2000-04-25 PLF.,dSE TI]R3I OFF ALL PA~_.I~ A31D ~ PHON-F_.~ 1~ COONCR, CHAMBF. R,S
:.. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ::..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~~: ~~ ~ :: ~ ~ ~::~::~::~::::::::~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::~::::::::~::::~~~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~::~:,
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2000, 7:30 PM
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. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2000,
REGULAR MEETING ........................... 1480-1498
*B.
CASE # 99-36: VARIANCE; JOHN HUBLER, 5816 GRANDVIEW
BLVD, LOT 1, MOUND SHORES; IN ORDER TO INSTALL
A THREE SEASON PORCH ON AN EXISTING DECK;
PID# 14-117-24 13 0003 ......................... 1499-1544
*C.
CASE # 00-10: VARIANCE; DAVE WILLETI'E, 5841 GRANDVIEW
BLVD, LOT 14 INCLUDING 1/2 ADJACENT VACATED ALLEY,
MOUND ADDITION; IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATrACHED GARAGE ON AN
UNDERSIZED R-2 ZONE LOT; PID# 14-117-24 13 0001 .... 1545-1561
*D.
CASE # 00-11: VARIANCE; DON BONNICKSEN, 2156
CENTERVIEW LANE, LOT 8 & 31, BLK 7, ABRAHAM
LINCOLN ADDITION TO MOUND; IN ORDER TO FINISH
A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WITH A NONCONFORMING
FRONT YARD SETBACK; PID# 13-117-24 31 0052 ........ 1562-1587
*E. APPROVAL OF MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES .......... 1588-1589
*F. PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... 1590-1607
1478
PLEASE 27JRN OFF ALL P~4GF. J~ HND CELL PHONES lbl COUNC/L CHAMBERS
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA. (PLI~AS]~ LIMIT TO 3 MINUTFS PIeR TOPIC.)
4. REQUEST FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RECONSIDER
THE TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THEIR DETACHED
GARAGE TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN .................... 1608-1641
5. OPEN SPACE PETITION UPDATE ...................... 1642-1643
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION - POSSIBLE LITIGATION
7. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SALARIES ................. 1644-1655
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Financial Report for March 2000 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance
Director ........................................ 1656-1657
B. Cash & Investment Balances by Fund as of March 31, 2000 ............ 1658
C. L.M.C.D. mailings ................................. 1659-1671
D. Copy of the Mound Newsletter which will be completed and out to the
public soon ...................................... 1672-1675
E. P.O.S.C. Minutes from April 13, 2000 ..................... 1676-1682
1479
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 11, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 8:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark
Hanus and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City
Manager Fran Clark, City Planner Loren Gordon, Park Commissioner Jim Fackler, and
Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present: Jim Albrecht,
Klm Anderson, John & Kristin Beise, Orv Burma, Jane & Martin Carlsen, Ken & Sally
Custer, Bruce & Patti Dodds, Michael Durrell, Wayne Ehlebracht, Lorrie Ham, Kandis
Hanson, Bob Johnson, Vern Hanson, Irene & Pat Harrington, Colleen Hendricks, Ann
Hiltsley, Jo Longpre, Peter Meyer, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Larry Olson, Todd Rask, Linda
Skorseth, Marlene &Stan Strailey, Dean Sulander, Craig & Elsa Watson, Betty & Frank
Weiland, Tim Williams.
*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.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 8:00 P.M. and apologized for the HRA meeting having
run over its normal time period. Mayor Meisel also made apologizes in advance for her
recent surgeries which will cause possible more intermissions because of strains being put on
her in her neck and back area. Mayor Meisel welcomed the people in attendance. The
pledge of allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Acting City Manager stated Nancy Starr, the applicant has asked that Item 6 not be
discussed until the April 25, 2000, City Council meeting. The Acting City Manager further
requested that the Executive Session be moved to right after the Consent Agenda. Legal
counsel suggested the Executive Session could be completed within approximately 15
minutes.
Mayor Meisel stated she would like to add Item 7 to discuss some information items which
include brush and leave pickup, coffee for businesses, and Mound City Days.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she would like to pull Item B for brief comments.
iqt]o
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11. 2000
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hant~, to approve the agenda and consent
agenda with the removal of Items B and 6 and the additions of Executive Session
and Item 7. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 28. 2000.
MOTION.
Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.1
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW
TRIMMING. BRUSH AND SUMAC REMOVAL ON DEVON COMMONS
ADJACENT TO 4625 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. LOT 10. BLOCK 1. DEVON -
DOCK SITE//41319.
RESOLUTION//00-39:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC
LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR
TRIMMING AND BRUSH AND SUMAC
REMOVAL ON DEVON COMMONS
ADJACENT TO 4625 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOT 10, BLOCK 1, DEVON, DOCK SITE
//41319.
Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.2
APPROVE REOUEST FOR STREET LIGHT ON LYNWOOD BOULEVARD.
(This request from Metro Transit has been reviewed by the Police Department
and they have recommended approval. There are no residences in the area that
will be affected.}
RKSOLUTION//00-40
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
INSTALLATION OF A STREET LIGHT ON
LYNWOOD BLVD. AS REQUESTED
Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.3
APPROVE BID OPENING DATE FOR 2000 SEAL COAST PROJECT.
(SUGGESTED DATE: May 3. 2000.}
MOTION.
Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
2
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11. 2000
'1.4 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION.
Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
1.5
APPROVE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC GATHERING PERMITS FOR BASS
TOURNAMENT WEIGH-IN'S ONLY AT MOUND BAY PARK BOAT
ACCESS.
A®
June 2, 2000 - Denny's Super 30.
June 3, 2000 - MTKA Bass Classic.
July 7 and 8, 2000 - MN PRO-AM Bass Tournament.
Councilmember Ahrens asked about park fees. Acting City Manager stated one organization
has donated $200 and another has donated $50. Councilmember Ahrens wanted it noted that
a good portion of the day is given to these organizations and a fee should be received by the
City for this service. Acting City Manager stated she would be gently suggest a donation in
the future.
Councilmember Brown stated Mound VFW and Langdon Bay Trading Post are concerned
about trailers being parked in front of it business during these events. They would
encourage the City to put up signs that designate no trailer parking for a certain distance
outside their business.
Mayor Meisel suggested this matter should be covered at the May, 2000, COW meeting, as
well as discussed with the Chief of Police. It was noted that because of the short time
allowed before the above-listed organizations would be using the park, the City Council
needed to approve the above permits without charging a fee. It was discussed that in the
upcoming years, the City would consider charging a fee to these organizations.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the public permits
recommended by staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
0.
0.6 EXECUTIVE SESSION (WOODLAND POINT}.
The City Attorney explained the City Council would meet in closed executive session to
discuss the Woodland Point settlement. Councilmember Weycker did not attend this session.
The meeting recessed at 8:10 p.m.
The City Council Meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
3
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11. 2000
The City Attorney stated direction was given to counsel regarding settlement negotiations in
the Woodland Point case.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT SUBJECTS
NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUIklECT.)
Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road. Mr. Skorseth stated she presented to the Acting City
Manager with 59 more signatures late Monday for the petition to be validated. She is
confident the election would be able to be held at this point. She is hopeful at the next City
Council meeting a date for the special election could be suggested.
Ann Hiltsley, 3105 Island View Drive. Ms. Hiltsley wanted to make sure the audio and
video equipment was working tonight. Mayor Meisel assured her it was working.
Ken Custer, 5310 Bartlett/5533 Shoreline. Mr. Custer asked if it would be possible to have
an appropriate staff member speak to the business owners prior to signing the redevelopment
agreement.
Mayor Meisel suggested having either Jim Prosser or Bruce Chamberlain discuss with the
businesses what is being proposed and find out what the owners are suggesting possibly prior
to the signing of the development agreement.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer has noticed a lot of information coming in the
direction of the public about TIF. He is concerned that cities in general are relying too
much on TIF, thus putting an undue burden on the citizens. He is very concerned about
Mound and how this will affect the town.
1.7
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
The City Planner presented the Comprehensive Plan materials. He stated there is a proposed
resolution included in the packet for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan if the City Council
approves it tonight.
The City Planner stated some major issues have been discussed since the Planning
Commission held its public hearing in November, 1999. He stated these issues are difficult
ones at this point in time for the public. He stated he has provided the City Council with
the information to help sort through these issues. The City Planner stated the
Comprehensive Plan has had input from commissions, staff and the public.
The City Planner stated there are two issues of discussion: (1) the pending sale of the old
high school site and ballfields by the school district and what the future holds for that
scenario; and (2) the relationship of that specific park location that has been present for nine
years.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000
Councilmember Hanus stated it is his understanding all drafts have been incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan and the current draft is dated April 11~ 2000. Hc asked about a map on
page 38 that states the land use plan. He is concerned there is a notation of bailfied property
shown as medium density asked and in other areas it is noted as schools and other facilities.
The City Planner stated the Planning Commission has shown this as medium density and the
Park Commission has noted this as ballfields. The City Planner is concerned about taldng
this out of the parks map because of the current timing issues at hand regarding this piece of
property. He further suggested leaving this green space as parks until the City knows
exactly what will happen to the ballfields, and then amend the Haddoff field location if there
is a change. The City Planner explained the map is more of a vision.
Councilmember Hanus is struggling with what he would like to see happen with this property
versus what probably will become of it. He further stated he is real uncomfortable with
leaving this property as residential medium density.
Mayor Meisel stated if we leave it as medium denSity, we could still address these concerns
when the plans start progressing regarding the redevelopment of Mound. The City Planner
stated if it is to be medium density the parks plan will play into that parcel and through land
dedication. He stated this site could always remain part of the parks system. He further
stated it could balance this if the site is not kept as it is today.
Councilmember Hanus stated approving this notion does not approve the development, but it
helps support the medium density in that location.
Councilmember Brown stated if we leave it as parks and it does get sold for development, he
now feels we can still negotiate what the land use will be. He stated if it is designated as
medium density from the beginning, he strongly believes the room for negotiation has
decreased.
Mayor Meisel would like to see it kept at medium density with the idea ordinances would
play a part in this process at negotiation time. She stated she went and checked out a
development in Buffalo with medium density and it was done very tastefully. She assured all
members this is being done in small and large towns. She stated knowing that housing is
being proposed, the plan and the vision should be put together as one.
Councilmember Ahrens agreed with Meisel. She has confidence in what the developer is
capable of and appreciates the work he has already performed.
Councilmember Brown stated, hypothetically, with what is being proposed a lot could consist
of at the heavy density to be about 2,500 square feet, and at the light density, it would be
about 4,000 square feet. Councilmember Brown and Councilmember Hanus believe this
would be too dense.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000
The City Hanner explained that medium density would be consistent with the downtown
plan. He further stated a house that would be suitable in this area would be a townhome or
lighter unit apartments.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the Councilmembers, including himself, are to be guided by
our own thoughts or the developer's advice. The City Planner stated Commerce and
Shoreline would be medium density which would show consistency and a good plan for the
City of Mound to include this portion as medium as well.
Councilmember Brown assured the Councilmembers that his conversations with the developer
have made him believe the developer is willing to work with the City of Mound and would
like to work with the people to create an exciting new downtown redevelopment.
Councilmember Weycker stated that Linda Skorseth just reported that they appear to have
enough signatures for special election, so she didn't feel the Council should designate this
property medium density or something else until this election has occurred.
Mayor Meisel stated she would agreed with Councilmember Weycker if this was being
looked at three years ago. Although, knowing there are plans out there, she strongly
recommends the vision in the Comprehensive Plan to go along with the plans presented.
Councilmember Hanus stated he is struggling with the density part of this property. He
suggested that the City Council vote on this issue separately to determine where and how to
continue with the Comp Plan. The City Council should vote on the Comprehensive Plan as a
whole and then vote on amendments to the plan, such as the green space, separately.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would like this green space to be designated as public
institutional as presented in the 1988 Comprehensive Plan. He stated if this is changed to
what the developer wants, this would only allow the developer more ammunition to say to
the City of Mound that they cannot deny his project. Councilmember Ahrens stated that the
same argument would hold if the green space would be designated as park.
The City Planner assured the Councilmembers that the developer wants to work out the
issues of what the property is zoned with the City. Although, he did suggest the property
could be indicated as low rather than medium density.
Councilmember Brown suggested Haddorf Field could be noted as the auto destination
district. With this designation, it could be used as park or residential, wherever autos are
being used. The City Planner stated the auto destination district is technically more dense
than the medium residential being proposed.
Councilmember Hanus asked how the Planning Commission swung in the direction they did?
The City Planner stated there were a number of things that were occurring on the comer of
that property, and since a number of meetings happened and if we lost control of the fields,
6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 1 I. 2000
what would be the best next scenario. He further stated they were trying to keep a denser
population around the core of downtown.
Councilmember Hanus stated from a visual side, he definitely sees this density considered
tOO dense for this area.
Mayor Meisel disagreed with Councilmember Hanus because a developer will work as best
they can with a City if they are willing to make the area really nice which would show a
reflection on the developer as well. Councilmember Brown agreed.
Councilmember Hanus, with a suggestion from the City Attorney, stated having the staff
create a new forth designation and call it "Residential (density to be determined on site
analysis.)" All members of the City Council supported this idea except Councilmember
Weycker. Couneilmember Weycker would like it to stay as park land until the election has
been completed.
Councilmember Weycker stated she totally disagrees with the section where the commons
being represented as park land. She further stated the number includes all commons and all
the commons are not able to be used by the public with some dedicated to specific
neighborhoods. She does not think all the commons should be noted as park land which
causes the charts in the Comprehensive Plan to show more park land than what really exists.
The City Planner stated a specific chart shows about a 5 acre deficiency for a City the size of
Mound according to the national standards. Although, a different table shows there are many
parks in the City of Mound that have many purposes for many different types of people that
indicate there is a good size total of park dedication in the City of Mound. Further work
needs to be done to indicate all the diverse needs of the parks in Mound.
Councilmember Hanus stated even though some park land might not be allowed for all of the
public, it is still being used for some recreational purpose for someone's benefit in the City
of Mound.
Councilmember Weycker stated these parks that are not accessible to the public but are still
considered as park land, should be identified as open space or should be noted appropriately
in the Comprehensive Plan. She further commented the numbers do not accurately represent
21 acres of park space in the City of Mound.
The City Planner stated he is trying to represent all of the diverse park and open space and
really not focus on what the numbers are or would be, but to focus on the needs that are
there that are really not being met and show a more definite example of how these parks
relate to the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Ahrens stated the City of Mound is not trying to hide anything regarding the
park category. She agreed with the City Planner that the land configuration for parks does
7
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11. 2000
serve a recreational need for citizens in the City of Mound, so therefore it could be
categorized as park. She appreciates the two charts that represent the park system.
Councilmember Weycker stated she would not be opposed to calculating the commons into
the graph, but she would like to eliminate the two categories noted as nontraversable and the
privately dedicated areas. The City Planner stated this may be difficult to accomplish
without proper surveys.
Mayor Meisel suggested page 77 indicates specialized areas and indicates exactly what the
commons property states. Mayor Meisel also suggested changing the verbiage to make it
more clear and say there are specialized areas that are strictly for specific "neighborhood
uses." Mayor Meisel further suggested having an approximate number that would be
considered neighborhood parks. The City Planner stated this could be accomplished.
Councilmember Brown stated on page 69 the chart that mentions Lost Lake is a park and
recreation area should be changed to indicate it is a nature conservation area. The City
Planner agreed with Councilmember Brown.
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 9:36 p.m.
Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road. Ms. Skorseth recommended leaving the Haddorf Field as
public use rather than changing it to medium density residential or some other use. She
further stated the election would be happening at some point and why not wait and change
this green space after the election has been decided. She stated if the commons area is
considered park as she knows it, she would be picnicking in resident's back yards in the
future.
Mayor Meisel suggested Ms. Skorseth read the complete verbiage that goes with the chart in
explanation of commons property.
Councilmember Hanus stated the City is merely recognizing the land and identifying what the
land use really is in the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Ahrens stated there are two charts that identify the commons in different
ways and both of these ways surely fits the current use of the commons.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer stated he is concerned about the inventory of
the parks in the City of Mound. He does not want Haddorf Field removed from the park
system. He further stated Mound definitely does not have enough parks for a city of about
10,000 people.
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard. Ms. Anderson stressed the City of Mound is
below the recommended minimal amount of park space available for the public.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000
Dean Sulander, 2524 Emerald Drive. Mr. Sulander asked who owns the I4addorf Field
currently? Mayor Meisel stated that the school district owns the property. Mr. Sulander
asked if this is separate from City owned property and Mayor Meisel stated it was separate.
Greg Watson, 4610 Tuxedo. Mr. Watson questioned the City in changing the rules for what
type of home can be built on the minimal amount of land located in the green space location
when the rules apply on Island View. He stated the City desperately needs park space.
Councilmember Hanus stated there are different zones that require different density that
currently exist and this includes Island View Drive.
Mayor Meisel closed the public heating at 9:59 p.m.
MOTION by Ahrens, second by Brown, to approve the Comprehensive Plan as
recommended by staff.
AME~~ MOTION by Mayor Meisel, seconded by Hanus, to amend the
motion as follows:
Add a new fourth category under the Land Use called "residential (density
to be determined on site analysis)."
2. The Haddorf Field location would be restated as "downtown residential."
Amendment Motion carried. 4-1, Weycker voting nay.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she would have liked a more clear designation, but she
appreciates it being changed rather than having been kept as it was previously noted.
Councilmember Brown stated labeling the Haddorf Field as downtown residential does not
exclude it from being used as parks.
AMENDMENT MOTION by Mayor Meisel, seconded by Ahrens, to amend the
motion as follows:
On Page 77 the verbiage should indicate that some of the commons are
dedicated to specific neighborhoods.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Amendment motion carried. 5-0.
Mayor Meisel called for a vote.
Motion as amended carried. 4-1, Weycker voting nay.
9
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000
1.8
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SURFACE
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Mr. Dan Parks gave the background on the Surface Water Management Plan ("SWMP") and
reported its final presentation is derived from information received from Planning
Commission, the public and staff over the past months. If the plan is approved tonight, it
will proceed to the Minnehaha Watershed District for approVal and at that point, the Plan
would be included as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Weycker wanted to be assured the fee scale on the utilities is appropriate to
mention. Mr. Parks agreed.
Councilmember Weycker stated on page 48, she would like the words "unmaintained"
removed when referring to the buffer zone.
Councilmember Hanus stated if this was adopted the way it currently is presented the green
way downtown would be gone as well as the grant. Councilmember Mayor would like a
better definition of a buffer zone.
Mr. Parks explained the buffer zones requirements in great detail that would include buffers
on platted land. He stated for the SWMP to be approved by the Watershed District, it
would need to include some mention of a buffer zone in the Plan and how it will be
incorporated into the City of Mound. He stated a buffer zone would help restore the
shoreline, reduce migration of geese, and hold back chemicals being sent to the lake at large
levels.
Councilmember Hanus asked what percentage there is that states weeds will provide better
filtering versus mowing the lawn and why would the geese stay away more when they now
would have more protection in these high weeds, and easy access to food by wandering up to
the grass.
Mr. Parks stated there is no scientific study he is aware of that having a buffer zone will be
any better than mowing the grass and, secondly, he stated the geese will go where they want
to go and will go where there is grass, which seems more assessable when it is right down to
the lake.
Councilmember Brown stated he would appreciate the document when it refers to the buffer
zone to have it not say it will be "required", but rather "recommend" or something to that
effect.
Mayor Meisel asked why the City of Mound want an ordinance that the City Council would
not want to enforce.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000
Councilmember Hanus stated he is opposed to buffer zones. I-Ie stated he would suggest
turning the SWlVlP into the Watershed District with no mention of including a buffer zone
and show that the City of Mound is totally against this idea. Mayor Meisel agreed.
Mayor Meisel is very concerned with having a buffer zone in the commons area. She stated
a buffer in the commons would basically mean the commons would be gone at some point.
Mr. Parks wanted to clarify that the Watershed District will not accept the SWMP without a
buffer zone inclusion, although, he would surely present the SWMP without a buffer zone if
that is what the City Council approves, and then we will see what happens. We could
discussing the SWMP again in 90 days.
Councilmember Hanus would like to know what cities have adopted a buffer zone. Mr.
Parks stated Chanhassen, Wayzata, Minnetrista, and Shorewood have presented a buffer zone
in their SWMP.
Councilmember Weycker stated the definition of what a buffer zone is not clear in the
SWMP. The Acting City Manager suggested Teal Point with its surrounding wetlands as an
example of buffer zones that exist in City of Mound.
Councilmember Hanus stated he feels having a buffer zone would depreciate property values
in the City of Mound.
Councilmember Weycker stated if this is mandated by the Watershed District, then why is
the City of Mound rejecting this idea. Councilmember Hanus suggested if the Watershed
District receives a lot of opposition, they may change their requirement rule.
Mayor Meisel excused herself as Mayor and Councilmember Hanus took over as Acting
Mayor at 10:39 p.m.
Mayor Meisel returned and reconvened at 10:55 p.m.
Orr Burma, 3011 Island View Drive. Mr. Burma stated he has three comments. (1) Mr.
Parks eluded to the local control issue of the buffers and if the City leaves the buffer zone
section in the SWMP and it gets approved, the City of Mound could enforce the buffer as
vigorously as Wayzata; (2) the SWMP should include the words "up to 75 percent" for a
buffer zone consideration; and (3) the word "encourage" should be put in rather than
"require" regarding buffers.
Mayor Meisel dosed the public hearing at 10:56 p.m.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to adopt the Surface Water
Management Plan as presented by staff.
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11. 2000
®
AMENDMENT MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weyeker, to amend the
motion with Nos. 1-S listed below:
Indicate on page 48 to say the City will "recommend" natural
unmaintained wetland buffers around lakes, wetlands or water ways ....
Indicate on page 48, the buffers shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and
cover "up to" 75 percent of lot frontage ....
Indicate on page 48, the City will encourage the placement of 20 feet
natural buffer of all city lakes, wetlands, waterbodies and commons.
Councilmember Weycker made a friendly amendment of removing the
word "unmaintained" throughout the buffer requirement section.
Councilmember Brown accepted Councilmember Weycker's friendly
amendment.
Councilmember Weycker made a friendly amendment that the word
"vetative" to be changed to say "vegetated." This is merely a spelling
error. Councilmember Brown accepted the friendly amendment.
Mayor Meisel made a friendly amendment striking the buffer zone
paragraph on page 48 which states: "In addition, the City will encourage
the placement of 20 foot natural buffers around all City lakes, wetlands,
and waterbodles." Councilmember Brown accepted Mayor Meisel's
friendly amendment, although Weycker did not accept this amendment as
the seconder of the motion.
Amendment motion failed 2-3, with Brown & Weycker in favor.
Meisel voting nay.
Ahrens, Hanns and
Amendment motion by Hanns, seconded by Ahrens, to remove all
references to buffer zone requirements which include pages 6, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 37, 40 and 48.
Amendment motion carried 3-2, with Ahrens, Hanus and Meisel in favor and Brown
and Weycker voting nay.
Discussion:
Councilmember Brown stated if the SWMP is approved withoUt any information about
buffers, we will need to review it again in 90 days.
Mayor Meisel stated she would rather send the SWMP forward without a buffer
reference which would then allow the Councilmembers more time to investigate what
other lake cities have passed regarding buffer zones in their SWMP and after that
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000
point the Councilmembers might be in better agreement about a buffer zone.
Councilmember Ahrens agreed.
Councilmember Hanus stated this will show that the City of Mound is being proactive
by passing the SWMP on for the Watershed District's review.
Councilmember Weycker suggested having the buffer zone on a case-by-case basis
and she does not agree the buffer zone is a bad thing because of what the experts
have discovered about buffer zones.
Motion as amended carried. 4-1, Weycker voting nay.
1.9
PEMBROKE PARK MULTIPLE DOCK NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND
RECOMMENDATION.
Mayor Meisel suggested opening discussions up to the public regarding this.
Orv Burma, 3011 Island View Drive. Mr. Burma stated this has gone on way too long and
there has been some mishandling of this matter from beginning to end. He further stated in
his opinion with regard to what failed in this matter are the following items:
The issue should have been presented in front of the DCAC and the POSC before it
was addressed by the City Council.
The Committee that was requested by the City Council should have been formed long
before this past week.
When this item was agreed to be placed on the DCAC agenda, staff and/or the Acting
City Manager should not have removed this from the agenda. Having done this, staff
should have notified individuals involved in this matter that this specific item was
removed.
More restraint by individuals should and could have been avoided both in writing and
verbally.
Mr. Burma stated to resolve this issue we need to think about all persons involved. Mr.
Burma stated the group came up with a good solution regarding the three dock sites. He
would like to see the three docks not lost but rather placed in another area of the City, such
as Twin Park.
The Acting City Manager stated that the direction of the Council on May 11, 1999, was that
this would be revisited in October, 1999, by the City Council after the neighborhood group
got together. The direction by the City Council was not to send this matter anywhere else
until this neighborhood group had met.
Councilmember Brown stated he and other members of the Pembroke neighborhood, which
include Ann Hiltsley, Roberta Rice, Stan and Marlene Strailey, Todd Rask and Peter Meyer,
met on March 30, 2000, and the following items of information were discussed:
13
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11. 2000
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Poor communication existed with the city and neighborhood.
A compromise between the neighborhood, dock owners, and the park people had
resulted.
Replace the fence at that park, as it is a personal issue for Don Schervern and not the
rest of the neighborhood.
Snowmobiles cutting through the park in winter.
Disbursed commons land area and nontraversable commons.
Contact Mr. Watson about moving.
Remove 3 spots from dock.
Move dock maximum length of t00 feet.
Stick dock same place as last year.
Helgerson boat to go on the end of slip (G) by Mr. Plaza because he backs his boat in
which is a 36 foot boat and too large to have so close to the swimming area.
Council will return any call.
Boat safety with boats backed in.
Make last slip (F) a single for Mr. Watson.
Eliminate slip 10.
Harvest mill foil more often and talk to LMCD.
Parks to clean beach more often such as mill foil and dead fish.
One year trial to evaluate beach.
Dock review to go to the park, dock, and council after one year.
Check swim area of beach.
Parent responsibilities.
Councilmember Brown stated the following items were agreed to by the members and are
recommended tonight for the City Council's approval.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
Eliminate 3 dock spots.
Ask if there is any other opening on Priest Bay for Mr. Sulander.
Clean beach.
Keep swim beach at same size as before.
Swap Helgersons to Plaza's side for safety reasons.
Put dock out all 100 feet.
Make last slip a single (F) for Mr. Watson.
Eliminate spot 10 (8 foot mark is located).
Ask LMCD to harvest bay more often.
One year trial.
Review by Docks, Parks and Council the dock and beach area.
Dock to move as close to Plaza line as possible.
Put the dock in same place as last year.
Lifeguard review.
Mr. Sulander stated he does not want to be located at Priest Bay so Item B. should be
removed as a recommendation from the Pembroke Committee.
14
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000
Mr. Meyer stated the review process should begin today and not wait and seek input from
the commissions at a later date. The Attorney stated this is consistent with Letter K a ve.
Mr. Meyer further stated this should be reviewed by all Commissions, including the Planning
Commission. Mr. Meyer wanted to make sure none of the Commissions were bypassed with
this issue.
Orv Burma stated if this would be brought up to the Planning Commission, the Planning
Commission would refer this matter on to the Docks and Commons Commission.
Craig Watson, 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard. Mr. Watson stated his main concern is the use of
the beach by his grandkids. He stated he would like to see the beach cleaned up and
widened for this year and consecutive years because last year it was unclean and shallow.
Mayor Meisel asked staff if the rope positioning had changed in the past years or would be
changing. Mr. Jim Fackler stated the rope would stay the same; the dock would be moved
only and the depth of the water is not a controllable issue for the City.
Councilmember Brown stated with moving Mr. Watson's boat into a different slip, this
would stop some of the propeller action of the boat causing mill foil and dead fish going
towards the beach.
Mayor Meisel stated she could certainly empathize with any individual private owner or
organization that takes care of beach front property. She stated she is constantly burying
dead fish, raking the water for weeds and mill foil from the fishing tournaments and A1 and
Alma's boat traffic. Mayor Meisel stated with regard to excess weeds in the lake, the
Pembroke neighborhood is not alone.
Mr. Watson mentioned a lifeguard at Pembroke neighborhood beach would be much
appreciated.
Mayor Meisel questioned staff why a lifeguard was cut in this neighborhood and Mr. Fackler
stated because of limited use of the beach, budget cuts and the cost of lifeguards all
contribute to the absence of a lifeguard.
Tim Williams. 3135 Air Lane, state the Pembroke neighborhood has changed in the last
years and with the additional children in the neighborhood, so a lifeguard would be used
again.
Dean Sulander, 2524 Emerald Drive. Mr. Sulander stated he is hopeful the three slips that
are being removed from Pembroke would not be lost, but rather resituated in another area,
wherever they would be most useable and accessible for the citizens of Mound.
Mayor Meisel asked staff if there is an area that these three slips could be moved to. Mr.
Fackler stated Twin Park would be a possibility.
15
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11. 2000
Councilmember Ahrens stated we ~dded one ~dditionM ~lil~ ~t Waterbury.
Councilmember Brown stated if Twin Park would go back up to six, then the City of Mound
would not be losing any dock slips with the reconfiguration at the Pembroke dock. Mr.
Fackler stated this could be brought up to the Twin Park neighborhood for consideration.
Mr. Meyer strongly objects to moving these multiple docks in front of park lands. He
stated, in particular, at Pembroke, the docks have blocked off the whole park and it has lost
its swimming beach. He stated what has been recommended to City Council tonight
regarding this matter is a good compromise for this year.
Ms. Hiltsley stated the Pembroke neighborhood is opposed to losing any commons docks.
She further stated the multiple docks do need to be situated in a spot that would not affect a
well-used beach area. She does not want to see the beauty of the lake destroyed.
Mayor Meisel asked Mr. Rask if he is comfortable with his slip assignment because she
recalls various discussions last year he had problems with his slip because of his boat size.
Todd Rask, 5109 Diamond Road. Mr. Rask explained the process of him getting a slip due
to the size of his boat. He is comfortable with the boat slip assigned to him this year.
Councilmember Hanus asked staff if the City of Mound has adopted specific rules for larger
boats. Mr. Fackler stated they are assigned to a certain slip size according to their boat size
but there are not specific sites designated for larger boats at this time because of limited
space for the docks.
Mr. Rask stated his boat is not visible to abutters.
Mr. Burma suggested the City Council voting on the present issues at hand for the sake of
time and further discussions regarding separate owners would be considered when the review
process occurs. He further stated he would probably not be representing the Dock
Commission next year.
Councilmember Ahrens stated enough hours have been spent regarding this matter and she
looks forward to when the City Manager comes aboard. She further recommended this
matter not come back to the City Council.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she does not agree with having the LMCD harvest the lake
more often because it is not a realistic expectation. She further stated the dock should be put
out 100 feet, but she thought this was being accomplished in past years as well.
Councilmember Ahrens suggested having the Hennepin County Assessor come to another
City Council meeting and address the citizens of Mound how private lakeshore and abutting
commons property is valued in the City of Mound.
16
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11. 2000
Councilmember Weycker stated the County Assessor stated your property would be valued
on how best it would sell, not necessarily if it located on commons or not.
Councilmember Ahrens does not want to eliminate the three dock slips. She would
appreciate considering having these slips relocated. She further stated the 36 foot boat in slip
A should park stem out, leaving the additional dock on that side.
Mr. Watson stated there would not be enough parking spaces at this park for these slips and
for use of the beach and park. They could park across the street but they would be ticketed.
Mr. Sulander agreed with Mr. Watson that parking is a problem at Pembroke Park and you
will get ticketed.
Mr. Williams would like to see this matter approved tonight as presented.
Councilmember Hanus is concerned this matter will be reviewed again next year.
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown, to approve Items A-N with the elimination
of Item B.
Friendly amendment by Brown to accept the Dock Configuration for the year 2000 Plan
as Item B. The maker of the motion agreed with this friendly amendment.
Discussion.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she is concerned about the dock going out 100 feet and
staying within the 100 foot mark.
Mr. Fackler would talk to Gregg Nybeck and recommend the dock be out
approximately 96 feet allowing 4 feet extra for boat length.
There was quite a bit of discussion with Councilmember Hanus and Mr. Fackler
regarding the Dock Configuration for the year 2000 and its exact configurations.
Councilmember Hanus stated the single slip for Mr. Watson will be costly on a per
slip basis and wanted to know if the City is willing to subsidize more than they have
in the past.
Motion carried. 3-2, with Brown, Weycker and Meisel voting in favor; Ahrens and
Hanus voting against.
INFORMATION/MIS CELLANEOUS.
1. EDC Minutes of March 16, 2000.
17
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11. 2000
Information from the League of Minnesota Cities about the Annual conference in gr.
Cloud, June 13-16, 2000. Please let me know if you are planning to attend.
Letter from Kevin England, Hasbro Corporation, regarding the wetlands remediation
steps that they are planning for the unimproved Morton Lane (channel) off of
Lynwood Boulevard. They will be doing a presentation for the Planning Commission
on: Monday, April 24, 2000, in the Mound City Council chambers at 7:30 p.m.
This information has also been given to POSC and DCAC so they can also attend.
The Acting City Manager stated this would be worthwhile for all Commissions and
the City Council to see the innovative plan. Councilmember Ahrens will not be in
attendance; Councilmember Weycker will be in attendance.
4. Letter from Planning Commission Chair regarding P & Z Case//99-77.
Councilmember Brown stated Chair Michael was quite disappointed that no
Councilmember had replied to this letter. It was decided that this would be discussed
as the next COW meeting in April.
5. Monthly report from Police Chief, Len Harrell.
6. LMCD mailing.
7. SRA (Suburban Rate Authority) information.
Brush and leave cleanup. Mayor Meisel and the Ac. ting City Manager agreed dates for
brush and leave cleanup need to be picked. Councilmember Ahrens stated this had
already been agreed for May 6, 2000. Acting City Manager stated a date was picked
for clean-up, but this did not include brush and leaves. The Acting City Manager
will investigate this matter and report back to the City Council at the April COW
meeting.
Coffee for businesses. Mayor Meisel stated this would be a good opportunity to have
the businesses meet Kandis. It was decided to have coffee on May 16, 2000, at 7:30
a.m.
10.
Mound City Days. The date of the parade is June 17, 2000, and the
Councilmembers decided they would ride in a trailer for the parade.
Councilmember Hanus stated he works very hard to maintain slips and tonight, three slips
were removed from the system.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she did not approve of the slip removals as well.
18
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000
Mayor Meisel stated she struggled with making a decision regarding the slip removals this
evening.
Councilmember Weycker stated it is wrong to move the three docks to Pembroke Park in the
very beginning, so removing the three docks tonight was correcting a problem that should
not have started.
Councilmember Brown stated trust was gained from the citizens of Mound regarding the
Pembroke neighborhood park.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 12:45 a.m.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Fran Clark, Acting City Manager
Attest: /council Secretary
19
RESOLUTION # 00-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, AND
LAKESIDE VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A LAKESIDE PORCH
ON THE RESIDENCE AT 5816 GRANDVlEW BLVD,
LOT 1, MOUND SHORESDEVON, PID # 14-117-24 1,3 0003
P & Z CASE #99-36
WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested variances add a lakeside porch on the
existing residence at 5816 Grandview Blvd. The associated variances are as follows:
Existing/Proposed ReQuired Variance
North Front Yard house 3.8 ft
North Front Yard garage 3.6 ft
South Side Yard house 5.8 ft
Lakeside deck 36 ft
20 ff 16.2 ff
6ff 2.4ff
6ff .2ff
50 ft 14 ft
; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located within an R-lA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires standards as indicated above;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposed porch would encompass the existing deck area which
is 14 feet by 20 feet. The existing deck received a vadance in 1996. That resolution
recognized the existing setbacks from Grandview and the lake access ddve along the
sideyard; and,
WHEREAS, the hardcover calculations provided show the hardcover short of the
40 percent maximum by 141 square feet. The proposed porch would add 280 square
feet to the property which would exceed the limit by 140 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended that the Council approve the variance as 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 approve the vadance with the following conditions:
a. The porch is limited to 10 feet by 20 feet maximum size, allowing for a
4 feet by 20 feet lakeside deck to remain.
b. Hardcover be removed from the property to meet the required 40
percent maximum.
2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as
stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 1, MOUND SHORES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2000
DRAFT
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: On/in Burma, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, and
Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and accused: Commissioner Bill Voss.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Cathy Boyle, Steve Coddon, Alex Hubler, Joe
Hubler, John Hubler, Betty Johnson, Craig Johnson, Peter C. Meyer, Dave
Willette.
~SE # 99-36: VARIANCE; JOHN HUBLER, 5816 GRANDVIEW BLVD, LOT
1, MOUND SHORES; IN ORDER TO INSTALL A THREE SEASON PORCH ON
AN EXISTING DECK; PID# 14-117-24 13 003.
Gordon stated this case is being presented tonight because it was tabled back on
September 13, 1999, on the applicant's request to allow him more time to find
evidence to support his lakeside deck variance request. Gordon stated the
applicant would like to present his newly found information.
Gordon stated the variance being requested for the proposed three-season porch
on an existing deck would not comply with shoreline setbacks, as well as causing
a variance on the north and west side of the property. Gordon further stated the
hardcover would be over also.
Gordon stated staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
deny the variance as requested.
Mueller asked if the deck currently in existence would include the same setbacks
as the porch being requested. Gordon agreed.
John Hubler, 5816 Grandview Boulevard. Mr. Hubler thanked the Planning
Commission for allowing him to readdress the variance he is requesting tonight.
He presented photographs to the Planning Commission of his home and lot.
Mr. Hubler agreed with Gordon about the hardcover concern. He further stated
he has found similar cases that would support his variance that have been
approved by the Planning Commission in the past. He stated this three-season
porch will not create any more nonconformities. He would like to enjoy his
lakefront more and the three-season porch would allow the shade during the day,
it would not ddve him indoors in the evenings when the bugs come out, and he
has already purchased furniture for this new addition.
D AFT
Mr. Hubler suggested Case Numbers 95-98, 96-20 and 99-39 all have been
approved by the Planning Commission and are very similar to his case at hand.
Mr. Hubler reviewed each one of these cases in detail regarding hardship
concerns, hardcover, and setbacks.
Mr. Hubler presented a diagram of how his suggested three-season porch with
the tunneled water system that would be effective with hardcover and drainage
concerns.
Brown stated financial hardships are not considered a part of a hardship
according to code. He further stated at the sport show he noticed a pop-up
screen porch that he thought would satisfy Mr. Hubler's desire to use his deck in
the evenings when the bugs were approaching, as well as allow sunlight and
shade when desired. Brown stated this pop-up screen porch looked attractive
and well built. Brown asked staff if a screened porch would be considered
hardcover. Gordon stated he could not answer the question.
Mr. Hubler stated he also had seen these screened porches at the sport show.
He stated he does appreciate the idea, although his neighbors have purchased
two different screened porches in two years due to high winds. The applicant
does not approve of this type of porch for ecstatic reasons.
Mueller addressed the line-up provision. Sutherland presented the line-up
diagram for the City of Mound to Mueller. Mueller examined the neighborhood
location and line-up along the shoreline. Mueller agreed with the applicant that
his house would line-up properly according to the line-up provisions. Weiland
agreed with Mueller concerning the line-up provision as well.
Mueller further stated because of the dugout on this property, it creates a special
and unique situation, and if the property would align straight across, it would be
appropriate for the setback conditions. Mueller stated he appreciates the
improvement the three-season porch would make to the owner's home. Mueller
stated the second case presented tonight by the applicant in support of his case
would be the only applicable one because it applies to a deck. Mueller stated he
is not real comfortable with whole scenario, but he does see some hardship
because of the wetlands so closely situated near the applicant's home. Mueller
strongly felt that if this property would ever be sold, the new owner would be
frustrated that they have a three-season porch with no deck and would then
request a deck to be added to this property, and then more frustration would
result with this case. Mueller stated there would need to be some restriction
regarding a deck in the future to be built, as well as having the City Engineer look
at water elevation and make sure it meets with the purviable ground issues.
Weiland stated on page 26 of the September 13, 1999, minutes, Voss stated:
"there are more issues at hand regarding this case. Not only is the request
D AFT
nonconforming, but if there would be a 3-season porch added on, they would at
some point want it to be changed to a 4-season, and then if a new owner comes
along, they will want to add a deck on to the porch. These would all be
nonconforming cases."
Clapsaddle asked staff about the hardcover concern. Gordon stated the
hardcover today is under by 140 feet and with the porch addition, the hardcover
would be about 42 feet over. Clapsaddle addressed the applicant and would
appreciate an explanation of his 3-season porch with the drainage system.
The applicant stated the three-season porch would have down spouts and
gutters built inside the porch and this porch would be set right on the deck itself.
Mr. Hubler demonstrated how the porch would function and equate 10 gallons of
water or an equivalent to 30 inches of rain at one time.
Clapsaddle was concerned about a new owner having to maintain this system in
the future if the applicant's home would be sold. Clapsaddle stated the system is
very creative and can divert water well. Clapsaddle did suggest to the applicant
to put a PVC pipe with a controlled exit or controlled entrance on the porch as
well. The applicant agreed.
Mueller suggested a compromise. He is aware the hardcover will be over 42 feet
which could be adjusted by allowing the porch to be only 10 feet in depth. He
stated the inlet portion of the lot is more difficult to fill in, so the shoreline setback
it not a concern to him.
Weiland suggested putting a screen porch on the backside of existing garage.
He stated the applicant would still view the lake. The applicant stated it would be
something to look at, but the porch would be better on lakeside.
Clapsaddle asked if the permanent concrete walk would be considered as
hardcover. Staff suggested it was being figured in as hardcover.
Sutherland restated staff is for denial of this variance; although, if the Planning
Commission is looking for reasons to approve the variance, he would like the
Planning Commission to consider the green space located east and west of the
applicant's property.
Brown asked if this green space could be purchased. The applicant stated this is
City property and he would like to purchase it. Staff stated it is currently being
used as a boat ramp.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Brown, to accept the variance
and expand a nonconformity.
Discussion.
D AFT
Burma stated the line-up to the house does seem appropriate according to
existing houses in the neighborhood. He further stated this would be an
improvement from what exists to date. He stated the nonconformities on three
sides of the house are abundant, however, the improvement does not encroach
on any person's property. Burma stated the drainage system presented by the
applicant could cover the hardcover issues. To end, he stated there are five
criteria in figuring hardship, and he stated only one situation may apply.
Brown stated with the hardcover being over with this plan, he suggested putting a
rock walkway rather than the current concrete walkway that currently exists.
Mr. Hubler stated instead of the rock walkway, would a brick paver be considered
hardcover. Gordon stated brick pavers would be considered hardcover.
Clapsaddle suggested putting a small, shallow ponding area on his property for
retention of the water before it would run into the lake, rather than the elaborate
drainage system presented by the applicant or the yanking out of the applicant's
sidewalk. He strongly doubts any one in years to come would be allowed to put
a deck on this porch.
Burma asked the applicant if he would consider changing the design of the porch
to a lO-foot wide three-season addition. The applicant stated he would consider
this, but he would like it to be a 12-foot wide addition, rather than the lO-foot wide
as suggested. Burma stated a 10-foot is plenty of room for entertaining because
he just added a lO-foot deck on to his house, and it is very efficient and workable
for entertaining guests.
Burma would like to see the motion amended with this change.
The applicant suggested as another alternative to design a 10 foot three-season
porch, but leave the balance of the deck to alleviate the possibility of another new
owner asking to add a deck on where a deck would already be in existence.
Mueller suggested a 10 foot by 20-foot porch, but allowing the existing deck
protrude the whole 20 feet. He further stated the hardcover issue would need to
be worked out with the City Engineer.
Clapsaddle withdrew his motion to accept the variance and expand a
nonconformity.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to approve the variance
with the addition of a 10 foot porch on the existing deck, and
allowing no changes to be made to the existing deck, but bringing
the hardcover in compliance according to City Engineer approval.
DRAFT
Glister stated she is in more agreement with the motion presented, but would be
extremely displeased if anything more gets added onto the deck.
Sutherland wanted it noted that the applicant would need to work with City staff
and the City engineer to come up with a drainage system that would keep the
water away from the building.
Chair Michael asked staff for its opinion about the motion presented. Gordon
stated it was a good compromise, although, he does have concern about another
owner coming in some day and asking to add an additional footage on the
existing deck.
Weiland is concerned as well about bringing any building structure any closer to
the lake than what currently exists. He recommends strongly to have no
additions on the current existing deck to make it protrude more to the lake.
Mr. Hubler stated a previous variance mentioned the elevation was capped off so
this should suffice with preventing any more protrusions towards the lake.
Sutherland stated he does understand the direction the Planning Commission is
leaning in this case, although, staff would still recommend denial of the vadance
because it expands a nonconformity.
MOTION CARRIED. 6-2, Michael and Weiland voting nay.
Chair Michael stated this case would be heard in front of City Council on April 25,
2000, and recommended that the applicant be present for this meeting.
3-6-2000
To: Mound City Planning Commission
c/o Mr. John Suthedand, City of Mound Building Inspector.
/
RECEIVED
HAR 1 0 ZOO0
MOUND ¢L NN N &
From: John & Margie Hubler 5816 Grandview Blvd. Mound, MN
Re: Reopening of tabled variance request from 9-13-99 Planning Commission meeting.
Dea~ Mr. Suthertand:
In regards to Case//99-36, which was tabled on Sept. 13, 1999 by the Planning
Commission and myself, I have been able to do more research on this matter to be
presented to the Commission. As you have tentatively scheduled this case to be
presented to the Commission on March 13, 2000, I believe I have found some more valid
information to be shared.
As the Commission may remember I was sent a letter dealing with a "hardcover issue"
due to the proposed size of a three season porch. I was prepared to present my facts at
the Sept. 13th planning meeting which I did. However a new issue was raised which I was
not prepared to discuss regarding a variance.
At this time I am prepared to present issues of variance request regarding my property,
with similar circumstances with other variance requests from property owners from Mound.
(~ 1. Case #95-98 "pool & fence" -19 foot OHW setback.
(~2. Case # 96-20 "porch "- 40 foot shoreline setback
3 Case # 99-39 "lake side deck" - 43.3 foot lake side setback. Note: "neighboring
homes @ 2453, 2465 & 2503 all have decks less than 50 ft. setbacks, being
approximately 10-15 feet from OHW."
I believe these cases alone and also the similar situations at the neighboring homes as in
Case~ 99-39 will satisfy the variance issue which was raised during my last meeting.
Sincerely,
John Hubler
DATE:
CITY OF MOUND
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission Agenda of August 14, 1995
5341 MAYWOOD ROAO
MOUN O, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
RECEIVED
PIAR 1 o ZOO0
MOUND PLANI~II,~b & IN,.SP
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT:
Variance Request
APPLICANT:
Perry & Dorene Hanson
CASE NO.
LOCATION'
95-34
2459 Lost Lake Road, lot 15, Block 1, Lost Lake, PID #24-117-2422 0029.
ZONING:
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a
nonconforming swimming pool and surrounding deck. This site is nonconforming due to the
existing upper deck that is setback approximately 44 feet to the ordinary high water (OHW).
A 50 foot setback is required. The proposed oool and deck are setback approximately 1_9
feet to the OHW. Hardcover is nonconforming at just over 30%, 40% is allowed for lots of
record, however, no changes are being considered at this time.
COMMENT: The new pool and deck encroach a substantial amount into the required 50 foot
setback. Hardship has not been identified in their request, however, other p_roperties in this
area enjoy decks of a similar nature with a minimal setback to the lake. ('~he neighboring
houses at 2453, 2465 and 2503 all have decks that are less than the 50 fo'~)t setback. Ih9
~xisting decks have varying degrees of encroachment, with their setbacks being
~pproximatelv 10 to 15 feet from the OHW.,~ ~,~-~.,~¢
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Hardship has not been shown, however, the Planning
Commission may wish to consider practical difficulty due to the situation of the other
properties in the areas, and the fact that the deck and pool will have a minimal impact to the
main body of the lake due to the expansive wetland. ~,~
JS:pj
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August
22, 1995.
printed on recycled paper
WHEREAS,
and;
impervious surface coverage is conforming with both proposals,
WHEREAS, it was clarified that in Option #2 if the size of the pool is reduced
tO 14 feet, the Planning Commission recommended that a 7 foot setback from the
house be allowed in order to reduce the setback towards the wetland, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is 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, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot
setback to the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, and;
WHEREAS, from a visual perspective, the lost lake wetland area is not the
same as the main body of the lake and other setback variances have been granted for
structures abutting other similar wetlands, however, they were not within the shore
impact zone, and;
WHEREAS, the DNR recommended denial, and;
WHEREAS, every other property on the wetland side of the Lost Lake
Subdivision is nonconforming to the OHW setback except for one, and;
WHEREAS, other upland wetland areas have only a 15 foot rear yard setback,
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval, with conditions, by a 5 to 2 vote. Findings of fact include:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
o O allow the owner reasonable use of their propert,y as there is no other
cation on the property for the pool.
Proposal is not inconsistent with rest of the neighborhood relating to the
nonconforming setbacks to the wetlands.
~____~n. ique property due to adjacent wetland. ~
The City does hereby grant the variances as listed below to allow construction
of a pool, either Option #1 or Option #2. Neither option should be constructed
closer that 19 feet to the ordinary high water, resulting in a 31 foot setback
variance. Approval is subject to the applicant conforming to proper pool water
discharging codes.
OPTInN ,~'L
RESOLUTION #95-
/
/.
/'
!
/
/
.?
/
/
/
/
/
/
OPT, i.OI',I ~'2.
RESOLUTION #95-
/
/.
/
/
/
/
.Z ~-o7
/
/
M1NIfI OF A MEETING OF
MOUND ADVISOgY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 13, 1996
CASE 96-20: VARIANCE FOR PORCH, WILLIAM & JANICE DARLING, 2600 GROVE
LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, L,MNGDON'S LANDING, PID 23-117-24 13 0061
The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order
to allow construction of a new nonconforming 12' x 14' three season porch. The proposed
porch will follow the existing line of the deck and would encroach,,~o further than the existing
situation that is setback approximately 40 feet from the shorelln~ ~ The require~ setback to the3
Oke'0--HW is 50 feet and this results in the recognition of a 10 foot~'- variance~ The original
building permit for the dwel~ng w~is issued in 1986 and did include an 8' x 13"_ deck, however,
the existing deck is approximately 10' x 16'.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 13, 1996
With the adoption of the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance on 3/15/93, impervious
surface is limited to a maximum of 40 % for lots of record with an approved drainage plan, and
a setback of 10 feet is required to the top of a bluff. Impervious surface coverage is
conforming. From a site inspection it is obvious the bluff line meanders through this site and
also the adjacent properties. The existing dwelling is located within the bluff itself and
therefore it was determined the exact location of the bluff line was not required to be identified
on the survey at this time. In addition, the proposed construction causes a minimal amount of
encroachment into the bluff.
There avt~-.ars to be a lack of hardship to allow the additional encroachment into the
honconforming setback. If the Planning Commission concurs, staff recommended the Planning
Commission recommend denial of the request. However, from a practical sense, approval _of
the variance request results in the enhanced use and function of the property without additional
encroachment into the crlqtlng setback...If the Planning Commission would concur with this
a~proach, staff recommended approval based on practical difficulty. The Planning Commission
may wish to consider additional findings in this case.
The size of the ex/sting deck versus the size of the deck originally approved to be constructed
was discussed.
Hanus reviewed how this request relates to,llrevious cases., and recalled that a minimally sized
deck of 10 feet has typically been allowed to encroach into the lake side setback.
I--Ianus noted that the ordinary high walier (OI-rW) is not designated on the survey. Sutherland
stated that he could ask the applicant to provide this information, however, due to the steep slope
to the lake and the fact that no further encroachment is being requested he did not feel it was
,necessary.
It was noted that the dimensions of the deck on the survey (i0' x 16') do not match the drawings
(12' x 14'). It was clarified that the deck extends 12' out from the house, but with the 4' x 4'
cantilevered portion, it extends 16 feet. The applicant stated that the cantilevered p/onion was
e_xisting when he purchased the home. The porch-is to be 12' x 14'. ~ ~ ·
Mueller commented that Lake Langdon has very low usage and feels this porch would have
minimal impact on this lake.
Hanus commented that he doesn't want to treat people on different lakes differently. Mueller
noted that they have treated people differently who live on Iow impact wetlands versus a busy
bay on Minnetonka.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the
variance, as requested. Findings are that the porch will have minimal impact
due to the low usage of Langdon Lake, and the porch will not encroach into
the setback any further than the existing deck.
Sutherland commented that the existing situation was approved by a building permit in 1986.
Planning Commission ,*vtinutes
May13,'1996
Darling emphasized the need for the porch and stated that in order to have room for furniture
the porch needs to be at least 12 feet.
Weiland stated that he would like to see the 4' x 4' cantilever removed. Mueller reminded the
commission of a case on Baywood Shores Drive where they allowed further encroachment where
an exi~walkway exas~and they allowed it to be expanded to a 10' deck.
[ MOTION carried 5 -3.t/those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Michael,
XB~urma, and Glister.,."'Those opposed were: Reifschneider, We[land, and
Hanus.
Hanus stated his reason for opposing is he would like the OHW located, and he would have
preferr~ a minimal size of 10'.
This case will be reviewed-by the City Council on May 28, 1996.
:.,~;. '..'.<f~. ,.. ...-~;.. ~,.::
~'f' '~2.~.'~ '~ *I~ ~C., 4,', ,tt~. i -., ~L~,~ $,~': I:."~ ~ ;~ t;.'.? ~ -,
,'.;.~. ,;';~b'. :. ;4?. ' .' , ,,.....4,., 4' .; * .
· ' "-." '.177" '"".:
· ~ ':
;"' ¢';"G""4,gO -;" i~.~'.*· -'t .' ' .
'~ ~It.~ .;C:~ ~n¢
r.:O~ ,~. 4. ::~.;.'.:;~:..;
. . ,. :... ,,.... :: ..~, ,:.% ,..':3,,'..: ,..,'.;:,,~.':.::y,;~' :.Y.,.:qt', .:',...'.:,',,~ .
"' ' :" '" "'"-'~'::.-:-':.?...':.¢v:.?¢?.~i:_;_
~,, 0,. =,.:.;',,;, ,:~...!.-'.,: .. :..:.,
.'. ~ : ,,.,~,'.-.~; :';~,,: ::;~: ,e.,"~ "- -?:
-.. . : . : .}..:..:... :.;. :,; ?'%.' ':::~:.;:".:¢ ':.~;;Z'C'~,,::4,' '~.
· : :'...;; .s,;,'.,.:.~"~,'r'(.~r,l'";" ,,:'~.'.;~; wr.,..,(.~.~. ~,tD.¢;o · '. · - '
· . .',.. · '.: . ',.:, .'.:.;' ~".. r,.b,i ,. ,?4;,,
. "'..' '. ~ · :.v,:' :. ':';;'".'.'."7. ........ ~':,'~..¢:~,"~',,~.¢:,"- ,~o,'"e.:',i,,.~ '.- ..4.~.f-
.... · '.7¢C.¢ '. '..~..".¢.'~.'*'~:~""'''"*'ir'~ ..... ... · ~.~ ,.% *.v. . ·
· - '. . ,',.'~,..,., ,.;,4';'.'...~' .,%,'fi.,"~ .,:~.;.%:.?,;?...,,
. .,, . ' : ~ .,...;~...:¢...,....7. .....
. " '-.,.','..': ;~';'-k'~ C',~o',~',,~.
,. . :......~.; ,.~ :., .,.
..... :i ,*7, ....... ,. ,,,:..', ~,;.: .'~ .,:,.. ,'&'.~,,.:~;
" ' .~.: :?: '.'..; .:.,",.b~::.:.~:" :'h'...'.~i:;N:~".:.~¢.':',i¢' .'
.....:'; .: ..., ,....~,.
,.,,..SC.P, IPl'IbN ': ':." '"" .... ": .... ""' ...... ' ............ '
· "{~.;~..-;",~:;'~i.'.'.,':'..','.ig'.",;':4.;%~.,~'~;;-'.i:.¢'i'.¢ *'";5"
".:.; "~-'".",'~ ~.': .'~<N,:;: .'< :,r',":"'k~ Y',~ "~.",;-= :;.;"....,.;-v. :
LO% 5, BlOck 1, " ..:'
,.,..~,u,, S LANDI'"
ttennepin County ,. H~,nn~-~ot~ , ,'[ ...,.
' · '~' . :"' . :' '"-
o ~enotes iron monu~.,e t~ ,~,,=,,..:?_..._._-.,....'. .s..... ':...~,',~;;.,,:,..~-.
· .. . '....: ..'..:;~:,:~t¢,..'.:.-.':,:~c,,s,..-,,'.,:~'.>'¢'......:
· ~ ' "" · · ,;.~.,..:
· ' %;_ ..... '.' '"'-'.'.... '". '.' .", ........ :. ,...',.,:..r.,,s'.',.,-
CITY COUNCIL- MAY 28, 1996
1.7
CASE //96-20: WI'LLIAM & ,IANICE DARLING 2600 GROVE LA~N-E, LOT
BLOCK 1, LANGDON'S LA~N'I)h-NG, VARIANCE FOR PORCH.
City Planner Mark Koegler stated the owners have applied for a variance to recognize an
existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a new nonconforming 12' x
14' three season porch. The proposed porch will follow the existing line of the deck and would
encroach no further than the exisitng situation that is setback approximately 40 feet from the
shoreline. The proposed construction causes a minimal amount of encroachment into the bluff.
Councilmember Hanus questioned the setback request, whether it is 38' or 36'. Mr. Darling
explained the drawing in the packet was incorrect. Mr. Koegler stated the Planning
Commission recommended approval. Hanus stated the proposed porch is in the bluff zone, not
encroaching into the setback, and closer to the lake than what is allowed. It is a substantial
structure, more so than a deck. Mr. Darling stated the deck will be 2' smaller than it is now.
Also, there will be no increase in the impervious cover. The area under the proposed porch will
be open.
Mayor Polston moved and Councilmember J'essen seconded the proposed resolution:
RESOLUTION ~6-54
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE
SETBACK VARL--MNCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A PORCH AT 2600 GROVE LA~.N'E, PID #23-117-24
13 0061, P&Z//96-20.
The resolution passed with a vote of 3-2, Hanus and Ahrens voting nay.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisin~on Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council. Plam;:ing. Commission aid Staff'
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: October 8, 1999
SUB JE CT: Vafianc e Request
OWNER: R/chard and Carmen Wood
CASE NUMBER: 99-39
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 2660 Lakewood Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPP~F. HENSIX, nE pL_~X~': Residential
J
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow for
the construction of a lakeside deck~ The request is as follows:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Street frontage 38.9 fl 50 fl 11.1 fi
Garage (detached) 3.8 fi 20 fi 16.2 fi
The propert3,' is described as lots 1, 2 and pm of 3 Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit "G". As platted the
lot has 40,681 sq. fl of area. The property has a peculiar assembly of lots that give it a total of
542 feet of frontage on Lakewood Lane and Bartlett Blvd. The house is a single story desi~ and
conforms to all setbacks. A two-stall detached garage is located on lot 2 across Lakewood Lane
from the home. It has a nonconforming front yard setback.
The deck~roject ,,,,'as started without a building permit, and is nearly finished)The application
indicates a 14 feet by 28 feet deck which is smaller than what is shown on the su' ,,wey. It is staf?s
understanding that the east 1/3r~ witl not be constructed. The deck is higher than 30 inches and
would not be considered as ,an at grade deck which restricts setbacks to that of the principal
s~Tucture. T2~pically, in situations like this where the home is close to the 50 feet OHW setback,
there is some a,211owance for a deck of an adeouate depth - 10 feet has been a general tuideline,.
.:..other to l~keside situations is the setback of adjacent homes. The DN]K
issue
consider
in
these
123 Nord~ Th/.rd Street, Suite 100, Mirmeapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2 ~
#99-38 Wood Variance
November 9, 1999
guidelines~o~' a line up provision when there is encroachment on the 50 feet setback. The
home to the east has 39.4 feet setback xvith an at ~ade deck extending to 29.5 feet. The home
west of the property is setback 60 feet and does not have a deck. Given this 60 feet setback, the
line up provision does not work well. If an average setback were used based on that of adjacent
homes, then the deck would be limited to 45 feet from the lake. At 45 feet, the deck would be
about $ feet deep, less than comfortable. A 10 feet depth would allow a 43 feet setback which
could be considered the least mount needed. This approach will require modification of the
nev,'ly constructed deck.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the variance with the following conditions.
1. The deck be limited to a 10 feet depth and a lakeside setback 02-43.3 feet.
123 Nor'& TN. rd Street, Suite 100, Mim2eapolis, Mi~"mesota 55401
(6.12) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
.//; :2
~; GARAGE ~6
ON PROPERTY LINE '~ --
~ ~ N 85'1504
~ /~= ~ ~ - "~ O
.... ~"~ - F ~ FT~''x'~'~'~~7 % ~*'~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ o~cx
~~ 110.53--
~ 929.4 ~ ~9294
SHORELINE SEPTEMBER 20, 1999~
k-ORDINARY HIGH WATER L!ARK, 929.4 CONTOUR
~,lound Pl.anning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
CASE # 99-14: VARIANCE; SIDE YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A NONCONFORMING
ATTACHED GARAGE AT 2374 CHATEAU LANE; BLOCK 2, LOTS PART OF 8 AND PART
OF 9, JOHN S. CARLSON; LARRY AND PAMELA PETERSON, 61550, PID # 13-117-24 43
0028.
This applicant has applied to add on to an existing attached single car garage converting it to a
two stall. This would require a 3.97-foot side yard variance. The rest of the property is
conforming. The garage would create the only non-conformity.
This is a difficult case to recommend in favor of a two-stall garage since the setback would
exceed the 4 feet setback threshold for any structure. There are other options for a 2 stall
garage on the property by making it detached and in the back yard. Further the proposal would
compromise the character of the property and surrounding neighborhood.'
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Counci! deny the variance request.
Brown stated that he looked at the site and a detached garage would not work. He feels
another option would be better. Weitand also feels it would be best in the back yard.
The owner stated he had a le~er from the neighbor who doesn't object. Brown stated then he
should look at buying property from him to construct this conforming. The Commission cannot
afford to set this type of precedence.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller to grant a 2 foot side yard setback variance.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Chair Michael stated that this case will go to City Council on July 27, 1999.
CASE # 98-63: VARIANCE; LAKESIDE SETBACK, STREET FRONTAGE AND
HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH OVER THE EXISTING DECK AT 4347
WlLSHIRE BOULEVARD; PART OF LOTS 75, 76, AND LOT B, 1sT REARR. OF PIP 1sT
DIVISION; W. THOMAS AND DIANE HARMON, 37890, PID # 19-117-23 13 0008.
The applicant has applied for a permit and variances to construct a lakeside porch to an
existing deck. This would require variances to the street frontage setback of 20 feet and a
hardcover variance of 2183.8 square foot, or sixty one percent. The case was reviewed by the
Planning Commission last year and denied. The applicant pulled the case prior to the Ccuncil
meeting.
The applicant is now coming back with the same proposal, only with a new sunzey on the
lakeside setback and adjoining properties. The ne,,,,' survey shows a 5!-foot lakes!de
and the adjacent homes that "line up" with the porch.
The property has an existing nonconforming lot width of 20 feet. The existing hard cover is also
nonconforming at sixty one percent and is largely due to the driveway rather than other
structures. The existing house is typical fo:the lot and is not oversized. The property is
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, '1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael. Commissioners: Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Absent and excused:
Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Michael Mueller. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: David Babler, Michele R. Berglund, Cathy Boyland,
Danny C. Hill, John Hughes, Richard Lillehei, Jim Olson, Dale Pixler, Tom Stokes, and
Pam Weatherhead.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-36: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, AND LAKESIDE
SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A 3 SEASON PORCH OVER EXISTING DECK AT
5816 GRANDVlEW BOULEVARD; LOT 1, MOUND SHORES; JOHN HUBLER,
61870. PID# 14-117-24 13 0003.
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request for a lakeside variance
to construct a nonconforming porch on an existing deck. The associated variances are
as follows.
North Front Yard House
North Front Yard Garage
South Side Yard House
Lakeside Deck
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
3.8 feet 20 feet 16.2 feet
3.6 feet 6 feet 2.4 feet
5.8 feet 6 feet ,2 feet
36 feet 50 feet 14 feet
The proposed porch would be built on the existing deck which received a variance in
1996. The resolution recognized the existing setbacks from Grandview and the lake
access drive along the side yard. The proposed porch would encompass the deck area
which is 14 feet by 20 feet. The hardcover calculations provided are from the previous
deck submittal which show the hardcover short of the 40 percent maximum by 141
square feet. The porch would add 280 square feet to the property putting it over the
limit by 140 square feet. Given the current hardcover situation, a 10 feet by 14 feet
porch would be the maximum allowable. Aside from removing additional hardcover to
keep the property under the 40 percent threshold, staff cannot support the proposal.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance as
requested.
Voss stated there appears to be no permit for the lower deck. Suthedand stated that it
was an existing, nonconforming deck prior to 1969 by the previous owner.
Sutherland stated that when the applicant got a variance for the garage and second
floor of the house, the deck was on the survey then.
Voss wanted clarification of the City of Mound for not permitting a nonconforming deck.
Voss referred to Resolution No. 96-74 where it states "the existing deck will not be
modified as part of this request."
Gordon stated it would appear the owner did not want the existing deck to change.
Gordon stated they would be also approving to justify the hardcover issue. Gordon
stated there does not appear to be a good reason to expand the deck.
Brown stated if we keep allowing decks to be built in this fashion then we will be soon
allowing three-season porches to be built in the same fashion.
Voss addressed staff to show that the hardcover currently is not over 40 percent but
with adding the deck it would be over.
John Hubler, the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Hubler showed 2-
3 pictures of his house as it exists to date. Each Planning Commissioner looked at the
pictures presented. He stated in the past he requested to add a split level entry and it
was approved. He assured the members that this did not increase or decrease the size
of the house. He also stated that the conditions stated with the split that the crawl
space be capped off, which it was. As his deck currently exists, he stated there is an
infringement for him to enjoy lake side because of high intensity sunlight and
mosquitoes, causing him to be unable to entertain business guests.
Mr. Hubler stated after receiving the City's letter that this porch would be nonconforming
because of size, he would be willing to build a 10 x 14 porch which would be allowable.
This then brings the discussion down to the issue of hardcover. The applicant realized
he does still need a variance and feels to get his variance he does fall under special
circumstances and situations as cited in the code. These circumstances to him would
be deprivation of outdoor effect, enjoyment of property, and this addition would not be
detrimental to the public welfare or public safety use. The applicant stated he would
like to be grandfathered in and granted the deck. He stated his evenings are deprived
because of mosquitoes, too much sunlight, and he cannot entertain business guests,
which are appropriate concerns for him to be grandfathered in.
The applicant demonstrated with pictures of 19 homes that have 3 season porches in
his area. The applicant stated that the traffic would not be a hindrance with this deck.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - SePtember 13. 1999
Mr. Hubler stated that according to his figures the location in question is 140 feet short
of today's compliance for hardcover. He is concerned why residents need to comply
always and commercial appear like they do not--examples coffee house and the
Marquette Bank. Mr. Hubler's solution for hardcover is to put under his proposed 3
season porch a 24 across by 14 deep above-ground manifold system. This system
would take moisture from roof and disburse it under the deck.
Chair Michael stated the hardcover is one issue in question regarding the applicant's
case. Chair Michael stated the applicant also wants to increase a nonconforming
proposal.
Mr. Hubler stated the hardcover needs to be addressed and he would like them to be
brought outside for a complete demonstration of the ground manifold system.
Chair Michael again stated to the applicant that he wants to expand a nonconforming
item. This is a huge issue, more than the hardcover at present. Chair Michael stated if
the City would approve this variance they would be increasing the nonconformity that
currently exists.
Voss stated it appears the lot size has decreased to 7,160 square feet.
Sutherland stated if the surveyor lotted the area as such then this is what it is to date.
He explained when the surveys were first completed they would figure lot size and then
calculate the results with a plus or minus sign. The surveyor to date clarified this and
the surveyor is correct.
Sutherland stated the lot area is measured to the flood plain elevation. If we use the
7,160 square feet then it conforms to the City's figures.
Voss stated there are more issues at hand regarding this case. Not only is the request
nonconforming, but if there would be a 3-seaon porch added on, they would at some
point want it to be changed to a 4-season, and then if a new owner comes along, they
will want to add a deck on to the porch. These would all be nonconforming cases.
Brown stated again that the three season porch is nonconforming.
Voss stated when we grant variances, we look at hardship and practical difficulties and
there is no hardship or practical difficulty in his eye.
Mr. Hubler again stated he cannot barbecue because of the heat, does not entertain
because of any shelter and temporary screen houses blow down. He wants to
permanently enjoy the lake 100 percent versus nothing now. He again restated that he
would like to demonstrate the hardcover issue at hand outside and is certain it would
alleviate the hardcover problems.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
Chair Michael stated the applicant could bring his case up to the Council if he so
wished. He stated that this case will be tabled until September 28 where the idea of
expanding a nonconformity could be addressed. Chair Michael assured Mr. Hubler that
it is not only a hardcover problem.
Voss stated to the applicant that he has now listened to the Planning Commission and
their thoughts and asked the applicant if he would favor a table and do more research
which could then be presented to the Council.
Mr. Hubler wants to know if City Council "will buy it."
Brown stated it is very rare a variance which exceeds hardcover or variance on
nonconforming lots get passed but he can certainly do more research and come back
to present his case further.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma, to deny the variance according to
staff recommendations.
Voss reiterated his reasoning for the Motion at hand. Voss stated there is no hardship
and no practical difficulty that he sees currently. He stated that by expanding more
nonconforming property that at some point it will eventually be a full four season porch
which will be nonconforming. Voss stated that if this was a garage or one-bedroom
home to add onto the house, then there would be practical difficulty but to date he does
not see that either.
Weiland stated maybe that the applicant is now overbuilding and should put some
thought into overbuilding in the future.
Mr. Huber stated that he would like to have the matter tabled for a later date.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Voss because applicant requested to have his
case tabled.
Mr. Huber stated that he would like to have the matter tabled until February, 2000.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma, to table the above case for review
by the Planning Commission until February, 2000, allowing applicant time
to come back with other comparisons and information to support his case.
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: John Hubler
CASE NUMBER: 99-36
ItKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 5816 Grandview Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a lakeside variance to construct a
nonconforming porch on an existing deck. The associated variances are as follows.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
North Front Yard house 3.8 ft 20 ft 16.2 ft
North Front Yard garage 3.6 ft 6 ft 2.4 t~
South Side Yard house 5.8 f~ 6 ft .2 f~
Lakeside deck 36 ft 50 ft 14 ft
The proposed porch would be built on the existing deck which received a variance in 1996. The
resolution recognized the existing setbacks from Grandview and the lake access drive along the
side yard. The proposed porch would encompass the deck area which is 14 feet by 20 feet. The
hardcover calculations provided are from the previous deck submittal which show the hardcover
short of the 40 percent maximum by 141 square feet. The porch would add 280 square feet to the
property putting it over the limit by 140 square feet. Given the current hardcover situation, a 10
feet by 14 feet porch would be the maximum allowable. Aside from removing additional
hardcover to keep the property under the 40 percent threshold, staff cannot support the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
deny 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 55364
Phone:~72-0600, Fax: 472-0620
PAID
0 1999
CIT OF MOUND
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning (~ommission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT Address
PROPERTY Lot /
LEGAL Block
DESC. Subdivision
PROPERTY
OWNER
City Planner ~~j(~
City Engineer Other
Public Works
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 d.R-1A~) R-2
Name ~'~ ~" ~AC-
Address ~/~ ~,~~ ~
Phone (H) ~7.Z 7,1~"
R-3 B-1
(w) #7~' ~
Case No. ~ -~.~
DNR
B-2 B-3
(M) ,,,,2~,,,T.
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? ( ~ ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application,
action
taken,
resolution
number(s) and provide copies oTTesolutions.
°
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
(Rev. 6-16-99)
Variance Application, P. 2
o
Do the existing structures comply with al~rea, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes~/~ NffL~I~Q 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: I~ ~I~ ~ E W ) ,2.0 ft. ,,~.~ ft. /~,,,X ft.
Side yr~,,~.,)S E W ) al,o ft. ~,.! ft. / 7. 5 ft.
Side Yard: ( NI~E W ) 6, ft. 5';~ ft. ,~, ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ff-o ft. $¢,, ft. /~/ ft.
: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: 5-,q'.$~ ft. -' ft. -- ft.
Lot Size: 6,¢~o sq ft - sq ft - sq ft
Hardcover: ~,~,/~" sq ft ° sq ft - sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
Please
( ) too narrow
(,v4 too small
( ) too shallow
describe:
( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) drainage (/) existing situation
( ) shape ( ) other: specify
(Rev. 6-16-99)
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes ~(~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Applicant's Signature
Date
Date
RESOL~ON ~96-74
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT
5816 GRANDVIEW BLVD., LOT 1, MOUND SHORES
PID 14-117-24 13 0003, P&Z CASE//96-29
~S, the owner, John Hubler has applied for a variance to recognize the
following existing nonconforming setbacks to allow a 28' x 34' second floor addition and a 4'
x 8' deck:
north front yard - house
north front yard - garage
south side yard - house
lakeside - deck
required existing/prop, variance
20' 3.8' 16.2'
20' 2.1' 17.9'
6' 5.8' .2'
50' 36' 14'
WttEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-iA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet,
a 20 foot front yard setback to both Grandview Blvd. and the alley to the north, a 6 foot side
yard setback, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and;
~AS, the existing crawl space is below the minimum building elevation of 942.0
required by the floodplain regulations, and;
WlqEREAS, the north front yard setback variances for this case are significant in
number, but relatively insignificant in actual impact since the home abuts an unimproved public
right-of-way that receives limited public usage, and;
WlqF~AS, the nonconforming lakeshore setback of 36' to the deck is due to a small
dredged area in the shoreline, most of the lakeshore is approximately 45' from the edge of the
deck. The existing deck will not be modified as part of this request, and;
WWfi'~REAS, the homes immediately south of the subject property are closer to the lake
than this home, and;
WlqEREAS, the existing home and garage are in good condition, and the proposed
addition will not further encroach on any of the existing nonconforming setbacks, and;
WHEREAS, the owner's would like the option of constructing either a second story
addition or a split entry, neither of which would encroach further than the existing footprint,
and;
W'ItEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval.
Resolution #9~- 74
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming setbacks
as listed below to allow the remodeling of the existing home, either a second floor
addition or conversion into a split level, subject to the condition that the finished floor
elevation of the lowest level of the existing home (crawl space) be raised to a minimum
elevation of 942.0 consistent with Section 300:15 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, and
subject to no further encroachments than the existing footprint.
north front yard - house
north front yard - garage
south side yard - house
lakeside - deck
required existing/prop, variance
20' 3.8' 16.2'
20' 2. l' 17.9'
6' 5.8' .2'
50' 36' 14'
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Remodeling of the existing home, either a 28' x 34' second floor
addition or conversion into a split level, with a 4' x 8' deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 1, Mound Shores. Also, that part of the un-named road
adjoining Lot 1, Mound Shores, described as follows: Beginning
at the most Easterly comer of said Lot 1; thence Northwesterly
along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 0.00 feet;
thence deflecting right 90 degrees a distance of 3.50 feet; thence
Southeasterly to the point of beginning.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been fried with the City
Clerk.
Resolution/196-74
July 25, I~06
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was moved by Couneilmember Jensen and seconded by
Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Hanus, lensen, ~essen and Polston. Ahrens was absent and excused.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
Attest: Acting City Clerk
Resolution adopted: July 23, 1996
Mayor
612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 868 1~3 .TUL 02 '96 10:~-.,?.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koeglcr, City Planner
DATE: July 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: John Hubler
CASE NUM3ER: 96-29
HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5p
LOCATION: 5816 Grandview Boulevard
EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-lA)
COMPREI:rENSIV~ PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to substar~ remodel an exis~g dwelling by adding
a second floor addition. Th~ addition which will measure 28' by 3zV will contain bedrooms and
bathrooms over the existing first floor of the hom~. The second floor will also contain a small deck
measuring 4' x 8'. Variances are required for the proposed construction to proceed because the
existing home has a number of nonconforming setbacks including an existing s/de yard, a front yard
off of an unimproved fight-of-way on tl~ north side end an existing deck has a nonconforming
lakeshore setback.
Thc property abuts an un-rmmd road on the north side that s~rv, s as access to a City lift station and
as an access to Dutch Lake. Both the existing home and the detached garage have non-conforming
front yard setbacks from the un-named right-of-way. Variances for this case include the following:
Required _Ex./Proposed Variance
Front Yard - Home 20'
Front Yard - Garage 20'
Side Yard - South Side 6'
Lakeshore 50'
3.8' 16.2'
2.1' 17.9'
5.8' .2'
36' 14'
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suit~ 52.~, Minneaoolis, Minae~ota ~5439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
HOISINGTON KDEGLER
868 p04 ~UL 82 '96 10:~]
Planning Report
Hubler Variance Request
July 2, 1996
Page 2
COMMENT: The front yard variances for thi~ case are significant in number but relatively
insignificant in actual impact since the home abuts a unimproved public right-or-way that receives
limited public usage. In 1972, the C'~j of Mound approved the vacation of a portion of the right-of-
way to remove an encroachm:nt cau.~ by the placen~nt of the detached garage. The applicant has
done some landscaping on the public fight-of-way, however, the improvements wer~ done with the
knowledge that the property owner would be respons~le for their replacement if it ever becomes
necessary to excavate within the right-of-way.
Tim iakeshom setback to the existing deck is 36 feet due to a small dredged area that was created in
the past. M°st of the lakeshore is approximately 45 feet from the edge of tl~ deck. The existing
deck will not be modi~d as part of the construction. TI~ homes immediately south of the subject
property are closer to the lake than the Hubler home.
Variances can be granted on the basis of practical difficulty or hardship. In this particular case, the
existing horm and garage are in very good condition and because of the configuration of the house,
expansion into a second story makes sense. Construction of th~ proposed addition will not further
encroach on any of the existing nonconforming setbacks.
RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of practical difficulty, staff recomrr~nds that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow the remodeling of the existing
hom~ subject to the following condition:
The finished floor elevation ofth~ lowest level of the existing home (crawl space) shall be raised
to a minimum elevation of 942.0 consistent with Section 300:15 of the Mound Code of
Ordinances.
~ 0 Z BIW
C13A1=!031:1
· Sac31RaSd zlO NOILd~DS']G '1V03-~
.,,%
133~1S
V_L. OS-:INNIIAI 'A±NnOO NId-:INN-::IH
C]':IIAIVN-Nn G31VOVA .L,,.l~--u"v "' ' -JO
S3~OHg (3N~OF~
_L~Vd (]NV
AND
PART
. ,,i.~ ',, :~
CERTIFICATE O~ ...... FOR
R, HUBLER
MOUND SHORES
OF , .~, ~.c~4'i' VACATED UN-NAMED
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
STREET
,),
6'0
cEGAL 9ESCR,PTION OF PREMISES :
'or 1, MOUND S~IORES
A.%O tl~nt I~ort of the un-nomeO rode odjoini~ ',o~ 1, MOUND SHORES,
desc~,beO os follows: ~eqi-ning ol ~he most Easterly cor~er O~
so:d Lot 1; thence Northwesferl~ elonq Ine No, lheosterly lir~e
JUN
1996
INSE
RECEIVED
AU6 20 1999
6 20- 96
I": 20'
96 · 294
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
SITE
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 553§4
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The applicant is: ~..owner __contractor __tenant
LEGAL Lot
DESCRIPTION Subdivision
OWNER
Company Name
Contact Person
Address
Phone {Hi
CONTRACTOR
Block Plat
PlO#
I.Jcense #
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
{M)
VALUATION
OF WORK:
VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. ~t. UMBING, HEATING° VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
P~MITS 8ECOME NULL ANO VOID IF WORK OR CON$~UC~ON AU~ORIZ~ 15 NOT COMMENCED ~IN 180 OAYS. OR IF CONS~UC~ON O~ WORK l$ $USP~OED OR ABANOONED
TO ~E ~T:~JO~S OF ANY ~UI~iNG OR ~RUCTURE IN ANY ZONING OISTRICT SHA~ SE COMPL~ED WI~IN ONE [11 Y~ FROM ~E DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. ~E P~SQN
OBTAINING THE aERMIT ~D ~E OWN~ OF THE PRQPER~ SHA~ &E RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPL~ION. A VIO~ON O~ ~lS ORDIN~C~ lSA MISO~OR OF~[NS~. ~E Cl~
COUNC:L MAY ~TENO THE ~ME FOR COMPL~tON UPON ~I~EN REQUEST OF ~E PERMI~EE. ESTABLISHING TO ~E R~SONAaLE SA~SFACTZON OF THE C~ COUNC:L ~AT
C3RC~MSTANC~S B~OND THE CONSOL OF ~E P~MI~EE PR~ENTED COM~ON OF THE WORK ~R ~ICH ~E P~IT WAS ~TED. THE ~T~SIQN S~ALL 5E REQUESTED
NOT LESS ~AN ~IR~ (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO ~E ~O OF ~E ONE-Y~ PBI0O.
I H~Y CERT;~ THAT I HAVE READ AND ~AMINED THIS ~PLICA~ON ~D KN~W ~E S~E TO BE TRUE ~0 CORRECT. ALL ~flO~SlON$ O~ ~WS ~D ORDINANCES GOV[~NING
~1S ~PE CF WORK ~LL ~E COMPLIED ~TH WH~ SPEC;RED HER~N OR NOT. ~E G~AN~NG 0F A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHQRI~ TO ~O~TE 0R C~CEL ~E
PROVISIONS 0F ANY O~ ~ATE OR LOCAL ~W REGU~TING CONSTRUCTION QR ~E P~FGRMANC[ OF CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME API~)fJCANT'$ SlGNAT~IRE DATE
~~//Iff//~~//~/~~/~/~~~~~~~~~~/~~//~~/~~~~~/~~~///////l/l/l/Ifil~/~/~~~~~/~~~~/~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//~~//~//~///~~~///~~/~//~//~////~~/////////
{OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
' I
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP 101V: MAX OCCUPANT ,OAO I COPIED APPROVED
ZONING
STORIES RRE ~PRINKL[~.S REQUIRED? Ct3"Y ENGINEER
Ul~l'S Y~S I NO ~UBUC WORKS
................... i ....... ,CITY OF MOUND ,
: U.A-~OCOV~=R CA~ CULATIONS
(I'MPERVlOU9 ~URFACE COVERA;(~I~I
_S,Q. FT., X 3O%
g?'.O.., so. ,rT. x 40%
_, ,~ SQ. FT. X 15%
LOT AREA
LQT AREA
LOT AREA
(for alt,Jots) .............. I__
fl0r Co~ of Recor.d*,) '
.(for detached buildings only) . .
.. ' Existing Lots. Of ReCord.may have 40 percent coverage provlde~ ~'~"te~::hniq~es a.r
outlined in Z~ing 0rdlna~e Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see ~c~. A plan must
HOUSE X
'~tilized, "as
subm;tted '
........... .:?:' TAL HOUSE ......... '
.... · ..-..~::' ;. ;. ~ - .- .....
DRlV~AY, pARKI~'~ ........ ' .......
....., .. ."L X
A~EA$, SI A - ;: '
~C. ' _.. X = ...
TOTAL DRIV~AY, ~C' . .................
DECKS o~ ~, (~14- min. ' X
.... p~i~ ~ und~ ~.. _ X
:"; , .;;L.:::. ':' OTAL OTHER
"/222
\/
\I
\?
-K
[
~illilhiil/llliil
· !
t
J
ADDRESS'.~ ~/
SURVEY ON FILE? ~E.~S~ NO
LOT OF RECORD.'?Y~ NO
YARD { DIRECTION
IIOUSE .........
w
SIDE W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E ~
LAKE N S E
TOP OF BLUFF
CITY
OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R2
R2
R3
REQUIRED
15'
1o' OR 30'
E~STING L(~ SIZE:
6,000/40 '~ B2 20,000180 /
6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
~4, ooo/so LOT DEPTH:
s~.~- o~u. ]z ~o,ooo/zoo I ~- '
{ .~..o~s~. v~c~
z.I ~, .t/_ ~ a c-tiC
GARAGE, SIIED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGS
FROm (~,~ w ~ 0
SIDE W 4' OR 6'
SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
10' OR 30'
TOP OF BLUFF t
HAILDCOVER 30% (~49~~ ~
This Zoning Information Sheet o~v summ~i~s a portion of ~e require~
Pl~ng Dep~tment at 472~.
3VT LOT I
outlined in the City of Mound Zoning
· VAC~IEO
\
2605.30 RES
~QO' ~
?-
RESOLUTION # 00-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5841 GRANDVlEW BLVD., LOT 14 AND THAT PORTION
OF THE ADJOINING VACATED ALLEY, MOUND,
PID # 14-117-24 13 0001
P & Z CASE #00-10
WHEREAS, the applicants, Dave Willette, has requested a vadance to lot area
to build a conforming house on the property located at 5841 Grandview Blvd.; and,
WHEREAS, the request requested vadance is as follows:
Existing/Proposed Re(~uired Variance
5,444 sf 6,000 sf 556 sf
Lot Area
; and,
WHEREAS,
the lot was originally platted as part of the Mound subdivision and
has since gained additional area and frontage through the vacation of the alley along the
western property line; and,
WHEREAS, the lot is similar in size to lots in the neighborhood being short of
the lot area requirement by about 9 percent; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed building plans for the property which
meet City Code requirements for setbacks and hardcover; and,
WHEREAS, the Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the request
and recommended that the Council approve the variance as 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 approve the vadance with the following conditions:
a. Grading and drainage plans be approved by the City Engineer prior to
building permit issuance.
b. The existing wood pile be moved from the present front yard location.
2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as
stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 14, MOUND AND THAT PART ADJOINING ~ OF THE VACATED ALLEY LYING
NORTHERLY OF THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3~
MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
DRAFT
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2000
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, and
Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and accused: Commissioner Bill Voss.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public wore present: Cathy Boyle, Steve Coddon, Alex Hubler, Joe
Hubler, John Hubler, Betty Johnson, Craig Johnson, Peter C. Meyer, Dave
Willette.
U 8~1~. VARIANCE; DAVE WILLETTE, 5841 GRANDVIEW BLVD, LOT
DING % ADJACENT VACATED ALLEY, MOUND ADDITION; IN
ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED
GARAGE ON AN UNDERSIZED R-2 ZONE LOT; PID# 14-117-24 13 0001
Gordon stated the applicant is requesting a variance to lot area standards in the
R-2 District in order to build a home on this vacant parcel. The proposed
residence is a 2-story home with tuck-under 2-stall garage.
Existin.q/Proposed Required Variance
Lot Area 5444 sf 6,000 sf 556 sf
The property consists of Lot 14, Mound, and % of the vacated alley making up
the west property line. The lot is undersized in terms of lot area the R-2 district by
about 9% which is not out of the ordinary in this neighborhood. The lot was
previously held by the adjacent property owner to the wast as a separate parcel
for some time. The new owner, Steve Codden, has selected Dave Willette to
build the proposed home. The survey indicates the proposed home location and
setbacks which conform to district provisions for this lot of record. Hardcover is
indicated to be under the allowable 30 percentage coverage.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the
variance as requested with the following conditions:
1. Grading and drainage plans be approved by the City Engineer prior to
building permit issuance.
2. The existing wood pile be moved from the present front yard location.
DRAFT
MOTION by Brown, second-ed by Clapsaddle, to approve the vadance as
recommended by staff.
Discussion.
Mueller was concerned about allowing the applicant a permit for a change in the
current driveway in the future. Gordon stated the City would have control of this
scenado through the permitting process for the home. Mueller stated this is a
concern because he is a neighbor to the applicant.
Craig Johnson, 5849 Grandview Boulevard. Mr. Johnson stated his home is
located by the alley with the five feet vacation. He is opposed to this variance
because the house being proposed is too big for the lot according to code. He
stated he was also not officially notified of this case being presented tonight,
even though he is a neighbor to the property in question. He thanked the
Commission for listening to his concern.
Mueller wanted a clarification about the ownership of the 1984 property
mentioned by Mr. Johnson when he received half of the alley way. Johnson
stated a woman was going to build a home in this location so one-half of the alley
was given to her and the other to him. Mueller asked if there has been a proper
zoning procedure administered on this property. The applicant stated he is
aware of this procedure, but it is not found in the City records. Sutherland stated
he is not aware of any information concerning this vacation and it could have
been missed.
Sutherland questioned Mr. Johnson's comment regarding proper notification of
tonight's meeting regarding this case. Sutherland stated he is aware Mr.
Johnson was mailed a notice, although he may not have received it to date.
Although, Mr. Johnson and his mother have had several discussions with
Sutherland about this property, so they were well aware of what was going to be
presented tonight.
Cathy Boyle, 5824 Grandview Boulevard. Ms. Boyle stated currently the house
across the street is an eyesore and she very much welcomes the new house
being proposed than the current house existing on the property to date.
John Hubler, 5816 Grandview Boulevard. Mr. Hubler stated he is not opposed to
the new house being proposed. Although, he stated with the additional driveway
being added in this location, he is concerned about the curve and the high speed
turns that do occur in this area. He would like the City to consider putting in
speed bumps to slow the traffic down.
Chair Michael addressed Mr. Johnson's concern about the size of the house
being considered for the lot. Chair Michael stated the code he was probably
referring to addressed a townhome, because this proposed single family dwelling
DRAFT
would be acceptable. Gordon agreed and stated there would be a total of 1,500
living square feet in the home.
Brown called the question.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-1, Mueller voting nay.
Mueller stated he does not agree with building on undersized lots.
Chair Michael informed the applicant his case will be presented to City Council
on April 25, 2000. He recommended the applicant attend this meeting on his
behalf.
WILLETTE BU II'.DhNG CO.
"Willcttc'$ -'Ibc People wifll ideas"
License l{ 11104
D::ve
lruX
S't';VrF. MF.N'I.'
If{voice R ECENF-.I-'>
QUOTATION N OtJND ?L, NNtNB & {NSF
~'25,$2 I.o.~t lad',e Il. omi
ILL). IIox {15
DATE:
Ma, k ,13'/-61115
i)uJt ,179-3.RI 1
- h
CONTILACTOI,US NOTI Cig
'(a) ANY I'I£I/,,SON OK COMP/UqY SUPI'LYING LAiIOK O!{ MATERIALS i:O1~. 'Tills IMPKOVEMENT TO YOUR
PI~,OPEi~,TY Isb\Y FILIi A LIEN AGAINST YOUI~, IU~.OPEKTY IF TIlAT PERSOI'4 Oil. COMPANY 15 NOT PAID FOi~,
TI I E CON'I'KIBUi'IONS.
(1.,) UNDEI1. MINNESOTA LAW, YOU IIAVE TIlE KIGIrF 'lB PAY PERSONS WIIO SUI'I'LIED LABOK OK
hlA'I'EI~.IALS FOK Tills IMI'I~.OVEMENT DII~.ECTLY AND DEDUCT TIllS AMOUrJT FKOM OUK CONTR. ACT
i'RICE. Oil. wrrl I110t, D TI IE AMOUNTS DUE TI IEM FI1.OM US UNTIL 120 DAYS AI"IIiK COMPLETION OF TI I E
IMI'I~.OVEMF. NT UNI. ESS WE GIVE YOU A LIEN WAIVER SIGNED BY PEI[SONS WIIO SUI'I'LIED ANY I.AIIOR
OR MA'I'EII. IAL FOIl. TI IE IMI'I~.OVEb, IEI,FI' AND WI IO GAVE YOU TIM ELY NOI'iCE."
Accepted 1 ~.,,': ..........
Authorized By:
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
IlliR
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 10, 2000
SUBJECT: Variance Application
APPLICANT: David Willette
CASE NUMBERS: 00-10
ItKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 5841 Grandview Blvd.
ZONING: Residential R-2 District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting a variance to lot area standards in
the R-2 District in order to build a home on this vacant parcel. The proposed residence is a 2
story home with tuck-under 2 stall garage.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Lot Area 5444 sf 6,000 sf 556 sf
The property consists of lot 14, Mound, and ½ of the vacated alley making up the west property
line. The lot is undersized in terms of lot area the R-2 district by about 9% which is not out of the
ordinary in this neighborhood. The lot was previously held by the adjacent propen'y owner to the
west as a separate parcel for some time. The new owner, Steve Codden, has selected Dave
Willette to build the proposed home. The survey indicates the proposed home location and
setbacks which conform to district provisions for this lot of record. Hardcover is indicated to be
under the allowable 30 percentage coverage.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested with thc following conditions:
1. Grading and drainage plans be approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit
issuance.
2. The existing wood pile be moved from the present front yard location.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, 1Vlinnesota 55401
RECEIVED
I4~R 10 ZOO0
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CiTY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
-,CRC?-,.//.- 2_5,
~'/~' OO City Planner
-..,q' I...,A- oo City Engineer
,.R./.~ - ~20 Public Works
/3.00
Application Fee: $100.00
cas ,o.OO- / 0
DNR
Other
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
. (IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Subdivision
F~Dg /9- /i7 -- ~?-- 13-- O O0 / P~a~
ZONING DISTRICT R-I R-IA ~R-~ R-~ B-~ B-2 B-3
v
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address~¢~
Phone
'7 ~<~7 (W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning proceCure
property? ( ) yes,~'no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s)
for
this
and
provide copies of resclut'fon~'.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2 Case NO.
Do the existing structures comply with 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: ~ E W )
Side Yard: ( N ~;N )
Side Yard: (N ~(~]
Rear Yard: ( NS~cE W
Lakesice: ( N S --_ W
' N ~ =_W
Street. Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
Does the present use of the prope,m/conform to all regulaticc, s for the zoning distff, ct in which it :,s iccatec~'
Yes (), No j~ If no. specify each non-conforming use:
/
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses
permitted in that zoning district?
too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
,~s~nce Ap~fication. P. 3 Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance ,,vas 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 ~.he conditions of harCshic 'cr,,vh~ch, '/cu *=.",,~¢ = '/ar, ance. ~ ........ ., ' . , ~ ......
~n~s 2edUcn? YesX, No ,' ',. tf no. !is; sc,me --'=, "?=,-'~=~- '
....... ,3F..,..~, ,,~ ',*./~iC~ =re s;,.'%,ila.-;'¢ 8~5.31-2c?
~¢ t~ e ~, o; ~ / 5 y .~T,. ~ ~ /~ ~ , ' /¢ ~T-~-1/~ 4¢
c a ~s/sTh ~'7-
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 pcsting, maintaininG
and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Date
Date
Revised 10-26-99
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(I~PE~VIOU$ SUI~FA(;;E COVE,R~Gi~)
PROPERTY ADDESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
LOT ARE,&
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. 6.8.1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE
v
TOTAL HOUSE ....................................................
DETACHED BUILDINGS
(GARAGE:SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ...............................
--- x ~-~ =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................
DECKS OCen decks (1/4" min.
Opening bet',~een boards) with a
pervious su~aoe under are not
counted as hardcover.
TOTAL DECK .......................................................
TOTAL OTHER ....................................................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ...................................................
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ....................................................................
PREPARED BY ~.-~¢ E,~-r' \~ ',~., ~-
~30~OR~ NO..S~ I11
PLY~O~. ~TA 5~7
DATE ""
.!
4.-
h
II
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION StlEET
A D DR ESS..L.~- ~
SURVEY ON FILE? (YES~) NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
YARD ' [
ltOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
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
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
~~ R1 1o,ooo/6o nl 7,500/0
RIA 6.000/40 B2 20,000/80
~'R: 6,ooo/4o-')~3 ~o.ooo/so
~2 X4,000/80
R3 $R~ ORD. XX 30,O00/ZO0
REQUIRED lEXIS'rING/PROPOSED
15'
50'
10' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEFFii:
VARIANCE
?i~'', GARAGE, StiED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
· '_ ': FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
; SIDE N S E W
..~7y 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'
10' OR 30'
HARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
CONFORMING? YES / NO I ? I BY: I DA~ED:
This Zoning lnformatiou Sheet ouly summarizes a portion of the requircment~ oullined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlact the City of Mound
.... Planni~
t .~' Al'
VACAT[O
$[Pt 1972
SO-
RESOLUTION #OO-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
DETACHED GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE,
AT 2156 CENTERVlEW LANE,
LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK,
PID # 13-117-24 31 0052
P & Z CASE #00-11
WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Terri Bonnicksen, have applied for a
vadance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17.5 feet in order to
construct a second story addition; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard setbacks are 6
feet for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the applicants applied for this project previously which were approved
by Resolutions #94-10 and #98-39 but have since expired; and,
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval as this project represents a substantial improvement to the property,
improvement of the existing front yard encroachment, and the proposal is conforming to the
Zoning Ordinance; 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 2.5 foot front yard setback variance.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construction a second story addition to the existing dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKE SIDE PARK, 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.
MOUND ADVISORY PL, ANN NG COMMiSSiON
MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2000
DRAFT
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, and
Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and accused: Commissioner Bill Voss.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and
Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Cathy Boyle, Steve Coddon, Alex Hubler, Joe
Hubler, John Hubler, Betty Johnson, Craig Johnson, Peter C. Meyer, Dave
Willette.
C,,.,JI~.tiI~.I~I: VARIANCE; DON BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE,
LOT 8 & 31, BLK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO MOUND; IN ORDER
TO FINISH A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WITH A NONCONFORMING
FRONT YARD SETBACK; PID# 13-117-24 31 0052.
Gordon stated the applicant is seeking a front yard variance to build a second
story addition to the existing house. The project was previously approved by
Resolution #94-10 and the 1998 Resolution, but the house portion of the project
was never completed. The request is listed below.
Existin.q/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 17.5' 20' 2.5'
The property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Distdct which
requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet
side yard setback. All code requirements are conforming except the front yard
setback. Hardcover is under requirements and is not an issue. The first
application outlined the second story addition, porch and garage as the project.
Currently the porch and garage are complete. The second story project has been
started and will reflect the plans approved by the previous resolution. The project
is a substantial improvement to the property and will increase the livability of the
property.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the
variance as requested.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to approve the variance
according to staff recommendation. MOTION CARRIED. 8-0.
Chair Michael informed the applicant his case will be presented to City Council
on April 25, 2000.
P1_A1 141t4G REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group [nc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: April 10, 2000
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Don and Terri Bonnicksen - 2156 Centerview Lane
CASE NUMBER: 00-11
FIKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 2156 Centerview Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREFIENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a fi.om yard variance to build a second story addition
to the existing house. The project was previously approved by Resolution #94-10 and the 1998
Resolution, but the house portion of the project was never completed. The request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 17.5' 20' 2.5'
The property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot
area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet fi.ont yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setback. Ail code
requirements are conforming except the front yard setback. Hardcover is under requirements and
is not an issue. The first application outlined the second story addition, porch and garage as the
project. Currently the porch and garage are complete. The second story project has been started
and will reflect the plans approved by the previous resolution. The project is a substantial
improvement to the property and will increase the livability of the property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee:
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner 3' ] 7 DNR
City Engineer C~-I '-7 ~
Public Works Other
SUBJECT Address
PROPERTY Lot ~
LEGAL Block
DESC.
Subdivision
PID# ~'"~ --
ZONING DISTRICT
--'7__'-[ --~-1 ooE,7 P~a~
R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2
B-3
PROPERTY
OWNER
Address
Phone
(H) c-/'-77 1-71"-~ (W) (M)
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone
OWNER) (H)
(W) (M)
$100.00
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.):
Revised 02-04-00
Vadance Application, P. 2 Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district
in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for
variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
FrontYard: (NSEW) -7_(~ ft. /7.---'%~'ft. ~ ~-7~' ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ff
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located?
Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses
permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) sha_pe
( ) soil
( ) existing situation
( ) other: specify
Revised 02-04-00
~'a,~ance Application, P. 3 Case No.
o
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyo.,rle having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (t,)d'. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No ( ~,,/If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship~f which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in
this petition? Yes (), No (l~'l'f o, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
l
!
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
appliCation by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining
and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Date
Revised 02-04-00
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVI(TdS SURFACE COVERAGE)
'PROPER'FY ADDRESS: ~( 5(z2 ~_~_~.-~.~_.,r~/i~_.~/_~,~, ~-/(~h(~ ~,~1~)
OWNER'S NAME: ~Un ~- -'(¥r-~'i ~nl'('2-~<;~
LOT AREA ~ ~'"-0 SQ. FT. X 30°/6 = (for all lots) .............. I ,l C, ~5,"C~r21
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. El. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks {1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
Lav~n.( to x I ~= I gO
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
x ;
'ro'r .................
X
X
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
TOTAL DECK ..........................
TOTALOTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY DATE
Certificateof Survey for
Don Bonnicksen
of Lots 8 & 3!, Block 7, Abraham Linco]n Addition
to Lakeside Park
Hennepin County, Minnesota
!
!
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED'
Lots 8 and 31,Block 7, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound,
Minnetonka"
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property,
the location of an'existing house and shed thereon, and the proposed location
of a proposed garage. It does .not purport to show any other improvements or
encroachments.
· Iron marker found
: Iron marker set
: Denotes distance shown on record plat of "Abraham Lincoln Addition to
Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka"
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super-
vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Mark $. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
I
I
I
ii
I
!:
!.
!
!
I
Certificate of Survey for
Don B0nntcksen
of Lots 8 & 31, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln Addition
to Lakeside Park
Hennepln County, Minnesota
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lots 8 and 31,Block 7, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound,
Mlnnetonka"
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property,
the location of an existing house and shed thereon, and the proposed location
of a proposed garage. It does not purport to show any other improvements or
encroachments.
Iron marker found
Iron marker set
Denotes distance shown on record plat of "Abraham Lincoln Addition to
Lakeside Park, Mound, Mlnfletonka"
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super-
vision, and that I am a duty registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
DATE 12'1'4
SC^L~ /"=.~0'
PHONE 472-1717
Don Bonnick$on
~ C~qqtivq
~ Cont;qcfin9 =
PHONE 472-1717
Don 13onnick$on
Contracting =
PHONE 472-1717
CERTIFICATE
City of Mound
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
hereby attest and certify that:
As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached
and foregoing extract was transcribed.
2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record.
I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes
of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract,
including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to:
RESOLUTION #9840
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD
SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE
AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE,
AT 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE,
LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN
ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 31 0052, P & Z CASE g98-39
Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as ~/equired by law on
July 28, 1998.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 19th day of
August, 1998.
SEAL
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION ~) 8-80
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE,
AT 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE,
LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK,
PID # 13-117-24 31 0052
P & Z CASE ~t98-39
WHEREAS, the applicants, Don and Terri Bonnicksen, have applied for a variance to
recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17.5 feet in order to accomplish the
following:
Remove nonconforming existing front entry roof.
Construct a future second story addition, this addition steps back from the
footprint of the existing dwelling setbacks and is also conforming.
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard setbacks are 6
feet for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the applicants applied for this project previously and Resolution
#94-10 was granted and the time restriction expired; and,
WHEREAS, the impervious surface is 84 square feet over the maximum
allowable of 30% without an approved drainage plan; and,
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval as this project represents a substantial improvement to
the property, improvement of the existing front yard encroachment, and the proposal is
conforming to the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED~ by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:_
1. The City does hereby grant a 2.5 foot front yard setback variance and
a 84 square foot impervious surface variance to the 30% requirement upon the condition that
the nonconforming shed and existing front entry roof be removed.
2. 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.
3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construction a second story addition to the existing dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKE SIDE PARK,
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
5. 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
Jensen, and seconded by Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Hanus, Jensen, Polston and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused.
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael
Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon,
Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry
Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland
Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn
Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood.
Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
No corrections were made.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998
Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-39: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN
ADDITION, DON & TERRI BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVlEW LANE, LOTS 8&31,
BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION LAKESIDE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 31
0052
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicants, Don and Terd Bonnicksen, are seeking a front yard variance to build a second
story addition to the existing house. The project was previously approved by Resolution #94-10,
but the house portion of the project was never completed. The request is listed below.
Moun(i Planning Commission Minutes '~-
July 13, 1998
Existing/Prooosed Re(~uired Variance
Front Yard 17.5' 20' 2.5'
The property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot
area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setback. All code
requirements are conforming except the front yard setback. Hardcover is under requirements
and is not an issue. The first application outlined the second story addition, porch and garage
as the project. Currently the porch and garage are complete. The second story project has
been started and will reflect the plans approved by the previous resolution. The project is a
substantial improvement to the property and will increase the livability of the property.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as
requested.
DISCUSS/ON:
Mueller commented that it is the same request as before.
Don Bonnicksen stated that he had not finished the proposed work.
Sutherland stated that the applicant had not filed for an extension therefore he needed to go
through the whole process again.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff's recommendation.
Motion carried 7-0.
This case will go to the City Council on July 28, 1998
0PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
I'nllT4
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: July 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Don and Terri Bonnicksen - 2156 Centerview Lane
CASE NUMBER: 98-39
I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5gg
LOCATION: 2156 Centerview Lane
ZONING: Residential District R- 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a fi.om yard variance to build a second story addition
to the existing house. The project was previously approved by Resolution #94-10, but the house
portion of the project was never completed. The request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 17.5' 20' 2.5'
The property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot
area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and a 6 feet side yard setback. All'code
requirements are conforming except the fi.ont yard setback. Hardcover is under requirements and
is not an issue. The first application outlined the second story addition, porch and garage as the
project. Currently the porch and garage are complete. The second story project has been started
and will reflect the plans approved by the previous resolution. The project is a substantial
improvement to the property and will increase the livability of the property.
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
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOO ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Agenda of January 10, 1994
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official _ ·
Variance Request
Don & Terri Bonnicksen
94-02
2156 Centerview Lane, Lots 8 & 31, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln Addition to
Lakeside Park, 13-117-24 3l 0052
R- 1A Single Family Residential
The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard
setback of 17.5 feet in order to accomplish the following:
1. Remove existing front entry roof and nonconforming shed.
2. Add 2 feet to existing rear porch that is currently being converted into a laundry
room.
ge
Se
Construct a fully conforming 24' x 34' detached garage.
Construct a 12' x 14' fully conforming rear deck.
Construct a future second story addition (note sketch plans), this addition steps
back from the footprint of the existing dwelling setbacks and is also conforming.
~nnted on recycled paper
January 11, 1994
RESOLUTION g)4-10
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A
NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND AN
ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT
2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS $ & 31, BLOCK 7,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK,
PID//13-117-24 31 0052, P&Z CASE//9402
WHEREAS, the owners, Don and Terry Bonnicksen, have applied for a variance
to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 17.5 feet in order to accomplish
the following:
Remove existing front entry roof and nonconforming shed.
Add 2 feet to existing rear porch that is currently being convened into a laundry
room.
Construct a fully conforming 24' x 34' detached garage.
Construct a 12' x 14' fully conforming rear deck.
Construct a future second story addition (note sketch plans), this addition steps
back from the footprint of the existing dwelling setbacks and is also conforming.
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square
feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both streets and 6 foot side yard setbacks, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval as this project represents a substantial improvement to the property,
improvement of the existing front yard encroachment, and the proposal is conforming to the
Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 2.5 foot front yard setback variance upon the condition that
the nonconforming shed and existing front entry roof be removed.
January
2.
11, 1994
The City Council authorize~ the alterations set forth below, pu~uant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
ae
Add 2 feet to the existing rear porch that is currently being convened into a
laundry room.
Construct a fully conforming 24' x 34' detached garage.
Construct a 12' x 14' fully conforming rear deck.
Construct a future second story addition as shown on the sketch plans submitted
with the application.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
LoB 8 and 31, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, PID #13-11%24
31 0052.
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.
7. Applicant's sketch plans are attached hereton and made a part of this resolution.
The shed shown on the survey will be removed by the applicant after completion of the
garage or by May 1, 1994.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by
Councilmember Jensen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Iensen, Jessen, and Johnson.
January 11, 1994
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
none.
Councilmember Smith was absent and excused.
1VIINqYI OF A MEETING OF
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNI1NG COMMISSION
JANUARY 10, 1994
CASE $94-02: DON & TERRY BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS
$ & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID
f13-117-24 31 0,:52. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request
for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard
setback of 17.5 feet in order to accomplish the following:
1. Remove existing front entry roof and nonconforming shed.
Add 2 feet to existing rear porch that is currently being
converted into a laundry room.
3. Construct a fully conforming 24' x 34' detached garage.
4. Construct a 12' x 14' fully conforming rear deck.
Construct a future second story addition (note sketch plans),
this addition steps back from the footprint of the existing
dwelling setbacks and is also conforming.
The front yard setback would actually be improved by the removal of
the front entry roof (this roof is not shown on the survey), and
the construction of the decorative 2 foot entry gable.
Due to the oncoming winter weather and time constraints of the
variance process, the applicant has, at his own risk, installed the
garage slab. It was inspected for proper setbacks and construction
prior to pouring.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as
this project represents a substantial improvement to the property,
improvement of the existing front yard encroachment, and the
proposal is conforming to the Zoning Ordinance, upon the condition
that the nonconforming shed and existing front entry roof be
removed.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to recommend
approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion
carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on January 11, 1994.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL o JANUARY 11, 1994
1.13
CASE//94-002: DON & TERRY BONNICKSEN. 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE.
LOTS $ & 31. BLOCK 7. ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE
PARK. PID #13-117-24 31 0052. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g94-10
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORt~G FRONT YARD
SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED
GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURE AT 2156 CEaNTERVIEW LANE, LOTS
9 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION
TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-117-24 31 0052, P & Z
CASE//94-02
Councilmember Jensen asked the an Item #7 be added to the proposed resolution:
Applicant sketch plans are attached hereto and made a part of this
resolution.
The City Attorney stated he feels there should be an Item #8 added also referring to the
shed that is to be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant
asked that he not be required to remove the shed until after the garage is in place. He
stated he has money tied up in this building and would like to sell it after he has his
garage built so that the storage can be moved then. The Council agreed upon the
following wording for Item//8:
The shed shown on the survey will be removed by the applicant after
completion of the garage or by May 1, 1994.
The applicant agreed.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
.J
Certificate of Survey for
0on Bonnicksen
of LOtS 8 & 31, BlOck 7, Abraham Lincoln Additzon
t0 L~keside P~rk
Hennepin County, ~innesota
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lots B and 31,Block 7, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Dark, Mound,
Ninnetonka"
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property.
the location of an existing house and shed thereon, and the proposed Location
o? a proposed garage. It does not purport to show any other improvements or
encroachments.
Iron marker found
Iron marker set
Denotes distance shown on record plat of "Abraham Lincoln Addition
Lakeside Park. Mound, Minnetonka"
I heyday certi~ that this surYey was prepas~d by me or und~ my direr super-
~n, ~d t~t I am a d~y ~ter~ Os~ En~in~r a~ ~nd Su~eyor under
~e la~ of t~ 5~m 9f Minn~.
Mad~ S. Gmnbe~ Minnesota license Number
GENERAL ZONING INFORD, L~TION SItEET
! ~f~f~DPRc, I ZONE; I I~QUI~D , ] EXISTING
Existing LOt Width ~ / , Degth ~O /
SgTBACK~ REQUIRED g
SIDE: N S · W or 6'
SlOe~ N~g W (~ SLOE: ~ S t W or 6'
~t N S E W 15' ~: H S E W
LAY~ SNORE:
April 15, 2000
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
TO:
FROM:
SUBF_JCT:
CITY COUNCIL
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
LICENSE RENEWALS FOR APRIL 13 COUNCIL MEETING
The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2001. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted.
Transient Merchant
By the Way Snack Shop
Tree Removal License
Aaspen Tree Service
Amberwood Tree
Emery's Tree Service
Four Season's Tree Service
Ostvig Tree, Inc.
Precision Landscape & Tree
Randy's Tress Service
Shorewood Tree Service (Residential)
Shorewood Tree Service (Commercial
Set-Up License
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
GAMES OF SKILL
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
POOL TABLES
VFW Post #5113
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
BOWLING
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
AMUSEMENT DEVICE
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
printed on recycled paper
RESTAURANT
A1 & Alma's
American Legion Post #398
Domino's Pizza//1974
Happy Garden
Hardee' s
House of Moy
Lake Minnetonka Bowl
Scotty B's
Subway Sandwiches
VFW Post ~5113
Uncharted Grounds
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: APRIL 25, 2000
BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCH #
#0041
AMOUNT
$205,191.80
TOTAL BILLS $205,191.80
PAGE 1 P U R C H A S E J 0 U N N A L
AP-C02-OI CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD P
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTIDN ACCOUNT NUMBER
AO005 82951 163.37 BEARING (2) 22-4170-3820
A g B AUTO ELECTIRC, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 163.37
AO050 100663 800.00 THRU 12-31-00 CERTIFIED AUDIT 01-4090-3130
2,600.00 THRU 12-31-00 CERTIFIED AUDIT 73-7300-3130
2,~00.00 THRU 12-31-00 CERTIFIED AUDI1 78-7800-3130
4/25/00 4/25/00 6,000.00 JRNL-CD i010
~BDO"ABDO EICK & MEYERS~LL VENDOR TOTAl 6000.00
AOIi1 000331 8.34 03-00 296-9058 BUSINARO, G. 01-4090-3220
~5~-~-'-~-~0~=~ SUTHERLAND J. 01-4190-3220
5.67 03-Og 554-6520 73-7300-3220
27.46 03-00 581-2110 PATROL #845 01-4140-3220
27.08 03-00 581-6401 CHIEF HARRELL 01-4140-3220
27.08 03-00 581-6404 BLAZER 01-4140-3220
27.08 03-00 581-6440 S~UAD #840 01-4140-3220
27~8' 03-00 581-644i S~UAD #84i 01-4140-3220
27.08 03-00 581-6442 SNUAD #842 01-4140-3220
27.08 03-00 581-5443 SQUAD #843 01-4140-3220
.39 03-00 723-7560 MOUND FIRE 22-4170-3220
1.34 03-00 751-3572 ENGINE #~8 22-4170-3220
7.81 03-00 875-4502 RESCUE TRUCK 22-4170-3220
4/25/00 4/25/00 279.64 JRNL-CD lOlO
A1RTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUE VENDOR TOTAL 279.64
!--~-031'2 990723 ~OO~O~-F~REWORKS DISPLAY BALANCE 0~3~-0000
4/25/00 4/25/00 4,000.00 JRNL-CD 1010
~MERICANA FIREWORKS D-ISPLA VENDOR TOTAl ..... 4~-
A0331 008025 8.85 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200
.............. 8~5--~N~L OFFICE~P~P-[-~ES 01-4090-2200
~.85 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2200
8.85 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200
2.95 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200
2.95 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200
4.41 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200
4/25/00 4/25/00 58.98 JRNL-CD 1010
AMSTERDAM PRINTING VENDOR TOTAL 58.98
4/25/00 4/25/00 79.88 JRNL-CD iOlO
ATHENA CARPET CLEANING VENDOR TOTAL 79.88 ....................................................
A0432 000318 6.58 ANNUAL R30-612-010-6210-0-~ 22-4170-3220
.... 4/25/00 4/25/00 ..... 6,58--~R~E~CD
PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD p~
NO' INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOO~Y -~S'~iP~IDN AC--COU~ ~BER '
AT & T
VENDOR TOTAL .... 6~58 .............
_ B0549 18658700 104.00 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
- 4/25/00 4/25-/00 ......................................... 104.00 JRNL-CD 1010
189661900 348.30 LI@UOR 71-7100-9510
4/25/00 4/25/00 348.30 JRNL-CD 1010
511.99 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
' ' ~/25/00 4Z2~'/00'
511.99 JRNL-CD 1010
.......... 18698200 428.75 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
4/~5~00 ' 4/25/00 ...... 428:75 --J~-N--L-CD
BELLBOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 1393.04
BO600 i0037918 31.66 03-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CMRO120
3!_._6__6____03-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CMRO120
31.67 03-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CMRO120
4/25/00 4/25/00 94.99 JRNL-CD
1003719~ ......................... ~-~03~O--GARBAGE PICKUP CM40121
4/25/00 4/25/00 67.01 JRNL-CD
10037253 65.75 03-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CMR0308
4/25/00 4/25/00 65.75 JRNL-CD
...... 100374'09 ~-7-~-~'~---'03-00 GARBAGE PICKUP CHPO085
4/25/00 4/25/00 17.76 JRNL-CD
- -1003739'4 ............. ~-':'O'7~3~-O~-~-B-~GE PICKUP CHPO045
4/25/00 4/25/00 67.07 JRNL-CD
BLACKOWIAK' AND SON VENDO~ TOTAl ......... 312.58
B0746 T008921 i20.00 INTERVIEWING 2 ALEXANDER M.
'4/25/00- q/25/00 .............. l~ 0~0~--- J~ N L-C D
18713100
B04030004 200.00 BASIC INTOX BRUCKNER, MIKE
4/25/00 4/25/00
BCA/TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 320.00
C0830 855595 470.00 02-01-00 THRU OI-3i-OI MAINTEN
4/25/00 4/25/00 470.00 JRNL-CD
CASH REGISTER SALES VENDOR TOTAL 470.00
C0859 D33035
D33610
01-4280-3750
73-7300-3750
78-7800-3750
1010
22-4170-3750
1010
01-4340-3750
1010
71-7100-3750
lOlO
01-4280-3750
lOlO
01-4140-4110
1010
01-4140-4110
lO ~0--- -
71-7100-4200
lOlO
' 8.B7- MISCEE[~NESU$-[I6HT ............... 01:~2g0--2250 ......
8.87 MISCELLANEOUS LIGHT 73-7300-2250
8.87 MISCELLANEOUS LIGHT 78-7800-2250
4/25/00 "4/25/00 ' --~ -2~-61--JRNL~C~ ........... 101-0 ......
9.03 E~UIPMENT REPAIR
4/25/00 4/25/00 .... 9,03- ~RNL~CD
01-4340-3~20
...................... i'0~
PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS ~MOuNT- DESCRIPTION ACCO'O~Y"NgMB-ER ..... ;
CHAMPION AUTO VENDOR TOTAL
C0950 25727 72.00 I.D. BADGES BURKE AND ~RUCKNER 01-4140-4100
' 4/25/00 4/25/00 - 72,00'--JRN-~=CD ............................... i6~-- -
CLASSLINE, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 72.00
C0960 000331 14.93
14.93
14.93
2.13
17.22
36 .i7
81.99
52.45
SUPPLIES 01-4280-2250
SUPPLIES 73-7300-2250
SUPPLIES 78-7800-2250
SUPPLIES 73-7300-2300
SUPPLIES 01-4280-2300
SUPPLIES 01-4320-2200
SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200
SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200
51.09 SUPPLIES
28.~7 SUPPLIES
............................................ 15'2'~7~ SUPPLIES
1.77 SUPPLIES
164.80 SUPPLIES
4725100 ' 4/25100 ....... ~l~3-:O~---JRNl_-~
COAST TO COAST VENDOR TOTAL 813.08
01-4340-2330
01-4320-3830
78-7800-2300
01-4340-2200
01-4280-2200
22-4170-2200
1010
C0970 61330082 147.36 MIX TAXABLE
4/25/00 4/25/00 147.36 JRNL-CD
COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL i47.36
'~II0~- 000407 ........................ 5~32~0-'-~:~0 PROFES~NAL SERVICES
4/25/00 4/25/00 5,320.40 JRNL-CD
CHADWICK AND MERTZ~ P.A -- VENDOR TOTAL --- 5320-~40---
71-7100-9550
1010
1010
Cllll 70491
................. 4725/00 4725/00 ............ 671~50--~RNL-CD
CRAWFORD DOOR VENDOR TOTAL 671.50
Cl130 7651 106.50 CLEAR STROBE
4/25/00 4/25/00 i06.50 JRNL-CD
CUSTOM FIRE APPARAIUS VENDOR TOTAL i06.50
D'1154 64545
4/25/00 4/25/00 240.00 JRNL-CD
- D~HLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO VENDOR TOTAL
DiI70 iii3629 -- 50.27 BROWN AND BLACK
............... 4/25/00 ~/25/00 ........ 5~7'--~R~=~D
DALCO INC VENDOR TOTAL 50.27
671.50 REPAIR OVERHEAD DOOR
22-4170-3820
1010
22-4170-3820
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
STRPPR 16" 22-4170-2230
1010
PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
' AMOUNt- DE~CRiPTiO~ .....
D1200 92149 1,126.55 BEER
.... 4/25/00 4/25/00
93022
36.80 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE
4/25/00 4/25/00 36.80 jRNL=Cb
847.35 BEER
4/25/00 4125700 .......
93021
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 2010.70
D12BO 802014482 2,057.34 GRACO LINE BLAZER
2,410.34 GRACO LINE BLAZER
4/25/00 4/25/00 - -~,46'7.r68 ....
DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS VENDOR TOTAL 4467.68
E1420 611107 568.25 BEER
4/25/00 4/25/00 568.25 JRNL-CD
612677 2,365.95 BEER
4/25/00 4/25/00 2,365.95 JRNL-CD
615988 4,934.70 BEER
4/25/00 4/25/00 4,934.70 JRNL-CD
615989 21.20 MISCELLANEOUS
4/25/00 4/25/00 21.20 JRNL-CD
614046 378.00 BEER KEGS
4/25/00 4/25/00 378.00 JRNL-CD
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL 8268.10
Ei450-i7227 4~3'~---~3---~'~ P~-OF~SIONAL SERVICES
4/25/00 4/25/00 4,830.00 JRNL-CD
EH[ERS-&-ASSOCIATES INC ' VENDOR~OTA[
E1476 i21309 35.00 IMPACT AC CHARGER
.......... 4/25/00 ' 4/25/00
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCT~ VENDOR TOTAL 35.00
Ei477 3726 1,292.76 REPAIR ENGINE #18
4/25/00 4/25/00 1,292.76 JRNL-CD
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL 1292.76
E~502 00'320 1'09-~05'- REL~-CA~ON MANAG~7~GE
4/25/00 4/25/00 I09.05 JRNL-CD
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO VENDOR TOTAL -- --'10~C05 --
F1560 69571 236.?1 GENERAL MAINTENANCE
-~ - 4/25/00 4/25/00
PRE
ACCOUNT NUMBER /
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
01-4280-5000
73-7300-5000
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
55-5880-3100
1010
22-4170-2270
1010
22-4170-3820
I010
22-4170-2200
1010
PAGE 5 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
...... NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
PRE
FIRE CONTROL EXTINGUISHER VENDOR TOTAL 236.71
F1575 303170 38.00
~/25/00 4/25/00 38.00
DRIVER HANDBOOK/OPERATIONS
JRNL-CD
FIRE PROTECTION PUBLICATIO VENDOR TOTAL 3.8.~0~
F1635 55 900.00 MASK FIT TEST
4/25/00 4/25/00 900.00 JRNL-CD
FIT TEST INC VENDOR TOTAL 900.00
Fl710 000406 ..... 22-~-25 MILEAGE/EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
4/25/00 4/25/00 22.25 JRNL-CD
' ~RANCENE CLARK ...... VENDOR TOTAl
F1720 000401 51.85 03-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
22-4170-4130
1010
22-4170-3140
1010
01-4060-4120
1010
01-4140-3100
1010
FRANK MADDEN & ASSOC VENDOR TOTAL 51.85
G1750 317244 19.53 MATS
19.53 MATS
24.26 UNIFORMS
24.26 UNIFORMS
............................ ~4~2~ UNIFORMS
4/25/00 4/25/00 131.37 JRNL-CD
296734
............ 27%]8--~TS
4/25/00 4/25/00 27.38 JRNL-CD
307951
4/25/00 4/25/00 25.80 JRNL-CD
321851 ....... 79-~Z--~ATS
4/25/00 4/25/00 79.72 JRNL-CD
' ' 317245 - 36~89~T5
4/25/00 4125/00 36.89 JRNL-CD
321850
~/25/00
9.87 MATS
9.88 HATS
24;26- ~NI-FORH$
24.26 UNIFORMS
24.26 UNIFORMS
4/25/00
01-4280-2250
73-7300-2250
78-7800-2250
01-4280-2240
73-7300-2240
7~-7800-2240
1010
22-4170-2230
1010
22-4170-2230
1010
01-4320-4210
lOiO
1010
73-7300-2250
78-7800-2250
~i~28~22 40
73-7300-2240
78-7800-2240
102.40- JRNE~/D ........................... ~ ~1~ .......
G & K SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL ~ 403.56
G1752 536792480104 30.67 SPRAGUE STETHOSCOPE 22-4170-2270
4/25/00 4/25/00 30.67 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 6 P U R £ H A 5 E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND ::
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ................. ~E
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DE~CNiP~'i'~ ...... ACCOUNT NUMBER A
53728.2980102 1Z5.40 SPEAKER 22-4170-3820
4/25/00 4/25/00 175.40- -j~-~
GALLS INC
Gi820 572196
572197
VENDOR TOTAL 206.07
1010
39.99 BICYCLE TUNE-UP 01-4150-2200
4/25/00 4/25/00 39'~? 9.~NL-CD ..... 1010
39.99 BICYCLE
.... 4/25/00_ 4~/25/00 39.99 JRNL-CD
GEAR WEST VENDOR TOTAL 79.98
TUNE-UP 01-4150-2200
iOiO
G1890 000331-A
25C35 63~O0~W-~ER #~5~85~00
23.35 03-00 WATER #5158500
4/25/00 4/25/00 46.70 JRNL-CD
000331-B 17.27 03-00 WATER #5158502
7.07 03-00 WATER #5158502
.................... 7~06'~-~3~O--~ATE'R #5158502
4/25/00 4/25/00 31.40 JRNL-CD
' GL~NWOOD-INGLEWOOD -' VENDOR TOTAL ..... 78CI0
G1905 30499 77.00 03-00 LOCATES
................. 7T~-O~-O0 LOCATES
4/25/00 4/25/00 154.00 JRNL-CD
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL~ INC VENDOR'TOT~L 15~J-00-- --
G1970 000413 42.51 CELL PHONE HOLSTER
............................... 21';26 --'CI~L.~-I~HI~NE--~O-[STER
21.26 CELL PHONE HOLSTER
4/25/00 4/25/00 85.03 JRNL-CD
GREG SKINNER VENDOR TOTAL 85.03
-'G1972 199255 ..... I;7~6~3~-~_I~gOR
4/25/00 4/25/00 1.746.34 JRNL-CD
..... 198490 ....... 586;8~--WINE
4/25/00 4/25/00 586.86 JRNL-CD
....... 5iOC36-'~l@UOR
4/25/00 4/25/00 510.36 JRNL-CD
202169
.... ~'7';50'- MIX-
4/25/00 4/25/00 47.50 JRNL-CD
202170
4/25/00 4/25/00 644.29 JRNL-CD
201473
201474
4/25/00 4/25/00 73.50 JRNL-CD
01-4020-2200
01-4140-4100
1010
01-4280-2200
73-7300-2200
78-7800-2200
1010
73-7300-3125
?~-~-7~00-3125
1010
01-4280-2200
78-7800-2200
1010
?1-7100-9510
1010
~].~1~0~g'520
1010
71-~1~0~3~1-0
1010
1010
1010
1010
GRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3608,'85
PAGE ? P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE
.... NO~ INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT-~-DE'~'TION ACCOUNT NUMBER /
--Gi977 000331-A ...... i~3~9~--6~--~35~LEPHONE SERVI 22-4170-3220
4/25/00 4/25/00 173.95 JRNL-CD 1010
000331-B .... ~0~78-'- ~3~0'~- ~7~-9~--TE~'~ SERVI --7~-~'~1~00-3~
4/25/00 4/25/00 180.78 JRNL-CD 1010
-000331'C .... 2i~ ~3-00 472-0646 TELEPHONE SERVI 01-4340-3220
4/25/00 4/25/00 21.42 JRNL-CD 1010
-G T E'MI'NNESOTA- VENDOR TOTA[ ' 376,~5
H2003 1591 397.00 03-00 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRAT
.......... 4/25/00 .......... 4/25/00
30-5615-3100
1010
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC IN VENDOR TOTAL . ~9~?~.~_____
H2055 102517 i6.87 MANUAL
4/25/00 4/25/00 I6.87 JRNL-CD
HAWK LABELING SYSTEMS VENDOR TO~AL i6.87
~-~20~i DM38576 ................... 50-~- ~ONTAINER CHARGE FOR IO-CLY
4/25/00 4/25/00 50.00 JRNL-CD
....... 24829~ ................................ ~--C~LORINE AND HYDROFLUOSILILCIC
4/25/00 4/25/00 868.84 JRNL-CD
- HAgKiNS ~ATER TREATMENT- VENDOR TOT~[ ....... ~--
H2135 20037028 45.17 MARCH 2000 NETWORK CHARGES
.............. 4/25/00 4/25/00 ........ ~5~--JRNL-CD
22-4170-2100
1010
7J-7300-2260
1010
01-4095-3800
!OlO
HENNEPIN CTY.
H2241 000406
000 406-B
000406-C
000406-D
4/25/00 4/25/00
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP,* VENDOR TOTAL
12400 4832
.... 4873
4942
INFO TECH VENDOR TOTAL 45.i7
434.00 03-00 PLANNING CASES
4/25/00 4/25/00 434.00 JRNL-CD
2,693.38 03-00 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING
4/25/00 4/25/00 2,693.38 JRNL-CD
5,242.46 03-00 MOUND VISIONS
4/25/00 4/25/00 5,242.46 JRNL-CD
5,651.31 03-00 TIF RELATED WORK
5,651.31 JRNL-CD
14021.15
01-4190-3100
1010
01-4190-3100
1010
55-5880-3100
1010
55-5880-3100
1010
4/25/00 4/25/00 66.00 JRNL-CD 1010
- 25,86 ~
4/25/00 4/25/00 25.86 JRNL-CD 1010
34.86
PAGE 8
AP-C02-OI
VENDOR INVOICE
~ NO, INVOICE NMBR DATE
4/25/00
4953
4/25/00 4/25/00
ISLAND PARK SKELLY VENDOR TOTAL
P u R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
CITY OF MOUND
DUE HOLD PRE
DATE STATUS AMOUNT D~SC~ IPY I-O~
4/25/00 _. 34.~
25.86 03-28-00 CHANGE OIL,FILTER ETC 01-4140-3~10
25.86 JRNL-CD lOlO
J2579 1099737
4/25/00 4/25/00
152.58
223.97 JRNL-CD 1010
1099738 .......... ~8~.00 WINE
4/25/00 4/25/00 887.00 JRNL-CD
1102361 1,675.89 WINE
4/25/00 4/25/00 1,675.89 JRNL-CD
1102359 ........ ~97-,00 WINE
4/25/00 4/25/00 39?.00 JRNL-CD
.................... ~5
4/25/00 4/25/00 150.00 JRNL-CD
.......... 1102358 .................... 35~-9~--LIQUOR
4/25/00 4/25/00 550.95 JRNL-CD
JOHNS'ON-BROTHERS EI'QUOR'- VENDOR TOTA-L---- - 3887;-.'81
J2600 000405 11.05 MILEAGE/EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
...................... 4/25/00 4/25/00 ........ I1-.-0-5'--DRNU~CD
JOYCE NELSON VENDOR TOTAL 11.05
71-7100-9520
1010
J2610 000417 14.48
4/25/00 4/25/00 14.48
000407 22.00
4/25/00 4/25/00 22.00
JUBILEE FOODS VENDOR TOTAL 36.48
71-7100-9520
lOIO
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9540
1010
71'7100-9510
1010
70-4270-4120
1010
MANAGER WELCOME MEETING 01-4040-4120
JRNL-CD lOiO
STORE CHARGE 73-7300-4100
JRNL-CD lOlO
J2630 48835I ............ ilO;O0~DO'OR~OITVER
4/25/00 4/25/00 llO.O0 JRNL-CD
-JUSTUS 'LUMBER COMPANY ' VENDOR TOTAL - -- llO.~O
3,216.i0 03-00 REDEVELOPMENT AREA #1
- 247~'50 ~D3~O~ONDEM~ATION
3.85 03-00 BALBOA PROPERTY ACQUISIT
1,478.12 03-00 LANGDON DISTRICT CONDEMN
'' 1,17i~50 -03~OO--MOUNb--MA~-~STREET~-
863.50 03-00 MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE
110.00 03-00 LEGAL SERVICES HRA MTG
4/25/00 ~,09O.ST'--~RNL-CD --
K2699 32555
4/25/00
----~-170~0
1010
32556
.... 4/25/00
55-5880-3100
55--5880-31-00
55-5880-3100
55-5880-3100
55=588~-3100--
55-5880-3100
55-5880-3100
120.00 03-00 BAILEY ET AL VS CITY 01-4110-3100
4/25/00 ...... 120~O0'--J~N[-'CD 1010
PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
AMouNT
................. ~pRE
ACCOUNT NUMBER A
32557~A
32557-B
32557-C
306.00 03-00 COMMUNITY CENTER
4/25/00 4/25/00 306.00 JRNL-CD 1010
1,230:6~' ~3-O~-~-~T-I~E 01-4110-3100
4/25/00 4/25/00 1,230.00 JRNL-CD 1010
~6~---0~3:~ ADMINISTRAtiVE
4/25/00 4/25/00 486.50 JRNL-CD
32557-D
4/25/00 4/25/00 36.00 JRNL-CD
- 32557'E 2'398~--03~-~ PUBLIC WORKS
4/25/00 4/25/00 2,398.00 JRNL-CD
01-4110-3100
1010
01-4140-~100
1010
1010
- - 32557'F 750J00--03-~)1) PLANNiNG--AND- IN~C'TI~N~--~)-i~-4-19~3100
1010
01~3~3100
1010
--~1--4~310~
1010
01-4140-4110
SPONSORSHIP 71-7100-3500
1010
01-4340-2300
1010
73-7300-2250
78-?800-2250
iOiO
01-4040-4110
1010
4/25/00 4/25/00 750.00 JRNL-CD
............ 32557~G ........................... 3~..~-D~'PARK RECREATION
4/25/00 4/25/00 36.00 JRNL-CD
.... 32557-H 31~-~78---03:00 EXPENSES 4/25/00 4/25/00 314.78 JRNL-CD
KENNEDY & GRAVEN VENDOR TOTAL 127~7.~5 -
K2702 000408 96.98 REIMBURSEMENT EMT CLASSES
............ 4125100'4125/00 ...... 96.9g---:~RNL~ED
KENNETH BECK VENDOR TOTAL 96.98
L2775 000287? iO0.O0 ICE OUT OPEN GOLF
4/25/00 4/25/00 lO0.O0 JRNL-CD
LAKE MINNETONKA AREA CHAMB VENDOR TOTAL lO0.O0
L2822 1291283 ..... 170~2---~PPLTI~S
4/25/00 4/25/00 170.92 JRNL-CD
'- 1291281
LAWSON PRODUCTS,
L2840 000413
LEAGUE
98.?0 HEAT SEAL,NUTS, PLASTIC COV ETC
98.71 HEAT SEAL,NUTS, PLASTIC COV ETC
4/25/00 4/25/00 29~.'l~----JR~[-CD
INC. VENDOR TOTAL 467.03
295.00 REGISTRATION
4/25/00 4/25/00 295.00 JRNL-CD
OF MN CITIES VENDOR TOTAL --295.00
L2851 2753
551.95 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 GEN LIA 01-4040-3610
547.?0 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 GEN LIA 01-4090-3610
PAGE 10
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR INVOICE
NO; INVOICE NMBR DATE '
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
DUE HOLD PRJ
DATE STATUS
3,521.86 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 GEN LIA
..... 55~9~--~2~01-00 THRU 02~-01 GEN LIA
547.70 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 GEN LIA
3,736.27 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 GEN LIA
..... 22~--~0%~~- 02-01-01 GEN LIA
870.38 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 GEN LIA
3,831.80 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 GEN LIA
................ ~097.11 02-01-00 t~RU 02-01-01 GEN LIA
2,993.27 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 GEN LIA
2,993.27 02-01-00 THRU 02-01-01 GEN LIA
......... 4/25/00' ~/25/00 25;438-~"50~--~RNL--~--
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS T* VENDOR TOTAL 25438.50
L2885 532i 51.12
4/25/00 4/25/00 5i.i2
LIFETECH CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 51.12
.... M30fG'7365 ~0
4/25/00 4/25/00 7.70
7385 ........................................... ~-£?.60
4/25/00 4/25/00 117.60
......... 7398 ~.20
4/25/00 4/25/00 4.20
BLS HC PR VDR CARD
JRNL-CD
04-03-00 DELIVERY CHARGES
JRNL-CD
04-06-00 DELIVERY CHARGES
JRNL-CD
04-13-00 DELIVERY CHARGES
JRNL-CD
7418 ........................................ ~6~---04-15-00 DELIVERY CHARGES
4/25/00 4/25/00 116.90
.... MAREIN'S~TRUCKING .... VENDOR-TOTAl ....... 2%~-0
M3030 i02466-B 1,852.55 BEER
.................. 4/25/00 4/25/00 .... 1-;'852~55 JRNL-CD
135083 994.90 BEER
................... 4/25/00 4/25~00 ........ ~4.90 JRNL-CD
132570 1,206.90 BEER
JRNL-CD
..... 4/25/00 4/25/00 .... i~'20~..90---~RNL-CD
137641 1,247.55 BEER
............. 4/25/00 4/25/00
MARK Vli DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 5301.90
M3080 32843 1,336.00 03-00 AUDITORS RD ALTA SURVEY
4/25/00 4/25/00 1,336.00 JRNL-CD
32845 473.00 03-00 MSA MISC REPORTS/ADMINIS
4/25/00 4/25/00 473°00 JRNL-CD
32846 559.00 03-00 SENIOR CENTER BUSH ROAD
4/25/00 4/25/00 559.00 JRNL-CD
01-4140-3610
01-4150-3610
01-4190-3610
01-4280-3610
01-4320-3610
01-4340-3610
22-4170-3610
71-7100-3610
73-7300-3610
78-7800-3610
1010
22-4I?0-3100
1010
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9530
iOiO
71-7100-9530
1-6~
71-7100-9530
71-7100-9530
1010
55-5880-3100
1010
26-5700-3100
1010
01-2300-1088
1010
PAGE 11 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE
-" NO~ INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS -'~ou'NY 'D~P~'fO~ .......... =~'~6'O~-f--~-R--'--7
32836 224.40 03-00 MAPLE MANORS MAJOR SUB-D 01-2300-1046
'' 4/25/00 4/25/00 ~2~4~ - j~-~[~-~ ....
1010
32844 327.80 03-00 MOUNIO MINOR SUBDIVISION 01-2300-1083
4/25/00 4/25/00 327.80 JRNL-¢D
1010
32841 172.00 03-00 LILLEHEI 6933 CHERRYWOOD
4/25i00 4/25100 ......
01-2300-1080
1010
32848 2,630.00 03-00 WOODLAND POINT COMMONS 01-4280-3100
.......... 4/25/00 4/25~00 2'630.~O--~L~'~D iOlO
32838 192.50 03-00 BECKER, THREE PTS BLVD 01-4190-3100
4/25/00 4/25'/00 ........ 192~50 --~R~L~¢~D iOlO
3283? 43.00 03-00 LOT 10, SKARPS EAST LAWN 01-4190-3100
......... 4/25/00 4/25/00 -~ ..... 43~ .... ~ N[~Cb -- 1010
32828 129.00 03-00 2000 SEAL COAT PROJECT
............ 4/25/00 '4/25/00 ............. %2~-,~0 JRNL-CD
27-5800-3100
1010
32832
330.50 03-00 ENGINEERING SERVICES
................... ~3~50~00 ENGINEERING SERVICES
4/25/00 4/25/00 661.00 JRNL-¢D
73-7300-3100
78-7800-3100
1010
328 33 .......................... ~E~:'~O~'~'~-~WNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
4/25100 4/25/00 886.00 JRNL-CD
55-5~8-~3100
1010
32834 ...................... 790~14 O3-OO SURVACE WATER MANAGEMENT
4/25/00 4/25/00 790.14 JRNL-CD
01-4190-3100
i010
32835 17~.00--03-00 LOSI LAKE CANAL REHABILI
4/25/00 4/25/00 172.00 JRNL-CD
30-5615-3~00
1010
32830 ...................... ~5~-.~0 03-00 ENG SERVICES FOR ZONING
4/25/00 4/25/00 258.00 JRNL-CD
32829 8~'~3--~ENG SERVICES FOR BUILDIN
4/25/00 4/25/00 86.00 JRNL-CD
0-1~0-3100
1010
~i-4190-3100
1010
32831 ..................... i29;~O~03~-(TO--ENG SERVIC1E~S~FOR STREETS
4/25/00 4/25/00 129.00 JRNL-CD
32839 ........... 129~O0~-03';OO-~'E'[DCATION COUNTY-ArD 15
4/25/00 4/25/00 129.00 JRNL-CD
01-4190-3100
1010
55-5880~00
1010
32840
' 1,280=40 ....
4/25/00 4/25/00 1,280.40 JRNL-CD
1010
MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCI* VENDOR TOTAL .... i0&78,2~'"
M3170 000531 29~'820.00 05-00 WASTEWATER
......... 4/25/00 4/25/00 29~820;O0'--jRNl_~-CD
78-7800-4230
1010
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVI* VENDOR TOTAL 29820.00
PAGE 12 P u R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-OI CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
- NO' INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
M3250 000317
PRt
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
160.57 THRU 03-17-00 5801 BARTLETT BL 01-4340-3720
~ 343.87 THR~'~'OO 4812 CUMBERLAND 0~-3720
170.33 THRU 03-17-00 LIQUOR STORE 71-7100-3720
37.28 THRU 03-17-00 FIRE STATION 22-4170-3720
' 541,80 .... TH~-~3~?'~-'3~-~-~D~R~ .... 0~3~2~ .........
301.44 THRU 03-17-00 PUBLIC WORKS BLD 01-4280-3720
171.27 THRU 03-17-00 PUBLIC WORK5 BLD 73-7300-3720
4/25/00 4/25/00 1,938.94 JRNL-CD 1010
-MINNEGASCO ~ VENDOR TOTAL ~g38~9~
M3320 PO?MN0271300 630.00 JAN.FEB.MAR.2000 CJDN eUARTERL
................... ~/25/00 ~25/00 ....
MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY VENDOR TOTAL 630.00
M3~21 000407 40.00 NOTARY RENWEAL, TRUAX
4/25/00 4/25/00 40.00 JRNL-CD
MN COMMERCE DEPARTMENT VENDOR TOTAL 40.00
N36~'B--48660 ~07~'6~-SO[ITBLE OIL, DRUM DEPOSIT
4/25/00 4/25/00 307.60 JRNL-CD
-~'NATIONlq_--OI[ ....... VENDOR~TOTAL ....
N3800 000330-A 852.2] 03-00 2245-301-939
331.?2 03-00 1914-601-425
2,638.12 0]-00 0217-606-~29
~2i~0~---~0 2184-4~7-147
166.00 03-00 0047-005-229
ii3.55 03-00 0864-508-832
.......................... %~.55---03~-~ 0864-508-832
113.54 03-00 0864-508-832
1,255.24 03-00 0018-802-634
3[[.39--~3-00 0009-604~35
5,120.22 03-00 0542-505-000-092
4/25/00 4/25/00 I1,458.60 JRNL-CD
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO VENDOR TOTAL i1458.60
-03891-3653 ................
4/25/00 4/25/00 378.45 JRNL-CD
-OMEGA~INDUSTRIES VENDOR'~OTA[ .....
P3994 127927 1,163.00 WINE
' 4/25~00 4/25/00 1,163,0~
PAUSIIS & SONS WINE COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL 1163.00
P~O00 43119676 79.44 MIX TAXABLE
4/25/00 4/25/00 79.44 JRNL-CD
01-4140-3800
1010
01-4140-4100
1010
22-4170-2200
1010
01-4320-3710
71-7100-3710
73-7300-3710
22-4170-3710
01-4340-3710
01-4280-3710
73-7300-3710
78-7800-3710
01-4280-3710
01-4280-3710
iOiO
'~17-~3820
1010
71-7100-9520
71-7100-9540
1010
PAGE 13 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-OI £ITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE
HOLD
STATUS ..... X~O UhT~ DE~-C-R I P ~I 0 N
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 79.44
P4021 595302 714.25 WINE
4/25/00 4/25/00 714.25 JRNL-CD
597437 92.00 MIX
4/25/00 4/25/00 92.00 JRNL-CD
597436 888.90 WINE
4/25/00 4/25/00 888.90 JRNL-CD
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS, * VENDOR TOTAL I695.i5
P~O~8 2~24~ ..................... ~8.04 CIGARETTES
4/25/00 4/25/00 998.04 JRNL-CD
29239 .... 73.90 ~ GARS
4/25/00 4/25/00 73.90 JRNL-CD
......... 29~2 772.44 CIGARETTES
4/25/00 4/25/00 772.44 JRNL-CD
---FiNN~C[E--DiSTRIBUTING VENDOR-TOT~[ ...... ~844.38
Q4171 822373-00 2,379.35 LIQUOR
4/25/00 4/25/00 2,379.35 JRNL-CD
822268-00 1,379.31 LIQUOR
................ 4/25/00 4/25~00 .............. ~'~'37~3'i~2~-CD
822368-00 44.67 MIX
4/25/00 4/25/00 -- ~-67 jRNL-CD
821481-00 1,645.97 WINE
-- -- 4725/00 4/25/00 ........ ~6~~RNL-CD
824813-00 3,082.49 LIQUOR
........... ~/25/00 4/25/00 ............. ~'~8Z~49 JRNL-CD
825220-00 538.56 WINE
4/25/00 4/25/00 ............ 538'~-~'6~ JRNL-CD
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 9070.35
R4242 000210 1,052.00 01-00 ONSIIE HEALTH
4/25/00 4/25/00 1,052.00 JRNL-CD
RIDGEVIEW BUSINESS HEALTH VENDOR TOIAL 1052.00
R4290 58665 12~'~2~'---IC~
4/25/00 4/25/00 124.24 JRNL-CD
RON~5 ICE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAl ..... 12'~4
R4300 00040I
4/25/00 4/25/00
156.50 APRIL,MAY,JUNE 2000 ~UARTERLY
156,50-~RNC-~D
pR.~
--~C-CUUNT ~UM~R .... ,
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9540
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9540
10-~
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9510
71-7100-9520
1010
22-4170-3140
1010
1010
01-4140-4120
..............
PAGE 14
AP-C02-OZ
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
y~NDO, R iNVOICE DUE HOLD PRE
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE ' DATE STATUS AHouN¥---b~'~i~-~R .... ACCOUNT NUMBER
ROTARY CLUB OF MOUND VENDOR TOTAL
S4347 TS000446 359.00 30 SHIRTS WITH EMBROIDERY
4/25/00 4/25/00
SATURN SCREENPRINTIN6 VENDOR TOTAL 359.00
S4380 000225 35.00 EYE EXAM REIMBURSEMENT
SHIRLEY HAWKS VENDOR TOTAL 35.00
' S4390--00053i ................ 2,5-76.~4 05-00 LIQUOR RENTAL SPACE
4/25/00 4/25/00 2,576.64 JRNL-CD
SHORELINE PLAZA VENDOR TOTAL-- 2576~6~
5439i 2700 319.50 5313 DONALD REMOVE TREE
.............. 4/25/00 4i25i00 ......... ~9~O~RNL-CD
2706 537.83 DEVON/ISLANDVIEW REMOVE TREE
4/25/00 -4/25/00 ..............
2107 239.63 3226 WARNER REMOVE TREES
........ 4/25/00'--4/25/00 .......... 23~63 JRNL-CD
~_HO.REW~OD_TREE S_E~VIC£ _ V.£NDOR .TO_T~ ...... ~0~.._9~6
S4404 I1809219 327.10 SERVICE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
........ 4/25/00. 4/25/0~ ........ ~_.10 JRNL-CD
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER COMO VENDOR TOTAL 327.I0
5443~ 000406 .......... 2?~.~-O~--SANITAR-VACUUM CLEANER
4/25/00 4/25/00 215.90 JRNL-CD
'SOS VACUUM CLEANER SERVICE VENDOR TOTAl ....... 275.90
S4448 000531 325.00 05-00 DOG KENNEL FEE
4/25/00 4/25/00 "325,00--~RN[;CD
SPORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL 325.00
S4600 158226.3
i58226.1
01-4340-2240
158226.2
i49810.1
1010
01-4140-3140
1010
71-1100-3920
1010
01-4340-5110
1010
01-4340-5110
01-4340-5110
10i0 ....
01-4320-3830
1010
71-7100-5000
1010
01-4140-4270
10-1~--- -
I06.45 FLASHER--IMPALA PLUG IN 01-4140-5000
4/25/00 4/25/00 i06.45 JRNL-CD 1010
122.40 FLASHER--IMPALA PLUG I~ 01-4140-5000
4/25/00 4/25/00 122.40 JRNL-CD
244.74 FLASHER--IMPALA PLUG IN 01-4140-5000
4/25/00 4/25/00 244.74 JRNL-CD
950.04 TIRE DEFLATERS (2)
4/25/00 4/25/00 950.04 JRNL-CD
01-4140-5000
1010
PAGE 15 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE
-- NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE
HOLD
STATUS '--AMOUNT DESCRi~T~O'~
149870.2 937.09 TIRE DEFLATERS (2)
............ 4/25/00 4/25/00
149912.1 1,085.63 LIGHT 8AR
4/25/00 4/25/00 %,085.63 --gRNL~D
STREICHER'S VENDOR TOTAL 3446.35
S4632 000320 527.43 THRU 03-20-00
4/25/00 4/25/00 527.43 JRNL-CD
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL 527.43
T%770 189557 ~; 35 f'i-50--'~R
4/25/00 4/25/00 3,358.50 JRNL-CD
GASOLINE CHARGES
4/25/00 4/25/00 24.20 JRNL-CD
4/25/00 4/25/00 24.20 JRNL-CD
....... I90089 ......... 3,5~'~9~--'-BE~R
4/25/00 4/25/00 3,564.90 JRNL-CD
THORPE1)ISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAl
T4780 503097 2.73 PLASTIC BANDAGES
2;73 -
2.73 PLASTIC BANDAGES
4/25/00 4/25/00 8.19 JRNL-CD
THRIFTY WHITE DRUG STORES VENDOR TOTAL 8.19
T483I 05~504-00 ~-- O'~¥G'~'~"-~R~US CHARGE
9.69 OXYGEN HAZARDOUS CHARGE
9.68 OXYGEN HAZARDOUS CHARGE
..... 4/25/00 4/25/00 ....... 29~06 JRNL~D
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY VENDOR TOTAL 29.06
T4951 057908 5.31 BATTERIES
4/25/00 4/25/00 5.31 JRNL-CD
057902 10.36 GLOVES,SEALANT,BULBS,ETC
4/25/00 4/25/00 10.36 JRNL-CD
058171
057382
TRUE VALUE
T4985 251990-0
39.39 SPIKE NAIL
4/25/00 4/25/00 39.39 JRNL-CD
15.6i SPEAKER WIRE,RECEPTACLE,ETC
4/25/00 4/25/00 -- 15.6i JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 70.67
27.66--' OFFICE SUPP-L~-E~
PRE
....... ~ACCOO~C-N~K6E~ ......... ~
01-4140-5000
1010
01-4140-5000
1010
22-4170-2210
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9550
IOlO
71-7100~5-3~-
1010
01-4280-2200
73-7300-2200
78-7800-2200
1010
01-4280-2250
73-7300-2250
78-7800-2250
1010
78-7800-2200
iOlO
01-4340-2300
1010
01-4340-2200
1010
01-4340-2200
1010
PAGE i6 P U R C H A S E J 0
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS ~ -~M~O~--~s~R~-~'---
9.54 OFFICE SUPPLIES
9.54 OFFICE SUPPLIES
9.54 OFFICE SUPPLIES
9.54 OFFICE SUPPLIES
3.18 OFFICE SUPPLIES
3.i8 OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.77 OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.77 OFFICE SUPPLIES
4/25/00 4/25/00 81.72 JRNL-CD
251990-1 ............ 4'1-~6~0-F~F--~'~ SUP>[IE~
4/25/00 4/25/00 41.61 JRNL-CD
250326-I 1.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES
1.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES
1.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES
1.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES
.34 OFFICE SUPPLIES
~--~-FF~ SUPPLIES
.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES
.52 OFFICE SUPPLIES
.............. ~/25/00--'~/25~00 ................ ~I----JRNL-CD
250990-0 286.71 OFFICE SUPPLIES
.................. 4~25/00-'4/25/00 ........... 2~.71 JRNL-CD
251014-0 5.17 OFFICE SUPPLIES
.................... 4/25/00' 4/25/00 ................ 3C-ITCheD
TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 420.02
U5050 13174 43.50
4/25/00 4/25/00 43.50
12432 12.72
4/25/00 4/25/00 12.72
i3973 91.00
4/25/00 4/25/00 91.00
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED VENDOR TOTAL I47.22
U R N A L
PRE
01-4090-2200
01-4140-2200
01-4190-2200
01-4340-2200
01-4280-2200
71-7100-2200
73-7300-2200
78-7800-2200
1010
01-4340-2200
1010
01-4040-2200
01-4090-2200
01-4140-2200
01-4190-2200
01-4340-2200
01-42B0-2200
71-7100-2200
73-7300-2200
78-7B00-2200
lOiO
01-4140-2200
1010
01-4140-2200
DRESS PANTS FOR HARRELL
JRNL-CD
NAME TAGS DUSSAUT,ALEX
JRNL-CD
RESERVE PANTS FOR DUSSAUT,ALEX
JRNL-ED
01-4140-2240
1010
01-4150-2200
1010
01-4150-2200
1010
'U5102 000531
30.00 05-00 BALBOA PARKING
30.00 05-00 BALBOA PARKING
~ 4/25/00 4/25/00 .... 90.00- JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 90.00
36.00 GUSTAFSON, B. SHOTS
4/25/00 4/25/00 -- 36.00 JRNL-CD
MEDICAL GROUP VENDOR TOTAL 36.00
UNITED PROPERTIES
W5572 000131
WESTONKA
~ 5 6-0-0 5851
o i~2 8-o~F'zo o'
73-7300-4200
78-7800-4200
-1-0
22-4170-3140
1010
790C 00-'" S50~-'-TO N-K A-W~ O'D-~E PA'! R~SI~R Vi CE ......... 72, ~ ? 800 - 42~0
PAGE 17
AP-C02-01
VENDOR INVOICE
NO, INVOICE NMBR
WESTONKA SEWER &
-W5670 32543
'WILLIAMS TOWING
Z6675 000308
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
DUE HOLD
DATE DATE STATUS - -~ M O U N T -'- j~ E S-C-R-[t~ T I-0~
4/25/00 4/25/00 790.00 JRNL-CD
WATER VENDOR TOTAL 790.00
36.50 SQUAD #842 TOW
4/25/00 4/25/00 36.50 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL .... 36~5~
41.60 REFUND OVERPAYMENT ON PERMIT
4/25/00 4/25/00 ...... 41; 60--- JR N~-C D---
ALMQUIST, TERENCE VENDOR TOTAL 41.60
Z6676 i51697 i43.00 02-17-00
4/25/00 4/25/00 i43.00 JRNL-CD
HOLIDAY INN SOUTH VENDOR TOTAL I43.00
CONFERENCE TRAUX, T.
'-Z6677 000411 ......................... [5~0---~000 DOCK R~
4/25/00 4/25/00 150.00 JRNL-CD
- JOHNSON, FRED ...... VENDOR TOTAL ....... ~50~-00
Z6678 165194 4,898.08 TELEPHONE SYSTEM
......... 4/25/00 '~/25/00
MCLEOD USA VENDOR TOTAL 4898.08
TOTAL ALL VENDORS 205,191.80
PRE
ACCOUNT NUMBER ~
1010
01-4140-424~
1010
01-3257-0000
1010
01-4140-4110
1010
81-3260-0000
1010
22-4170-5000
101~
lU -7
TO: City Council
FROM: Loren Gordon, Jon Sutherland and John Dean
SUBJECT: Regulation of Accessory Structures in Required Front Yard
At your March 14, 2000 meeting, consideration was given to ~t request by Nancy and Conrad Start,
3152 Alexander Lane to release them from the requirement that they demolish a garage located on
that property. The demolition requirement was imposed in an agreement between the Starts and the
City dated May 6, 1997.
At the meeting, Nancy Starr proposed that if the garage were permitted to remain, it would be
repaired, improved in appearance and turned into a storage shed. She also proposed that the Starrs
would obtain sufficient additional land from the adjacent property to make the structure comply
with side yard setback requirements for the R- 1 district.
Among the issues raised by the Starr proposal was the question of whether or not the Mound zoning
regulations would permit a shed, as a matter of right, to be located within the front yard setback area
of the lot. The structure is located approximately 18 feet from the front lot line. The front yard
setback for that district is 30 feet. You asked us to review the matter and provide you with our
opinion on that issue.
Based on our review of the provisions on Section 350 of the Mound City Code, we conclude that
under the proposal outlined by Ms Starr, the structure would be nonconforming; and to not be
nonconforming, a front yard setback variance would be required.
Section 350:435 Subd. 5. B. provides in relevant part:
"Front Yard Setbacks. All Accessory buildings shall meet the same
front yard setback as the principal building .... "
Section 350:310 Subd. 148 provides:
"Yard ,/1 required open space on a lot which is unoccupied and unobstructed by a
structure from its lowest level to the sky, except as permitted in this Ordinance.
The yard extends along the lot line at right angles to such lot line to a depth or width
specified in the setback regulations for the zoning district in which such lot is located"
Section 350:620 Subd. 2 B. places a 30 foot front yard setback on R-1 lots; and Subd 2 C. imposes
the same requirement on Lots of Record in the R-1 district that are 81 or more feet deep (such as the
Start lot).
Consequently, to cease being nonconforming and comply with the front yard setback provisions, the
Start structure would need a front yard setback variance of approximately 12 feet. The same
JBD-178351vl
MU220-5
conclusion would be reached in this situation (interior lot, R-1 district) whether the structure were a
shed, a garage, a house, or any other kind of structure either principal or accessory.
A slightly different rule applies to detached garages located on lakeshore or through lots. That rule
is discussed at page 23 of the zoning code (the Starr property does not qualifiy).
During our review of this matter, we did find problems with the illustrations on the left side of page
23 and the left side of page 24. Neither would change our conclusion that a variance is required to
eliminate the nonconformity for the Start structure, but, rather the illustrations seem to be
misleading. Perhaps they should be reviewed.
JBD-178351vl
MU220-5
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 14, 2000
1.10
REQUEST FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RECONSIDER THE
TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THEIR DETACHED GARAGE
TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN.
Nancy Start, 3152 Alexander Lane. Ms. Start stated she has heard four different reasons
why their garage should be torn down, and she would like to address these four reasons.
The first reason was the garage encroaches on the neighbor's property. She stated the
neighbor is present to tonight and she has a new signed subdivision application to have a
portion of the neighbors property put on their property. The second reason to have the
garage removed is because it exceeds the front yard setback and Ms. Start presented pictures
of other garages or sheds that have not met setbacks, although these may not have been City
approved. Thirdly, she was told the garage is dilapidated. Ms. Start stated she had a
contractor come out and look at the garage and he gave her an estimate of $400 to fix the
cracks. She stated the contractor stated the garage walls appear to be straight and
structurally sufficient. She stated they would like to change this garage into an accessory
building that would include a service door and a four-foot overhead door. They would also
put siding on it to match their house. Ms. Starr stated in her experience having more outside
buildings is better and it also seems to add to the property value. This accessory building
would house bikes, lawn mower, snow blower, etc. The applicant stated the fourth reason
they were told to remove the garage is that it does not constitute a hardship. She stated the
estimate to take the garage down is about $2,000, and the retaining wall that would have to
be put in its place would cost about $3,000. An alternative to the retaining wall would be
grading this section down, although this grading could damage a 100-year-old maple tree.
She stated a monetary hardship would exist with the removal of this garage.
The Building Official stated he agreed with some issues the applicant stated, but staff and the
Planning Commission recommend having the garage removed from the property.
The City Attorney asked staff if the boundary was adjusted, would the garage be allowed to
stay at its location without a variance. The Building Official stated it would not be able to
stay without a variance.
205
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 14, 2000
The Building Official further stated the applicant could make changes to its conforming
property under the streamlining code, although the repairs to the dilapidated garage would
not fall under that provision because it needs structural repairs.
Acting Mayor Hanus wanted it clarified that there would be two variances being allowed
with this subdivision. One would be a variance on the front yard setback and the other
would be a variance on the accessory structure in that its location should be in the back. The
Building Official stated the latter statement is false and there could be an accessory structure
in the front but not as close to the street as it is currently situated.
There were discussions between the Building Official and City Attorney regarding the code
for an accessory structure and what it entails. Acting Mayor Hanus stated there is another
section of the code that he recalls but cannot locate it that explains a shed cannot be located
in the front yard. The City Attorney will look into this.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated even if the City Council does agree with the applicant, the
subdivision process would have to go back to the Planning Commission for approval. He
stated the best scenario for tonight is to grant another extension.
Councilmember Brown stated this does not meet streamlining because the structure is on
another person's property.
Councilmember Brown stated three years ago the applicant was granted an extension to allow
the dilapidated garage to stay standing until the new garage to their house was built. To
date, the garage is built, and he strongly stated the old garage needs to come down according
to the resolution previously passed and agreed to by the applicant.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she could think of three cases where the structures on other
people's lots had to be torn down before the building permits were allowed. She further
stated the City has made good faith efforts with the applicant and allowed three years before
the structure needed to come down, but allowed the building permit.
The City Attorney according to the code it would appear a shed could not be considered as
part of the front yard. The Building Official stated he would like to debate this later with the
City Attorney.
Councilmember Weycker stated she would like to see an attempt made by the applicant to
have the front yard setback adjusted by making the structure conforming.
The Building Official stated the garage has cracks in the blocks and this would be a tuck-
pointing job, although, if the applicant would want this job to be complel~xl in a more
permanent and lasting way, having the blocks core filled would be a better alternative.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked the Councilmembers if the structural portion of the garage is a
major point with the decision-making process at this time.
2O6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 14, 2000
Councilmember Brown stated the cracks go through the windows and the comer of building
appears to be cracking off. I-Ie is very concerned about this structure.
The Councilmembers discussed if the applicant is willing to make the structure conforming,
having the applicant go out and get detailed estimates and bring them back to the Building
Official to see if the work that may possibly be done on the structure would be acceptable to
City code.
Councilmember Weycker stated if the City requires the applicant to tear down this structure,
the applicant could turn right around and put another shed in the same exact spot but making
the shed smaller or conforming to City code. She stated basically the applicant would save a
step with this process of allowing the subdivision and giving the applicant a chance to make
the current structure conforming.
The Building Official stated staff would agree to the subdivision and the changing of the
garage doors to make the garage conforming. He stated the goal of the ordinance is to
eliminate nonconformity, which the applicant is willing to do.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated if the Councilmembers do take this action, the motion would
extend the agreement to some day certain and that the structure must be made conforming,
and to further extend that according to the prior resolution that if this does not take place by
this date, the former agreement stands.
There was discussion amongst Acting Mayor Hanus and Councilmember Brown whether the
structure should be attempted to be made conforming by the applicant, or if it is even
possible to get the structure conforming because of the cracks that currently exist.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to deny the temporary variance but
allow an extension until April 1, 2000, to tear down the structure.
Discussion.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she would like to know the answer to what code states
regarding having a shed in the front yard. She is surprised that the code definitely allows a
huge garage in the front yard but does not allow a shed.
Councilmember Brown stated he might have a different opinion if the applicant would have
come in today for a permit to have a shed/garage in the front yard, but this case, in his
opinion, was decided three years ago and the garage should be tom down.
The Applicant stated she would like to have the Council rescind that decision made three
years ago and allow them a chance to make the structure conforming.
The Building Official agreed with the motion presented by Councilmember Brown, although
he would recommend a longer extension until June 1, 2000, due to road restrictions.
207
16/o
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 14, 2000
C0un¢ilmemher Ahreng gtated ff the anee would aI laroved tonight, would still be
the problem of the 100-year-old maple tree roots and having thor, e disturbed with the
grading.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked the applicant how she would make the garage conforming and the
applicant stated they would probably reduce the size of the garage and make it into a shed.
Councilmember Brown attempted to amend his motion to deny the variance request with an
extension until June 1, 2000, but Councilmember Ahrens withdrew her second, and the
motion by Councilmember Brown died.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she withdrew her second because she would appreciate further
investigations accomplished by staff and the City Attorney to figure out exactly what the
codes state regarding sheds or garages in the front yards.
MOTION by Ahrens, second by Weycker, to extend the removal of the garage
until June 1, 2000, and to table the variance request until April 25, 2000, to
allow an investigation by staff and the City Attorney to find out if sheds are
allowed in front yards according to City code.
Discussion.
Councilmember Brown stated for future purposes, if a citizen of Mound presents his/her case
in front of the Planning Commission and would like some action taken with a future date
down the road, he will be recommending that this type of action be turned down.
Acting Mayor Hanus explained he wants to prevent shortsightedness, and he strongly agrees
this procedure with help with that scenario.
Councilmember Weycker called the question.
Motion carried. 3-1, Brown voting nay.
208
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 22, 2000
1.15
REQUEST FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RECONSIDER THE
TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THEIR DETACHED GARAGE
TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN.
The City Planner stated the owners have requested the City Council consider the temporary
variance approved for their detached garage and allow it to remain. In Resolution//97-24, it
is stated quite clearly the terms of the variance and why the dilapidated detached garage that
is in need of great structural repairs needs to be torn down. The City Planner stated the
garage is nonconforming, it encroaches on the neighboring property to the north, and it is
five feet away from the right-of-way. However, he stated, based on the streamlining code,
this could possibly be passed. He further stated the Planning Commission denied this request
at its February 14, 2000, meeting.
Mayor Meisel questioned if we would have allowed the garage to stay if it had not been
previously requested to have it removed in Resolution//97-24. The City Planner stated the
City would not have allowed this situation.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she is alarmed to have it mentioned that streamlining would
apply in a case where an individual has a structure that is nonconforming and the structure
encroaches on the neighbor's property. Councilmember Brown agreed with Councilmember
Ahrens.
167
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 22, 2000
Councilmember Hanus asked the City Attorney if the City has the authority to grant
permission to keep a structure on someone else's property. The City Attorney stated it does
not have this authority.
Councilmember Brown recommended that the Council allow an extension until April 1,
2000, before the dilapidated detached garage would need to be torn down.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to DENY the applicants' request for
reconsideration of the removal of their detached garage, but to allow an extension
until April 1, 2000, to remove the dilapidated garage.
Discussion.
Councilmember Ahrens clfixified the City of Mound would wait until April 1, 2000, to have
the applicants tear down the detached garage, but after that point, if the garage has not been
removed, the City can remove it.
Mayor Meisel directed staff to give the applicants an extension until April 1, 2000.
Motion carried. 5-0.
168
A
PARCEL A EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin Counly, Minnesota, conlaining 18,719 square feet.
PARCEL B EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 20, 21, and the Soulherly Half of Lot 22, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesola,
containing 14,731 square feet,
PARCEL A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota, also the Soulherly 6.60 feet
el Lot 20, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota as measured at 90 deg~'ees to the
Southerly line of said Lot 20, containing t9,747 square feet.
PARCEL B PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 20, 21, and the Southerly Hall of Lot 22, Block 6, A~den, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
except Ihe Southerly 6.60 feel of Lot 20, Block 6, Arden. Hennepin County, Minnesota as
measured al 90 degrees Io the Southerly line of said Lei 20, containing 13,703 square feet.
SCHOBORG
L~ND SURVEYING
INC.
lee? ~. Rd, 'r~ SE
I hereby certily that this plan. survey or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Registered Land Surveyor under Ihe laws of Ihe Slale
,l'r , ~
~0~ #
477Z
Book - Page
3 ?-$5
i '- 30
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000
1AS
REQUEST FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RECONSIDER THE
TE1V[PORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THEIR DETACHED GARAGE
TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN.
The City Planner stated the owners have requested the City Council consider the temporary
variance approved for their detached garage and allow it to remain. In Resolution ~97-24, it
is stated quite clearly the terms of the variance and why the dilapidated detached garage that
is in need of great structural repairs needs to be tom down. The City Planner stated the
garage is nonconforming, it encroaches on the neighboring property to the north, and it is
five feet away from the fight-of-way. However, he stated, based on the streamlining code,
this could possibly be passed. He further stated the Planning Commission denied this request
at its February 14, 2000, meeting.
Mayor Meisel questioned if we would have allowed the garage to stay if it had not been
previously requested to have it removed in Resolution ~7-24. The City Planner stated the
City would not have allowed this situation.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she is alarmed to have it mentioned that streamlining would
apply in a case where an individual has a structure that is nonconforming and the structure
encroaches on the neighbor's property. Councilmember Brown agreed with Councilmember
Ahrens.
Councilmember Hanus asked the City Attorney if the City has the authority to grant
permission to keep a structure on someone else's property. The City Attorney stated it does
not have this authority.
Councilmember Brown recommended that the Council allow an extension until April 1,
2000, before the dilapidated detached garage would need to be torn down.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to DENY the applicants' request for
reconsideration of the removal of their detached garage, but to allow an extension
until April 1, 2000, to remove the dilapidated garage.
Discussion.
Councilmember Ahrens clarified the City of Mound would wait until April 1, 2000, to have
the applicants tear down the detached garage, but after that point, if the garage has not been
removed, the City can remove it.
Mayor Meisel directed staff to give the applicants an extension until April 1, 2000.
Motion carried. 5-0.
15
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Illir4
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: February 14, 2000
SUBJECT: Detached Garage Temporary Variance
OWNER: Nancy and Conrad Starr
CASE NUMBER: 00-03 (97-06)
HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 3152 Alexander Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The owner's have requested the City reconsider the
temporary variance approved for their detached garage to allow it to remain. The terms of the
variance are spelled out in Resolution #97-24 and the accompanying agreement. This will be
going to the Council for reconsideration and we would like to get input from the Commission on
this matter.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
-6-
,;
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this ~-'~ day of flQ]5l 7 ,1997 by and between
/
CONRAD STARR AND NANCY STARR, husband and wife ("Starrs") and the City of Mound,
a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Mound").
WHEREAS, the Starrs are the owners of a parcel of land lying within the corporate
limits of Mound which has the street address of 3152 Alexander Lane and whic'n is legally
described as follows, to wit:
Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 6, .~den, Hennepin Count.,,', Mimnesota ("Propeay")
and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of Mound did on February. 25, 1997 adopt a resolution
entitled:
"Resolution to Approve a Temporary Variance for Three Years to Recognize an Existing
Nonconforming Detached Garage to Allow a Conforming Addition onto the Dwelling at
3152 Alexander Lane." and;
WHEREAS, one of the conditions precedent imposed upon the granting of said
temporary variance was the execution of an agreement "to guarantee the removal of the
nonconforming detached garage within three years of the date of approval of this variance."
NOW, THEREFORE, in fulfillment of the said requirement, the parties hereto stipulate
and ag-ree as follows:
1. Garage Removal. The Starts agree, for themselves and their successors and
assigns to the Property that they will raze and remove the nonconforming detached garage
located on the Property; and will have completed the same not later than February 25, 2000. The
Starrs understand that it is their responsibility to obtain all necessary approvals and permits for
such removal.
2. Failure to Remove. The Starts further understand that should they fail to remove
the nonconforming garage structure by said date, Mound may enter on the Property and remove
the structure and charge, as an assessment against the Property, all costs and expenses incurred in
obtaining removal. The Starrs for themselves and their successors and assi~s in the Property
hereby consent to the entry onto the Property by Mound and its agents, employees and
representatives to accomplish such removal; and further, the Starts for themselves and their
successors and assigns in the Property hereby consent and waive any claim which they may have
to challenge the validity, of any assessment against the ?ropervj based 'aport such work performed
by Mound.
IN TESTIMONY V~ttEREOF, the parties have set :heir hands as of :he da.,,' and year
first above written.
Conrad Start
Nancy~Starr ~
CITY OF MOU~"ND
By ~7z~~ Its Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~F~x. day of
1997, by Conrad Starr and Nancy Starr, husband and wife.
0
Notary Public
STATE OF MIN~'ESOTA )
)ss.
COU,.'NTY OF HEN~EP1N )
The foregoing instrument was acknowled.ed before me this .¢2.__ day of
1997, by ~',,-~-r- ~c~^e--,-,. andF~,,.w'~fJ~'Qi~kz~of~'G, the Mayor aitd City
Manager, respective, on behalf of the City of Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal
corporation.
~ ~o~_,.] HENNE~IN COUNTY ~
Notary Public
February 25, 1997
RESOLLFrlON tt~YY.2~
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE
FOR TI-IREE YEARS
TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE
TO ALLOW A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO THE DWELLING
AT 3152 ALEXANDER LANE
LOTS 17, 18, AND 19, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, PID 24-11%24 4~ 0068
P&Z CASE ~)'7-06
WI-IEREAS, the owners, Nancy and Conrad Start applied for a Minor Subdivision in order to remove
an encroachment of their existing detached garage. A variance was also requested to recognize the existing
nonconforming front yard setback to the same detached garage of 15.13 feet to the required 30 foot setback, and;
WHEREAS, the application was submitted to allow construction ora second story, addition on both the
house and the garage, and;
W'H~REAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Residential Zonine District which according
to City Code requires for single family dwellings, a front yard setback of 30 feet. side yard setbacks of [0 feet, and
a rear yard setback of 15 feet. and;
WHEREAS, the property is conforrmng to lot area with over 18.000 square feet. and the principal
dwelling is conforming to all setback requirements, and:
WI'IEREAS, the existing detached garage encroaches into the neighboring property by .6 feet and is
setback 15.13 reel from the front property line. If this garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable
footprint for a new garage in a conforming location without the need for a subdivision, and;
WHEREAS, the existing detached garage is dilapidated, it is constructed of masonry and is in need
of structural repairs, and;
WHEREAS, the owners are using the garage to store their possessions until they can finish the house.
The garage has existed in that location for 56 years, and;
VVH~REAS, In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback
to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed, and;
WHEREAS,
approval.
the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as
follows:
The City does hereby gr:.at a temporary three-year variance to recognize the existing nonconforming
detached garage with a nonconforming side yard encroachment of .6 feet and a nonconforming front yard
setback of 15.13 feet to allow construction ora conforming addition onto the conforming dwelling, subject
to the following conditions:
a. This variance will expire three-years from the date of City Council approval.
bo
An agreement shall be prepared by the applicant that is suitable to the City
Attorney to guarantee removal of the nonconforming detached garage within
three-years of date of approval of this variance. Tlxis agreement must be
executed prior to release of this resolution and prior to building permit issumace
for the house addition.
February 25, 1997 . .
Co
The existing nonconforming shed must be removed prior to building permit
issuance for the house addition.
The three-year temporary, variance hereby granted is only intended to permit the
continuation of the existing garage and is not intended to permit the proposed
expansion of the existing garage which proposed expansion is hereby denied.
Th. is variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of
the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful,
nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their
land:
Construction of various additions onto the dwelling which will expand the
footprint of the first floor and add a second floor.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hermepin 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 Hermepin 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 Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen Potston and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none
Attest: City Clerk
Minutes - Mound City Council - February 25, 1997
1.9 CASE//97-06:
REOUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR &DDITION, CONRAD &
NANCY STARR. 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE. LOTS 17-21 &
1/2 OF 22. BLOCK 6. ARDEN. PID //24-11%24 44 0068 & 0069
(VARIANCE APPLICATION RELATES TO ALLOV~i2NG GARAGE
TO REMAIN FOR 3 YEARS).
The Building Official explained the request. The existing garage encroaches into the neighboring
property and it also is setback 15 feet to the front property line, where a 30 foot setback is required.
The garage is in need of structural repairs. The Staff and the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of a temporary three year variance to recognize the detached, nonconforming
garage in order to allow construction of a conforming addition onto the house. The applicant has now
decided to also put an attached garage onto the house which would be conforming. They would like
to keep the detached garage for a period of time to allow storage until the new garage is built. They
have asked to withdraw their request for a subdivision since it will not be necessa~ with the removal
of the detached garage. They are requesting a refund of their subdivision application fee. Staff has no
objection to the subdivision application fee being refunded. The Council agreed to refund the fee.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g97-24
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE
FOR THREE YEARS TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW A
CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO THE DWELLING AT
3152 ALEXANDER LANE, LOTS 17, 18 AND 19, BLOCK 6,
ARDEN, PID//24-117-24 44 0068, P & Z//97-06
Also included in this motion
The vote was unanimously in favor.
is the approval of a refund of the subdivision application fee.
Motion carried.
CASE 97-06: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE FOR ADDITION
CONRAD & NANCY STARR, 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE
LOTS 17-21 & I/2 OF 22, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, 24-117-24 44 0068 & 69
The applicant is seeking a Minor Subdivision in order tO remove an encroachment of their
existing detached garage. A variance is also requested to recognize an existing nonconforming
front yard setback to the same detached garage of 15.13 feet to the required 30 foot setback.
The proposal includes construction of a second story addition on both the house and the garage.
Both parcels are conforming to lot area.
The existing garage on Parcel A is constructed of masonry and is in need of structural repairs.
The encroachment into the front yard is in excess of the minimum setback allowed by the recent
streamlining provisions which would be 22.5 feet. In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard
that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they
will remove the shed. If the existing garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable
footprint for a new garage in a conforming location without the need for a subdivision.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request due to
lack of hardship and due to the fact that the nonconforming garage is dilapidated and could be
removed and replaced with a conforming structure. Staff recommended approval of the
subdivision based on the fact that all issues are conforming, however it is questionable if it is
necessary without approval of the variance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider
approval of a variance that would allow the applicant to construct the addition onto the dwelling
subject to an agreement suitable to the city attorney to remove the encroachment of the garage
within one year.
Sutherland further commented on the condition of the garage. He does not know what type of
foundation the garage has, it is constructed of masonry so it does not take very well to shifting
well, and it needs some structural repair.
The applicant stated that the garage has a new roof, a new wall on one side, and new windows.
They feel the garage is in better condition that the house. They are using the garage to store
their possessions until they can finish the house. The garage has existed in that location for 56
years, and it will be nonconforming only to the street setback, and they would like to keep it.
Weiland suggested that they could keep the garage for one year until they finish the house.
Sutherland commented that staff would be in favor of extending the amortization period to two
years.
Hanus explained to the applicant that the City could draft a temporary easement that will allow
the City to access the property to remove the garage if the owner does not remove it, and then
they will assess the charges to the property.
Clapsaddle commented that the garage is not in good shape.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of
a variance to allow the garage to remain for three years. The subdivision is
not part of this approval as removal of the garage makes it unnecessary.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOO ROAD
MCUNO, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 4.72-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
0068
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of February 10, 1997
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Suthertand, Building Official ~.~:~ .-~
Minor Subdivision and Variance request
Conrad and Nancy Start and Jem/~(raug~kremer
97-06
3152 Alexander Lane, Lots 17, 18, 19, Block 6, Arden, 24-117-2444
3136 Alexander Lane, Lots 20, 21 & 112of 22, Block 6, Arden, 24-117-
24 44 0069
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an
encroachment of their existing detached garage and a variance to recognize the
existing nonconforming front yard setback of 14.87 feet to the required'30 foot front
yard setback for the same detached garage in order to allow construction of a second
story addition on both the house and the garage.
Minor Subdivision: Both of the proposed parcels as existing and proposed are
conforming to the lot area provisions for the R-1 zone and staff would recommend
approval of the request for a subdivision, however, we question the need for a
subdivision in light of the recommendation for denial of the variance request
Variance: The existing garage on Parcel A is constructed of masonry and is in need
of structural repairs. The encroachment into the front yard is in excess of the
minimum setback allowed by the recent streamlining provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. The minimum setback allowed by streamlining would be 22.5 feet, and
the garage is located 15.13 feet from the front property line.
Staff Report - Starr
February 1 O, 1997
Page 2
In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot
setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed.
These properties are located in the R-1 zoning district which for non-lots of record
require for principal structures a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of
10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet.
COMMENTS' tf the existing garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable
footprint to locate a new garage in a conforming location on Parcel A without the need
for a minor subdivision. This would eliminate the need for a variance for this property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
denial of the variance request due to lack of hardship and due to the fact that the
nonconforming garage is dilapidated and could be removed and replaced with a
conforming structure.
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request based on the fact that all issues
are conforming, however it is questionable if it is necessary without approval of the
variance.
The Planning Commission may wish to consider approval of a variance that would
allow the applicant to construct the addition onto the dwelling subject to an agreement
suitable to the city attorney to remove the encroachment of the garage within one
year.
JS..pj
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City
Councff on February 25, 1997.
'~]anning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Application for
M~OR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~
Fa0ne: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
553(~f'
Case No. ¢~TV ~i; 'L%'M IMPs
~,~!.~ '..'~,'lV,~d~'~' J
Application F~:
Distribution: Escrow Deposit: $1,000
[O') ~ '7 City Planner DNR -~'~'-~ Deficient umt Charges? NO
. Public Works Other ,7 . .,,,~
.i~ City Engineer i -2.g~.'7 Delinque~,t Taxes? ~x~)
v a -4cs Ra Un D?
Please type or pr~lt the following information:
PROPERTY
INFORMATION
EXISTING
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
ZONING
DISTRICT
APPLICANT
OWNER
(if other than
applicant)
The aDplicant is: '~owner other:
Phone (H) {Wi __(Mi
SURV~OR/
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this properW? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
Owner's Signature
Owner s ~ignatu~e
/-mm-??
Date
Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
}~'3~:~7 City Planner
~' City Engineer
t, Public Works
Lot S' 1'~ /
Subdivision pcf'<:~
ZONING DISTRICT
Name (.o~ ~.~ ~
Address ~1 .~iL
Phone (H) (~,/~ - ~7~
R-IA
/
i i .....
'A"lYp i m-:/u ° n -i~ ee:
Case No. ~
DNR
Block
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,JK~L.no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
aria. ace Application, P. 2 Case No.
3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~ If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
t')t~ for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or ~xi~ing)
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) "~0 ft. lt:~, 15 ft. ~Z~, ~
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ~. ~.
Side Y~d: ( N S E W ) ~. ~.
R~Y~d: (NS EW) ~. ~.
~eside: ( N S E W ) ~. fi.
: (NSEW) R. ff.
sq~ iq~ sqff
sq ff &~t sq ff
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
ft.
ff.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ff.
sq ft
sq ff
o
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (), No ~ If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil_
( ) too small ( ) drainage ¢4) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
describe:
(Rev. 10/21/96)
Variance Application, P. 3 Case No.
e
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 propertsc 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 ~~.~'~-'~
/ ~----~ (R~,. ,ol2~/96)
Date
Date
PARCEL A EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots t 7, 18, and 19, Block 6. Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota, containing 18,F 19 square feet,
PARCEL B EXISTING LF~GAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 20. 21. and the Southerly Half of Lot 22, Block 6, Arden. Hennepin County. Minnesota,
containing 14,731 square fee{.
PARCEL A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden, HenneDin Counly, Minnesota. also the Southerly 6.60 feet
ol Lot 20, Brock 6, Axden, Hennepin County, Minnesota as measured at 90 de,.;~ees to the
Southerly line of said Lol 20. containing 19,747 square lees.
PARCEL B PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 20, 21, and the Southerly Hall el Lot 2'), Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
excepl the Southerly 6.60 test of Lol 20, Block 6. Arden. Hennepin County· Minnesota as
measured al 90 degrees to Ihe Southerly line ol said Lot 20, containing 13.703 square feet.
FEB 5 ,9~/
SCHOBORG
LAND SURVEYING
INC.
ZZ
?
/
./
$CHOBORG
ND SURVEYING
INC.
i 13ereoy certify that this plan, survey, or report was. JOB #
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State
. of Minnesota~:~..~ _ /~~'~~.
~..,- Scale
Date: ,~'C,. ~/~'~' Registration No. 14700 / ~ ,.~
8oot~ - Page
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
lot AREA
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 30%
SQ. FT. X 40%
SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only) . .
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH
OTAL ~OUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
x = I 5"'0
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
/7g'3
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
I-
QTY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADORESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
31 '5 6, A- LEX.,+,,...., ae~ }-,.~ ,
SQ. FT. X 30%
SQ. FT. X 40%
SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submit'ted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4' min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SC ~'
~ % x a-G :
X =
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X :
X :
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
"'--fo x 1¥ = ¢~-o
q x ~ : a.-7
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..... - .............
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
/09.2-
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ·
CITY OF MOUND- ZONING INFORNIAT1ON SHEET i~f']~. 0Id-'
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZF~VIDTI h
LOT OF RECORD? YES
YARI)
II()USE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SiDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP (')F BI.UFF
GARAGE. $11ED .....
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
'10,000/60'"~ B1 7,S00/0
~,uuu/4u B2 20,000/80
6.000140 ~3 10,OOO/60
SEE ORD. 2! 30,000/100
EX~,~rlNG~RO~ISED
OR OTIIER D~IED
N S E(W_.,'
N S E
iS E W
N E W
N S~'~W
N S E W
BUILDINGS ~ ,
-'%0'
4'
50'
lO' OR :30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
EOF WIDTH:
LO I' DEP'I H:
VARIANCE
This ZoninR Information Sheet only mmm~i~ a portion or the req~i[em~ outlined in the City of M~ ~ng Ordi~ce. For ~,her information, contact the City or Mound
Planning D~artment at 472-~.
TO=
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and Council Members; City of Mound
Jim Prosser
Open Space Issues
4/18/00
The City of Mound has been presented with a petition to conduct a referendum on the
question of whether to purchase athletic fields currently owned by the Westonka School District.
If a referendum is conducted it would be important for the following issues to be resolved prior
to the referendum election.
o
o
o
o
Identify parcel size and specific location. While those active on the issue may be in
agreement regarding what land is being considered, the general public may not. The last
outcome you want is confusion over what land is under consideration for purchase or
exactly how much of the school parcel is included in the referendum question.
Determine how the space will be used, i.e. soccer fields, baseball fields or open space. If
the referendum is successful, this will help avoid misunderstanding regarding how the
land will be used. In addition the public will be asking this question.
Recommend preliminary design, based on agreed upon use. Will there be any changes in
current design? If so what will the changes be?
Identify improvement costs, i.e. additional landscaping, tuff, drainage, parking,
irrigation, bleachers, fencing, lighting, concessions, toilets, sanitary sewer, water. Some
improvements may be required per code or change in use. A decision on the funding of
these cost should be made prior to the referendum election.
Develop maintenance budget, i.e. mowing, fertilizing, aeration, irrigation, structure
maintenance, garbage pickup, field striping, nets, general field preparation, utilities,
insurance. The maintenance cost for a facility such as this should be addressed up front.
Recommend funding source for operational costs.
Recommend administrative structure, i.e. field scheduling, maintenance supervision, use
regulations and fees. This can be a rather complex task. If there is a strong need for
athletic facilities then there will likely be some scheduling conflict.
Determine how information on the referendum question will be conveyed to the public.
It's expected that there will be a group supporting the question, the question is how will
the basic general (neutral) intbrmation be communicated with the public. It's customary
for the city to send a mailer out which accomplishes this purposes..
Develop an estimate for the bond referendum amount. This would include land purchase
price, improvement cost (if any) and cost of issuance.
Page 2
April 19, 2000
Given the nature of this matter it would be useful for the City to appoint an advisory committee
tO assist with developing responses to these questions. Once advisory committee reports to the
City Council a date could be set to hold the referendum.
415.10 GOVERNING BODIES 494
amount not to exceed $25 per day nor $250 per year for members of such governing body
who are absent from the municipality in the performance of their duty as municipal officials.
History: 1957 c 246 s I: 1963 c 158 s 1; 1973 c 57 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1988 c
719 art 5 s 84; 1989 c 329 art 13 s 20
415.11 SECOND TO FOURTH CLASS CITIES; GOVERNING BODY SALAR/ES.
Subdivision 1. Set by ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or spe-
cial law, charter, or ordinance, the governing body of any statutory or home rule charter city
of the second, third or fourth class may by ordinance fix their own salaries as members of
such governing body, and the salat)' of the chief elected executive officer of such city, in such
amount as they deem reasonable.
Subd. 2. After next election. No change in salary shall take effect until after the next
succeeding municipal election.
History: Ex1967 c 42 s 1,2; 1976 c 44 s 34
415.15 RESIGNING MEMBER CANNOT VOTE FOR SUCCESSOR.
No resigning member of a city council shall participate in a vote of the council to choose
a person to replace the resigning member.
History: 1974 c 36 s 1
415.16 EMPLOYMENT; RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT.
Subdivision 1. No exception for on-premises residence. Notwithstanding any con-
trary provision of other law, home rule charter, ordinance or resolution, no statutory or home
rule charter city or county shall require that a person be a resident of the city or county as a
condition of employment by the city or county except for positions which by their duties re-
quire the employee to live on the premises of the person's place of employment.
Subd. 2. Reasonable area or response time requirement. A statutory or home rule
charter city or county, except if it is located in the area defined in section 473F. 02, subdivi-
sion 2, may impose a reasonable area or response time residency requirement if there is a
demonstrated, job-related necessity.
Subd. 3. Volunteer or nonprofit firefighters. A statutory or home rule charter city or
county may impose a reasonable residency requirement on persons employed as volunteers
or as members of a nonprofit firefighting corporation if there is a demonstrated, job-related
necessity. The residency requirement must be related to response time and established with-
out regard to political subdivision boundaries.
History: 1981 c 181 s 1:1984 c 585 s 1; 1985 c 197s 1
415.17 BUSINESSES THAT VIOLATE ORDINANCES.
The governing body of a home rule charter or statutory city may order that a place of
business be closed if it deternfines that the business conducted at that place was in violation of
a city zoning or licensing ordinance at the time the business was established at that location.
The city must have in place a proper notification procedure and have followed the procedure
prior to requesting the enforcement of this section.
History: 1996 c 430 s 1
NOTE: This section, as added by Laws 1996, chapter 430. section 1. is effective August 1, 1996. and applies to a business
established or licensed on or after that date. La~.s 1996, chapter 430. section 2.
495
416.01 Memorials for x~
416.02 Tax levy,
416.05 War and historic:
416.06 Construction.
416.01 MEMORE, k
The governing I-
of a majority of the v
the purpose, or at a g
to do so has been su~
erection, equipment.
the services performs.
The ordinance may ~
ment or parks after it
such monument or p:
voted upon: providec
cent in excess of the
such approval, is aut.
parks or building ma
nated and the cost tl~
History: (193_~-
416.02 TAX LEVY
For the purpose
city may levy, within
building or monume:
when collected, shall
paying for the cost o
History: (1933-
416.03 [Repealed, 1
416.04 [Repealed, 1
416.05 WAR AND
The governing [-
cal museum, and for
History: (1933-
416.06 CONSTRU
Insofar as sectic
as amendatory of and
lng, monument, or pc
History: (1933-
416.07 SEWER P
BUILDINGS.
Each city of the
rain in the public stre
restrooms, and other
Each such city il
No such city sk
construction or maim
Minn. Stat. § 415.11.
Minn. Stat. § 415.10.
Minn. Stat. § 21 lB.10, subd. 2.
In many cities, it is routine for the council to automatically approve a
committee's recommendations if the committee has done a thorough
and competent job. The council's final decision, however, and not the
committee's recommendation, binds the city. To illustrate,
committees may not enter into a contract or employ workers even if a
specific motion of the council delegates such power to them.
Salaries of mayor and councilmembers
The city council in Second. Third and Fourth Class cities fixes the
salaries of the mayor and councilmembers by ordinance, in such
amount as the council deems "reasonable." No change in salary, shall
take effect until after the next succeeding regular city election.
Salaries may be on an annual or monthly lump sum or on a per diem
basis. The per diem may be payable for each regular meeting, for
each regular and special meeting, or for each day's service. Unless the
ordinance provides otherwise, a lump sum salary covers special
meetings.
Iron Range cities have special legislative authority to make per diem
payments to councilmembers up to S25 per day, not to exceed $250
per year, for absences from the city while on official city business.
An employer must allow a city councilmember to take time off from
regular employment to attend council meetings. The time off may be
without pay, with pay, or made up with other hours as agreed
between the employee and the employer. When the councilmember
takes time off without pay, the employer must make an effort to allow
the employee to make up the time with other hours when the
employee is available. No retaliatory action may be taken by the
employer for absences to attend meetings necessitated by reason of
the employee's public office.
Citizen involvement
One way to increase positive feelings about government is to promote
citizen involvement.
Citywide or neighborhood committees, special project review
committees, and even block organizations are some of the committees
cropping up in many cities. In many cases, the council has formed or
encouraged these citizen committees. They have saved time for public
officials and have made contributions that could only occur through
citizen participation.
133
Minn. Stat. § 471.9981, subd.
6(c).
Minn. Stat. § 471.9981. subd.
6(c).
Minn. Stat, § 415,11.
A.G. Op. 471k (July 1. 1976).
A.G. Op. 471k (May 10, 1976).
Minn. Stat. § 412.111.
Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1.
A.G. Op. 470-B (Feb. 5, 1952).
If a subdivision fails to submit a report, the commissioner will
find the subdivision not in compliance and will impose
penalties, including notifying the commissioner of revenue
that the subdivision is subject to a five percent reduction in
local government aid or to a fine of $100 a day, whichever is
greater.
The commissioner can suspend the penalty if the
non-compliance is due to factors not relating to the sex of the
members dominating the affected classes. The subdivision
must also be taking steps to achieve compliance.
Mayor and councilmember
The councils of statutory,, and charter cities follow the same
law in setting council and mayor salaries. The city does not
need to follow contrary charter provisions. The council sets its
salaries at whatever amounts it deems reasonable, subject only
to the limit that a change in salary, does not become effective
until after the next regular city election. The law does not
provide for a referendum. Until a change takes effect, salaries
remain at current levels.
The salary authorization in the law allows the council, by
ordinance, to fix its compensation for all duties. If the council
feels that them should be additional compensation over and
above the base salary for special meetings, the ordinance
should set these amounts.
Councils should make salary changes by ordinance, but a
council could adopt a motion with formalities substantially
equivalent to those for enactment of ordinances. The legal
effect would be that of amending a prior salary ordinance.
Clerk
The council of a statutory city may set any salary for the clerk
at any time. The salary should compensate the clerk for all
duties except making certified copies, filing and entering
papers not related to city business. For these duties, the
statutes set fees, but the council may require the clerk to turn
these fees over to the city.
The clerk in Standard Plan cities usually receives a higher
salary than the councilmembers because of the position's
administrative duties, unless the city delegates these duties to a
deputy. The council may change the salary of a Standard Plan
city clerk at any time, and is not limited by the state law
requiring no change to be effective before the next election.
255
r- '1- "i- 'i'
CD
O
I'O O
O O
CD
CD
O'~ ....,i
CD CD
~. CD CD . ~. O
O O O CD O
O O CD CD
O CD !~ ~. O O
OO O'1
O O'~
CD
c~-~z
r-m
c~ ..~
CD o
4:~ co
o
cD
CD o
* CD O ~. ,.. CD
I'O
3>
z
z
0
Z
O CD CD O CD CD --' CD O CD
CD CD CD O0 O ~O O CD
· O CD CD · CD CD CD CD O · CD
0
Z
z
m
CD C~O CD I'~ I~ Oo CD O
* CD CD CD * CD CD CD CD O * O
CD PO
Z
Z
O
Z
o
CD
0
z
0
· o
0
,.-,I rn0
.q
0 0 O~ 0 O~ 0 0
~, 0 0 0 ~. 0 0 ~. 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
· , 0 0 0 0 CZ) C~ 0 C~
;:0
4:~ (30 CD O O CD O PO 4~ CD O CD O O O
CD O O O CD CD O O1 O CD O CD CD O ~. CD
4:~ 03 O '"q O C)
O C) C3 C.~ O C) CD
-~ O CD CD O 03 CD O
~. O O O C3 C:) O CD O CD O
O 03 CD CD C:) C:D CD ~ (D O O'1 O (...'1
O I~J O O O
O (.,J O CD CD
O O0 O G,J O CD O
CD CD C:~ ~ CD C~ CD
~ ~-- 0~ r'"
-~ '-~ 0
DO 0 PO I'0 CD (.0 0 0 0 0 0 CD
0 CD 0 ~ CD -'~ 0 0 CD 0 0 0
0 0 0 · 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ o o c~ '~ ~ ~ o ~ b o
cn o o .~ o r.n o o o o o co
'm 1,0 o -~ ~ ~ ~ 'o o r., o c~
o o o o o .~ o o o o o o
'co ~'~ c:o ~ ~ Z
0
Z
0 0 0 ~
rn rn rn 0 0
CL CL m ~. 0
-- (b
0
0
0
".4
C)
CD 4~ CD CD
O 4~ CD
CD CD 0'~ CD C~
O O O'1 CD O
B,I ~- CD CD ~. CD CD
-,Imo
Z
z
C~ -.,J Ct) -- CD
'o -~ ~o
O'~ CD -- CD ~ C~ qD
O~ cD
I~ cD
cD .,~ cD
.-lmO
~ O-icz
ITl
~ 'o c~
c,,o cD
c~ cD
cD Po CD I~ r~ cD o co ~,1 CD -~.
Z
Z
0
z
~:ITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
March 2000
25.00%
March 2000 YTD
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE
VARIANCE
PERCENT
EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND
Council 77,620 4,767 27,685 49,935 35.67%
Promotions 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00%
Cable TV 26,000 237 366 25,634 1.41%
City Manager/Clerk 198,750 10,064 37,547 161,203 18.89%
Elections 12,450 0 0 12,450 0.00%
Assessing 68,000 133 14t 67,859 0.21%
Finance 175,400 13,793 39,295 136,105 22.40%
Computer 22,100 280 4,750 17,350 21.49%
Legal 146,980 3,124 17,246 129,734 11.73%
Police 1,049,650 133,751 282,602 767,048 26.92%
Civil Defense 12,150 122 910 11,240 7.49%
Planning/Inspections 208,250 22,951 53,899 154,351 25.88%
Streets 485,990 43,840 155,677 330,313 32.03%
City Property 76,890 5,450 18,807 58,083 24.46%
Parks 208,050 11,303 40,134 167,916 19.29%
Summer Recreation 39,570 0 0 39,570 0.00%
Contingencies 106,780 0 86 106,694 0.08%
Transfers 166,120 13,843 41,530 124,590 25.00%
3,084,750 263,658 720,675 2,364,075
23.36%
GENERALFUND TOTAL
Area Fire
Service Fund
TIF 1-2
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Cemetery Fund
Dock Fund
411,520 8,397 50,640 360,880 12.31%
0 14,818 34,980 (34,980)
124,980 7,463 22,495 102,485 18.00%
238,920 16,414 58,958 179,962 24.68%
441,360 43,958 117,214 324,146 26.56%
939,410 49,552 241,988 697,422 25.76%
8,190 0 1,003 7,187 12.25%
80,640 2,984 13,453 67,187 16.68%
Exp-00
04118/2000
Gino
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
March 2000
25.00%
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
March 2000
BUDGET REVENUE
1,344,330 0
4,210 300
116,200 14,260
963,800 0
85,700 24,t61
100,000 11,931
63,500 1,301
44,500 0
13,000 929
YTD PERCENT
REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
0 (1,344,330) 0.00%
430 (3,780) 10.21%
29,421 (86,779) 25.32%
38,284 (925,516) 3.97%
28,259 (57,441) 32.97%
21,842 (78,158) 21.84%
1,511 (61,989) 2.38%
o (44,500) 0.00%
3,062 (9,938) 23.55%
TOTAL REVENUE
2,735.240
52,882 122,809 (2,612,431 ) 4.49%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCK FUND
377,470 42,055 129,890 (247,580) 34.41%
115,600 6,838 20,388 (95,212) 17.64%
1,750,000 131,877 359,664 (1,390,336) 20.55%
500,000 29,511 98,600 (401,400) 19.72%
960,000 78,962 239,651 (720,349) 24.96%
6,200 575 1,375 (4,825) 22.18%
86,000 (1,135) 65,347 (20,653) 75.98%
04118~2000
rev00
Gino
General Fund $967,490
CDBG 1,464
Area Fire Protection Servi 276,483
MSA 45,320
Sealcoat 29,933
PW Facility 53,998
Capital Improvement 273,347
CDB 3,356
Commerce Place TIF 105,962
Downtown TIF 1-2 (230,584)
Co Rd 15 7,783
~ Recycling 63,638
Liquor Store 311,233
Water 717,465
Sewer 618,085
Cemetery 5,406
Dock 289,552
Fire Relief (33,937)
~HRA 0
Note:
The above schedule shows the combined cash and investment balances
by fund for the months indicated as recorded in the General Ledger.
The balances do not reflect receivable, payables, authorized transfers,
encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc.
Only some accrued transactions are reflected. Investment income will be
distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included.
A long and complete process is followed to record all transactions, before
we close the books, at the end of the year. In addition, the audit from the
independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report
will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties.
In no way the schedule is intended to represent balances of funds
available for spending.
04/18/2000
CashReportCouncil
Gino
DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 PM, Wednesday, March 8, 21)00
Tonka 8ay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Kent Dahlen,
Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad,
Shoreview; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive
Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician.
Members absent: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Tom Gilman,
Excelsior; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood.
CHAIR ANNOUNCMENTS, Vice Chair Foster
LeFevere administered the oath of office to Tom Skramstad. He was seated as the new representative to on the
LMCD Board from the City of Shorewood. Foster welcomed him to the Board.
READING OF MINUTES. 2/23/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting.
MOTION: McMillan moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the minutes of the 2/23/00 Regular Board Meeting as
submitted.
VOTE: Ayes (6), Abstained (2; Aherns and Partyka); motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5 minutes).
There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda.
1. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Hennepin Parks, 1999 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report.
Foster stated the Report was included in the packet to allow the Board to review it. He added that John
Barren would attend a Board meeting in the near future to present it and answer questions.
B. Big Island Task Force, staff update on 3/7/00 meeting.
Foster updated the Board on the Big Island Task Force, noting a meeting was held on 3~7~00. He made the
following comments:
· In addition to the Task Force, two members from the public, Dan Goldman and Brad Peterson
sat in on the meeting. He added that there were additional members from the public who were
given the opportunity to comment.
· There was a consensus of the Task Force that the "pitchfork" configuration originally presented
at the 2/23/00 public hearing would create a nuisance because the safety lanes public would
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 8, 2000
Page 2
create a thoroughfare and the public would be swimming across them. He stated Mark Overland
proposed an alternative proposal with two dead-end, "theater-style" lanes.
· The Task Force discussed this proposal, noting that Lt. Schilling and the general consensus of
the public did not oppose this proposal. He noted the Task Force voted on this plan and
unanimously agreed to recommend Board approval of it with four conditions.
· These conditions included: 1) the two safety lanes are to be placed in the "theater-style", dead-
end layout, with the width of the lanes of the lanes to be approximately 30' - 40' as determined
by Hennepin County officials, 2) staff is to work with the Water Patrol and other agencies on the
preparation of boating rule materials to be handed out to the public, 3) staff is to work with the
MN DNR on the exact number of buoys that need to be ordered to identify the public safety
lanes, and 4) the need for public safety lanes should be revisited periodically.
· He asked LeFevere for direction on how to proceed for the Board to approve the
recommendation of the Task Force.
LeFevere stated that a draft ordinance amendment, with some minor revisions, could be presented at the next
meeting for Board review. He added he believed the draft ordinance amendment would allow these safety
lanes to be established by resolution and that this could also be presented at the next meeting for Board
review. He noted the main purpose for the ordinance amendment is to make it a crime to violate designated
marker buoys.
Foster asked for comments from the Board on the recommendation of the Task Force.
McMillan questioned whether there is a need to adopt an ordinance for the establishment of these public
safety lanes.
Foster stated he believed there is a need for the ordinance amendment to allow the Water Patrol to enforce
the restriction of "No Rafting Between Buoys". He added he hoped the Water Patrol would not have to issue
any citations; however, if they have to, the ordinance would allow them to do so.
A member from the public who was unidentified asked what style of buoys is planned to be used.
Nybeck stated the buoys to be used were recommended by Klm Eleverum from the MN DNR. He noted they
would be 14", white regulatory buoys, with two orange bands and an orange circle. He added there would be
two-inch high, black lettering in the orange circle that states "No Anchoring Between Buoys".
Dahlen asked for clarification on the recommendation of the Task Force that the public safety lanes be
revisited periodically. He questioned whether that would be done through the Task Force or through a public
hearing.
Foster stated he believed the Task Force would like to evaluate these lanes by getting an update from the
Water Patrol after the 2000 boating season. He noted there might some unintended or other consequences
that would merit revisiting the issue.
Partyka asked if the Board could proceed on approving the Task Force recommendation this evening,
especially the aspect of getlJng the buoys ordered with the MN DNR.
MOTION:. Partyka moved, Suerth seconded to direct the attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment to
update the Code for the 3/8/00 Regular Board meeting.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 8, 2000
Page
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Partyka moved, Ahems seconded to receive and accept the report of the Big Island Task Force, to
direct staff to work with the MN DNR to get the buoys ordered, and to work with the Water Patrol on
the preparation of educational materials to be handed out.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
McMillan stated she would like feedback from the public on these public safety lanes and she encouraged
cooperation to make this a win-win situation.
Foster commented on the 2~23~00 public hearing that was held for this project. He stated he had received
compliments on the process to gather testimony from the public, to send it back to the Task Force, and to
revise the proposed layout to one that most parties could agree to.
C. Staff update on 2000 Boat Density & User Attitude Survey.
Foster asked staff for background on this agenda item.
Nybeck provided the following background:
· At the 2~23~00 meeting, the Board reviewed the one proposal received from Schoell and
Madson, Inc. to conduct the 2000 Boat Density Survey in the amount of $36,120.!0. He noted
because the Proposal was well over the $30,000 budgeted for this project, the Board denied it
and directed staff to begin direct negotiations with Schoell and Madson, Inc. and other
companies to perform the project in 2000.
· Staff from both the District and the MN DNR met with officials from Schoell and Madson, Inc. on
3/2/00 to begin direct negotiations. He noted at this meeting, Schoell and Madson, Inc.
recommended reducing the scope of work in four areas without affecting the integrity of the
project. They included: 1) to provide photo's of the HOA and municipal docks using a digital
camera and supplying them on CD, 2) to provide camera-ready survey's to be handed out, 3) to
reduce the number of flights, and 4) to allow the MN DNR to conduct the data manipulation and
evaluation of survey's, with Schoell and Madson, Inc. to provide data entry.
· Mr. Tim Kelly, MN DNR Planner, stated he believed three of the four recommendations to reduce
the scope work could be done, with the exception of reducing the number of flights. He added
by reducing the scope of work in these three areas, it would reduce the cost of the original
Proposal down to $33,020.10. He stated the MN DNR has agreed to pay 50% of the total cost
of this project, including the amount over the $30,000 budgeted.
· He recommended the Board authorize the Chair, on behalf of the Board, to enter into a
contractual agreement with Schoell and Madson, Inc., in the amount of $33,020.10, to conduct
the 2000 Boat Density and User Attitude Survey. He asked for questions or comments from the
Board on this project.
Kitchak asked if the District has any contractual agreements with the MN DNR.
Nybeck stated the District has contractual agreements with both the company that is awarded the contract and
the MN 'DNR on this project.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 8, 2000
Page 4
Skramstad asked how often the District conducts this project.
Foster stated the boat density survey is conducted every other year and that the user attitude surveys are
conducted every four years.
Ahems asked how many flights are scheduled in this project.
Nybeck stated he did not have the exact number available but that he believed it was about 18 to 20 flights.
Aherns questioned whether the District needed to conduct these surveys as frequently as they are being
done.
Nybeck stated around a year ago, Kelly recommended ~.~e Board conduct these surveys every third and sixth
years. He added at this meeting, the Board voted to maintain conducting these surveys every second and
fourth years. He suggested that this could be revisited when the 2000 Report is completed and that Kelly
could be extended an invitation to attend the meeting when it is presented to the Board.
Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, owner of Tonka Bay Marina and Mayor of Orono, stated he believed the culture of the
lake is changing to bigger boats. He questioned whether the Report would accurately measure this trend
analysis.
MOTION: McMillan moved, Partyka seconded to authorize the Chair, on behalf of the Board, to enter into a
contractual agreement with Schoell and Madson, Inc., in the amount of $33,020.10, to conduct the
2000 Boat Density and User Attitude Survey.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
D. Additional Business.
Foster stated the office has received request from the public to deice before March 15 without a permit. He
noted the Code does not provide the Executive Director the authority to allow the public to deice before this
date without a permit. He recommended the Board grant the Executive Director this authority.
Nybeck stated the Code requires the public to secure a permit, with a number of conditions that need to be
met, if they want to deice before March 15. He added deicing could occur after the March 15 date without a
permit. He noted a request has been received from the City of Deephaven to deice before the March 15 date,
without securing a permit, to prevent damage to their docks. He suggested there is a need for more flexibility
for the Executive Director, whether it is done through resolution or a Code amendment.
Foster stated he would prefer that this flexibility for the Executive Director be done through Board resolution
rather than a Code amendment. He suggested the resolution should include allowing unpermitted facilities to
deice before the March 15 date and to allow licensed deicing facilities to remove their fences before the March
15 date.
MOTION: Kitchak moved, Dahlen seconded to adopt a resolution to grant the Executive Director the flexibility
to allow the public to deice in 2000 before the March 15 date and to allow licensed facilities to
remove their fences before the March 15 date.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 8, 2000
2. FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers (3/1/00 - 3/15/00).
Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted, noting that check number 13039, in the
amount of $500 to the City of Wayzata, had been voided.
MOTION: McMillan moved, Suerth seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment as amended.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
3. WATER STRUCTURES
A. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to the density of watercraft storage on Lake
Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.11 by adding new Subd. 6.
Foster asked staff for an overview of the information in the packet.
Nybeck made the following comments:
· Three items were included in the Board packet. He stated they included: 1) the draft ordinance
amendment reviewed at the 2/23/00 meeting, 2) a spreadsheet of the 14 member cities with
analysis of multi-family developments, and 3) a spreadsheet that analyzed the re-development
of commercial and other properties on Lake Uinnetonka. If the Board desires to make changes
to the Code, he believed these spreadsheets should assist in ensuring that lakewide planning is
being conducted.
· A new concept is proposed for Board discussion on the re-development spreadsheet by taking
into account the size of the site on land and building in an additional safeguard for sites on land
that might be developed at such a high density that it would have an adverse impact on the
docks in the water. He noted the figure in the table, eight boats per acre, is based on
information received from the member cities, the MN DNR, and some developers. He noted this
concept points out facilities around the lake with high amounts of shoreline and proportionally
Iow amounts of square footage on land. He stated that the Board might not want to grant the
same number of BSU's as the number of dwelling units approved on land.
· This concept merited Board discussion.
LeFevere further clarified the concept that was being discussed by Nybeck. He cited Excel Marina as an
example that has a high amount of shoreline with a small amount of square footage at the site on land. He
noted the current draft ordinance amendment could allow for the approval of a number of BSU's that
might be disproportionate for that site. He stated although that probably would not occur, the concept being
described by Nybeck would build in an additional safeguard for small sites with a large amount of shoreline.
Nybeck stated the number of boats allowed per acre is the exception rather than the rule. He noted in the vast
majority of the sites on the lake, either the 50 percent reduction or the limitation based on shoreline footage is
more restrictive.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
Foster stated the he believed the concept being discussed is a land issue and that the District should not get
involved with it.
Kitchak asked what constituted acreage at the site. He questioned whether that would be the amount of acres
althe site when it was grandfathered for boat density or whether that would include the purchase of adjacent
properties.
LeFevere stated that was a good point because the grandfathered rights are associated with that site. He
noted if the District allows for the inclusion of land that is non-riparian and is not part of the original
grandfathered site, that facility would provide for a development opportunity for the owner that is unique.
Mr. Kent Carlson, 20505 Lakeview Avenue, provided aerial overlays of Excel Marina, Grays Bay Marina,
Tonka Bay Marina, Kings Cove, Windward Marina, and Sailors World Marina. He pointed out the practical
applications of real estate development of these facilities, noting he believed the 50 percent reduction or the
1:20' General Rule would be sufficient for good lakewide planning.
Nybeck pointed out that the Kings Cove example is a currently a conforming facility and that the draft
ordinance amendment would not apply to it.
Foster asked for clarification from LeFevere on the draft ordinance on why it would only apply to non-
conforming facilities.
LeFevere stated the greater the number of facilities that would benefit from this ordinance, the less likely the
District would be able to achieve the 1:50' General Rule. He noted the facilities that were existence when the
1:50' General Rule was adopted were caught by that ordinance. He added conforming facilities do not have
the same type of hardship because they made decisions based on rules they were aware of.
Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, owner of Tonka Bay Marina, questioned whether the ordinance would be fair to facilities
around the lake that currently comply with Code. He used facilities with special density licenses as an
example.
Foster stated there had been some previous discussion on facilities attaining a special density license and
then converting in the near future. He noted the discussion raised the idea of a 10-year waiting period from
the time that facility is licensed. He asked LeFevere to comment on this.
LeFevere stated the Board could adjust the draft ordinance amendment so it would apply to all facilities on the
lake.
Foster questioned whether the ordinance should be changed for all facilities in existence on a specified date,
whether or not they are conforming to Code.
LeFevere stated is not uncommon for cities to state that grandfathered facilities cannot expand, enlarge, or
make changes without coming into compliance with Code. He added some cities do not agree with this
philosophy and they encourage grandfathered facilities to come more closely into compliance with Code. He
noted the entitlement that goes with grandfathered facilities on land does not apply on the water. He
questioned whether the District should grant a privilege for a special density license that conforms to Code
and is not grandfathered.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distdct
Regular Board Meeting
March 8, 2000 -- Page 7
McMillan stated she believed the Board is concerned with the cities not sticking to their standards for land use
policy. She noted because the City of Greenwood is addressing the proposed Kent Carlson development as
they go along, it makes it more difficult for the District. She questioned whether developers would start
stacking a development by constructing an apartment if they have a large amount of shoreline with little
square footage at the site. She stated it is possible that the number of BSU's authorized by the District could
drive the development in some cases.
Carlson stated he believed most cities around the lake have height restrictions.
LeFevere stated the way the ordinance is written, the Board cannot assume the sites would be continued in
their current status. He noted some of the sites could acquire additional upland or dryland to take advantage
of the dockage rights currently grandfathered.
McMillan stated she believed if the ordinance amendment was adopted by the Board, it should limit them to a
maximum of one BSU for each dwelling unit in the development.
Foster stated he was not troubled with the amount of square footage at the site expanding from when it was
grandfathered for density, provided there is a significant reduction in boat density. He noted he believed the
discussion be LeFevere could be addressed by adding the language "in existence on 1/1/00" at the end of
subd. 6 d). He added he believed the one restricted watercraft for each 37.5 referenced in subd. 6 a) (ii)
should be reduced to "1:20".
McMillan stated maybe the Board should consider other criteria for allowing the grandfathered facility a higher
boat density. She used greater side setbacks as an example.
Aherns stated she believed the Board needs to decide whether the 50% reduction or the adjusted General
Rule goes far enough to allow for greater boat densities at re-development sites that are non-conforming. She
noted she believed reducing boat density is a good goal for the District.
Foster asked the Board whether they want to add a restriction on the size of boats stored at these facilities.
He stated he would like to see some form of a length restriction.
Ahrens stated she believed the storage of larger boats at these facilities might be self-policing.
Foster reminded that the water belongs to the public and that the District can apply reasonable regulations on
the lake.
Jabbour suggested the Board might want to use some of the same language used in the Code established for
the reconfiguration of non-conforming structures.
Nybeck stated when the draft ordinance amendment was prepared, staff worked of the base of the 1:50'
General Rule and provided multipliers similar to what the MN DNR does in its PUD rules and regulations. He
noted that conforming facilities in residential areas cannot currently qualify for a special density license. He
suggested the reduction in density should be taken from the 1:50' density allowed by the General Rule, not the
1:10' density allowed by a special density license.
Eggers arrived at 8:24 p.m.
Suerth stated he would like to see a length restriction of 32'.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 8, 2000
Page 8
Kitchak stated he believed the problem on the lake is driver rather than the size of the boat.
Skramstad stated he would be opposed to limiting boat sizes in general.
Suerth stated he believed the 32' length restriction is fair for the tradeoffs from the District to allow the number
of slips at these facilities that do not conform to the 1:50' General Rule.
LeFevere stated if the Board decides to put additional language in the draft ordinance, such as increased side
setbacks or boat length restrictions, the landowner still has the potential to maintain its grandfathered, non-
conforming status or to make application in compliance with the 1:50' General Rule.
Mr. Paul Pedersen, owner of Grays Bay Marina, stated he believed the size of boats would be self-policed
because most of the grandfathered facilities that currently extend 200' from shore would be required to bring
them within 100'. He expressed concern with limiting boat sizes because he was unsure whether that would
include appurtenances, in addition to hull length.
Foster stated he believed the Board seems to be generally in favor of the ordinance amendment with some
general changes to it. He noted this included changing the allowance of restricted watercraft to 1:20',
dropping boat sizes, requiring additional side setbacks for these facilities, and adding the language that these
facilities needed to be in existence on 1/1/00.
Partyka stated he would prefer using a 1:25' figure rather than 1:20' because that is too Iow.
The Board discussed whether the ordinance amendment should be changes to require increased side
setbacks. The consensus of the Board was to have staff provide an overview of current side setback
requirements.
Mr. Todd Warner asked for clarification on reducing the slips by 50%.
Foster stated the 50% reduction figure is part of the Code relating to the reconfiguration of non-
conforming facilities. He added he believed this would have little impact on most of the non-conforming
facilities because they would be required to come within the 100' zone from shore.
LeFevere stated the ordinance would require at least a 50% reduction of the total square footage of all of the
slips.
McMillan stated she believed the ordinance should be amended to allow for one boat per residential unit
at the site.
Partyka stated he would like to see the ordinance amendment have a boat length restriction of 32'. He noted
this could be deleted at a future reading of the ordinance amendment.
MOTION: Skramstad moved, Suerth seconded to approve first reading of the ordinance with the following
changes: 1) changing the 1:37.5' to 1:20', 2) providing a length restriction of boats to be 32' LOA, 3)
restricting docking to one per residential unit; and 4) adding language that the facilities needed to be
in existence on 1/1/00.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 8, 2000
Page 9
The Board directed staff to provide a memo to the Board that summarizes current side setback requirements.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Review of draft 2000 Zebra Mussel Budget.
Foster asked Suerth for an overview of the 2000 zebra mussel budget.
Suerth stated a number of tasks are planned for the 2000 zebra mussel program. He noted these tasks
include a billboard campaign, the reprinting of pamphlets, operating expenses for the spraydown program,
access signage, the printing of posters, the use of print ads, a protest campaign, and contingency.
Foster asked if Suerth was looking for funding approvals by the Board.
Nybeck stated the zebra mussel program currently has $5,000 budgeted in the Exotics budget and an
additional $10,000 in the Save the Lake Budget. He noted the pamphlet, spraydown program, and access
signage expenses could be paid out of the Exotics budget. He added the billboard campaign and the printing
of posters could be paid out of the Save the Lake Budget. He stated any additional expenses up and beyond
this would require additional funding to be approved by the Board.
The Board asked for clarification on the zebra mussel protest campaign project.
Nybeck stated that Carmichael Lynch recommended this past January to have more personal contact with the
user groups of Lake Minnetonka. He noted the suggestion was to have animated costumes, with professional
actors, to stage a protest at events such as the Boat and Sportsmen Shows.
Foster stated that project would assist in the public education and awareness of the public.
McMillan stated the projects that have been committed to in 2000 include the re-printing of the pamphlets, the
billboard campaign, operating expenses for the spraydown program, and the printing of posters. She added
additional projects that are planned but not yet committed to include access signage, the use of print ads, and
a zebra mussel protest campaign.
Kitchak stated although the District has been committed to billboard campaign, he personally has had
problems with it on a long-term basis. He added he would have concern in funding a zebra mussel protest
campaign unless it is a joint effort with the MN DNR because it has statewide implications.
Dahlen reminded the Board that billboards serve a purpose because the District needs to look beyond the
local area because a large number of boats come from outside the area.
B. Review of recommendations for 2000 from the EWM Harvesting Program Improvement Task Force.
Foster asked staff for an overview on this project.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 8, 2000 - Page 10
Nybeck stated this Task Force was established last fall to evaluate the EWM Harvesting Program and make
recommendations on possible improvements. He noted the first recommendation of this Task Force was the
purchase of a new harvester for the 2000 season. He added at a meeting on 2/19/00, the Task Force focused
on improvements in May and early June, from mid June through mid August, and from mid August through
early September. He stated the Task Force has made the following recommendations for these time frames,
with the understanding they need to be further refined:
Launch the harvesters in the lake by mid to late May. This would allow the Project Manager,
Todd Grams, sufficient time to properly train the employees before they come to work in mid
June and it would ensure that the machines are ready to go. He added the Task Force believes
this would allow for some limited early season harvesting if the weed growth merited it.
· Run all five harvesters from the middle of June through the middle of August. The Task Force
believes that they should be operated for a minimum of 10 hours on Monday through Thursday,
and eight hours on Fridays. He noted the increase in hours due the additional harvester and the
increase in hours worked on a daily basis would add additional expenses to the program. He
stated in this recommendation, the employees would work four days a week rather than five. He
noted the increase in expenditures needs to be further refined.
· Run a limited number of harvesters through at least the Labor Day weekend. He stated the
Task Force believes this could be done with a reduced crew by hiring non-school teachers as
the additional three or four employees needed to operate the second recommendation. He
noted the Task Force believes the harvesters should be removed from the lake shortly after
Labor Day to allow the Fleet Engineer sufficient time for routine repairs and maintenance that
need to be done.
· He asked for comments or questions from the Board.
Partyka and Ahrens concurred with the recommendation of the Task Force that the additional employees
should be non-school teachers.
C. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
5. ADMINISTRATION
A, Status update on District printer and copy machine in the office.
Foster asked for comments from staff on this agenda item.
Nybeck stated the office is need of both a new printer and copy machine. He noted he would like to be
authorized, at the minimum, to purchase a new printer.
The consensus of the Board was to have the staff work with Chair Babcock on these purchases.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
6. SAVE THE LAKE
There was no business.
LAKE MINNET. ONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
MINUTES
8:30 a.m., Fdday, March 10, 2000
LMCD Office, 18338 Mtka Blvd., Deephaven, MN
Present: Herb Suerth, LMCD Board; Wendy Crowell, MN DNR; Fred Henson, MN DNR; John Barren, Hennepin Parks;
Cob Burandt, Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA); Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director.
Minutes.
The Task Force reviewed the minutes from the 1/14/00 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting and accepted them as
submitted.
Update on recommendations of EWM Harvesting Proqram Improvement Task Force for 2000.
Suerth asked staff to provide an update on the recommendations of the Task Force.
Nybeck stated this Task Force was established last fall to evaluate the EWM Harvesting Program and to make
recommendations on possible improvements. He noted the first recommendation of this Task Force was the purchase of
a new harvester for the 2000 season. He added at a meeting on 2J19/00, the Task Force focused on improvements in
May and early June, from mid June through mid August, and from mid August through early September. He stated the
Task Force has made the following recommendations for these time frames, with the understanding they need to be
further refined:
· Launch the harvesters in the lake by mid to late May. This would allow the Project Manager, Todd Grams,
sufficient time to propedy train employees before they come to work in mid June, and it would ensure that the
machines are ready to go. He added the Task Force believes this would allow for some limited eady season
harvesting if the weed gro~h merited it.
Run all five harvesters from the middle of June through the middle of August. The Task Force believes that
they should be operated for a minimum of 10 hours on Mondays through Thursdays, and eight hours on
Fridays. He noted the increase in hours due to the additional harvester in the fleet and the increase in hours
worked on a daily basis would add additional expenses to the program. He noted this needed to be further
refined.
· Run a limited number of harvesters through at least the Labor Day weekend. He stated the Task Force
believes this could be done with a reduced crew by hiring non-school teachers as the additional three or four
employees because they do not have scheduling conflicts. He noted the Task Force believes the harvesters
should be removed from the lake shortly after Labor Day to allow the Fleet Engineer sufficient time for routine
repairs and maintenance that needs to be done.
· He asked for comments or questions from the Task Force.
Suerth stated he believed the Board generally supports the recommendations of the Task Force.
Barren asked whether the additional time projected for the 2000 season would focus on re-harvesting areas already
harvested or to harvesting new areas.
Nybeck stated in 1999, the majority of the harvesting was done through channel cutting, with some areas of the lake
receiving second cuts. He noted he believed second cuts should be expanded in 2000 and that some areas of the lake
that generally do not require harvesting could be considered.
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 3110/00, PAGE 2
The general consensus of the Task Force was supportive of the recommendations of the EWM Harvesting Program
Improvement Task Force.
Suerth stated the District is finalizing its plans for the 2000 zebra mussel program. He noted a number of projects are
planned including educational pamphlets, a billboard campaign, the spraydown program, edu0ational posters, a0cess
signage, and print ads. He stated that some Board members have expressed concern with the billboard campaign;
however, it is planned for 2000. He provided an overview of a protest campaign, noting it is in its infancy stages and that
some Board members have also expressed concern with this because they believed it should either be a joint project or a
project of the MN DNR.
Burnadt expressed concern with the message of the billboard when the message on them is factually incorrect, especially
when public funds are involved.
Suerth stated the recommendations received by the District from Carmichael Lynch was that although the message is not
factually correct from a biological standpoint, the shock value of the message printed on them was valuable. He added
the Board of Directors confirmed the recommendation of Carmichael Lynch.
Nybeck stated that the billboards are being paid with non-levied, Save the Lake funds.
Review of MN Dept. of Agriculture proposal on possible restrictions on the use of phosphorous in fertilizer on
lawns.
Suerth asked for an update on this agenda item.
Barren stated the proposed died in committee when some manufacturers and retailers indicated they believed the
restriction is not necessary. He added he believed it would be re-introduced at the next legislative session on a statewide
basis.
The Task Force discussed water quality on Lake Minnetonka and means to remove nutrients from it, specifically
phosphorous. There was discussion by the Task Force on whether the milfoil harvesting program was removing
phosphorous from the lake. Some members of the Task Force stated they believed it would be interesting to run a study
on how much phosphorous is removed from the lake by the harvesting program.
Barren indicated he hoped to meet with some lake communities in the near future on the idea of implementing an
ordinance, similar to Plymouth, that prohibits the use of fertilizer with phosphorous in it.
Agency Reports.
Crowell reported on the following:
· A video has been produced using funds from the MN Sea Grant on how to clean boating equipment of aquatic
plants. She stated the video is narrated by Cliff Claven from the show "Cheers" and that she would forward a
copy to the District office.
· She would be attending a Midwest Aquatic Plant Management Society meeting in the near future.
· She updated the Task Force on bait harvesting from Mille Lacs that recently was infested with milfoil. She
noted the rules have been changes and that there are special training requirements.
Henson reported on the following:
· He recently was hired to assist Mike Halverson at the MN DNR.
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 3/10/00, PAGE 3
· He had brought along a video on lakeshore management practices for lakeshore owners that were discussed
at the previous Task Force meeting. He stated it could be reviewed at either this meeting or a future meeting.
The consensus of the Task Force was to review this video at the next Task Force meeting.
Ama-wide Lake Association Rel~orts.
There were no area-wide lake association reports.
Old business.
There was no old business.
New business.
There was no new business.
Adjournment.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gregory S. Nybeck
Executive Director
Winter2000
Mound Downtown redevelopment
moving forward
The long-anticipated redevelopment of downtown Mound is moving steadily forward i. With work
underway on devetopment agreements and zoning ordinances being rewritten, the behind the
scenes work is progressing. Hsible work will begin later this summer with the start of
construction of the new True Value Hardware store.
Is ll~,re any progres~ being made
on the Mound Downtown
redevelopment?
Yes, there is progress being ma& on
a number of levels, Currently, thc
City is negotiating agreemcala with
developers for threa of thc City's
four redevelopment districts. Al ~his
time, no developer has be~n
identified for the Hotel District.
Agreements for Lake Langdon,
Auditor's Road, and thc True Value
{formerly Coast-to-Coast) Districts
are e.xpec~ed to be ¢omplc~¢d in
April-May. (See pag~ 3 for maps of
the districts).
Se~ondly, the City is in the
process of rewriting its downtown
z~aing ordinance to pave thc way
f~r the r~ev¢lopment. The
ordinance is expected to be
completed by Jun=. It will encourage
urban d~ign patterns ¢omistaat with
Mound Visions and at th~ ~me ~
it will proem! thc eavironm,mt.
Fimlly, True Value h scheduling
its construction for this summer with
a~ ~Xl~"t~ move-in this fall.
Comtructioa is tentatively s~hedulexi
Io begin this fall in the Lake
Langdon Dimict And, plans are
bring completed for lhe Lost Lake
Greaaway, which will give the
finishing touches to ~¢ ~anal.
proj~t for a scheduled construe'ion
of 2001 aft~ the pos~ offi¢~ has
berm r~located.
P/hat has to happen nma before
development can occur?
First, thc dcvdopmcr~ agreements
must be completed. The agreements
~ the develol~s outline the
specific type of improvements,
continued on page 2
Downtown redevelopment key contacts
Questions about timing? Comments about plans ? Concerns
regarding the whole process? Here are the names and phone
numbers of city officials and the consultants working with
the city on the downtown redevelopment project.
Mayor
Pat M¢isel ..................... 612-472-2097
Council Member~
Anclr~a Alu'ms ............. 612-47%1520
Bob Brown ................... 612-472-3680
Mark Hanus .................. 612-472,-5480
Leah W~¢kcr ............... 6124724187
Mound Redevelopment Consultant
lira Proaser ................... 651-697-8503
Mound Vhiona Coordinator
Br~ce Chamberlain ....... 612-335-0g00
pro~t components, and type of
fmancin$ to be provided. Second, tim
Planning Commission and City
Council must approve a acw city
zoning ordinance which dictates
such things as parlfing, building
height, design standards and
stormwater control.
Both of these activities are
expected to be completed by June,
clearing the way for propert7
acquisition and construction to begin
in the True Value District and the
Lake Langdon District.
What type af construction will
occur this year?
This sumraer work begins on the
new 15,000-square-foot building for
the True Value Hardware store
(formerly Coast-to-Coast).
Construction is expected to begin
this fall on th~ Lake Langdon
disuict, which will include
townhom~, 40 reml tow~nm,
and 34 rental apartments. (S¢e the
descriptions of the districts on pag~
3 for more information.)
What is happening ~ the Port
Office and the greenway?
The City has been worifing with the
U.S. Postal Service to identify a
n~v site for the post office. The
field of potential sit~s has heea
narrow~ and the City hop~s to
have a final ~ and agr~ with
the Postal Sci'vice this spring. Thc
grcenway which will run along Lost
Lake, had to be delayed because of
the post office relocation, but now is
expected to be completed in 2001.
A big picture look
This map provides a context for the redevelopment district
descriptions on the next page.
'.;:...'. ::...
. t
..witch will properties in the Lake
Langdon and Auditor~r Road
The pr~-development agreement
signed in May 1999 with Beard
Group antieipat~ a~uisition in the
Lake Langdon District to occur in
winter/spring 2000 and in the
Auditor's Road District ia the fall
and winter of 2001. There has been
about a six-month delay in the Lake
Langdoa District, but the Auditors
Road DisMet is still on schedule. A
more firm schedule will be available
once development agreements are
completed and zoning issues are
resolved.
How much notice will I have
before ! have to relocate my
business?
Developers must contact businesses
that need to be relocated to make an
offer at least 90 days prior to the
date that they need ~he property.
Typically, thc contact begins much
earlier. Generally, once a purchase
agreement is reached, a mutually
agreeable date for relocation is
reached between the property owner
and developer.
What ifI wish to remain in the
redevelopment area?
Once thc development agreement
has been approved by the Mound
Housing & Redevelopment
Authority, the developer will be
contacting businesses that aced to be
relocated. The City will not be
involved with negotiatio~ with
businesse~ - the developer will,
Business owners who are interested
in remaining in the district need to
discuss that with the developer.
Businessea not remaining will be
compensated for the value of their
property and relocation assistance
will be provided.
continued on page 4
Mound Downtown Redevelopment Districts
In the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, M~und is broken into redevelopment districts. Each district
will feature its own unique characteristics. Here is ~ brief breakdown of t he four redevelopment
districts and the tentative schedules for the completion of each.
Coast-to-Coast (Now True Value)
Description
Four acres in the core of downtown bounded by Lynwood Boulevard, Coumgrce
Boulevard, Belmont Av~nuc'and thc m'lroad tracks.
Plans '
The project will have two phazea and it wilt include a total of 23,000 square feet
of retail and g,000 square fcct of office space. A new 15,000-square-foot True
Value building is included in thc project.
Timing
Thc development agro:ment is under negotiation. In summtn' '2000, comntuction
begins on Phase 1 - the construction of the True Value building which includes
15,000 square feet of retail. In 2002, construction begins of Phase 2 which includes 8,000 square feet of retail and
8,000 square feet of office space adjacent to the new True Value Hardware..
Lake Langdon District
~ Description
Six acres in the core of
downtown bounded by
Commerce Boulevard,
Lak~ Langdon, Our
~ady of thc Lake
Church and the railroad
tracks.
Plans
The devdopmcnt would
........... include 15,000 square
fcct of retail, 14 for-sale townhomes, 40 rental
townhomes, and 34 rental apartments.
Timing
The development agreement is currently under
mgo6ation. Construction ia expected to begin in
th~ fall of 2000.
Auditor's Road District
Description
Six acres in the core of downtown bounded by Commerce
Boulevard, Auditors
Road, County Road 15
and the railroad tracks.
Plans
The developme~t would
include 40,000 square
feet ofreta~ and 85
condominiums/
apartments. Plans include a greanway along Lost Lake and
the project w~l require the relocation of Count7 Road 15.
Time Frame
Thc development agreement is under negotiation. Acquisition
of properties scheduled to occur in 2001. Relocation of the
County Road 15 and construction are scheduled to occur in
2002.
Hotel District
_~.: . .-,s,,~.._;' I'.. '. : Five acres in the core of downtown bounded by County Road 15, the Super America:
~~ andLos~Lake.
Plans
[ The development will include a hotel, and the site would be used for a banquet facility
· ."'. Time Frame
i A dcvclopea has not yet been idcntifi~ for tMs development. I~Lf
-continued from page 2
~tat is happening with the
former ltigh scttool site?
The school district, which owns the
land, has signed a purchase
agreement with a developer for the
development of that site. ,at this ila~e
there is no formal proposal for
development of the property. The
City is being cooperative with the
school district as it plans for the site.
I~ there a communi~ center in the
redevelopment?
~lo, the redevelopment includes no
p[am for a new community c~tter.
WAy is it taking so long to
complete any redevelopment?
Redevelopment is a complex
process that, unfortunately, can take
a while. That's especially true in
cases where rexlevelopmcnt involve~
multiple districts a.nd developers and
where there is a need for a variety
of public improvements such as a
gr~'nway, relocation of a county
hig~ay, md dredging Although it is
frustra~ to wait through the initial
phase of from-end planning and
preparation, that phase is ~ritical to
the su~ess of the redevelopment.
City of Mound
$341 Maywood goad
Mound, MN 5~364
(612) 472-~00
I kaven't heard about the
redevelopment be/or,- What is
planned?
In D~[gr 1999, thc Mound
Housing & Redevelopment
Authority approved a redevel~t
plan for Dowrttown Mound based on
the Mound Visions Concept Plan
fa-st introduced in 1992. The plan
calls for reorienting downtown
towards Lost Lake and .Lake
Langdon. It features new
con'm~ercial development, new
housing a transit station, a public
greenway, pedestrian waikways and
opening the Lost Lake Canal to
boats. The redevelopment area
encompasses about 20 acr~ of
downtown.
How long wlll it take to complete
tire entire downtown
redevelopment?
The entire redevelopment is
expected to occur within the next
thre~ to five years. This type of
redevelopment is dependent upon a
number of factors outsick: of the
City's control, such as market
comlifions. Therefore, it is alv,'ays
possible that the r~development
could take longer than originally
projected.
Mound Calendar
. RecTcling pick-ups are s~h~luled
e','~"y Monday and Tuesday.
· The PLanning Commission meets
the ser. ond :,nd ~u~h M~day of
each month, beginning at 7:30 p_m.
· CityCoundl meetings areheldthe
second and fourth Tuesdays of
esch month, beginning at 7'.30 p.m.
· The Economic Development
Ccmmlssicu meets at 7 a.m. the
third Thursday of each month.
· The Park and Open Space
Commission meets at 7:30 p.m. the
second Thursday of each month.
· TbeDock CommmsCommissio~
meets at 7:30 p.m. thc third
Thursday of each month.
· The City Council Committee-o£-
the-Whole meets at 7:30 p.m. the
third Tuesd~ of the month.
How can I find out more
information?
The City will be providing periodic
updates on the redevelopment
project ~a the City's newsletter, City
Contact. If you have questions, feel
fr~e to call any of the people listed
on page 1 for more infomation:
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 87
Mound, MN
City of Mound
Council Members
Pat MdseL Mayor 479~2097
Andrea Ahrens 472-1520
~ Bt'~ 472-3680
Mark Hanus 472-.5480
l~h Weycker 472-4 187
OwnedOccupant
Tim Buss~, Ed~)t
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 2000
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Tom Casey, Norman Domholt, John Beise,
Christina Cooper; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were
Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Chair Domholt called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 9. 2000 POSC MINUTES
Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Casey to approve the minutes of the
March 9, 2000 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
The agenda was approved as presented.
3. PRESENTATION: ALLAN OLSON. DNR FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
Chair Domholt introduced Allan Olson, Forester with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources since 1981.
Mr. Olson then addressed the Commission regarding their interest in the health and
welfare of the trees and other natural resources in the Mound area. He presented many
informational videos, books, and other media resources that are available to the public in
order to provide information on the natural resources in this area. He also presented some
information on Minnesota Relief (MnRelief), which is a grant program for reaching the
goals in the City regarding forestry. The first step would be an inventory.
Park Director Fackler stated that some trees will be planted this spring or fall, and this
project may be eligible for funds from MnRelief.
Commissioner Beise questioned if Mound had the maximum funds from MnRelief currently,
and if this amount was renewable annually.
Park Director Fackler stated right now, $5000 has been requested.
Mr. Olson urged Fackler to issue a new request, as that amount would probably be
increased. Also, the amounts granted are based on merit. There is no time limit between
requests.
Commissioner Casey requested information regarding any Big Woods habitat.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission April 13, 2000
Mr. Olson stated that right now, legislation referred to as "Heritage Forest" is being
considered to set aside and protect the areas that are left of the Big Woods.
Commissioner Casey questioned the fragmentation issue. What acreage is too small to
be considered a working forest.
Mr. Olson responded that he has people call with 3 acre parcels who are interested in
planting trees, and he is willing to help them. In his opinion however, for a working forest,
about 10 acres is really needed.
Commissioner Casey asked about clustering when planning new developments.
Mr. Olson stated that he does push for that, clustering the houses in the already open
areas, and leaving the forested areas for greenspace, with the older trees intact.
Councilmember Weycker mentioned a 23 acre piece which was part of the Big Woods, but
the owner could not afford the taxes anymore. Does the DNR help out in this case, to keep
the area forested rather than developed.
Mr. Olson responded that this is a common problem in this area, one possible solution is
Minnesota Land Trust, who hold land in trust and preserve it, and at some point they would
turn it over to a government agency such as the DNR, to turn into a natural area. Other
programs such as this exist, but there is no current tax relief directly right now.
Chair Domholt asked for the minimum requirements to be come a Tree City USA.
Mr. Olson stated you need a committee, a proclamation from the City Council saying you
want to become a Tree City, and you need to have an Arbor Day presentation, and $2.00
per capita of tree plantings.
Chair Domholt asked if there is a community nearby that can be contacted that made a
successful attempt at replanting trees.
Mr. Olson stated Maple Grove is the best community in that respect nearby. Medina is
another that is doing a very good job.
Commissioner Casey asked for suggestions on marketing, how to sell the importance of
the trees to the rest of the community.
Mr. Olson stated one of the biggest issues is aesthetics, and the impact on the
environment which is a big issue now, and being talked about in schools. Financial issues
include natural air conditioning, energy saving in the winter in the form of windbreaks and
so on. The most impact would be to make sure that someone understands what they are
losing when a 150 year old tree is cut down. This is something that cannot be replaced.
A good step forward would be to simply get to the point where when people are planning
2
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission April 13, 2000
new development, to question why when there are areas of trees that are going to be
obliterated, and look for alternatives.
Commissioner Casey stated that in Mound, there is not much more than 10 acre parcels
of forest left. At this point, many people would have the opinion that it's not really worth
keeping.
Mr. Olson stated that even single trees add value to a lot, especially a large, old tree. This
may be a place to start in marketing the importance of the trees.
Councilmember Weycker questioned how to start, as Mound has no plan in place right now
to save the trees.
Mr. Olson stated the first place may be some type of ordinance to preserve the forested
areas that still do exist. Also a plan on what the goal is for the City, such as trying to
preserve what is here already, or possibly trying to increase the number of trees a certain
percentage over the years. Another goal could be to examine the different species in the
community, and concentrate on balancing the variety of trees.
4. DISCUSS: KELEE OMLID SUMMER PARKS AND BEACH PROGRAM
Kelee Omlid, Representative of the Westonka Community Education and Services,
addressed the Commission regarding some of their plans for the summer, some of the
challenges faced by the Parks Playground Program, and some solutions. Ms. Omlid
presented a handout for the Commissioners laying out these issues.
Some discussion took place over each of the issues, but no consensus was reached on
any specific issue.
Commissioner Meyer stated that the Park Commission is behind this program, and urged
Ms. Omlid to continue to communicate the wants and needs of the program to the
Commission, who will continue to present these items to the City Council.
Commissioner Beise questioned why the Westonka School District could not be
approached for some funding of this program.
Discussion followed regarding the setup of the program, who funds the program (City of
Mound) and that Westonka School District provides the management and staffing. One
specific point is that the program is for events and locations only in Mound, which is why
the City is responsible for the funding.
Councilmember Weycker added that at the last Council meeting there was a request for
a lifeguard at Pembroke Beach. That would be an additional dollar amount for this
program, as it would add another beach that lifeguards would be needed. The agreement
3
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission April 13, 2000
was that it would be observed this year, to see how many kids swim there and to gauge
the necessity for a lifeguard.
5. DISCUSS: 2001 POSAC CAPITAL OUTLAY
Park Director Fackler presented the 04-06-00 revision of the Park and Open Space Capital
Outlay and Line Item Request for 2001, and summarized his responses as printed on this
revision.
Commissioner Beise then presented worksheets for the Commission so each person could
come up with three reasons for each item, why each is necessary. This will provide brief
information for the City Council and promote dialogue with the Council.
Chair Domholt suggested presenting the information in the same manner as Ms. Omlid did
in the previous discussion. Present challenges, solutions, and future wants and needs.
Following are the items on this list:
IP Hall Restoration
a. Need for Parks and Recreation center
b. Historical preservation
c. Income producing rental facility
Playground Equipment (Swenson Park)
a. Safety concern for the City insurance agent due to the age of equipment
b. Request from neighborhood
c. One of Mound's showcase parks, centrally located on the island
Depot/Mound Bay Park Information Sign
a. Communication to community
b. High visibility
c. City promotion
Winter Skating Rink (Outdoor)
a. Wintertime family activity
b. No cost to user
c. Jointly funded
o
Crescent Park Improvements
a. Natural area in need of protection
b. Neighborhood request
10:00p.m. Chair Domholt tabled the meeting.
Motion by Domholt, seconded by Meyer to continue the meeting for an
additional 30 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
4
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission April 13, 2000
C. Unique features
o
Music in the Parks
a. Community promotion event
b. Well attended, successful event
c. Promotes the Arts
Adopt-A-Green Space
a. Beautifies Mound
b. Encourages citizen participation
c. Recognition of volunteerism
o
Basketball Court Resurfacing/Line Painting
a. Highly used
b. Aesthetics
c. Encourages youth activity
Sorbo
a.
b.
C.
& Highland Parks Grounds Improvements
Safety
Neighborhood requests
Aesthetics
10.
Tree
a.
b.
C,
Plantings
Matching funds from MnRelief
Aesthetics and added value
Replacement of damaged trees
11.
Park
a.
b.
C.
and Open Space Planning
Park planning and long term visioning
Inventory
Prioritizing and categorizing
6. DISCUSS: PARKS PUBLIC RELATIONS/PROMOTIONS
This item moved to May.
7. POSC MAY AGENDA
Some
items for the May POSC agenda are:
1. Discuss: Parks Public Relations/Promotions
2. Discuss: Arbor Day
3. Discuss: Fall Planting Day
4. Follow Up on DNR Forestry Program
5
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission April 13, 2000
8. APRIL CALENDAR
Some events discussed, but determined that it was too late to have much of a organized,
advertised event.
9. FOR YOUR INFORMATION
City Council Special Meeting March 9th & City Council Meeting March
14th
Planning Commission Minutes
Dock & Commons Advisory Commission Minutes
Thank You Card from Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation
News letter Minnesota Department of Agriculture/Community Forestry
Letter to Leah Weycker from Kaboom Getting Started Kit
Letter and information to Fran Clark from Hasbro, Inc.
Pembroke Dock Configuration
9. REPORTS:
a. City Council Representative
Councilmember Weycker reported that the Planning Commission on April 24th will have
a speaker on soil processing. This would be a good meeting for the Park Commissioners
to attend. Also, the Comprehensive Plan passed on Tuesday. The main issue was that
green space on the Community Center site was reclassified as "residential density to be
determined" which leaves it open to be rezoned easier. Also, a "swamp plan" was passed.
10:30 p.m. Chair Domholt tabled the meeting.
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Domholt to extend
additional $ minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
the meeting for an
This plan adds the swamp areas to the parkland, in the quantity of 21 acres, which
changes the ratio of parkland in Mound, so it shows that Mound has sufficient parkland for
the population.
Chair Domholt suggested additional budgeting for Staff, as this newly "acquired" parkland
will need upkeep by staff.
Councilmember Weycher reported that Pembroke passed on a 3-2 vote to eliminate the
3 docksites, and give the neighborhood back more of their beach, to be revisited in one
year.
6
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission April 13, 2000
b. Park Director
No report at this time.
Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Weycker to adjourn the meeting at
10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
7
THIS PAGE LEFT
BLANK INTENTIONALLY