year 2000 remediation efforts will be successful in whole or in part, or that parties with which the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District does business will be year 2000 ready. In our opinion, except for the effects on the general purpose financial statements of such adjustments, if any, as might have been determined to be necessary had we audited the General Fixed Assets Account Group and had we been able to examine evidence regarding year 2000 disclosures, the general purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District at December 31, 1998 and the results of its operations for the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report dated February 3, 1999 on our consideration of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants. 612.8.35.9(}90 · Fax 612.8.35.3261 Page Two Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the general Purpose financial statements taken as a whole. The combining and individual fund financial statements listed in the table of contents are presented for the purpose of additional analysis and are not a required part of the general purpose fmancial statements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose f'mancial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the general purpose financial statements taken as a whole. February 3, 1999 Minneapolis, Minnesota ABDO, ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Certified Public Accountants GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 Account Group General Fixed Assets (Unaudited) $ - 433,117 $ 433,117 Totals (Memorandum Only) 1998 1997 $ 807,320 $ '866,295 52,730 397 6,695 3,728 433,117 432,024 $ 1,299,862 $ 1,302,444 $ 347 $ 15,660 11,822 2,700 39,966 43,988 39,321 99,961 53,843 433,117 433,117 432,024 433,117 150,191 167,691 322,296 351,516 175,767 159,088 118,530 138,282 1,199,901 1,248,601 $ 433,117 $ 1,299,862 $ 1,302,444 LAKE M1-NNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTKICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 199g (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 1997) REVENUE Revenue from membership dues Revenue from public agencies Revenue from state sources Licenses and permits Fines and forfeits Contributions and donations Interest on investments Miscellaneous Totals Special (Memorandum Only) General Revenue 1998 1997 $ 109,640 $ 64,500 $ 174,140 $ 145,200 23,854 23,854 23,854 6,695 - 6,695 - 102,036 - 102,036 107,678 48,684 - 48,684 46,901 29,458 29,458 33,215 5,716 28,724 34,440 42,214 7,009 15 7,024 5,328 TOTAL REVENUE 279,780 146,551 426,331 404,390 EXPENDITURES Current Personal services Operating supplies Public services Repair and maintenance Contract fees Legal fees Track sen4ce Other services Other charges Capital outlay 119,403 23,387 6,505 8,483 - 16,932 2,260 76,021 - 18,391 84,409 - 14,484 23,528 .5,690 62,343 13,204 1,084 142,790 14.988 16.932 78.281 18391 84.409 14484 29.218 75547 1,084 127,202 17,652 18,545 12,783 13,802 52,726 12,804 22,212 53,583 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 299,532 176,592 476,124 331,309 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES (19,752) (30,041) (49,793) 73,081 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Operating transfer in Operating transfer out 77,971 77,971 35,000 (77,971) (77,971) (35,000) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER EXPENI~_ITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES (19,752) (30,041) (49,793) 73,081 FUND BALANCE, JANUARY 1 138,282 678,295 816,577 743,496 FUND BALANCE, DECEMBER 31 $ 118,530 $ 648,254 $ 766,784 $ 816,577 See Notes to Financial Statements. -5- Budgeted Special Revenue Funds ( See Note 2B) Variance- Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavgrable) 64,500 $ 64,500 $ - 29,500 23,854 (5,646) 30,800 29,458 (1,342) 19,000 14,973 (4,027) 1,000 15 (985) 144,800 132,800 (12,000) 25,300 23,387' 1,913 10,700 8,483 2,217 35,100 16,932 18,168 28,000 76,021 (48,021) 18,000 18,391 (391) 15,000 14,484 516 5,000 5,690 (690) 10,700 13,204 (2,504) 147,800 176,592 (28,792) (3,000) (43,792) (40,792) (3,000) 60,471 (17,500) 42,971 (821) 326,779 $ 325,958 '60,471 (17,500) 42,971 2,179 Note 1: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTFdCT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1998 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED C. Assets, Liabilities and Equity Deposits and Investments The District's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits and short term invesmaents with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition. State statutes authorize the District to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury, commercial paper, corporate bonds, repurchase agreements and shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and whose only investments are obligations guaranteed by the United States of its agencies. Cash balances from all funds are pooled and invested, to the extent available, in certificates of deposit and other authorized investments. Earnings from such investments are allocated on the basis of applicable participation by each of the funds. Receivables and Payables Transactions between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as either "interfund receivables/payables" (i.e., the current portion of interfund loans) or "advances to/from other funds" (i.e., the non-current portion of interfund loans). All other outstanding balances between funds are reported as "due to/from other funds". Prepaid Items Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items. Fixed Assets (Unaudited) Fixed assets used in governmental fund types of the District are recorded in the general fixed assets account group at cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated fixed assets are recorded at their estimated fair value at the date of donation. Assets in the general fixed assets account group are not depreciated. Interest incurred during construction is not capitalized on general fixed assets. Because the District does not maintain general fixed assets records, the account group is unaudited. The cost of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets' lives are not included in the general fixed assets group. Compensated Absences It is the District's policy to permit employees to accumulate a limited amount of earned but unused vacation, which, with Board discretion, may be paid to the employee upon separation. Because no payout policy is established, no liability is recognized in the earning fund. The District also has a policy that allows an employee to accumulate sick leave after five years of service at rates ranging from 30 to 50 percent up to 160 to 1,320 hours. This is payable upon severance. At December 31, 1998, no employee had five ye.ars of service so no liability is accrued. Fund Equity Designations of fund balance represent tentative management plans that are subject to change. Prepaid Rent Prepaid rent resulted from an advance from the prior lessor to compensate the District for canceling their lease. The advance is to be used to reduce the rent expense incurred over the life of the new lease. -9- Note 3: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1998 DETAILED NOTES ON ACCOUNTS A. Be Eo Deposits and Investments Cash balances of the District's funds are combined (pooled) and invested to the extent available in various investments authorized by Minnesota State Statutes. Each fund's portion of this pool (or pools) is displayed on the financial statements as "cash and temporary investments". For purposes of identifying the risk of investing public funds, the balances are categorized as follows: Deposits In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the District maintains deposits at those depository banks, all of which are members of the Federal Reserve System. Minnesota Statutes require that all District deposits be protected by insurance, surety bond or collateral. The market value of collateral pledged must equal 110% of the deposits not covered by insurance or bonds (140% in the case of mortgage notes pledged). Authorized collateral includes the legal investments described below, as well as certain first mortgage notes, and certain other State or local government obligations. Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping by the District or in a financial institution other than that furnishing the collateral. At year end, the District's carrying amount of deposits was $807,320 and the bank balance was $814,212. The entire bank balance was covered by federal depository insurance. Due from Other Governments The general fund has an amount due from the State of Minnesota of $6,695 at December 31, 1998. Fixed Assets A summary of changes in general fixed assets (unaudited) for the year ended December 31, 1998 is as follows: Balance Balance Beginning Additions End of Year (Deletions) of Year General fixed assets (unaudited) $ 432~024 $ 1,093 $ 433,117 Deferred Revenue Deferred revenue at December 31, 1998 is comprised of the following: Licenses paid in advance $ 43,988 Leases On August 21, 1998 the District entered into a lease for office space. The lease is payable monthly for the five year period ending August 31, 2003. The future obligations under the lease agreement are set forth below: 1999 $ 24,196 200ff 24,988 2001 25,786 2002 26,583 2003 18,077 Total $119~630 Rent expense for 1998 and 1997 was $20,457 and $18,272, respectively. -11- Note 4: Note 5: Note 6: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1998 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE - CONTINUED B. Funding Policy Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. These statutes are established and amended by the state legislature. The District makes annual contributions to the pension plans equal to the amount required by state statutes. PERF Basic Plan members and Coordinated Plan members are required to contribute 8.23 percent and 4.23 percent, respectively, of their annual covered salary. The District is required to contribute the following percentages of annual covered payroll: 10.73 percent for Basic Plan PERF members and 4.48 percent for Coordinated Plan PERF members. The District's contributions for the years ending December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 were $4,949, $4,184 and $3,961, respectively, equal to the contractually required contributions for each year as set by state statutes. OTHER INFORMATION Risk Management The District is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters for which the District carries insurance. The District obtains insurance through participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) which is a risk sharing pool with approximately 800 other governmental units. The District pays an annual premium to LMCIT for its workers compensation and property and casualty insurance. The LMCIT is self sustaining through member premiums and will reinsure for claims above a prescribed dollar amount for each insurance event. Settled claims have not exceeded the District's coverage in any of the past three fiscal years. Liabilities are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. An excess coverage insurance policy covers individual claims in excess of $1,000,000. Liabilities, if any, include an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNRs). The District's management is not aware of any incurred but not reported claims. YEAR 2000 ISSUE The year 2000 issue is the result of shortcomings in many electronic data processing systems and other electronic equipment that may adversely affect the government's operations as early as fiscal year 1999. The District has completed an inventory of computer systems and other electronic systems that may be affected by the year 2000 issue and that are necessary to conducting District operations. The District has assessed the areas that are critical to operations and is in the process of obtaining assurances from their vendors. Because of the unprecedented nature of the year 2000 issue, its effects and the success of related remediation efforts will not be fully determinable until the year 2000 and thereafter. Management cannot assure that the District is or will be year 2000 ready, that the District's remediation efforts will be successful in whole or in part, or that parties with whom the District does business will be year 2000 ready. -13- COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND STATEMENTS LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 Revenue Provided by Dues Eurasian Equipment Mil_foil Replacement $ 150,447 $ 111,448 Totals 1998 1997 648,585' $ 678,544 $ · 256 $ - $ 331 $ 249 150,191 - 150,191 167,691 111,448 322,296 351,516 - 175,767 159,088 150,191 . 111,448 648,254 678,295 $ 150,447 $ 111,448 $ 648,585 $ 678,544 -15- Revenue Provided by Dues Eurasian Equipment Milfoil Replacement 1998 $ 64,500 $ - $ 64,500 23,854 - 23,854 - 29,458 8,543 3,931 28,724 - 15 Totals 1997 $ 66,912 23,854 33,215 30,816 3,491 96,897 3,931 146,551 158,288 23,387 6,191 76,021 18,391 14,484 5,690 13,204 157,368 23,387 8,483 16,932 76,021 18,391 14,484 5,690 13,204 176,592 20,782 9,626 18,545 7,353 13,802 12,804 4,618 4,314 91,844 (60,471) 3,931 (30,041) 66,444 60,471 (17,500) 42,971 17,500 (60,471) (42,971) 77,971 (77,971) 35,000 35,000 (17,500) 167,691 $ 150,191 (39,040) 150,488 $ 111,448 (30,041) 678,295 $ 648,254 101,444 576,851 $ 678,295 -17- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL EURASIAN IVKLFOIL FUND YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 (With comparative actual amounts for the year ended December 31, 1997) REVENUE Revenue from membership dues Revenue from public agencies Interest on investments 1998 Budget Actual Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) 64,500 $ 64,500 $ - 29,500 23,854 (5,646) 12,000 8,543 (3,457) TOTAL REVENUE 1997 EXPENDITURES Current Personal services Operating supplies Repair and maintenance Contract fees Truck service Other services Other charges Actual TOTAL EXPENDITURES 66,912 23,854 8,021 EXCESS~EFIC~NC~OFREVENUE OVEREXPENDITURES 106,000 96,897 (9,103) 98,787 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Operating transfers in Operating transfers out 25,300 23,387 1,913 20,782 7,000 6,191 809 7,484 28,000 76,021 (48,021) 7,353 18,000 18,391 (391) 13,802 15,000 14,484 516 12,804 5,000 5,690 (690) 4,618 10,700 13,204 (2,504) 4,314 109,000 157,368 (48,368) 71,157 TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (3,000) (60,471) (57,471) 27,630 60,471 (17,500) EXCESS (DEFIC~NCY) OF REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES - 60,471 (17,500) 42,971 FUND BALANCE, JANUARY 1 42,971 FUND BALANCE, DECEMBER 31 $ (3,000) (17,500) 167,691 $ (14,500) $ 150,191 140,061 167,691 -19- OTHER REPORTS LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTPdCT DEEPI-IAVEN, MINNESOTA YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 ABD0 ABDO EICK & Certfu~cl Public Accountants & Corfu!rants 7241 Ohms l.ane Suile 200 Minneapolis. MN 55439 REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVE~MENT A UDITING STANDARDS Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Deephaven, Minnesota We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Deephaven, Minnesota as of and for the year ended December 31, 1998 and have issued our report thereon dated February 3, 1999. In our report, our opinion was qualified because the General Fixed Assets Account Group was not audited and we were not able to examine evidence regarding year 2000 disclosures. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to f'mancial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the District's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and ~ants, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the District's internal control over fmancial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the fmancial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. However, we noted certain matters involving the internal control over f'mancial reporting and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control over financial reporting that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the District's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data consistent with the assertions of managem.ent in the financial statements. We noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the District's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the general purpose financial statements. 612.835.9090 · Fax 612.835.3261 -20- Page Two Our study and evaluation disclosed that because of the limited size of your office staff, your organization has limited segregation of duties. A good internal control structure contemplates an adequate segregation of duties so that no one individual handles a transaction from inception to completion. While we recognize that your organization is not large enough to permit an adequate segregation of duties in all respects, it is important, however, that you be aware of this reportable condition. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses. However, we believe the reportable condition described above is not a material weakness. We also noted other matters involving the internal control over financial reporting that we have reported to management of the District in a separate letter dated February 3, 1999. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors and management. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. February 3, 1999 Minneapolis, Minnesota ABDO, ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Certified Public Accountants ZL? -21- '-' ABD0 ABDO EICK & Certified Public Accountants & CotuuJtants 7241 ()bm> Lane Suite 200 Minneapolis. lin 55439 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON LEGAL COMPLIANCE Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Deephaven, Minnesota We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Deephaven, Minnesota as of and for the year ended December 31, 1998, and have issued our report thereon dated February 3, 1999. In our report, our opinion was qualified because the General Fixed Assets Account Group was not audited and we were not able to examine evidence regarding year 2000 disclosures. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Comvliance Audit Guide for Local Government promulgated by the Legal Compliance Task Force pursuant to Minnesota Statute Sec. 6.65. Accordingly, the audit included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. The Minnesota Leeal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Government covers five main categories of compliance to be tested: contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness and claims and disbursements. Our study included all of the listed categories. The results of our tests indicate that for the items tested, the District complied with the material terms and conditions of applicable legal provisions. Further, for the items not tested, based on our audit and the procedures referred to above, nothing came to our attention to indicate that the District had not complied with such legal provisions, except as noted above. This report is intended solely for the use of the Board of Directors and management and should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record. February 3, 1999 Minneapolis, Minnesota ABDO, ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Certified Public Accountants 612.835.9090 · Fax 612.&35.3261 -22- June 7,1999 GTE Network Services 2378 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 iECEIYED JUN 1 ] 1999 Dear' Mr. Shukie: As you know, GTE recently announced the sale of its local telephone operations in Minnesota to Citizens Utilities Corporation. Over the next few months, we will complete the transition in your area to Citizens, and you will have the opportunity to become acquainted with members of the Citizens team. Before that occurs, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your partnership with GTE over the years. We are proud to have served your community as both a corporate citizen and as a neighbor. I can assure you that Citizens will continue to offer you the telecommunications services to which you have become accustomed. The 21st century promises dynamic change in this industry, and Citizens' commitment to bringing local communities like yours into this exciting future is one of the key reasons we accepted their offer to serve you. Saying goodbye to a valued community partner is never an easy matter. I appreciate your long-time partnership with GTE and wish you and Citizens prosperity in the years to come. Sincerely, Richard Shelton Regional Manager-Customer Operations RS:pj Enclosure A part of GTE Corporation GTE Public Affairs · 11 Eleventh Avenue · Grinnell, IA 50112 For Immediate Release Date: May 27, 1999 Contact: GTE: Jim Larsen, 515-269-7850, jim.larsen~..telops.(~te.com Dick Shoemaker, 314-332-7070, richard.shoemaker~.te ops..~te corn Summary; Citizens: Brigid Smith, 203-614-5042, bsmith~.czn.com Martha Alcott, 916-686-3391, malcott~czn.com Citizens Utilities to purchase all GTE local telephone properties in Arizona and Minnesota, limited amount of GTE telephone properties in California. IRVING, Texas - GTE Network Services announced today it has reached a definitive agreement with Citizens Utilities Company of Stamford, Conn., in which Citizens will purchase 128 local telephone exchanges and 186,839 customer access lines from GTE in Arizona, Southern California, Northern California, and Minnesota for $664 million in cash. This is part of GTE's previously announced initiative to sell about 1.6 million domestic access lines. In Arizona, GTE is selling to Citizens all six of its exchanges and 8,112 customer access lines. In nearby Southern California, the transaction involves seven exchanges and 12,675 customer access lines. In Northern California, the transaction involves 26 exchanges and 38,090 customer access lines in the northernmost part of the state. In Minnesota, Citizens is purchasing all of GTE's local telephone properties, which includes 116 exchanges and 127,962 customer access lines. GTE and Citizens described the transaction as a move that will enable each company to better concentrate on their'core markets, achieve operating synergies, and create both immediate and long-term value for investors. Approval of the sale is required by the Arizona State Corporation Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the U.S. Department of Justice. The closing of the sale and transfer of GTE operations to Citizens is expected to be complete by late this year or in early 2000. '~/Ve are seeing a high level of interest in the wireline properties offered for sale, further bolstering our confidence that the repositioning initiatives we have announced will generate in excess of $3 billion," said John Appel, president-GTE Network Services. "These agreements are the first of several anticipated announcements for GTE wireline property sales in the coming weeks." Proceeds from the sale of GTE wireline properties - as well as GTE Airfone and GTE Government Systems - will be used to invest in other strategic initiatives, such as GTE's recent purchase of Ameritech wireless properties in Illinois and Missouri. The agreement does not inclUde the transfer of employees in GTE Directories, GTE Internetworking, and GTE Communications Corporation (including GTE Long Distance) who serve customers in these states. Citizens Communications currently operates all-digital, local exchange properties serving approximately one million access lines in 13 states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and VVisconsin. Citizens also owns 83 percent of Electric Lightwave, Inc., a leading full-service, facilities-based integrated communications services provider of enhanced data service, frame relay, ATM and lnternet access solutions to bandwidth intensive businesses and the growing e-commerce market. Editors Note: Maps of the affected exchanges can be obtained by visiting GTE's May 27, 1999, news release located at http://www.gte.com About GTE With 1998 revenues of more than $25 billion, GTE is a leading telecommunications provider with one of the industry's broadest arrays of products and services. In the United States, GTE provides local service in 28 states and wireless service in 17 states, as well as nationwide long- distance, directory, and internetworking services ranging from dial-up Internet access for residential and small-business consumers to Web-based applications for Fortune 500 companies. Outside the United States, the company serves customers on five continents. Henne County June 14, 1999 An Equal Opportunity Employer Frank Clark Mound Municipal Liquor 2324 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 553 64 Mr. Clark: On June l0th, I was informed by Fran Clark, Acting City Manager for the City of Mound, that the city did not plan to continue to issue tobacco licenses to establishments in Mound. Therefore, the proposed Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance would cover your establishment and others in Mound. I have enclosed information pertaining to the proposed ordinance. Please note that a public hearing is scheduled for: Tuesday, July 6, 1999, 2:00 PM Board Room, 24th floor of the Administration Tower, Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota At this time, city officials in Mound, Greenfield, Hanover, Rockford, and St. Bonifacius have notified the county that they do not intend to license tobacco retailers. Therefore, under state statute, Hennepin County will be the licensing authority for any retailer selling tobacco products in those municipalities. (In addition, tobacco retailers located on the Minneapolis Saint Paul International Airport property may also be covered by the county's ordinance.) Your establishment has been identified as a current tobacco retailer in one of the cities listed above (or on the airport property). If you have any questions about the proposed ordinance or the public hearing, please contact Howard Epstein in the Health Promotion Division, 612-348-7550. ~nc(4~ ~cr~ (/~)~ncerely, Sue Zuidema Director Hennepin County Community Health Department Health Promotion Division 525 Portland Avenue Mail Code 968 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1569 (612) 348-5618 Recycled Paper ,Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Emp/oyer NOTICE TO TOBACCO RETAILERS IN MOUND: On June 10th, we were informed that the City of Mound does not plan to continue to license tobacco retailers - therefore, the proposed County ordinance will also cover retailers in the City of Mound. The notice below was mailed on June 4th to affected retailers in other cities in Hennepin County. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 4, 1999 Tobacco Retailers in: - Deephaven - Greenwood - Greenfield - Hanover - Rockford - St. Bonifacius PLEASE NOTE: The Hennepin County ordinance will NOT affect tobacco license holders in other municipalities where there is a tobacco sales ordinance. Community Officials and other Interested Persons Sue Zuidema, Director, Community Health Department NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON HENNEPIN COUNTY RETAIL TOBACCO SALES ORDINANCE (Ordinance Number 21) On July 6, 1999, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing before the Health Committee for the purpose of gaining public input on the Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance (Ordinance Number 21). The meeting will be held: Tuesday, July 6, 1999, 2:00 PM Board Room, 24th floor of the Administration Tower, Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota All persons or organization representatives who wish to testify are requested to notify the Health Committee Secretary, Maria Frenz, at 612-348-4019. Please note that: - continued - Community Health Department Health Services Building - MC963 525 Portland Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1569 Recycled Paper · Testimony will be scheduled in order received. A sign-up sheet will also be provided at the hearing. · All persons providing testimony are requested to limit their comments to three minutes. · All persons will be requested to state their name and, if applicable, the name of the organization they are representing. Where possible, efforts should be made to coordinate testimony in order to avoid repetition and duplicative remarks. The 1997, the Minnesota Legislature passed a state law (Session Laws Chapter 227) to reduce illegal youth access to tobacco products. Since that time, most cities in Hennepin County have amended their ordinances to incorporate the requirements of the state statute. However, the statute also requires that counties must enact a tobacco licensing ordinance that conforms with the state statute if some of the cities and townships in the county do not license tobacco retailers in their community. At this time, city officials in Deephaven, Greenwood, Greenfield, Hanover, Rockford, and St. Bonifacius have notified the county that they do not intend to license tobacco retailers - therefore, Hennepin County will be the licensing authority for any retailer selling tobacco products in those municipalities. (In addition, tobacco retailers located on the Minneapolis Saint Paul International Airport property may also be covered by the county's ordinance.) Please note that the Hennepin County ordinance does NOT affect tobacco licensees in other municipalities in Hennepin County who are licensed by their city or town. Last fall, the Hennepin County Community Health Services Advisory Committee (CHSAC) reviewed the requirements of the state statute, research findings on measures to reduce youth access to tobacco, and ordinances enacted by other cities in Hennepin County and counties in the metro area. The recommendations fi:om the CHSAC have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. One of the recommendations from the CHSAC was to establish an annual licensing fee of $250 to cover the costs of licensing, inspections, and enforcement. This fee is comparable to other cities in Hennepin County and other counties in Minnesota. The licensing fee will also be under discussion at the July 6 public hearing, and will be established by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed ordinance, and a chart that highlights the requirements of the state law, the proposed provisions for Hennepin County, and a comparison to other metro area counties. If you have any questions, please contact Howard Epstein in-the Health Promotion Division, 612-348-7550. !. ,7. > F~' > Z Z Z o o Z Z Z ~ ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) RETAIL TOBACCO SALES ORDINANCE FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY Community Health Department PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 6, 1999 IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATUTES, § §461.12 to 461.18 ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) RETAIL TOBACCO SALES ORDINANCE FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY Public Hearing: duly 6, 1999 An ordinance relating to the sale, possession and use of tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco-related devices in Hennepin County and to reduce the illegal sale, possession, and use of such items to and by minors. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statute § §461.12 to 461.18. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Ordains: Section 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Purpose. Because Hennepin County recognizes that many persons under the age of 18 years pumhase or otherwise obtain, possess and use Tobacco, Tobacco Products and Tobacco-Related Devices, and such sales, possession and use are violations of both State and Federal laws; and because studies1'4, which are hereby accepted and adopted, have shown that most smokers begin smoking before the age of 18 years; and those persons who reach the age of 18 years without having started smoking are significantly less likely to begin smoking; and because smoking has been shown to be the cause of several serious health problems, including cancer, heart disease, and respiratory problems, which subsequently place a financial burden on all levels of government, this ordinance is intended to regulate the sale, possession and use of Tobacco, Tobacco Products and Tobacco-Related Devices and to further the official public policy of the State of Minnesota in regard to preventing young people from starting to smoke as stated in Minnesota Statute § 144.391. 1.2 Scope. This ordinance is applicable in any unorganized territory of Hennepin County and in any town or home rule charter or statutory city in Hennepin County, which does not license and regulate retail tobacco sales. Retail establishments licensed by a town or a city to sell tobacco are not required to obtain a second license for the same location pursuant to this ordinance. u. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1994): Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, D.C.: USDHHS. U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessibility of cigarettes to youth aged 12-17 years; United States, 1989 and 1993. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 45, 125-130. Forster, J., Murray, D., Wolfson, M., Blaine, T., et al. (1998). The effects of community policies to reduce youth access to tobacco. American Journal of Public Health, 88(8), 1193-1198. Lynch, B. S. & Bonnie, R. J. editors. (1994). Growing up Tobacco Free: Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and Youths. Washington, D. C.: Institute of Health: National Academy Press. ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance Public Hearing: July 6, 1999 Section 2 DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS For the purpose of this ordinance the following words shall have the following meanings: 2.1 Tobacco or Tobacco Products. "Tobacco" or "Tobacco products" shall mean any substance or item containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to, cigarettes; cigars; pipe tobacco; snuff, fine cut or other chewing tobacco; cheroots; stogies; perique; granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready-rubbed and other smoking tobacco; snuff flowers; cavendish; shorts; plug and twist tobaccos; dipping tobaccos; refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco leaf prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing, or smoking. 2.2 Tobacco-Related Devices. "Tobacco related devices" shall mean any tobacco product as well as a pipe, rolling papers, or other device intentionally designed or intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing or smoking of tobacco or tobacco products. 2.3 Self-Service Merchandising. "Self-Service Merchandising" shall mean open displays of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices in any manner where any person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the licensee's employee. The assistance or intervention shall entail the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product or tobacco-related device between the customer and the licensee or employee. Self-service merchandising shall not include vending machines. 2.4 Vending Machine. "Vending machine" shall mean any mechanical, electrical or electronic, or other type of device which dispenses tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco- related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens, or other form of payment directly into the machine by a person seeking to purchase the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco- related device for himself, herself, or on behalf of another person. This includes vending machines equipped with manual, electric, electronic locking devices, or other devices that operate directly or through a remote control device. 2.5 Individually Packaged. "Individually packaged" shall mean the practice of selling any tobacco or tobacco product wrapped individually for sale. Individually wrapped tobacco and tobacco products shall include, but not be limited to, single cigarette packs, single bags or cans of loose tobacco in any form and single cans or other packaging of snuff or chewing tobacco. Cartons or other packaging containing more than a single pack or other container as described in this subdivision shall not be considered individually packed. 2.6 Loosies. "Loosies" shall mean the common term used to refer to a single or individually packed cigarette. 2.7 Minor. "Minor" shall mean any natural person who has not yet reached the age of eighteen (18) years. 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance Public Hearing: July 6, 1999 Retail Establishment. "Retail establishment" shall mean any place of business where tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related devices are available for sale to the general public. Retail establishments shall include, but not to be limited to, grocery stores, convenience stores, and restaurants. Moveable Place of Business. "Moveable Place of Business" shall refer to any form of business operated out of a truck, van, automobile, or any other type of a vehicle or transportable shelter and not a fixed address store front or other permanent type of structure authorized for sales transactions. Sale. A "sale" shall mean any transfer of goods for money, trade, barter, or other consideration. Compliance Checks. "Compliance Checks" shall mean the system the County or its designated agent uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices are following and complying with the requirements of this ordinance. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors as authorized by this ordinance. Compliance checks shall also mean the use of minors who attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices for educational, research and training purposes as authorized by State and Federal laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by other units of government for the purpose of enforcing appropriate Federal, State or local laws and regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices. Auditor. "Auditor" shall mean the Hennepin County Auditor of the Taxpayer Services Depar~tment or designee. County Board. "County Board" shall mean the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Section 3 LICENSE It shall be illegal for anyone to sell or offer to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices in Hennepin County without first having obtained a license to do so from the County, unless located within a town or statutory city that has retained licensing authority under Minnesota Statutes 461.12, Subdivision 1. 3.1 Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco- related devices shall be made on a form provided by the Auditor. The application shall contain the full name of the applicant, the applicant's residential and business address and telephone numbers, the name and location of the business for which the license is sought and any additional information deemed_necessary. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Auditor shall forward the application to the County Administrator for action at the next regularly scheduled County Board meeting. If the Auditor shall determine that an application is incomplete, the application shall be returned to applicant with notice of the information necessary to make the application complete. 3.2 Action. The County Board may either approve or deny the license or it may delay action for such reasonable period of time as necessary to complete any background investigation 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance Public Hearing: duly 6. 1999 of the application or the applicant it deems necessary. If the County Board approves the license, the Auditor shall issue the license to the applicant. If the County Board denies the license, notice of denial shall be given to the applicant along with notice of the applicant's fight to appeal the decision. Term. All licenses issued under this ordinance shall be valid for one calendar year from the date of issue. Revocation or suspension. Any license issued under this ordinance may be revoked or suspended as provided in the Violations and Penalties sections of this ordinance. Transfers. All licenses issued under this ordinance shall be valid only on the premises for which the license was issued and only for the applicant to whom the license was issued. No transfer of any license to another location or person shall be valid without the prior written approval of the County Board. Moveable Place of Business. No license shall be issued to a Moveable Place of Business. Only fixed location businesses shall be eligible to be licensed. Display. All licenses shall be posted and displayed in plain view of the general public on the licensed premises. Renewals. The renewal of a license issued under this section shall be done in the same manner as the original application. A request for a renewal shall be made at least sixty (60) days but no more than ninety (90) days before the expiration of the current license. The issuance of a license under this ordinance shall be considered a privilege and not an absolute right of the applicant and shall not entitle the holder'to automatic renewal of the license. Section 4 FEES No license shall be issued under this ordinance until the appropriate license fee shall be paid in full. The license fee will be established annually by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Section 5 BASIS FOR DENIAL OF LICENSE The following non-inclusive reasons shall be grounds for revoking a license or denying the issuance or renewal of a license under this ordinance'; however, except as may otherwise be provided by law, the existence of any particular ground for denial does not mean that the County Board must deny the license: 5.1 The applicant is under the age of eighteen (18) years. 5.2 The applicant has been convicted within the past five years of any violation of a Federal, State or local law, ordinance provision or other regulation relating to tobacco, or tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices. 5.3 5.4 5.5 ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance Public Hearing: duly 6, 1999 The applicant has had a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices revoked within the preceding 12 months of the date of application. The applicant fails to provide the information required on the application or provides false or misleading information. The applicant is prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law, ordinance, or other regulation, from holding such a license. Section 6 PROHIBITED SALES It shall be a violation of this ordinance for anyone to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related devices: 6.1 To any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. 6.2 By means of any type of vending machine. 6.3 By means of self-service sales as defined in Section 7 herein. 6.4 By means of lo0sies as defined in Section 2 of this ordinance. 6.5 Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana or other deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic or controlled substances except nicotine and other substances found naturally in tobacco or added as part of an otherwise lawful manufacturing process. 6.6 By any other means, to any other person or in any other manner or form prohibited by Federal or State or local law or other Hennepin County ordinance, provision, or other regulation. Section 7 SELF-SERVICE SALES It shall be unlawful for a licensee under this ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices by any means whereby the customer may have access to such items without having to request the item from the licensee or licensee's employee and whereby there is not a physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or the tobacco-related device between the licensee or his or her employee and the customer. All tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco-related devices shall either be stored behind a counter or other area not freely accessible to customers, or in a locked case or other storage unit not left open and accessible to the general public. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco- related devices shall comply with this Section within 90 days following the effective date of this ordinance. This Section does not apply to retail establishments that prohibit minors from entering the premises at all times, and derive ninety (90) percent or more of their revenues from the sale of tobacco and tobacco-related products. Any retail establishment that allows self-service sales shall provide upon request financial records that provide documentation summarizing annual sales. ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance Public Hearing: July 6, 1999 Section 8 RESPONSIBILITY All licensees under this ordinance shall be responsible for the actions of their employees in regard to the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices on the licensed premises and the sale of such an item by an employee shall be considered a sale by the license holder. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting Hennepin County fi.om also subjecting the employee to whatever penalties are appropriate under this ordinance, State or Federal law or other applicable law or regulation. Section 9 COMPLIANCE CHECKS AND INSPECTIONS All licensed premises shall be open to inspection by the local law enforcement or other authorized Hennepin County officials during regular business hours. From time to time, but at least twice per year, the County or its designated agent shall conduct compliance checks by engaging, with the written consent of their parents or guardians, minors over the age of fifteen (15) years but less than eighteen (18) years, to enter the licensed premises to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices. Minors used for the purpose of compliance checks shall be supervised by designated law enforcement or Hennepin County personnel. Minors used for compliance checks shall not be guilty of the unlawful purchase or attempted purchase, nor the unlawful possession of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco- related devices when such items are obtained or attempted to be obtained as part of a compliance check. No minor used in compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the minor's age and all minors lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions about the minor's age asked by the licensee or his or her employee and shall produce any identification, if any exists, for which he or she is asked. Nothing in this section shall prohibit compliance checks authorized by State or Federal laws for educational, research or training purposes, or required for the enforcement of a particular State or Federal Law. Section 10 OTHER ILLEGAL ACTS Unless otherwise provided, the following acts shall be a violation of this ordinance: 10.1 Illegal Sales. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to sell or otherwise provide any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related device to any minor. 10.2 Illegal Possession. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to have in his or her possession any tobacco, tobacco product or tobacco-related device. This subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check or to an employee of the license holder under the .age of eighteen (18) years while stocking tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices. 10.3 Illegal Use. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to smoke, chew, sniff or otherwise use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related device. 10.4 Illegal Procurement. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to purchase or attempt to purchase or otherwise obtain any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related device and it shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to purchase or otherwise 10.5 10.6 ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance Public Hearing: duly 6, 1999 obtain such items on behalf of a minor. It shall further be a violation for any person to coerce or attempt to coerce a Minor to illegally purchase or otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related device. This subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check. Use of False Identification. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to attempt to disguise his or her tree age by the use of a false form of identification, whether the identification is that of another person or one on which the age of the person has been modified or tampered with to represent an age older than the actual age of the person. Illegal Sales by Minor. It shall be a violation of this ordinance: (1) For any minor to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices. For a licensee to cause or permit a minor to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices. Section 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 VIOLATIONS Notice. Upon discovery of a suspected violation, the alleged violator shall be issued, either personally or by mail, a citation that sets forth the alleged violation and which shall inform the alleged violator of his or her right to be heard on the accusation. Hearings. If a person accused of violating this ordinance so requests, a hearing shall be scheduled, the time and place of which shall be published and provided to the accused violator. Hearing Officer. The County Administrator or designee shall serve as the hearing officer. Decision. If the heating officer determines that a violation of this ordinance did occur, that decision, along with the hearing officer's reasons for finding a violation and the penalty to be imposed under Section 1300 of this ordinance, shall be recorded in writing, a copy of which shall be provided to the accused violator. Likewise, if the hearing officer finds that no violation occurred or finds grounds for not imposing any penalty, such findings shall be recorded and a copy provided to the acquitted accused violator. Appeals. Appeals of any decision made by the hearing officer shall be filed in the Hennepin County District Court. Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this section shall prohibit Hennepin County from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of this ordinance. Continued Violations. Each violation shall constitute a separate offense. Every day in which a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. Section 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance Public Hearing: July 6, 1999 PENALTIES Licensees. Any licensee found to have violated this ordinance or whose employee shall have violated this Ordinance shall be charged an administrative fine of $200 for the first violation of this ordinance; $300 for the second offense at the same licensed premises within a twenty-four (24) month period; and $400 for the third offense within a twenty-four (24) month period. In addition, after the third offense, the license shall be suspended for no less than seven (7) days. After the fourth offense within a twenty-four (24) month period, the licensee shall be charged an administrative fine of $500, and the license shall be revoked. Other Individuals. Other individuals, other than minors regulated by Section 12.3, found to be in violation of this ordinance shall be charged an administrative fine of $50. An administrative fine of $100 shall be charged for additional subsequent offenses within a twenty-four (24) month period. Minors. Minors found in unlawful possession of, or who unlawfully purchase or attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices, shall be referred to the Hennepin County Attorney's "Citations for Tobacco Offense" procedure. Misdemeanor. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit Hennepin County from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of this ordinance. Section 13 EXCEPTIONS AND DEFENSES Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the providing of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices to a minor as part of a lawfully recognized religious, spiritual or cultural ceremony. It shall be an affirmative defense to the violation of this ordinance for a person to have reasonably and in good faith relied on proof of age as described by State law. Section 14 SEVERABILITY AND SAVINGS CLAUSE If any section or portion of this ordinance shall be found unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that finding shall not serve to invalidate or otherwise effect the validity or enforceability of other sections or provisions of this ordinance. Section 15 NOTICE The County shall make reasonable efforts to send tobacco retailers regulated by this ordinance and the Hennepin County Community Health Department, thirty (30) days mailed notice of proposed amendments to this ordinance. ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed) Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance Public Hearing: duly 6, 1999 Section 16 EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect ,1999. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices at the time this ordinance is adopted, and that is not licensed by a municipality in Hennepin County, shall comply with this ordinance within 60 days following the effective date of this ordinance. Passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota, this Chair, Board of County Commissioners Attest: Approved as to form and legality: League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 281-1200 ° (800) 925-1122 Fax: (651) 281-1299 · TDD (651) 281-1290 Web Site: www.lmnc.org June 7, 1999 Dear City Officials: By now, I hope you have had the opportunity to read the accompanying announcement which appeared in the June 3, 1999 Cities Bulletin concerning the recommended maximum 5% dues increase for next year. I want to take this opportunity to further explain why this action is being recommended and to ask for your support. Your Board of Directors is very proud of the League's accomplishments over the past several years and is committed to maintaining the high level of service you have come to expect. At our most recent Board Retreat, we reviewed our current League staffing and concluded that several critical needs exist. For example, the recently completed member survey clearly demonstrated that city officials expect more League services to be provided via the Internet. We plan to add a staff member to give you better access to League resources such as research memos, easier conference registrations and other services and potentially help with creating and maintaining your own web page. Lobbying is yet another area of need. Each year, the number of bills potentially impacting cities grows. Next year, major initiatives attacking municipal cable authority and revisiting the tax and governmental aid systems seem likely. To adequately prepare for these and other such issues, we will consider added lobbying support, either through a contract or new staff. We also want to enhance our ability to respond to the increasingly complex nature of questions received by our Research and Inquiry Service by adding more legal expertise. Lastly, the League has a need for additional clerical support. Each of these areas will be carefully reviewed by the Board in August when next year's budget is approved. As has occurred in the past, only that portion of the dues authorization that then appears necessary will be implemented. Under the leadership of the incoming League President, a membership committee will meet this coming year to review ongoing League resource needs as well as the dues structure, and to examine possible new revenue sources to reduce our reliance on dues. Recommendations will then be made to the membership at next year's annual meeting. I hope you will have the opportunity to carefully consider this recommendation and to express your thoughts at the annual meeting on June 17 in Rochester. If you have any c~"~ ^N EOU^L OPPORTUmTW^mRM^T~VE ^CT~O~ questions about this proposed dues increase, please feel free to contact Jim Miller at 651- 281-1205. Sincerely, Del Haag President Enc. Engineering · P~nn~g · Surveying June 15, 1999 Mr. Kyle Colvin Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 SUBJECT: City of Mound 1996 MCES I/I Loan (Contract No. C-3209) Certification Report No. 1 MFRA #11357 Dear Kyle: The following is the first annual Certification Report as required by the City of Mound's Inflow and Infiltration Loan (Contract No. C-3209). As stated in the final report submitted in the spring of 1998, 31 properties were scheduled for reinspection this spring. During the weeks of May 17th and May 24th, City personnel visually inspected these 31 properties and found that all 31 were still in compliance. Attached is a list by address of the properties. The visual inspection included finding the discharge pipe on the outside of the home and looking for evidence that the pipe had recently discharged. 15 homes were entered and had an in-house reinspection conducted. Also enclosed is a list of 14 properties that have refused to allow any type of in-home inspection and one property that was initially inspected and found to be in non-compliance and will not allow the City to make a reinspection. Those properties have been charged and assessed the $100 per month penalty as required by City Ordinance. Enclosed are copies of the quarterly billings for each of these properties that shows the $300 penalty and a map of the City with the properties identified. As requested, we are also providing the addresses of the six commercial properties that were originally found to be in non-compliance and were reinspected after the necessary corrections were made. We are proposing to divide these six properties between certification years three, four, and five as follows: 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-maih mfra@mfra, com Mr. Kyle Colvin June 15, 1999 Page 2 CERTIFICATION/INSPECTION SCHEDULE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Year Three (2001) 2281 Commerce Boulevard 2305 Commerce Boulevard Year Four (2002) 2385 Commerce Boulevard 2411 Commerce Boulevard Year Five (2003) 2613 Commerce Boulevard 2450 Wilshire Boulevard If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact myself of the City of Mound. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, Consultant City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure cc: Fran Clark, Acting City Manager, City of Mound Gino Businaro, Finance Director, City of Mound Greg Skinner, Public Works, City of Mound eSmain:\11357\cotvin6-t 5 Association of Hetropolitan Hunicipalities ,_RECEII'£B.. . __ .. dUN ! ! lg~J DATE: June 10, 1999 TO: Chief Administrative Official FROM: Eugene Ranieri, Executive Director RE: 1999 Elected Officials Salary Survey Enclosed is a copy of the 1999 Elected Officials Salary survey. Each AMM member city receiveS one copy free and additional copies may be obtained for $15.00 each. We hope you will find this survey useful information. We sincerely appreciate the. time and effort each participating city put forth to make this survey possible. Again~ thank you and please call Laurie Jennings in our office (651) 215-4000 if you have questions or want additional copies. 145 University A venue West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 Telephone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: arum@arum 145.org o o o o 0 o o o o o o o 0 o 0 ('W 0 0 (::3 C:3 C:3 C:3 0 o o -' - o> 0 -, ~ o Z ,,, Z Z CD ,,,.j Z Z Z 0 0 CD 0 CD 0 CD 0 0 0 0 CD 0 I'~ 0 CD o c~ ~ ~ o co o o ~ co ~n ~ ~ co ~o co 0 CD 0 * CD CD ~D CD r.O CD CD CD CD 0 ~' 0 C~ 0 I'~ CD 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 z z CD 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 ~ 0 0 CD ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (~ 0 ~ 0 I'~ ~' a~ ~ O '~- O O O '" O '" O. O O O CD CD i.~ O CD O CD O CD CD O O O CD O O CD ~1 CD I'~ O O O CD O ~ O 00 O ~t' ~ ~ O ~ O O'~ ,~. I~ ~" 00 ~ CD cD') O O O O O CD O CD O * CD O O ~ O ~ O O 00 O O O O O O O O O ~ O ,~-- O ~ O O ~1 ~ ~ {,.O 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 m~ LO. 04 0 w- ~0 ~- ~O 04 04 (D 0 0 * 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~') 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~'- 0 qD w~ O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ O O O O O OO ~" ~ ~ O ~1 ~ C.O ~ C~ O O P.-. ~ O '~' < n- o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w~' CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~i~ 0 '~' 0 CD ~ 0 ~0 0 0 ~0 ~ q~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~'~ 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,,- 0 ~ 0 0 ~0 0 ~0 CD 0 lO q~ ~) 0 v- 0 O~ 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '~' 0 O~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~' 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 (~ 0 O~ O~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 u~ CD CD CD -- ~D ~ CD O CD CD O O o o 0 Z 0 O O O CD O CD CD (,.0 CD O CD O ~AD O CD CD O w.- O CD O c~ CD u~ CD CD LO 0 0 0 w- LO ~ CD ~J o w~ o + ~ 0 o w w > Z Z Z o 0 ~ ~ o o 0 0 ¢.,0 0 0 0 ('0 0 0 0 C~ 0 r4D c~ c~ CD 0 0 0 co CD I~ O~ ¢4D 0 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent: Frank Weiland Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane, Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, # 432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.) with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood Lane. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE May 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as amended. Motion carried: 8-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: Chair Michael introduced the public hearings with a word to the public. Staff would give their comments, then questions could be directed to the applicant and staff from the commissioners. Each person from the public wishing to speak should come forward to the podium and clearly state their name and address. Comments should be brief and concise and directed to the issue at hand. Once the public hearing was closed, there would be no further comments from the audience. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-21: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; TO ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER, WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE, PROVIDE TWO Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 ROOMS FOR THE HEAD START PROGRAM, AND BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN; 2451 FAIRVlEW LANE; TRACTS A - G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY # 739 AND THAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D; ST. JOHN'S CHURCH. PID # 24-117-24 12 0014 AND 24-117-24 12 0058 Gordon introduced this case. He stated that the applicant was requesting to update an existing conditional use permit to allow space for the Westonka Senior Center, Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative and a Head Start program.to locate in temporarily until other facilities could be built. Second, the church desires to build a memorial garden. The Fellowship Hall is proposed for use by the Westonka Seniors. This would be Monday through Friday during the daytime. All activities would take place inside the building. The kitchen and cooking facilities would also be used. Parking does not present a problem since there is sufficient unused parking available during the week days. The church with its recent addition, is a large facility and able to handle the needs of the Senior Center without impacting its worship area and the needs of the daycare. A proposed Memorial Garden is planned for the rear of the building just beyond the Indian Mounds along the service drive. Hard surface removal has taken place in its approximate location. The memorial garden is a cemetery (for zoning purposes) with elements including a wall for flowers and urns, an art centerpiece and benches. The sod area in front of the wall will be used for underground vault sites for cremation remains. Shoreland Management regulations require that unplatted cemeteries maintain a 50 foot setback from buildings. As proposed the setback is 35 feet, and would need a fifteen foot setback variance. There is sufficient area, however, to move the cemetery back further if needed. The state of Minnesota regulates all public and private cemeteries by Statute. None of these requirements appear to impact any enforcement needed from the City. Any use and operation approvals from the State that may be required should be secured by the applicant. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of this Conditional Use Permit as requested. Voss asked if in the Staff's research they came up with the differences between cremation and burial and if there were any regulations that the city needed to govern. Gordon responded that there were two places in the state Statutes that addressed 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 "cemeteries," one was regarding public ones and the other private. In neither case was the city impacted. There were some statutes regarding the spreading of ashes, however, with land burial of ashes, the statutes were "gray." Thus, for purposes of zoning, the Staff recommended defining this memorial garden as a cemetery. Burma asked where the fifty foot setback ordinance came from. Gordon stated that it was part of the state's Shoreland Management Ordinance. Brown asked if the location of remains still needed recording and if they did, he didn't see a difference between cemeteries and this scenario. The records would still be kept by the managers of the memorial garden. Clapsaddle asked if a member of the church could spread ashes over the garden and if they could, would a permit be required. He wondered whether this aspect of the conditional use permit application really needed to be regulated by a permit or restrictions. Mueller responded that there were legal requirements in disposing of human body remains. Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Tamra Botkin of 2355 Fairview Lane raised concerns over the amount of traffic on Fairview Lane now heading to the church. The opening of the Senior Center has created more. She feels that the traffic already goes too fast and is too much. As a parent of small children, she is out there telling drivers to slow down. That includes the "Dial a Ride" van that delivers the seniors to the church. She wanted to request that the traffic be rerouted to the read behind Fairview, Hidden Vale. There are no homes along this road anyway and it leads up the church's parking lot today. She asked if someone from the church could relay this message to the people who come to the senior center and the daycare centers. As far as the memorial garden goes, she does not want to see the ashes let loose, they need to be in containers and buried. She doesn't want "anyone else's remains in her yard." Brown asked if she had spoken to the police department regarding the traffic. He also asked her when the traffic was the most heavy and indicated he would speak with the City Administrator to convey the message to the police department. Ms. Botkin indicated that the traffic was all day long. Greg Smith of 5054 Bartlett Boulevard came forward stating that he was opposed to the Senior Center and daycare activities taking place at the church. He has lived in the neighborhood for thirteen years. He stated that three years ago when he first got notification of proposed construction on the north end of the building, prior to a permit being issued, 12-15 trees were cut down. These were cut down from the Indian 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 Mounds. As a result, the construction came to an abrupt halt since the Indian Mounds were being disturbed. When he spoke with the people at St. John's they referred to these sacred grounds as "a pile of dirt." At that time, he stated, they were "hosting a for-profit daycare center," one that he feels was being run illegally. The area is zoned residential. He stated they came to the city for a "quick fix" to allow them to operate a commercial business. "Crazed traffic" was generated such that residents could not even back out onto the street safely. Another issue, stated Mr. Smith is the watershed area of the north property. The lower 3-4 acres is woods, but also watershed land. A holding pond was created and another 20-30, eighty plus year old trees were removed. These were a windbreak for his property. In the last three years the damage to his property from this loss of windbreak has been $5,000-$20,000. Mr. Smith believes that the expansion that was built on the north side is one of the "ugliest" structures he has ever seen. It was "shoe-horned" in. As a result, his neighbor lost his view and now looks at bricks instead of sunsets, etc. He is opposed to any further "commercial use" of the church or other uses. The attendees park illegally during the services, they throw litter out, drive too fast and in general are "poor neighbors." Jeff Metzger echoed Mr. Smith's comments. Bob Tumalka of 2964 Pelican Point Court is the treasurer of St. John's. He stated the church did not profit (make money) from the daycare, head start, or senior center. He stated that they charged only enough to cover the additional utility and maintenance costs of these programs. The Church council did try to have the parking changed to the other side of the street, but there were regulations against that. He doesn't see how the additional activities impact the parking as greatly as has been indicated. Mayor Pat Meisel of 5501 Bartlett Boulevard stated for the information of both the Planning Commission and for the audience that the location of the seniors to St. John's is a temporary placement. They will be relocated when a new facility is constructed. She is on a committee with others looking into the best location for this. Pastor Eric Gustavson of 1700 Baywood Courts Drive, pastor of this congregation, addressed many of the comments. They have made attempts to keep people in the parking lots on Sunday, off the street. They have also attempted to change the location of street parking in the past but been stopped by ordinances. Parishioners have received parking tickets. 4 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 The church council has also been concerned about the driving down Fairview Lane. He believes that it is an issue separate from the church activities. He believes people use the street as a short cut. The daycare has been in operation for over twenty five years or so. It is not a new entity and all the church recaptures from this operation is maintenance and utility costs. The daycare is a separate entity from the church. He has concerns regarding the holding pond also, since he believes neighbors dump there also. On the Memorial Garden issue, it will be located up the hill by the church, not down by the holding pond. The regulations they have put together are modeled after St. Martin's church and are in compliance with all state statutes. The public hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. by Chair Michael. Mueller asked Pastor Gustavson what the capacity of the Memorial Garden would be. The Pastor indicated that with 12" X 12" plots, approximately 200 if it was located where proposed. In response to the question of how deep the urns would be buried, he responded that was governed by their regulations, but he believed it was 24 inches deep. There will not be "co-mingling" of ashes. Mueller's last question was regarding how records would be kept. Voss asked why staff combined both issues under one umbrella. He doesn't believe the Memorial Gardens should be grouped with the other. Mueller also sees the Senior Center and the Memorial Garden as two different issues. He wanted to know who was responsible for putting a sign up for the senior center also. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Senior Citizen's center and the Head Start program and daycare. This issue is separate from the Memorial Gardens and the Conditional Use Permit would be reviewed in one year with the neighbors being notified of the review. Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane, indicated that she had transferred the sign for the Senior Citizen's Center from the old site at the Community Center. She put it where she did to indicate where the parking was. She took responsibility for not looking into the need for a permit for this location. The sign did have a permit for the old location. 5 Mound PLanning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 Mueller expressed that he was uncomfortable with considering both issues under one permit. This is because he finds it difficult to "rule" on the Memorial gardens without more information. He feels that information is needed in order to make a fair judgment regarding them. He has driven by the church and the holding ponds since they were built and feels that they are working well in maintaining water levels. Burma had a different opinion regarding the Memorial Gardens. He feels that a church is a good location for such. He does not see the need to review the regulations and guidelines needed to govern this since it is outside the scope of the city's jurisdiction. Brown agrees with this concept also as long as the plots are recorded. When the church built it's expansion, Mueller stated, there was a concern over the traffic then. He suggested lowering the speed on Fairview and raising the speed on Hidden Vale. He believes this will help some of the traffic issues. Pastor Gustavson asked if there were signs that could be posted indicating that "children were at play." Both Voss and Brown were concerned that no one has taken this issue to the police department. Clapsaddle suggested that the City Council should address these concerns and asked Brown to forward. Hasse called for the question. The vote was 8-0. MOTION carried. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse, to table the Memorial Garden issue until further information can be provided the Commission. Voting Aye: Clapsaddle, Voss, Hasse, Michael and Mueller. Opposed Glister, Burma and Brown. Motion carried. Mueller and Clapsaddle asked that the section covering the statutes regarding this topic could be sent to the commissioners in whole, not an interpretation. Brown asked if a permit was necessary for the Memorial Gardens. Gordon indicated that it was covered by two levels of regulations. One under the Conditional Use Permit, as an acceptable use by the church; and two, the loose term cemetery and the requirement under the Shoreland Ordinances for a fifty foot setback. Additionally, State Statute Section 307 may also apply as well as sections. The Church would have the responsibility to meet all applicable Statue requirements. 6 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 Mayor Meisel feels that other cities ordinances or other governing ordinances of "cremains" should be reviewed also. This issue will be covered at the next Planning Commission meeting on June 28, 1999. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REVISION SECTION 350:420: REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVlDION 9 AND 10 PERTAINING TO. NON- CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACE BY NEW LANGUAGE. Gordon introduced the new language recommended by City Council in response the last meeting's discussion on streamlining. Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of Ordinance is amended by repealing existing Subd. 9 and Subd. 10, and adding the following: 350:420 Subd. 9. Nonconforming principal and accessory structures may be expanded, enlarged, or modified, provided that the use of the parcel is conforming to district regulations, and provided that the expansion, enlargement, or modification meets the current zoning regulations and no other nonconformities are created. In the event that a nonconforming structure is removed, razed or demolished, all newly proposed construction must meet current zoning regulations. Mueller is concerned that no matter where a new structure is located, as long as it is conforming, this new language allows it to be placed. He also is concerned that a review of other nonconformities existing structures is bypassed. He believes the language to be too open. Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Meisel asked the commission to consider these as some ordinances that need rewriting and that are cumbersome. That is why City Council recommended the above. She believes that staff should be allowed to do the job they have been hired to do. Sutherland stated that the language and motion was based on historical data on how the City Council and Planning Commission have acted and voted in the past. This would allow a small number of cases to be sped up in the system. He recognizes that the Planning Commission will lose some control. Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. 7 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 Burma indicated that not listed in the statistics on page 49, are actions that the Planning Commission took to resolve other issues and the application approved. Mueller also addressed this issue. Clapsaddle stated that he would agree with the Mayor that many codes need review and rewriting. However, saying that, he also feels that it is difficult for staff and administration to administer a code that is weak. He believes the code needs to be strong first. Additional discussion took place between the commissioners and staff regarding what is reviewed and what is not. Mueller stated that if the Planning Commission is doing so well, then let the cases pass through them prior to Council appearance. That way, items can be taken care of with regard to the Comprehensive Plan process and intent also. Michael stated that all had made good points, however, if the City Council wanted to save time, they should give "Board of Appeals" authority to the Planning Commission MOTION by Brown, seconded by Michael (for discussion), to recommend the Council's streamlining language. Voting Aye: Brown and Voss. Opposed Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael, Mueller, Glister, Brown. Motion did not carry. MOTION by Michael, seconded by Mueller to deny the Council's streamlining language. Voting Aye: Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael, Mueller, Glister, Brown. Voting nay: Brown and Voss. Motion carried. Mueller asked for a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission on this topic. 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, REPLATE OF HARRISON SHORES, KIRK GEADELMANN, 61968. PID # 13-117-24 21 0086 Staff has been working with applicant to get accurate information reflected on the survey for this variance request. The applicant has requested variances to build a conforming lakeside deck. The variances needed are 8.4 foot front yard; 3,680 foot of lot area, 3 foot lakeside accessory variance and 2.4 foot for lowest floor elevation. 8 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 The proposal is to build a deck which would wrap around the north side of the house. The existing house is a one story rambler with a walkout basement which is below the Regulatory Flood Plain Elevation of 933.5 feet. The hardcover as indicated on the survey dated May 17, 1999 is 51%. The owner will remove rock landscaping around the house which will bring the total hardcover down to about 37% of the lot area and in compliance. Improvements to the deck are valued at less than 50% of the home's value. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the variance request with the following conditions: 1. The shed meets the 50 feet lakeside accessory structure setback. 2. The property meets the 40% hardcover requirement for lots of record in the Shoreland Management Zone. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend staff recommendation. Mueller is concerned over the total lot area square footage. He is cognizant of the fact that they can allow continuance of existing structure within the floodplain. However, he believes a precedent will be set allowing expansion of structure within the floodplain area if this is approved..He is opposed to building in the floodplain and several recent cases the Planning Commission has ruled on have resulted in a negative vote for the applicants. This needs to be considered for the future. Gordon stated that the code does allow to add to the structure if the value doesn't exceed the fifty percent value of the home. Chair Michael wanted to know what the hardship was the precluded a variance. Gordon stated that the existing home has existed since around 1965, prior to the ordinances. Since it has been occupied all that time, it is grand-fathered. Gordon stated that he does not see this as precedence setting. Each situation that comes to staff and the Planning Commission comes with its own set of variables to consider. Mueller stated that in past cases, they have required the applicants to raise the elevation of the floor to meet floodplain guidelines. Gordon indicated that was in cases where the addition was greater in value than fifty percent value of the home or due to other criteria. 9 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 The applicant pointed out that the neighbors recently constructed a deck similar to what they are proposing without raising the floor elevation. Sutherland stated that this may be the first case where the value of the addition did not exceed the fifty percent mark that the Planning Commission has reviewed. Additional discussion was held about how a deck would impact the floodplain since only the posts were in the ground. However, stated some commissioners, a deck soon can become a three seasoned porch, a four seasoned porch and then living quarters. After further discussion, Brown called for a vote on the motion. Voting Aye: Brown, Glister and Voss. Voting Nay: Clapsaddle, Michael, Hasse, Mueller and Burma. Motion failed. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss (for discussion only), to recommend staff recommendation and limiting the addition to a deck only (for future). Mueller still feels that by allowing this, even a deck, a precedence is being set to allow expansion and building into a floodplain area. He feels past decisions will come back to haunt the commission. For example, he stated the recent case on Driftwood. One of the goals of the Planning Commission is to bring outdated buildings into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He sees this as working against that goal. Neither the applicant nor Brown see this as building into the floodplain. The applicant feels it will enhance his home and Brown sees this as placing posts into the floodplain only with the water being allowed to come in and flow out. Michael Stated that his concern was the one the neighbor was allowed to be built previously. If they were in the floodplain, why were they allowed to build without bringing the floor level into compliance. Sutherland stated that staff is consistent in their handling of cases and stick to the fifty percent value regulation in floodplain settings. Clapsaddle called the vote. Voting aye: Clapsaddle, Voss, Hasse, Michael, Glister, and Brown. Voting nay: Mueller and Burma. Motion carried. CASE # 99-20: VARIANCE; LAKESDE; SIDE YARD, AND HARDCOVER SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH AND A 2ND STORY OVER THE PROPOSED SCREEN PORCH AT 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE; BLOCK 1, LOTS 13 AND 14, SHADYWOOD POINT; STEVE HICKS, 61980. PID # 18-117-23 31 0006 10 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 Gordon presented this case for the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting variances to add a nonconforming first level porch and second story addition above the porch and existing living area. The associated variances include lakeside (west); 4 feet, lakeside (east) 17 feet; sideyard, 0.8 feet; and floodplain grading standards of 932 feet around the structure. The first floor addition would replace the current deck location. The shortest lakeside set back is 42 feet and is an existing condition. All side yard hardcover including the concrete pads and shed are planned to be removed with this project which would bring the hardcover under the requirements for this lot. Most of the proposed addition will be built within floodplain fringe area. The foundation would need to meet the flood plain standards on both the existing (which does meet the guidelines) and the proposed addition. Grading elevation guidelines would apply to the addition requiring an elevation of 932 feet within fifteen feet out from the foundation. In order the avoid MCWD fill and compensation rules, no changes to the grading are proposed. The lot is irregular in shape and the peninsula does limit the placement of the structures on the lot. The owner indicates that the improvements carry with the character of the house and therefore, the other conforming locations are not practical given the form of the house and the retention of a large tree that otherwise would be lost. Staff feels that a variance from the floodplain grading standards would be appropriate in this case;' These standards are intended to ensure there is adequate dry land surrounding the structure for evacuation purposes during extreme flooding. The driveway would serve as a good staging area if this occurred, Staff recommends Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council approving the variances as requested. Mueller asked where the covered porch would be in relationship to the lake. Michael asked if this lot was being overbuilt. Gordon answered that with the setbacks alone, perhaps, but with the hardcover requirements, no. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend Staff's recommendation. Voting Aye: Glister, Clapsaddle, Voss, Hasse and Burma. Voting Nay: Michael, Mueller, and Brown. Motion carries. This will come before the City Council on June 22, 1999. 11 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 Brown feels the lot is being overbuilt and thus voted in the negative. The applicant presented photos on how he is trying to build around an older large tree and submitted them for the record. CASE # 99-23: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFROMING LAKESIDE DECK AND SIDE YARD DECK AT 1969 LAKESIDE LANE; BLOCK 11, LOT 3, SHADYWOOD POINT; THOMAS RAYMOND, 62030 PID # 18-117-23 23 0049. Gordon presented this case. The applicant has requested variances to add two conforming deck additions. Those variances are: side yard (house), 1.5 feet; side yard (detached garage) 1.7 feet; lakeside boathouse, 30 feet. The proposed decks lakeside and streetside are both conforming to setback requirements. Hardcover remains unchanged at below the 40% requirement. The existing lakeside boathouse has existed on the property for a number of years and was recognized in previous resolutions. It is anchored to footings which meet floodproofing requirements for accessory structures with floor elevations less than 933.5 feet. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variances requested. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Mueller to recommend Staff's recommendation. Motion carries 8-0. Chair Michael indicated to the applicant that this will come before the City Council on June 22, 1999. CASE # 99-24: VARIANCE; SIDE YARD SETBACK AND HARDCOVER TO CONSTRUCT A 2"D STORY ADDITION OVER EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 2040 ARBOR LANE; LOT 9, SUBDIVISION SKARP LINDQUIST RAVEN, LOT 1 AND 32; GENE AND GRETCHEN ABEGGLEN, 62150 PID # 13-117-24 41 0038 Gordon presented this case. The applicant is requesting variances to add a nonconforming second story addition. The associated variances are: side yard setback of 1.9 feet and a hardcover variance of 905 square feet. The proposal is to add a full second story to this 1-1/2 story house to include space for four bedrooms and a bath. The existing footprint would be maintained. Most of the homes on Edgewater Drive are one and one half story or single story. Two story homes are becoming more prevalent on Arbor Lane. The lot is small and has typical properties of this neighborhood. The north side yard has a 4.1 foot setback which increases to 6 feet. The south side yard setback is currently 10.4 feet and would decrease to about 7 fee with the new structure. 12 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 Hardcover would remain at 51.5% and there is little opportunity to remove additional surface on the property. The proposal presents the only feasible way to add living space to the home without further impacting hard cover. Most of the second story addition will be conforming except for one bedroom which would maintain the existing 4.1 foot setback. There is a "practical difficulty" according to staff to increase living space with any other options. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends Council approval of these variances as requested. Mueller clarified that there were no additions to the existing variances. Gordon stated that was true. MOTION by Mueller, 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 June 22, 1999. CASE # 99-08: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A 2ND STORY HABITABLE SPACE AT 6049 RIDGEWOOD ROAD; BLOCK 6, LOTS 22 AND 23, THE HIGHLAND, JOHN TIMBERG, 61610 PID # 23-117-24 34 0003 Gordon presented this case. The applicant is requesting variances to add a nonconforming attached garage and second story addition and a conforming family room addition.. The associated variances are as follows: front yard, 22.5 feet; side yard, 1.0 feet; shed (SY) 2.3 feet; detached garage (FY 13.2 feet. (note: some of these measurements have changed from the planning report dated June 14, 1999.) The proposal consists of two additions, the first is to push the existing attached garage out fourteen feet and add a full second story above it. The garage would remain a front entry but have a reduced setback of 10.2 feet. The second story would serve as a bedroom. Side yard on the east side would be reduced from over 11 feet to 5.5 feet. The second addition is located in the west side yard and is conforming. Although the survey does not show the 931 foot elevation mark, staff has not asked for a revision because of the expanse of the property. The house is not in the floopfringe and is elevated above the 933.5 foot mark. 13 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 The applicant has worked on a couple of option s with staff for the attached garage. This location is the least nonconforming of the revisions. Staff has indicated that there is no hardship for this addition. This setback would also not allow a car to park in the driveway without extending into the right-of-way. The side yard addition is acceptable to staff and conforming. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval to the side yard addition and deny the front yard addition. The following conditions apply to the side yard approval: 1. Grading and drainage plans must be provided and approved by the City Engineer, 2. The lowest floor elevation must be provided upon completion. Mueller asked if the current 11.3 setback to the east was within code. Sutherland stated that a couple of different options have been discussed including putting the garage entry off to the side. Mueller indicated that he walks his dog along this road every night. He believes it is a tight area and this is located on a curve and by placing a second story out the front would be in the line of sight and produce safety issues. The side entrance to the garage would be much better in his opinion. He also believes that this should be one story. While he understands what Mueller is saying, the applicant does not feel that this would present a line of sight issue since this is one the side of the road going up the hill, not down. Mueller asked about putting the second story over the house rather than the garage. The applicant stated this would create other problems. He is trying to correct an existing situation for the heat and oil system. The applicant feels that he is back far enough from the curb. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller to extend the Planning Commission to 11:15 p.m. Motion carried:7-0 (opposed: Voss). Gordon indicated that he sees other options for living space on this lot and has encouraged the applicant to explore other locations so that setbacks can be met. A significant amount of additional discussion took place over line of sight on Ridgewood Road and where the garage should enter and the second story addition above the 14 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 garage. If off to the side, the view would be destroyed. Clapsaddle asked if this was the hardship. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to recommend to the City Council the side yard addition variances required and not the front yard with the garage having a side entrance and only one story high. He also motioned that the contour of the lot and configuration be such that it has the least impact on the line of sight from the road. Again, the applicant pointed out that he did not believe there was a line of sight issue. Mueller indicated that part of his reasoning was the precedence that would be set. Voss stated that he would be voting against this even though he seconded the motion since he feels if they allow one story, why not allow two. Brown called the question. Voting aye: Mueller, Glister, Michael. Voting Nay: Voss, Hasse, Brown, Burma and Clapsaddle. Motion failed. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend staff recommendation with conditions listed. Prior to vote, Mueller cautioned the commissioners to consider long and hard, the precedent of two story homes. He believes they are setting a precedent to "canyonize" Ridgewood Road. Voting aye: Clapsaddle, Voss, Hasse, Brown and Burma. Voting Nay: Michael, Mueller, Glister. Motion carried. Discussion of Section 320:00 was tabled until the next meeting. After this there was a major discussion amongst the staff and commissioners over past cases. In light of some of the decisions, Michael feels the ordinances should be looked at and reviewed. INFORMATION Included in the packets are the following informational items: 15 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 · Minutes from the April 27, 1999 City Council Meeting · Minutes from the May 11, 1999 City Council Meeting · Minutes from the May 25, 1999 City Council Meeting Monthly Report from May ADJOURNMENT: MOTION made by Brown, seconded Clapsaddle to adjourn this meeting at 11:25 p.m. Motion carried 8-0. 16 CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 CIGARETTE LICENSE APPLICATION (Print or type only) <~PAID dU~l 2 2 1999 C.4:._ t~ / oos'-'" CtT¥ O~z MOUND Mound Business: Mound Address: ~.~O Applicant Name: ~ I ~ ~ xl Applicant Date of Birth: Driver's Lic. #: Home Address: ~ffCf~,, Name: Company Address: Company Officials: Bus. Phone: Home Phone: social Se . #: 6/7 City: /l~u'm~ Zip: Co. Phone: City: Zip: (First) (Middle) (Last) (Date of Birth) 2. (First) (Middle) (Last) (Date of Birth) (First) (Middle) (Last) (Date of Birth) Type of Business: '~Ck~¥ ~' 3CO-l.-iC(&- Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design June 14, 1999 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. lt-4H City of Mound Pat Misel, Mayor 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Downtown Zoning Dear Mayor Misel: The Mound Visions Program is rapidly progressing with the dredge completed and Auditor's Road under constructior~ The City is also in negotiations with a developer for the Langdon Distri~ and ground breaking could occur this fall. With all of this excitement, there is still a major housekeeping item left to address in order to prepare for downtown development. This entails rezoning the downtown area to fit with the principles for each of the downtown districts. This program will require modification of Mound's Zoning Code to reflect the uses and development standards envisioned for downtow~ Because it will requke review and public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council, time is of the essence to get a new code on the books in advance of development proposals. Pursuant to our conversation, we have put a tentative work program together to accomplish this project that represents an accelerated schedule for adoption: Task 1 - Code Drafting: Task 2 - PC and CC review: Task 3 - Public Hearings: In-house preparation of draft zoning provisions during June- July Planning Commission review at July 12' and 26~ meetillg$ City Council review at August 34 COW meeting Planning Commission holds Public Hearing at August 23~a meeting City Council holds Public Hearing at September 14t~ meeting We would anticipate a cost of $4,000 to complete this project and could begin as soon as notified. If you have any questions please contact Loren Gordon, Brace Chamberlain, or me at your convenience. We look forward to completing this important project for the community. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 p. 2 June 14, 1999 Mayor Pat Misel Sincerely, Mark Koelger City Planner Cc: Fran Clark, Acting City Manager Jon Sutherland, Building Official 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 Fo Fran Clark From: hebea@sorbocon nection.com To: fleisinger@msn.com Subject: Herculean Message for Mayor Meisel! Date: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 11:37 PM Greetings Mayor Meisel, Kevin Sorbo(Hercules) and his wife Sam will be moving back to the USA sometime in July. Their fans on the Net are having a little on-line(URL below) homecoming celebration for them and we were hoping to get messages from as many people or places as possible to give them a big...welcome home! http://www.sorboconnection.com/Homecoming.html As you know Kevin grew up in Mound so we were hoping to add the "hometown" touch to the celebration by having a message from you on the special guests page that will be added to our site. The page isn't 'open to the public' yet as we only have one message so far but if you'd like to see it...it's here: http://sorbocon nection .com/SpecialGuests.html Any message you or anyone in Mound would care to send for this will be greatly appreciated! Thank you for your time and consideration, Hebea & Andulasia <hebea@sorboconnection.com> <Andulasia@sorboconnection.com> Page I -MEMO- 6-21-99 TO: FROM: Mayor & Mound City Council SRA Boardmembcr Mound Councilmember Mark Hanus Update on recent activity at the SRA. in the event that you are not aware, l am the city's delegate to serve on the Board of Directors of the SRA with the city manager serving as the alternate, la addition, I serve on the SRA Executive Committee, which makes decisions on behalf of the board on issues that need attention between the quarterly board meetings. I will be asked in the next week or two to determine the SRA position on two issues listed below. These could directly affect the city and its residents. I am bringing these issues forward to see if there is any input you would like to offer or if you have questions. ISSUE #1 The city of Oakdale has recently won a long and painful lawsuit validating its authority to require NSP to underground its lines. This was a test case that has established a standard for ali cities. NSP is now making a proposal to the PUC to approve the method that it uses to recover those costs. The SRA is attempting to determine its position relative to the rate design. The most likely choices are to charge the ratepayer in the city, county, or perhaps a split of the two. The basic argument for the county or split version is that malay of these underground areas are along major trunks or roads that serve more than just city residents. The basic argument for the city ratepayer version is that the cit~ that has control and authority over where the undergrounding will take place. It would be wrong to charge non-city residents the undergrounding costs when they had no voice in the decision. I expect the developed cities to opt to charge the city ratepayers and the developing cities to prefer spreading the cost around. This will be an internal debate within the SRA to see which prevails. The SRA will then have input at the PUC hearings. Therefore, the SRA will be the only voice that cities have in this determination. Once the PUC rules, all subsequent electric utilities will have the same rights in their tariffs. 949-90?2 UERSATIL 518 P03/03 JUN 21 '~ 16:56 ISSUE//2 Electric deregulation is getting very close. Once deregulated, the homeowner or business owner has no bargaining chips or negotiating clout to keep the rat~s reasonable. I don't know if we will end up with the same thing as the breakup of Ma Bell with all the little monopolies or a true competitive atmosphere. It would appear that there would b~ a large benefit to the ratepayer to form a collaborative to negotiate rates on behalf of its members. Cities too, could bargain on behalf of its residents. The SPA is considering acting as a very large collaborative of its member cities if the members have an interest in this. The larger the group, the stronger the bargaining and negotiating position would be. The SRA is made up of approximately 3:5 suburban cities around the Twin Cities area. This would establish a voice for a very laxge group ofratepayers with significant bargaining power on behalf of Mound citizens. This is one of the primary reasons that Mound joined the SRA two to three years ago. cONCLUSION Obviously the debate is more complex than I have made it here. But I have tried to boil it down to its simplest form. I will be asked, probably within a week or so, to give some opinions as to how the SRA should proceed wifl~ these issues and what its positions will be. Ir'you have any thoughts that you would like considered, please [et me know as soon as possible. Mark Hanus Suburban Rate Authority Boardmember Mound City Councilmember H-472-54g0 W-906-3707 9~9-9072 UERSgTIL ' ~' Ve~sa.til '~ ASSOCIATES. INC. 510 POl/O~ JUN 21 '99 16:56 NOTE: if you do not receive all of the pages in this transmission, please call (612) 949-2400. CITY/STATE: FROM: TIME SENT/SENT BY: # OF PAGES (INCL. COVER) MESSAGE/SUBJECT: