1995-10-24)~,~,~ AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1995, 7:30 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
Approve the Minutes of the October 10, 1995 Regular
Meeting and the October 17, 1995 Committee of the
Whole Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: Central Business District (CBD)
Parking Assessments..--~z:-,
o
10.
PUBLIC HEARING- Delinquent Water an~,,
Sewer Assessments. ~(~'O0, cz.~ ¢,J~:)~-~/)'-/~-~//~
Case 95-45: Craig Wolfe, 4774 Kildare Road, Lots 6-8
& 18-23, Blocks 4 & 10, Seton, PID 19-117-23 22 0057,~''
Variance for Addition. ~/I
.Case 95-46: Raymond Loehlein & Tarja Kala, 5982
Bartlett Blvd., Lot 11, Seifarth's Mound Bay Park, PID
23-117-24 42 0093. Variance for Garage.
Case 95-48: Terrance & Rita Hughes, 6641 Halstead
Avenue, Lot 17, Halstead Park, PID 22-117-24 43 0025
Variance for Fence Height.
Case 95-49: Gerald & Catherine Palen, ~45 Bartlett
Blvd., Lot 18, Halstead Heights, PID 22-117-24 44 0033
Variance for Garage.
Case 95-50: Dennis Batty & Assoc, for Mound
Evangelical Free Church, 2117 Commerce Blvd., M&B,
Section 14, PID 14-117-24 41 0006/~¢3/~
Variance for Addition. J
Bid Award: Central Business District (CBD)
Snowplowing Bid. \~o~ ~z,~,~
Pg. 3070-3077
Pg. 3078-3080
Pg. 3081-3084
Pg. 3085-3098
Pg. 3099-3110
Pg. 3111-3119
Pg. 3120-3142
Pg. 3143-3164
Pg. 3165
3068
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Motion Cancelling December 26, 1995 Regular
City Counci~ meeting and Rescheduling that Meeting
to December 19, 1995.
Resolution Approving An Agreement to Convey an ~ ,,1
Easement and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager~ /
to Sign Agreement - Pat & Paul Meisel, 5501 Bartlett
Blvd., Lost Lake Improvement Project. (To be hanede out Tues. Eve)
Petition Requesting the Removal of No Parking Signs
on Fairview Lane Between Maywood Road and
Bartlett Blvd, on West Side of Fairview Lane.
Recommendation from Parks and Open Space
Commission RE: Redefining Standards for Construction
on Public Lands.
DISCUSSION: Whether or not to schedule a Special
Meeting to Continue Discussion on the Proposed 1996
Budget, place the Item on the November 21, 1995
Committee of the Whole or Discuss at Truth in ~
Taxation Hearing already Scheduled for December
6, 1995.
Pg. 3166
Pg. 3167-3176
Pg. 3177-3196
16.. Payment ~of Bills.
17. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS..
Ao
Financial Report for September 1995 as
prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
Bo
Planning Commission Minutes of
October 9, 1995.
Parks and Open Space Commission Minutes
of October 12, 1995.
Do
Notice from the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission RE: Application for Rate Increase -
Minnegasco.
Memo regarding Councilmembers Ahrens' and
Hanus' concern regarding tree trimming on
Beachside Road, Three Points.
Fo
REMINDER: Annual Christmas Party,
Friday, December 8, 1995, American Legion.
Pg. 3196-3206
Pg. 32O7-32O8
Pg. 3209-3217
Pg. 3218-3226
Pg. 3227
Pg. 3228
3069
An Addendum to Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM) 1996 Policies distributed
at 10/10/95 regular meeting. Please add this
to your policy booklet.
Economic Development Commission Minutes
of September 21, 1995 meeting and October
19, 1995 meeting.
Pg. 3229-3232
Pg. 3233-3235
3070
Minutes - Mound City Council
October 10, 1995
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 10, 1995
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, October 10, 1995, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Persons in attendance: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark
Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also present: City Attorney Curt Pearson,
Building Official Jori Sutherland, City Manager Ed Shukle, Acting City Clerk Linda
Strong and the following interested citizens: Vincent Forystek, Skip Johnson, Bob
Bittle, Jim Reinholdz and Wende Brady.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited. Mayor Polston stated there were several add on items to the
agenda and the sequence would not follow the pre meeting agenda.
1.1 Approve the Minutes of the September 26, 1995 Regular Meeting.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen, and carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutes of the September 26, 1995 Regular City Council meeting.
1.2 Winterfest 1996
Bob Bittle of the Northwest Tonka Lions approached the Council. He stated plans
were under way for the second Winterfest to be held at Mound Bay Park on January
13 &14, 1996. Events will include sanctioned dog sled races, softball, under ice
diving, refreshment tent. Proceeds will be divided between the Diabetes Association
and the Lions Park being built in Minnetrista.
1.3 Request to Address the City Council - "Yes Westonka" Committee
Jim Reinholdz of the "Yes Westonka" Committee spoke with the Council, giving them
information regarding the upcoming referendum vote on November 7th. He
encouraged the Council's support.
1.4
Request to Address the City Council - Vincent Forystek re: 3137 Inverness
Lane (Note: Information on this issue was transmitted to you in the 9-12-95
packet, and is included again in this packet)
Vincent Forystek approached the Council. He was unhappy with the results he
received from Hennepin County when he appealed the County Assessor's decision
with the evaluation he received on parcels of his property located within Mound. He
had asked the County questions and the County had not answered these. The Council
listened, and suggested that he go the next step, as is the process, to appeal this at
October 10, 1995
Minutes - Mound City Council
tax court. He felt the assessor was out of line in his actions. He was told the County
Commissioners hire the assessors and to contact his commissioner Penny Steele,
1.5 Resolution to Approve a Variance to Recognize an Existing Nonconforming Side
Yard Setback to Allow Construction of a Conforming Detached Garage at 2174
Centerview Lane, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Wende Brady.
Building Official Jon Sutherland informed the Council stating that this item was
unanimously approved at the Planning Commission the night before and would like the
Council to approve this tonight so the applicant could construct the garage yet this
fall. Discussion regarded the development of a drainage plan as a condition. The
applicant agreed.
Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION #95-105 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED
GARAGE AT 2174 CENTERVlEW LANE, LOTS 11 & 28,
BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE
PARK, PID 13-117-24 31 0055, P&Z #95-47.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.6 Resolution Denying a Variance Request to Recognize an Existing Nonconforming
Detached Garage to allow Construction of a conforming Deck at 6200 Red Oak
Road, Robert Thompson.
Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION#95-106 RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO
- - RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED
GARAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING
DECK AT 6200 RED OAK ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1,
MOUND TERRACE, PID 14-117-24 32 0001, P&Z #95-38.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion to deny carried.
1.7 Comments and Suggestions from Citizens Present.
Skip Johnson, 3018 Island View Drive, Mound, and past Mayor of Mound, spoke with
the Council regarding the Quantitative Survey that was mailed to various residents of
Mound by the Commons Task Force. He had received several calls from citizens with
2
07!
Minutes - Mound City Council October 10, 1995
questions. He had some comments about the survey to share with the Council and
the Task Force:
Information about the dock program should have been included in the surveys
to the citizens at large - some may have no idea what it is about.
The first question should have another choice, "Not aware of program"
Questions #2 & #3 request the higher number be circled for the item "most
important" and question #5 requests the lower number be circled for the "most
important." '
Question #3 should have had the person rank the most important item with the
highest number being 6, (because there are 6 statements to rank) then the next
most important being 5, next 4, next 3, next 2, last 1. The total (if needed)
would be 21. There would be no need for a total, analysis could be gathered
by listing all survey statements by highest to lowest number. This would have
given you the person's rank of importance on each item presented to them.
Doing it the way it was done, may have the person showing the most important
item to them being at a 5, then all of the rest has to be a 1. This would not
show a true rank of the other five items.
Question #4 - Most people do not realize where the opportunities to do these
activities exist. Are they on the commons or parks? Example: Avalon Park is
a park but under the definition of commons; Brighton Common is a very large
commons, but not a park; Centerview is a commons, beach, pier and park.
Question #5 should list the fees, you ask them if the fee structure is
reasonable, but you do not tell them what they are. The answers may not be
true indicators. Aisc, the negative answer is at the high number, where the
positive was the high number in the previous questions. This does not follow
the format of the other rankings, and will lead to inaccurate results, it is written
backwards.
Question #8 asks about a multiple dock slip system. This should have been
described as very few people in general know what a multiple dock slip system
is. Maybe, the LMCD should have been asked about this, it probably isn't even
feasible to ask this as the LMCD most likely will not allow this type of dockage.
Question #11 asks if they live on private lakeshore. The question should have
asked - "Do you live on' a) private lakeshore, b) abut commons, c) do you live
off the lake and use commons, d) do you live off the lake and not use
commons?"
The number of surveys sent to citizens at large was more (550) than sent to the
actual users (450) - this could give a slanted outcome.
He stated the survey had little value, and will be slanted. He wanted the Council to
3
Minutes - Mound City Council October 10, 1995
keep this in mind when they hear the recommendations from the Commons Task
Force.
1.8 Resolution Opposing Proposed Hennepin County Ordinance #18, an Ordinance
for County Collected Solid Waste Fee for Solid Waste Management Services for
Hennepin County.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated this was the resolution the Council requested be
prepared informing Hennepin County the City of Mound's opposition to the proposed
Ordinance #18, regarding fees collected by Hennepin County for solid waste
management services. Councilmember Jessen stressed the need for the county to
offer incentives to the haulers and not to tax citizens more for this service.
Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION #95-107 RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSED HENNEPIN COUNTY
ORDINANCE #18, AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNTY
COLLECTED SOLID WASTE FEE FOR SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.9 Approval of Bingo Permit - Fire Department Auxiliary.
The Auxiliary of the Mound Fire Department is having turkey bingo on Tuesday,
November 4, 1995.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve
the bingo permit for the Auxiliary of the Mound Fire Department on Tuesday,
November 14, 1995.
1.10 Approval of Retainer Agreement with Kennedy & Graven for Legal Services,
Curt Pearson, City Attorney.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated that the City Attorney Curt Pearson was merging his
practice with the firm of Kennedy & Graven by the end of October. City Attorney Curt
Pearson stated the new firm has expertise in municipal law and represents several
municipalities. He presented the same retainer agreement that has been used in the
past with the old firm. This firm will not be doing the criminal prosecution. Mr. Craig
Mertz has been doing and will continue to do this from his own firm under previous
arrangements. Mayor Polston stated he did not want any participation with Mr.
LeFevere, a lawyer with the new firm, as he represents the LMCD and it would be
direct conflict of interest were there to be any disagreement with the LMCD.
5
Minutes - Mound City Council October 10, 1995
Consensus of the Council was this was a good merger, and the City will be well
represented. They did ask to meet Mr. John Dean, who will assist and substitute for
Mr. Pearson when he is unable to attend council meetings.
Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION #95-10R
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGE IN FIRM
NAMES FOR THE RETAINER AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL
SERVICES.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11 Approval of a Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Mound and the City
of Minnetrista for the Interconnection of Water Systems.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated Minnetrista has requested to hook up to the Mound
water system so in the event of an emergency, Minnetrista would not be without
water.
Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following
resolution:
.RESOLUTION #95-109
RESOLUTION APPROVING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE CITY OF
MINNETRISTA FOR THE INTERCONNECTION OF THEIR
WATER SYSTEMS.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12
Payment of Bills.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills
as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $233,751.01, when funds are
available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13 ADD - ON ITEM.~
Memo Reqardina Timber Purchase
City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed the Parks Director's memo with the Council.
Minutes - Mound City Council October 10, 1995
Amendment to the Western Fire Training Association Joint Powers Aqreement
City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed the agreement with the Council. He stated there
had been discussion regarding disposing of the site that is jointly maintained by 11
cities. The association wants to sell the property, but the site must be evaluated for
possible contamination, which will take some time. The Council was asked to approve
the continuing Joint Powers Agreement as amended. A copy of the agreement will
be filed with the City Clerk's office.
MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to approve
the Amendment to the Western Fire Training Association Joint Powers
Agreement.
Comment was made that this would be a good site for the special recycling events the
City of Mound provides twice a year for residents of the area.
Park Dedication Fees
Councilmember Hanus mentioned to the City Attorney the Planning Commission was
still confused about the language in the ordinance regarding the $500 fee and the
10% rule.
1.14 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for September, 1995.
B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for September 1995.
C. LMCD Mailings (to be handed out 10-10)
D. Revised Parks and Open Space Commission Minutes for September 14,
1995, reflecting the number of total dock sites in the dock program.
E. Memorandum dated September 28, 1995 from the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission re: Commission meeting on new area codes for
Minnesota.
F. REMINDER: Annual Fall Cleanup - Recycling - Saturday, October 14,
1995, Lost Lake.
G. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole meeting, Tuesday, October 17,
1995, 7:30 pm. Only agenda item is the proposed 1996 Budget.
H. Annual Christmas Party - Friday, December 8, 1995, at the American
Legion.
Minutes - Mound City Council October 10, 1995
Letter to City from Peter McLaughlin, Chair, Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners, re: Attending 1995 State of the County Address
to be held Thursday, October 12, 1995, 4 pm, General Mills Corporate
Headquarters, Golden Valley. If interested, let Linda know by
October 10th.
Letter dated October 4, 1995, from Triax Cablevision re.' "Home Wire
Maintenance Plan"
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Polston and carried unanimously, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:50 PM.
City Manager
Attest: Acting City Clerk
MINUTES - COMMI'i'rEE OF THE WHOLE - OCTOBER 17, 1995
The meeting wes called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Acting Mayor Liz Jensen,
Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen and Mark Hanus. Absent and excused: Mayor Bob Polston and
Andrea Ahrens. Also present: Gino Businaro, Finance Director and Ed Shukle, City Manager.
The single item on the agenda wes the 1996 proposed budget. The City Council esked some
general questions with regard to interest accumulated in the Dock Fund and Park Dedication
Fund. The question es to whether we ought to allocate interest to the Park Dedication Fund
instead of the General Fund wes discussed. No direction wes given. Also questioned wes the
number of cuts in Capital Outlay and what they were prior to what is actually in the proposed
budget. The following other issues were discussed within the General Fund:
1. Possible improvements to the Depot
2. Skating rink improvements
3. What is the right amount for the General Fund balance?
4. Questions with regard to the tax levy
5. Conferences and schools - line item within the City Council budget
6. Conferences, schools, meeting expenses and dues and subscriptions within the city
manager/clerk account
7. How is the essessing calculation made? Should we be seeking outside essessing
services?
8. The floating secretary within the Finance department
9. Computers - general questions about what is being spent in this area
10. Whether or not the city ought to consider soliciting proposals for legal and prosecution
services
11. Training budget for Police, specifically the Police Chief's educational incentive program
12. Relationship between salary and PERAJFICA in the Planning and Inspections Department
13. Line item #2350, in Parks dealing with purchese of sand es it relates to beaches and a
play structure
14. Overall spending for all funds in relation to revenues and decreases in fund balance
The consensus was to stop the discussion at the end of the General Fund and take up the
Enterprise Fund discussion at a later date. The Council agreed to discuss at their next regular
meeting if a special meeting to discuss the Budget further should be held or if discussion should
be continued at the next Committee of the Whole meeting or at the public hearing on the Budget
scheduled for December 6th.
Upon motion by Jessen, seconded by Jensen, and carried unanimously, the meeting wes
adjourned at 9:52 PM.
ed,
City Manager
ES:Is
ITEM ~4
Resolution 95-
October 24, 1995
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,038.18, TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY//13231
WltEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has
met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound:
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
Such water and sewer assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments
at 8% interest and all on Levy//13231 as follows:
PROPERTY ID//
13-117-24-22-0012
13-117-24-12-0123
13-117-24-12-0052
13-117-24-12-0220
12-117-24-43-0053
13-117-24-12-0119
13-117-24-12-0189
13-117-24-12-0207
13-117-24-12-0009
13-117-24-12-0238
13-117-24-11-0056
13-117-24-14-0029
13-117-24-12-0083
13-117-24-12-0093
13-117-24-12-0106
13-117-24-11-0077
13-117-24-11-0076
AMOUNT
221.17 13-117-24-14-0005 278.09
257.34 18-117-23-23-0004 408.26
268.53 18-117-23-23-0012 397.08
223.54 18-117-23-23-0039 146.49
141.23 13-117-24-11-0047 178.10
174.35 13-117-24-11-0039 79.19
270.70 13-117-24-11-0053 184.85
447.43 13-117-24-12-0075 100.00
481.34 13-117-24-22-0246 382.63
30.20 13-117-24-22-0273 357.23
29.28 14-117-24-42-0082 262.91
365.29 14-117-24-14-0043 279.19
214.67 14-117-24-13-0004 61.48
205.32 14-117-24-41-0042 67.58
396.67 14-117-24-42-0117 375.12
298.78 14-117-24-42-0016 539.36
508.26 14-117-24-42-0028 537.66
Resolution 95- October 24, 1995
14-117-24-42-0035
14-117-24-42-0042
14-117-24-42-0041
14-117-24-42-0044
14-117-24-31-0031
14-117-24 -44 -0032
14-117-24-44-0031
14-117-24-42-0002
13-117-24-32-0056
13-117-24-32-0004
13-117-24-32-0016
13-117-24-32-0107
13-117-24-32-0116
13-117-24-32-0155
13-117-24-32-0152
13-117-24-32-0153
13-117-24-34-0014
13-117-24-43-0072
13-117-24-43-0061
13-117-24-43-0086
24-117-24-12-0055
13-117-24-43-0052
13-117-24-43-0096
24-117-24-12-0050
13-117-24-41-0042
13-117-24-41-0011
13-117-24-42-0014
18-117-23-33-0027
18-117-23-33-0026
13-117-24-44-0061
13-117-24-43-0038
24-117-24-12-0046
24-117-24-21-0030
23-117-24-13-0016
23-117-24-41-0016
23-117-24-41-0018
23-117-24-42-0054
23-117-24-42-0073
23-117-24-41-0020
23-117-24-42-0085
23-117-24-42-0016
23-117-24-42-0018
23-117-24-42-0020
81.15
204.84
260.28
175.23
263.17
312.02
446.29
116.63
230.89
228.22
379.53
123.09
287.34
182.44
178.97
293.17
204.78
105.98
103.92
249.82
219.39
96.10
47.37
214.90
279.52
278.37
251.59
285.40
294.87
166.13
305.64
80.22
251.73
132.80
150.83
394.75
372.79
579.55
247.01
145.16
85.86
184.51
200.62
23-117-24-42-0045
23 - 117-24-43 -0008
23-117-24-42-0037
23-117-24-34-0004
23-117-24-34-0086
23-117-24-34-0090
23-117-24-31-0041
23-117-24-24-0008
23-117-24-31-0054
23-117-24-34-0066
23-117-24-34-0065
23-117-24-23-0095
23-117-24-23-0056
23-117-24-32-0043
23-117-24-32-0050
23-117-24-32-0058
23-117-24-31-0066
23-117-24-32-0063
23-117-24-23-0108
23-117-24-13-0034
23-117-24-13-0069
13-117-24-22-0251
24-117-24-22-0001
23-117-24-11-0006
23-117-24-11-0026
24-117-24-22-0027
24-117-24-22-0022
24-117-24-21-0006
13-117-24-34-0084
13-117-24-34-0085
13-117-24-43-0022
24-117-24-12-0016
24-117-24-13-0009
24-117-24-12-0020
19-117-23 -23-0093
19-117-23-23-0075
19-117-23-23-0135
19-117-23-23-0082
19-117-23-24-0037
19-117-23-23-0153
19-117-23-24-0049
19-117-23-21-0039
19-117-23-31-0030
153.93
392.84
55.24
32.57
95.74
299.44
318.00
59.50
355.05
402.30
516.67
571.58
295.78
209.85
136.86
132.82
81.46
265.93
207.55
201.57
90.67
126.99
61.95
83.59
208.75
344.87
224.43
265.00
108.29
330.27
422.40
59.20
147.54
305.21
293.88
63.09
276.81
321.90
211.60
341.23
428.11
93.40
271.42
Resolution 95- October 24, 1995
19-117-23-31-0026
19-117-23-32-0159
19-117-23-24-0024
19-117-23-32-0033
24-117-24-41-0042
24-117-24-41-0148
19-117-23-31-0093
19-117-23 - 31-0062
19-117-23-32-0076
19-117-23-32-0077
19-117-23-32-0082
19-117-23-32-0086
19-117-23-32-0111
19-117-23-31-0128
25-117-24-11-0133
25-117-24-11-0068
25-117-24-11-0125
24-117-24-43-0028
19-117-23-33-0208
19-117-23-33-0196
19-117-23-34-0043
19-117-23-34-0127
19-117-23-33-0010
19-117-23-33-0235
19-117-23-33-0075
19-117-23-33-0081
19-117-23-33-0184
19-117-23-33-0125
19-117-23-33-0129
24-117-24-44-0041
24-117-24-44-0187
24-117-24-44-0050
24-117-24-44-0061
24-117-24-44-0062
24-117-24-44-0231
24-117-24-44-0182
73.52 24-117-24-44-0073 291.84
78.70 24-117-24-41-0022 160.92
291.96 24-117-24-41-0118 78.07
308.56 24-117-24-41-0068 208.69
374.71 24-117-24-41-0102 90.85
281.63 24-117-24-42-0007 270.38
437.00 24-117-24-43-0019 145.76
170.27 25-117-24-12-0116 376.98
372.24 25-117-24-12-0195 99.45
382.19 25-117-24-21-0039 68.48
332.61 25-117-24-11-0064 136.24
359.95 24-117-24-44-0079 532.65
565.44 25-117-24-12-0112 551.48
270.35 25-117-24-21-0025 60.09
101.34 25-117-24-12-0062 380.13
249.37 30-117-23-22-0034 324.14
62.47 25-117-24-12-0219 207.68
149.66 25-117-24-11-0074 241.64
110.34 25-117-24-11-0023 92.01
82.27 30-117-23-21-0007 288.85
527.49 30-117-23-22-0049 440.03
96.87 30-117-23-22-0056 305.26
397.78 25-117-24-11-0028 195.30
402.06 25-117-24-11-0035 218.39
884.40 25-117-24-11-0115 335.63
226.01 25-117-24-21-0012 394.32
350.95 25-117-24-21-0106 239.48
140.24 25-117-24-21-0114 337.25
415.87 25-117-24-21-0007 95.40
123.30 25-117-24-21-0080 185.90
203.19 13-117-24-44-0051 203.26
59.22 14-117-24-44-0036 614.76
277.57 13-117-24-33-0057 119.07
216.82 13-117-24-44-0014 116.92
23.15 13-117-24-33-0024 227.65
276.26
e
Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days
(November 28, 1995) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll.
Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall.
Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section
370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00
Resolution 95- October 24, 1995
increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be
accepted.
If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 28, 1995), interest will be
charged to December 31, 1995.
If the assessment is not paid on or before November 28, 1995 the amount will be
spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest
for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1995, and all of 1996).
Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter
shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3.
J
The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period is eight percent (8%).
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Manager
RESOLUTION 95-
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREF3'IENT TO
CONVEY AN EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT
LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is in the process of an improvement project to
an area known as Lost Lake and the channel leading from Lost Lake under County State Aid
Highway 125 out to Lake Minnetonka, and;
WHEREAS, the area of the channel lying between County State Aid Highway
125 and Lake Minnetonka has two abutting property owners, Meisels and Wagman, and;
WHEREAS, it has been determined necessary to obtain a permanent easement
along the side of the channel to construct a sea wall and an area behind the sea wall which is
necessary for work and repairs on the sea wall, and;
WHEREAS, this agreement relates only to the properties owned by Pat and Paul
Meisel, with the legal description:
Lots 22 and 23, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170
and an area of land lying between their property and Lake Minnetonka, and:
WHEREAS, the City of Mound and the Meisels have met and reviewed the
proposed project, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has worked with the city planner and the Meisels
to establish a landscaping plan which will buffer the Meisel home from the boat traffic and other
traffic using the channel to get to and from Lake Minnetonka, and;
WHEREAS, the Meisels will grant to the City of Mound a public easement over
the channel area to construct and maintain a sea wall along the easterly portion of their property
in the area directly westerly of the current channel in accordance with the easement description
outlined in the attached Exhibit 'A".
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of Mound approves
the attached agreement and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Agreement to
Convey an Easement with the Meisels.
WPLUM
TEL: 338-2625 Oct
2:3,95 15::37 No.O08 P.02
AGREEMENT TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 1995,
between Pat Meisel and Paul Meisel, husband and wif'~--e, hereinafter referred to as
"the Meisels", and the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "Mound".
Mound is in the process of an improvement project to an area known as Lost
Lake and the channel leading from Lost Lake under County State Aid Highway 125
out to Lake Minnetonka. The area of the channel lying between County State Aid
Highway 125 and Lake Minnetonka has two abutting property owners, Meiseis and
Wagman, and Mound has determined that it will be necessary to obtain a permanent
easement along the side of the channel to construct a sea wall and an area behind
the sea wall which is necessary for work and repairs on the sea wail.
This agreement relates only to the properties owned by Pat Meisel and Paul
Meisel, husband and wife, and the legal description is:
Lots 22 and 23, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170
and an area of land lying between their property and Lake Minnetonka.
Mound and the Meisels have met and reviewed the proposed project, and they
have discussed the City's need for a permanent easement, the description of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Mound has advised the Meisels of their right to condemn their easement
under the powers of eminent domain, but it has been the desire of the parties to
negotiate a settlement which will save court costs, Commissioner and headng costs,
and other costs for both the Meisels and Mound. The Meisels have indicated a
reluctance to grant the easement to Mound because of what they fear to be a loss
of privacy, and Mound has worked with the Meisels by having their planner establish
a landscaping plan which wilt buffer Meisels' home from the boat traffic and other
traffic using the channel to get to and from Lake Minnetonka.
The Meisels also have an interest in the City completing a second project in
downtown Mound which includes the construction of a new Auditor's Road from
Commerce Boulevard to Shoreline Boulevard. Mound officials have advised the
Meiseis that the plan has been presented to and approved by the Mound City
Council and has been presented to and approved by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, State Aid Division, as an eligible project.
WPLUH TEL: 338-2625 Oc~ 23,95 15:37 No.O08 P.03
After extensive negotiations, the parties have agreed as follows:
1. The Meisels will grant to Mound a public easement over the channel
area to construct and maintain a sea wail along the easterly portion of
their property in the area directly westerly of the current channel in
accordance with the easement description outlined in Exhibit A, subject
to the following:
(a) Mound shall pay the Meisels the sum of $5,000, plus the Meiseis
shall be reimbursed for the current rip rapping improvements
which are in place and for which they have paid, and the Meisels
shall provide Mound with receipts for that work, which was
approximately $4,900 to $5,000.
(b) Mound shall install the plantings contained in a landscaping plan
attached hereto and prepared by Bruce Chamberlain of the firm
of Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. The estimated cost of installing
these plantings is approximately $5,000.
(c) The conveyance of this easement is contingent upon Mound
having acquired the necessary properties to accomplish said
construction of a new Auditor's Road. If said land has not been
acquired prior to October 1, 1996, this agreement shall be null
and void. If Mound has acquired the properties between
Commerce Boulevard and Shoreline Boulevard necessary to
construct the road according to the present plan, the Meisels are
obligated to convey the easement to Mound free and clear of any
encumbrances but subject to easements, covenants,
reservations and restrictions of record, if any, and subject to the
aforementioned payments of cash.
The plantings shall be installed in accordance with the landscape
plan, once the construction takes place on the easement. The
landscaping will not take place until after the sea wall is in place,
and it is not anticipated that that construction will begin before
the spring of 1997.
The easement shall recite that Mound agrees to maintain the sea
wall in the future and to do so without harming the privacy screen
to be created by said landscaping.
WPLUM TEL: 338-2625 Oct 23,95 15:$7 No.O08 P.O~
For the purposes of this agreement, Mound will be considered to
have acquired the properties between Commerce Boulevard and
Shoreline Boulevard if all of the following four properties have
been purchased by the City and the purchase has been
completed or the City has commenced a "Quick Take"
proceeding under M.S.A. 117.042 or the properties are subject
to binding purchase agreements and Mound has funds on hand
to complete said purchases: Post Office building, Carlock
building, Mound Collision building, and the adjoining house lying
Southerly of Mound Collision.
2. The Meisels understand that if for some reason there is an inability on
Mound's part to meet the above described conditions, Mound will not have waived
any rights it may have to condemn the easement shown in Exhibit A attached hereto
by power of eminent domain.
3. Mound has advised the Meisels that the settlement being presented to
the City Council for approval as herein contained is not contingent upon any
procedures or agreements, settlement, or condemnation awards that may be
involved with the Wagman property which lies on the easterly side of the channel.
It being expressly understood that the Meisels' commitment to convey this easement
has come after extensive discussions. Upon execution of this agreement, Mound
will be in contact with Wagman to obtain the necessary easements along the
easterly side of the channel and that portion of the easement which lies westerly of
the channel but which is a part of the Wagman property.
Pat Meisel
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
Paul Meisel
day of
1995.
3
NPLUM TEL: 338-2625 Oct 25,95 15:57 No.O08 P.O5
Presented to and Approved by the City of Mound
,1995.
City of Mound
By¸
its Mayor
Its City Manager
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ,1995, by
Robert Poiston and Edward J. Shukle, the-Mayor and ~,ity Manager respectively of
the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation.
4
CITY OF MOUND
ADD-ON ITEM
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 24, 1995
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
LIN-DA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK
TREE REMOVAL LICENSE
Precision Landscape and Tree, Inc., has applied for a tree removal license. The company is
requesting the Council to approve this license. Insurance forms have been provided along with
the applicable documentation. This license will be in effect until the renewal date of April 1,
1996.
printed on recycled paper
RECEIVED OCT 2. 3 1995
Y.~B HZNNETO~CONSERV'AT~ON DZ~TRZCT
BOARD OF DIRECTORB
WORE~HOP/ PY.,~NNING ~BS~ION
&GEND&
6:30 pm, Wednesday, October 25, 1995
Tonka Bay City Hall
1. Call to Order;
2. 1996 Goals and Objectives Prioritizing;
3. Additional Business;
4. Adjournment;
LAKE M'rNNETONK~ CONSEItV'AT'rON DIf~TR~CT
BOARD OF
AGENDA
7:30 pm, Wednesday, October 25, 1995
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
RF~DING OF MINUTES- 9/27/95 Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min)
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved
in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item,
in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda.
1. WATER STRUCTRUES
Discussion on proposed dock changes to the City of Excelsior's
and the Excelsior Park Pavilion's multiple dock licenses, how
these proposed changes would affect their special density
licenses;
Ordinance 138, Report from subcommittee to present alternatives
on the interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting Lake
Minnetonka, the planning process, and the health, safety and
welfare of the public, and restricting the licensing,
construction and maintenance of new commercial and multiple
docks;
C. Additional Business;
LAKE USE AND RECREATION
Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Joint and Cooperative
Agreement with Hennepin County, discussion on conditions for
renewal in 1996;
*B. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity
Report;
Additional Business;
3. SAVE THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
*A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 10/5/95
B. Informational Report, per 10/5/95 minutes;
Additional Business;
4. ADMINISTRATIVE
~. Election of new Treasurer;
B. Additional Business;
S. PIHJdfCIAL
A. September financial somma~ and balance sheet;
B. Audit of vouchers for payment (handout);
E. Additional Business;
6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Willcutt
7. NBWBUSINBH8
8.~AI~OURmiBHT
REGEiVEO Oi T Z
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
REG~ BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1VIEE~G
7:00 P.M., Wednesday, September 27, 1995
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: lames Grathwol, Excelsior; 1oe Zwak, Greenwood; Gene Partyka,
Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park;
Ross McGlasson, Tonka Bay; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Mollet,
Victoria; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel;
G. Alan Willcutt, Executive Director; Gregory Nybeck, Administrative Technician
Members absent: Duane Markus, Wayzata; Orono has no appointed member
CHAIR ANNOUNCEM~NTS
Babcock announced that the City of Ton~ Bay has accepted McGlasson's resignation as their
representative to the Board effective 9/28/95. He added Tonka Bay appointed him to represent
the city through 1997.
REXD~NG OF THE
Zwak moved, Johnstone seconded to approve the minutes of the September 13, 1995 Regular
Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENT8
There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Partyka moved, Zwak seconded to approve the consent agenda identified by an "*" on the
agenda. Motion carried unanimously (Approved agenda items include: IA, Approval of 9/8/95
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force minutes and meeting report; and 2C, Hennepin County
Sheriff's Water Patrol significant activity report).
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board of Directors Meeting
September 27, 1995
Page 2
COMMITI~.I~. I~£PORTS
EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE
B. Zebra Mussel Program, Update and discussion on establishing prevention
program for 1996.
Reese introduced the task force agreed there is a need to examine proactive
approaches to prevent the infestation of zebra mussel into Lake Minnetonka. He
noted options are limited but identified boat cleaning as one of them. He added
the DNR would need to prescribe a satisfactory way of cleaning boat~ for this to
be successful. He noted the LMCD would need DNR support for such a
program. He stated the fishing contests may be the place to begin the effort of
washing stranger boats.
Bert Foster arrived.
Gary Montz, DNR Coordinator of the Zebra Mussel Program, spoke regarding
this. He noted a trial program has been conducted in 1995 on washing boats at
infested lakes before they left the public access. He noted the objective was to try
and secure a large number of boats and determine its effectiveness. He added
those that volunteered to have their boat washed were asked to fill out a
questionnaire. Initial results of the survey indicated boaters were generally willing
to wait 5-10 minutes to have their boat washed. He added this poses a problem
when multiple boats are waiting to leave the water. He expressed a concern with
liability issues. He added the survey indicates boaters are willing to pay between
$1 - $4 to have their boats washed.
Foster questioned the transfer of zebra mussel through bait water?
Montz replied that he would like to see bait water drained out at the site.
Johnstone asked if a program was adopted to wash boats, if Montz felt it would
have a significant impact on the lessening of zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka?
Montz stated that he believed that it would have an impact, but it would be
difficult to predict to what degree. He added it would have an impact on how
soon it would be introduced into Lake Minnetonka.
Foster asked how long from initial infestation might it take to have a fully infested
lake and what the impacts would be once infested?
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board of Directors Meeting
. September 2/, 1995
Page
Montz stated it would be hard to determine an exact time of infestation. He stated
that negative impacts on fish populations in the Great Lakes are just beginning to
be noted. He added additional time would be required in the cleaning of boats,
motors, etc. once a lake has been infested.'
Babcock asked if the DNR pressure washing project used water that was heated
before washing? He asked if any chemicals were used by the DNR?
Moritz replied that cold water pressure was used. He did, however, recommend
hot water if a permanent facility were constructed. He stated that chemicals are
not all that effective.
Babcock asked if the DNR is pursuing any other avenues?
Moritz discussed other avenues including public education through billboards and
Conservation Corp. officers. He noted they are limited.
Ross McGlasson arrived.
Reese stated the task force understands that a LMCD program would:
Provide limited boat cleaning at the source.
Boat cleaning would not be flushed into the lake; instead it would be done
at a car wash or marina.
A Boat Cleanly. g Program would not be 100% effective.
John Barren. Hennepin Parks stated that Hennepin Parks Board has not officially
adopted any policy to date. The current unadopted policy is to piggyback on the
milfoil removal policy. He stated that they are planning to inspect any boats that
come through and remove any visible vegetation. He stated that live wells and
bilges will be checked to assure that they are dry. He stated that samples were
taken from Lake Minnetonka over the summer to look for zebra mussels. He
reported the first set of samples came back negative.
Partyka asked if there are any plans for a washdown facility at the new regional
park?
Barton replied that there are not any plans.
Lake MinneWnka Conservation District
Regular Board of Directors Meeting
September 27, 1995
Page 4
1995 Financial Milfoil Harvest Report
Reese reported a final report was included in the packet for the Board to review.
Additional Business
There was no additional business.
IalkKE USE AND RECREATION
A. Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC), StaffMemo outlining adopted 10 step safety policy
by WYC.
Pete Willinbring. Commander of tho WY(~ discussed a 10 step safety policy
adopted by the WYC to increase the awareness of safety. Its purpose was to
make familiar a safety program which is implemented each year. He discussed
the highlights of the program. He added a key factor of the program is to focus
on the personal responsibility of the boat owner to provide for the safety of its
passengers.
Steve Fames letter discussing the need to establish a "no-wake" zone in the
southern part of West Arm Bay.
Steven Fames. Orono reviewed a letter drafted with the Board regarding boating
.around Deering Island in West Arm Bay. He outlined a request to establish a no-
wake zone approximately 300' by 900 yards between two current quiet, water
zones, channels involving the Seton and Arcola bridges. He noted an average of
150 boats per hour in this area. He expressed concerns with soil erosion on the
shorelines related to boat waves in this area. He added the erosion in this area
has taken place in years where the water is higher than the land. He added riprap
is limited in its effectiveness because of this. He suggested it is not in the public's
best interest to have natural features destroyed by boat waves.
Rascop noted a discussion he had with Mayor Rockvam of Spring Park who stated
there had recently been the removal of the vegetation in the area which served as
a breaker for waves in the past. He asked for feedback from Fames.
Fames stated he was not aware of this.
Babcock questioned the accuracy of the letter. Specifically, he noted he had been
in regular contact with the Spring Park City Council regarding this matter.
Foster noted this issue was previously discussed with the Lake Use and Recreation
Committee. He added each shoreline owner has the ability to riprap to assist in
lake Minnctonka Conservation District
Regular Board of Directors Meeting
September 27, 1995
Page 5
prevention of shoreline erosion.
Fames noted the waves are higher than the riprap.
Babcock stated the floodplain for Lake Minnetonka is 931.5. He stated this means
that a great deal of land according to the contour map Fames provided falls in a
floodplain area. He stated the LMCD should focus on land above the 931.5.
Grathwol felt that wakes are an issue on Lake Minnetol~ka. He stated that the
LMCD is reluctant to restrict boating on Lake Minnetonka and the Bbard should
not necessarily reduce the speed of boats. He expressed a concern with wakes
and suggested that wake tests be run in this area before a final decision is made.
Suerth arrived.
Judy Ess. 20~3 Lakeside Lane stated that she has had numerous problems with
boats waves. She was concerned about protecting her land, safety issues, and
speed of boats going by. She presented a petition signed by property owners in
the area who are in favor of establishing a no-wake zone.
Johnstone stated he was sympathetic with these concerns. He believed that this
was a legitimate issue and should be discussed at a future date when all the facts
have been collected. I-Ie stated there is a need to balance the interests on Lake
Minnetonka.
Rascop suggested that this item be discussed when the LMCD meets with
I-Iennepin County to set buoy locations for next year.
The Board concurred and directed staff to place this as an agenda item at this
meeting.
Additional Business
Drowning
Rascop asked for an update on the recent drowning on Lake Minnetonka.
Partyka reported a bridge engineer from Hennepin County drowned on the
Narrows Channel.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board of Directors Meeting
September 27, 1995
Page 6
®
WATER STRUCTIIIF~
A. Ordinance 138, Report from subcommittee to present alternatives on the interim
ordinance for the purpose of protecting Lake Minnetonka, the planning process~
and the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and restricting the licensing,
construction and maintenance of new commercial and multiple docks.
Zwak stated he recently had received plat maps of all areas surrounding Lake
Minnetonka. He added the subcommittee was going to use these maps to
determine alternatives for Ordinance 138.
B®
Additional Business
There was no additional business.
ADM~. TRATIVE REPORT
A. City of Spring Park, in a 9/18/95 letter requested the legal basis for their
objection of payments for the milfoil program from 1990-1993 and the dollar
amounts involved.
Babcock noted Willcutt had been in receipt of a letter from Mayor Rockvam. He
stated issues identified in Willcutt's letter would be discussed at the 10/2/95
Spring Park City Council meeting.
Be
Additional Business
There was no additional business.
FINANCIAL REPORT
A. Update on Reinvestments and Financial Depositories.
Willcutt stated $200,000 has been transferred from the Merrill Lynch CMA
account to two $100,000 certificates of deposit at First Bank of Wayzata and
Marquette Bank of Mound.
Report on 9/25/95 Special Mayors' Meeting regarding 1996 LMCD budget
allocations.
Babcock stated that five cities were represented at this meeting. The consensus
on the 1996 budget was to use net tax capacity allocations. Most of the cities
agreed that refunds were in order for 1994 and 1995.
lohnstone concurred that the consensus was that refunds should be made for 1994
and 1995, and the 1996 budget will be submitted based on the net tax capacity.
LMCD Board of Directors Meeting
March 22, 1995
Page 7
MOTION:
Reese moved, Rascop seconded to refund for 1994 and 1995~, and
for 1996 the cities be allowed to make payment using either taxable
market value or net capacity figures.
MOTION TO
AMEND: Foster moved, McGlasson seconded to issue refunds to the cities
for 1994-1995 if it is requested by the city.
VOTE ON MOTION
TO AMEND: Ayes (10); Nays - (2, Johnstone and Reese).
motion carried.
Amended
McGlasson stated legal concerns on allocating for 1996 using taxable market value
rather than net tax capacity.
LeFevere stated that the most defensible legal course is to follow thc enabling
legislation. He added with regard to the 1996 levy, some of the cities received
the amended budget prior to their truth-in-marion hearings. Until their final
budgets are submitted in December, they still have an opportunity to collect the
correct levy amount.
Grathwol commented that it would be good to include in the resolution that the
LMCD made a mistake.
MOTION
TO SPLIT:
Partyka moved, Grathwol seconded to split the motion into refunds
for 1994-1995 and the levy for 1996
VOTE:
Ayes (11); Nays - (1, Reese). Motion to split the motion carried.
1994-1995
AME~ REFUND MOTION
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
1996 MOTION
TO A_M~.ND:
Babcock moved, Foster seconded that the net tax capacity
be paid for 1996.
LMCD Board of Directors Meetin~
March 22,
Pa~e$
Ce
1996 MOTION TO
AM~ND VOTE:
Ayes (8); Nays - (4, Mollet, Reese, McGlasson, Grathwol);
Amended motion carried.
Johnstone agreed that a mistake was made but has been corrected. He did not
believe that any cities have been seriously harmed by this and had enough notice
to make a correction to their budget&
1996 VOTE ON:
AMENDED MOTION:
Ayes (11); Nays- (3, McOlas~n, Mollet and Reese);
Motion carried.
AUgllSt }'illancinl Snmmary and Balance Sheet.
Rascop reviewed the August balance sheets and year-to-date status relating to
income and expenses.
MOTION:
Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to approve the August
financial summary and balance sheet as presented.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Audit of Vouchers for Payment
Rascop reviewed the vouchers for payment.
MOTION:
Rascop moved, Foster seconded to approve the vouchers
for payment, subject to approval of individual Board
members.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
El*
Additional Business
There was no additional business.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Fire Hydrants on Islands
Rascop discussed the use of a "dry" hydrant during a recent fire on an island. The hose
became plugged with milfoil.
Willcutt stated that there is a permitting process involved to use a hydrant on an island.
LMCD Board of Directors Meeting
lg~_arth 22, 1995
Page9
Reorganimfion Plan Structure Meefipg
Willcutt discussed highlights of a recent meeting which related to the reorganization plan
structure. Findings of fact will be developed as a' result of the meeting to find ways to
streamline overlapping agency functions. Willcutt will make a report once the findings
are available.
Exotics Meeting
Willcutt announced a meeting on October 7th at the Fresh Water Foundation.
NEW BUSINESS
Ross McGlas~on Appreciation
Babcock read a resolution passed by the City of Ton~_ Bay which expressed appreciation
to Ross McGlasson for his service on the LMCD.
New Treasurer Ap_~intmcnt
Babcock sated that a new treasurer needs to be appointed. Nominations will be opened
to the floor at the next Board meeting in October.
$ohnstone Announcement
Johnstone noted that this is his last meeting. A new representative from Minnetonlm has
not yet been appointed but should be by sometime in October. He expressed his
appreciation to the Board and public.
Planning Workshop
A planning workshop will be held at 6:30 p.m. at the second meeting in October.
regular meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m.
The
ADJOURNlVlENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chairman
Joseph Zwak, Secretary
RECEIVED nr, T 2 3
SAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Save The Lake Advisory Committee
Minutes
5:00 pm, Thursday, October 5, 1995
LMCD Conference Room 160, Norwest Bank Building
Present: Chair Craig Mollet, Bob Pillsbury, Frank Mixa, Len
Kopp, Executive Director A1Willcutt
Minutes: Minutes of the 5/4/95 meeting were approved as
presented.
A letter was presented by Willcutt notifying the committee of
the resignation of Alice Bronstad of Excelsior.
Save the Lake Solicitation Campaign: An update was given by
Willcutt on the September solicitation letter and it was
reported that just over $ 2,000 had been received to date.
It was agreed that the next letter should be submitted the
week after Thanksgiving.
Pillsbury raised the question as to, "why the LMCD board of
directors have not given, on an individual basis, to the Save
the Lake effort?"
No response was given.
It was mentioned that Gabriel Jabbour had an additional
mailing list that he would be willing to allow the committee
to review. Willcutt stated that he would follow up on this
matter with Jabbour.
Mollet will bring to the next meeting various examples of
letter head styles we might consider for future Save the Lake
mailings.
Ice Clean-up: There was no report.
T-shirt Update: The whereabouts of the remaining T-shirts is
still unknown. Pillsbury and Mixa will look into this
matter. Chair Mollet suggested that the local schools could
possibility become involved with the Save the Lake
promotional efforts. Mixa agreed and stated that he would
contact the Orono school system regarding T-shirt sales and
report back at the next meeting.
Save The Lake Legal Status: After discussion with the LMCD
attorney, Willcutt reported on the legal nonprofit status of
the LMCD and specifically the Save the Lake program for gift
receiving purposes. As a result of the enabling legislation
passed in 1989 the LMCD retains the same nonprofit status as
all other communities on the lake. However, the LMCD does
/3
not have the special powers authority to tax, condemn, etc.
Old Business: There was no old business.
New Business: It was decided that the next meeting is to be
held on the first Thursday in January.
Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting
was adjourned at 6:15 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
G. Alan Willcutt
Executive Director
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,053.88 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY #13231
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has
met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound:
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
Such water and sewer assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments
at 8% interest and all on Levy #13231 as follows:
PROPERTY ID#
13-117-24-22-0012
13-117-24-21-0020
13-117-24-21-0026
13-117-24-12-0123
13-117-24-12-0052
13-117-24-12-0220
13-117-24-24-0010
12-117-24-43-0053
13-117-24-12-0119
13-117-24-12-0189
13-117-24-13-0040
13-117-24-12-0207
13-117-24-12-0009
13-117-24-12-0238
13-117-24-11-0056
13-117-24-14-0029
13-117-24-14-0030
13-117-24-12-0083
13-117-24-12-0093
13-117-24-12-0106
AMOUNT
221.17 13-117-24-12-0096 213.85
161.71 13-117-24-11-0077 298.78
242.38 13-117-24-11-0076 508.26
257.34 13-117-24-14-0005 278.09
268.53 18-117-23-23-0004 408.26
223.54 18-117-23-23-0012 397.08
341.21 18-117-23-23-0039 146.49
141.23 13-117-24-11-0047 178.10
174.35 13-117-24-14-0004 31.11
470.70 13-117-24-14-0021 292.70
235.62 13-117-24-11-0039 179.19
447.43 13-117-24-11-0053 184.85
481.34 13-117-24-12-0075 218.68
30.20 13-117-24-22-0246 482.63
29.28 13-117-24-22-0273 357.23
365.29 14-117-24-42-0082 262.91
93.63 14-117-24-14-0043 279.19
214.67 14-117-24-13-0004 61.48
305.32 14-117-24-41-0042 67.58
396.67 14-117-24-42-0117 375.12
Resolution 95- October 24, 1995
14-117-24-42-0016
14-117-24-42-0028
14-117-24-42-0035
14-117-24-42-0038
14-117-24-42-0042
14-117-24-42-0041
14-117-24-42-0044
14-117-24-31-0031
14-117-24-31-0042
14-117-24-32-0045
14-117-24-44-0032
14-117-24 -44 -0031
14-117-24-41-0015
14-117-24-42-0002
13-117-24-32-0056
13-117-24-32-0004
13-117-24-31-0011
13-117-24-32-0016
13-117-24-32-0107
13-117-24-32-0116
13-117-24-32-0155
13-117-24-32-0152
13-117-24-32-0153
13-117-24-31-0033
13-117-24-34-0014
13-117-24-43-0072
13-117-24-43-0061
13-117-24-43-0086
24-117-24-12-0055
13-117-24-43-0052
13-117-24-43-0096
24-117-24-12-0050
13 - 117-24-41-0042
13-117-24-41-0011
13-117-24-41-0012
13-117-24-42-0014
18-117-23-33-0027
18-117-23-33-0026
13-117-24-44-0061
13-117-24-43-0038
24-117-24-12-0046
24-117-24-21-0030
23-117-24-13-0016
539.36
537.66
81.15
62.12
204.84
260.28
175.23
263.17
142.95
250.49
312.02
446.29
396.57
316.63
230.89
228.22
140.62
379.53
123.09
287.34
182.44
178.97
293.17
210.39
204.78
105.98
103.92
249.82
219.39
96.10
47.37
214.90
279.52
278.37
460.65
251.59
285.40
294.87
166.13
305.64
80.22
351.73
132.80
23-117-24-41-0016
23-117-24-41-0018
23-117-24-42-0054
23-117-24-42-0073
23-117-24-41-0020
23-117-24-42-0085
23-117-24-42-0016
23-117-24-42-0018
23-117-24-42-0020
23-117-24-42-0045
23-117-24-43-0039
23-117-24-43-0008
23-117-24-42-0037
23-117-24-34-0004
23-117-24-34-0086
23-117-24-34-0090
23-117-24-31-0041
23-117-24-34-0102
23-117-24-34-0101
23-117-24-24-0013
23-117-24-24-0062
23-117-24-24-0008
23-117-24-31-0054
23-117-24-34-0066
23-117-24-34-0065
23-117-24-23-0095
23-117-24-23-0056
23-117-24-32-0043
23-117-24-32-0050
23-117-24-32-0058
22-117-24-44-0002
23-117-24-31-0066
23-117-24-32-0064
23-117-24-32-0063
23-117-24-23-0108
23-117-24-13-0034
23-117-24-24-0058
23-117-24-13-0069
13-117-24-22-0251
24-117-24-22-0001
23-117-24-11-0006
23-117-24-11-0026
24-117-24-21-0040
150.83
394.75
372.79
579.55
247.01
145.16
85.86
184.51
200.62
153.93
57.45
392.84
55.24
32.57
95.74
299.44
318.00
293.30
351.03
116.69
256.36
59.50
355.05
402.30
516.67
571.58
295.78
209.85
136.86
132.82
309.20
281.46
147.24
265.93
207.55
201.57
382.10
90.67
126.99
61.95
83.59
208.75
99.82
Resolution 95- October 24, 1995
24-117-24-22-0027
24-117-24-22-0022
24-117-24-21-0006
13-117-24-34-0082
13-117-24-34-0084
13-117-24-34-0085
13 - 117-24-43 -0022
13-117-24-44-0038
24-117-24-12-0016
24-117-24-13-0009
24-117-24-12-0020
19-117-23-23-0093
19-117-23 -23 -0075
19-117-23 -23 -0135
19-117-23-23-0082
19-117-23-24-0037
19-117-23-23-0153
19-117-23-24-0049
19-117-23-21-0039
24-117-24-13-0027
19-117-23 -31-0030
19-117-23-31-0026
19-117-23-32-0159
24-117-24-14-0013
19-117-23-24-0024
19-117-23-32-0183
19-117-23-32-0033
24-117-24-41-0042
24-117-24-41-0087
24-117-24-41-0148
19-117-23-31-0093
19-117-23-31-0062
19-117-23-32-0076
19-117-23-32-0077
19-117-23-32-0082
19-117-23-32-0086
19-117-23-32-0111
24-117-24-41-0162
19-117-23-31-0128
25-117-24-11-0133
25-117-24-11-0068
25-117-24-11-0125
24-117-24-43-0028
344.87
224.43
265.00
246.52
108.29
330.27
422.40
97.70
59.20
147.54
305.21
293.88
63.09
276.81
321.90
211.60
341.23
428.11
93.40
315.70
271.42
173.52
78.70
118.80
291.96
177.94
308.56
374.71
159.72
281.63
437.00
170.27
372.24
382.19
332.61
359.95
565.44
311.89
270.35
101.34
249.37
62.47
149.66
19-117-23-33-0208
19-117-23-33-0196
19-117-23-34-0122
19-117-23-34-0043
19-117-23-34-0127
19-117-23-33-0010
19-117-23-33-0235
19-117-23-33-0075
19-117-23-33-0081
19-117-23-33-0184
19-117-23-33-0125
19-117-23-33-0232
19-117-23-33-0129
24-117-24-44-0041
24-117-24-44-0187
24-117-24-44-0050
24-117-24-44-0061
24-117-24-44-0062
24-117-24-44-0231
24-117-24-44-0182
24-117-24-44-0188
24-117-24-44-0073
24-117-24-41-0022
24-117-24-41-0118
24-117-24-41-0097
24-117-24-41-0068
24-117-24-41-0102
24-117-24-42-0007
24-117-24-43-0019
25-117-24-12-0116
25-117-24-12-0125
25-117-24-12-0195
25-117-24-21-0039
25-117-24-11-0064
24-117-24-44-0079
25-117-24-12-0112
25-117-24-21-0025
25-117-24-21-0029
25-117-24-11-0152
25-117-24-12-0062
30-117-23-22-0034
25-117-24-12-0219
25-117-24-11-0074
110.34
82.27
410.03
527.49
96.87
397.78
402.06
884.40
226.01
350.95
240.24
53.96
415.87
223.30
203.19
59.22
277.57
216.82
23.15
276.26
160.77
291.84
260.92
78.07
258.37
208.69
90.85
270.38
145.76
376.98
38.04
99.45
68.48
136.24
532.65
551.48
195.89
62.15
380.13
324.14
207.68
341.64
Resolution 95- October 24, 1995
25-117-24-11-0023
19-117-23-34-0092
30-117-23-21-0007
30-117-23-22-0049
30-117-23-22-0056
25-117-24-11-0028
25-117-24-11-0035
25-117-24-11-0115
25-117-24-21-0012
25-117-24-21-0106
25-117-24-21-0114
92.01 25-117-24-21-0007 95.40
213.29 25-117-24-21-0080 185.90
288.85 13-117-24-44-0051 203.26
440.03 14-117-24-44-0036 614.76
305.26 13-117-24-33-0057 119.07
195.30 13-117-24-34-0044 205.61
218.39 13-117-24-44-0014 116.92
335.63 13-117-24-33-0024 227.65
394.32 13-117-24-33-0014 81.45
239.48
337.25
ge
Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days
(November 28, 1995) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll.
Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall.
Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section
370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00
increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be
accepted.
If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 28, 1995), interest will be
charged to December 31, 1995.
If the assessment is not paid on or before November 28, 1995 the amount will be
spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest
for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1995, and ail of 1996).
Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter
shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3.
e
The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period is eight percent (8%).
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
October 24, 1995
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE BID
FOR 1995-96 CBD SNOW REMOVAL TO WIDMER BROS.
WHEREAS, an advertisement was placed in the official newspaper, The Laker,
and bids were solicited for the Central Business District snow plowing for 1995-96; and
WHEREAS, the only bid received was as follows:
1995-96 CBD SNOW REMOVAL
WIDMER, INC., ST. BONIFACIUS, MN.
966 E Cat 5 yd.
Model 66 Kawasald 4 yd.
950 Cat 3-3.5 yd.
300 Komatsu 3 yd.
140G Cat
99E Cat
Tracks with Plow & Spin Sanders
4 x 4 Pickups
1845 Case Skid Loaders with or w/o brooms
Tandem Dump (for hauling)
Salt-Sand Delivered
$95.00/hour
$85.00/hour
$82.00/hour
$82.00/hour
$85.00/hour
$73.00/hour
$60.00/hour
$53.00/hour
$65.00/hour
$56.00/hour
$40.00/ton
WHEREAS, Widmer Bros., Inc., was the only bid received and met all the
specifications required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby award the C.B.D. snow removal contract to Widmer Bros.,
Inc., for the quoted costs, as stated above, for the 1995-96 winter plowing season.
The forgoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Manager
Mayor
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 20, 1995
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: DECEMBER CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
The City Council desires to cancel the December 26, 1995 regular City Council meeting and
move it to Tuesday, December 19, 1995. A motion is requested.
Is
DECEM BE,~R.x ~ 2
14 15 16
17 i8 0?)20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
December 6 Budget Hearing
December 8 Christmas Party
December 12 Regular Council Meeting
December 13 Budget Heating Continued (if needed)
December 19 Rescheduled December 26 meeting
printed on recycled paper
BILLS
October 24, 1995
Batch 5102
Total Bills
$153,939.03
$153,939.03
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
Sept. 1995
75.00%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non -Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Charges to Other
Departments
Sept. 1995 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
1,254,200 0 618,256 (635,944) 49.29%
9,800 0 3,519 (6,281) 35.91%
66,000 7,648 75,294 9,294 114.08%
888,590 5,685 508,438 (380,152) 57.22%
47,850 583 5,953 (41,897) 12.44%
60,000 6,315 48,912 (11,088) 81.52%
81,900 1,179 19,105 (62,795) 23.33%
0 868 8,250 8,250 N/A
TOTAL REVENUE
2,408,340 22,278 1,287,727 ~ 53.47%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
325,785 30,560 251,226 (74,559) 77.11%
88,320 21,072 93,929 5,609 106.35%
1,400,000 122,121 1,047,551 (352,449) 74.83%
400,000 31,785 296,687 (103,313) 74.17%
730,000 60,460 533,696 (196,304) 73.11%
5,650 1,000 2,595 (3,055) 45.93%
70,800 180 70,875 75 100.11%
I 0/13/95
rev95
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
Sept. 1995
75.00%
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Sum met Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
Sept. 1995 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
69,330
4,0OO
1,380
184,O0O
2,670
51 700
155 92O
24 ~800
103 520
833 350
4.610
162 280
400 860
101 160
133 530
28,960
15,00O
140,960
4,176 51,699 17,631 74.57%
0 4,000 0 100.00%
125 723 657 52.39%
10,931 118,231 65,769 64.26%
7 1,928 742 72.21%
17 52,647 (947) 101.83%
11,951 117,704 38,216 75.49%
1,483 14,094 10,706 56.83%
5,046 70,354 33,166 67.96%
61,965 580,351 252,999 69.64%
44 1,828 2,782 39.65%
13,613 108,051 54,229 66.58%
40,902 287,858 113,002 71.81 %
9,377 73,169 27,991 72.33%
15,663 100,632 32,898 75.36%
0 21,554 7,406 74.43%
3,526 19,848 (4,848) 132.32%
10,587 95,280 45,680 67.59%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,418,030 189 413 1,719~951 698~079 71.13%
Area Fire
Service Fund 285,330 15,587 231,781 53,549 81.23%
Recycling Fund 118,590 9,249 102,660 15,930 86.57%
Liquor Fund 197,410 15,781 147,928 49,482 74.93%
Water Fund 371,690 32,131 283,549 88,141 76.29%
Sewer Fund 1,019,480 88,538 884,313 135,167 86.74%
Cemetery Fund 5,840 515 3,299 2,541 56.49%
Docks Fund 78,700 4,342 42,929 35,771 54.55%
exp95
10/13/95
G.B.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 1995
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill
Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Lisa Crum, Ed Surko, and Becky Glister, City Council Representative
Mark Hanus, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James.
The following people were also in attendance: Jerry & Catherine Palen, Wende Brady, Craig
& Nancy Wolfe, Rita & Terry Hughes, and Raymond Loehlein, and Dennis Batty.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of September 11, 1995 were presented for approval.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of September 11, 1995 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE 95-4.4.: VOIDED.
CASE 95-45: CRAIG WOLFE, 4774 KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 6-8 & 18-23, BLOCKS 4 & 10,
SETON, PID 19-117-23 22 0057. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION
The Building Official reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking variance
approval to construct a conforming two story addition to the existing home. The
existing deck is 25 feet from the ordinary high water line (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka.
The setback required by the ordinance is 50 feet resulting in a 25 foot variance.
The subject parcel is located on a channel of the lake and the area below the OHWL
abutting the parcel is wetland. In similar situations in the past, the City has
considered the fact that a substantial separation exists between the lot line and the
open water area. This, coupled with the fact that the proposed addition is in a
conforming location forms the basis for a finding of practical difficulty.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
requested shoreland setback variance for the existing deck. It is further suggested
that the Planning Commission's finding include a determination that the "practical
difficulty" provision of the ordinance applies to this case since the property borders
a substantial wetland open space and since the proposed improvement conforms to
the Zoning Code.
Hanus noted that the "rock on plastic" as indicated on the survey, is not included in
the hardcover calculations. The Building Official noted that the plastic is very tattered
and allows seepage.
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
Hanus questioned if it is right not to allow a property owner to count their entire lot
area for hardcover purposes, eventhough it is under the 929.4. Mueller stated that
land under the 929.4 is not considered their property, it is governed by the State. The
Building Official stated that only the area above the 929.4 is considered for lot area
calculations.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval
of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
CASE 95-46: RAYMOND LOEHLEIN & TARJA KALA, 5982 BARTLETT BLVD.,
LOT 11, SEIFARTH'S MOUNO BAY PARK, PID 23-117-24 42 0093. VARIANCE FOR
GARAGE.
The Building Official reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to
allow construction of a conforming 22' x 28' detached garage. The existing dwelling
is nonconforming to the front yard as shown on the attached zoning sheet and survey.
A 30 foot front yard setback is required to Bartlett Blvd., a 17 foot setback is existing,
resulting in recognition of a 13 foot variance. The proposed hardcover on this site is
conforming at under 30 percent.
The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property and does not create
additional encroachment or nonconformance. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the variance request as noted.
It was noted that the site plan shows a 13.6' front setback and the survey shows an
18.6' setback and it was questioned if the nonconforming front setback should be
clarified by locating property irons. The Building Official indicated that he scaled the
setback on the survey and the house is approximately 17 feet from the front lot line
when measured to the nearest point.
The Building Official commented that the house is a substantial structure, it is not
being modified, and if it is closer than 17 feet to the front property line, it would not
impact staffs recommendation. He had no objection to approving a variance to
recognize a 17 foot (+/-) front setback.
Hanus questioned the 20 foot setback from the proposed garage to the west property
line abutting Garden Lane. He referred to Zoning Ordinance Section 350: 440, Subd.
5. which allows for lots of record with a lot width of 51 to 80 feet to have a 20 foot
setback. Hanus questioned how you measure the lot width and noted that the lot
frontage is 86.75'due to the angle. The Commission requested that staff clarify this
issue prior to the case being heard by the City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend
approval of the variance recognizing an existing nonconforming front
yard setback of 17 feet +/-, to allow construction of a conforming
detached garage. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
CASE 95-47: WENDE BRADY, 2174 CENTERVlEW LANE, LOTS 11 & 28,
BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID 13-117-24 31 0055.
VARIANCE FOR GARAGE.
The Building Official reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to
allow construction of a conforming 22' x 26' detached garage. The existing dwelling
is nonconforming to the side yard with a 4.2 foot setback to the required 6 foot side
yard setback requirement resulting in recognition of a 1.8 foot variance.
The proposed hardcover on this site is nonconforming at over 30 percent. Hardcover
up to 40 percent, with conditions, is allowable for lots of record, according to Zoning
Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.
The Building Official explained that an amended report has been prepared because the
original recommendation included a condition that a hard surface driveway be
installed. After discussions with other staff, it was determined that this could not be
required.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance
request with the condition that a drainage plan for the property be developed by the
applicant, and approved by staff, that will be consistent with Zoning Ordinance
Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend
approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried
unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 10, 1995.
CASE 95-48: TERRANCE & RITA HUGHES, 6641 HALSTEAD AVENUE, LOT 17,
HALSTEAD PARK, PID 22-117-24 43 0025. VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT.
The Building Official reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow
construction of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard. A maximum height of 4 feet is
allowed in the front yard as noted by Zoning Ordinance Section 350:475, Subd. 3.A.
This property is adjacent to an existing nonconforming use. The development pattern
of the nonconforming use is not consistent with the zoning of single family, and it
appears reasonable to offer some additional separation.
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
The fence height should not have a negative effect or obstruct the vision of vehicles
in this area as the street is a dead end. Staff recommended the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the request for a 2 foot fence height variance due to this
unique situation, and the fact that additional separation is reasonable in this case.
The Building Official confirmed that the requested fence will be on the east lot line
only.
Voss questioned the status of the uncompliant situation adjacent to this property. The
Building Official indicated that staff is aware of the situation on the neighboring
property and the case is now in the hands of the City Attorney.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval
of the 2 foot fence height variance for the east side property line only,
subject to the existence of the adjacent nonconforming trailer court.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
CASE 95-49: GERALD & CATHERINE PALEN, 6545 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 18,
HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID 22-117-24 44 0033. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE.
The applicant, Catherine Palen, distributed copies of a survey to the Commission in
staff which shows the sewer line location and a drainage plan which was information
requested as part of the recommendation from staff.
The Building Official reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow
construction of a detached garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on
the same lot. Zoning Ordinance Section 350:435, Subd. 2 states, "No accessory
building shall exceed the height of the principal building in the 'R' District." The
proposed garage is conforming to all setbacks. Impervious surface coverage is over
30 percent, but will be conforming at less than 40 percent for lots of record, with an
approved drainage plan.
The new garage is intended to serve the dwelling shown on the lakeside lot, Parcel A.
The applicant was originally contemplating a minor subdivision that would allow Parcel
A to accommodate the garage. Both parcels are currently under the same ownership.
This property was subdivided in 1971 as approved by Resolution #71-77, and since
that time, there have been substantial changes in the City's ordinances and in the
subdivision process.
The addition of the garage on the street side parcel raises concerns that could
negatively effect the lakeside parcel if precautions are not taken. The Building Official
commented that a building permit could be issued without a variance if the applicant
simply reduced the height of the proposed garage.
4
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
The plans for the garage match the architecture of the dwelling on Parcel A and this
could be considered a positive step towards the eventual combination of these
parcels and the elimination of the rental unit. Currently, there does not appear to be
a reasonable location for a garage on Parcel A. The applicant has proposed to remove
a small deck and the encroaching shed on the east side.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance
request for a 22' x 24' detached garage as shown on the survey dated September 21,
1995, subject to the following conditions:
A minimum driveway/access width of 10 feet must be maintained for Parcel A.
This can be accomplished by an easement for the driveway that can also
include the utility services. An easement should be written to accommodate
the existing situation for the driveway and utilities or they could be relocated
to be within the easement.
The proposed garage must not be placed over any utility services. The sewer
service is not shown on the survey. All utilities must be identified on the
survey an located within a proper easement.
A drainage plan needs to be prepared by the applicant that incorporates the
techniques listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This
plan could be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance.
4. The deck and encroaching shed located on Parcel B shall be removed.
Weiland questioned if there are separate services for each dwelling for sewer and
water, including water meters. It was determined that staff should answer this
question prior to the case being heard by the City Council.
Weiland noted that the street side dwelling is undersized and does not meet the
minimum dwelling size requirement of 840 square feet. Mueller noted that the rental
dwelling is only about 315 square feet.
Mueller commented that if the street side parcel (Parcel B) is ever sold, the lakeside
parcel (Parcel A) will still need a garage. Mueller noted that the proposed garage
would be twice the size of the rental dwelling. He is totally opposed to the proposal
as submitted and would ultimately like to see the parcels combined and the rental unit
removed. Voss and Weiland agreed.
Clapsaddle questioned why the garage was so high. Catherine Palen explained that
the garage is proposed to have a french mansard roof to match the house on the
lakeside parcel.
5
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
VOSS noted that the Subdivision Resolution from 1971 is conflicting as it states the
subdivision "will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in
harmony with adjacent properties."
Mueller stated that he would rather see a garage constructed on the lakeside parcel,
even if it is setback only a couple feet from the property lines, because Parcel A needs
a garage. Mueller is not in favor of relocating the lot line through a subdivision.
Hanus would also like to see the garage on Parcel A, he would rather see the garage
attached to the house, and the dividing lot line could be moved up a little, but each
lot should retain 10,000 square feet.
MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Mueller, to recommend denial of
the variance as requested.
The Commission further reviewed the option of constructing the garage on Parcel A.
It was noted that the applicant could pull their request from the Council agenda if they
wished to revise their plans.
MOTION to deny carried unanimously.
This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 24, 199§.
CASE 95-50:
DENNIS BATTY & ASSOC. FOR MOUND EVANGELICAL FREE
CHURCH, 2117 COMMERCE BLVD., M&B, SECTION 14, PID 14-117-24 41 0006.
VARIANCE FOR ADDITION.
The Building Official reviewed the planning report prepared by Mark Koegler. The
Mound Evangelical Free Church is proposing to expand its existing facilities by addition
additional sanctuary space over the top of an existing classroom wing which was
originally constructed to support a future addition. The proposed construction will not
significantly expand the footprint of the existing structure.
The variances being requested are for setback
1)
Setback: The existing setback on the west side of the church abuts and R-2
zone which requires a 50 foot setback. The existing setback is 36.6 feet
resulting in a request to recognize a variance of 13.4 feet.
2)
Parking: The Zoning Ordinance request a total of 50 parking spaces to serve
the church. The site will accommodate 31 parking spaces. The church has
indicated that they have a parking lot agreement with the Hennepin County
Library for the use of 41 additional parking spaces.
6
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
3)
Impervious Surface Coverage: The existing coverage totals 61%, and after the
improvements, the total amount will be 62%. The Zoning Ordinance allows a
maximum of 30% Impervious cover until such time as the City has a storm
water management plan. After adoption of a storm water management plan,
the allowable impervious cover in the B-1 zone will increase to 75%. A finding
of practical difficulty exists allowing approval of the required impervious cover
variance.
The Mound Zoning Ordinance requires screening and buffering where uses in the B-1
abut residential uses· In order to comply with this provision, the church will need to
submit a landscaping plan.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
setback, parking and impervious cover variances to allow construction of the Mound
Evangelical Free Church's addition subject to the following conditions:
The Church shall submit a copy of the parking agreement with Hennepin
County. Said agreement shall be required to ensure use of the library parking
lot by church members.
The Church shall submit a copy of an easement agreement allowing access to
the garage of the private residence abutting the west side of the property.
The Church shall submit a landscaping plan identifying the type of screening
that will be used along the west side of the property abutting the parking lot to
eliminate headlight glare onto the adjacent residential property.
The parking lot improvements as shown shall consist of bituminous surfacing
and concrete curb and gutter around the entire perimeter.
The Church shall prepare a grading and drainage plan and said plan shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit
issuance.
Weiland questioned condition #2 and asked why the church should be responsible for
the easement and why is it not the homeowners responsibility. Mueller commented
that it would be in the best interest of the church to have an easement.
A representative from the Church submitted a copy of their parking agreement with
Hennepin County to the secretary.
Mueller asked if the church was comfortable with the conditions within the report.
Dennis Batty stated that the conditions are acceptable, however, they would like to
be able to wait one or two years to pave the parking lot. They have no problem
installing the curb and gutters.
7
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
The Building Official stated that the requirement for a hard surface parking lot is
consistent with the conditions placed on the approval of the recent parking lot
expansion for St. John's Church.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval
of the variance as recommended by staff.
The Commission discussed the pros and cons of having the parking lot not paved right
away. Clapsaddle noted that there is no timeline stipulated in the recommendation,
and stated that curbing will probably provide for needed water detention. Michael
referred to condition #4 and stated that he interprets the condition to mean that when
the parking lot is improved, it "shall" consist of bituminous surfacing, meaning it shall
be paved right away. Michael requested that this clarified prior to City Council review.
MOTION carried unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT.
The commission discussed with Mark Hanus the role of a City Council liaison to an
advisory commission. Hanus' interpretation of his responsibility as a Council
Representative is, "to honestly and openly represent the Planning Commission's
positions if or when the Council asks for this information or wishes any elaboration on
the minutes or the discussion at the commission meeting." Mueller questioned if the
Council would agree with Hanus' interpretation.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to request from the
City Council a clarification of the role and responsibilities of a council
liaison. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Mueller,
Clapsaddle, Surko, Voss, Michael, Crum, Glister, and Weiland. Hanus
was opposed.
Hanus stated that he was opposed because he feels he has already related to the
Commission what his role should be.
The Commission asked for an update from Hanus on the response received from the
City Attorney relating to their concerns about the Park Dedication Ordinance. Hanus
explained that he thinks the attorney misunderstood their concerns, and he will have
to review the issue with him.
8
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting
at 10:12 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Geoff Michael
Attest:
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 1995
Present were: Vice Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes,
Peter Meyer, Janis Geffre, Mary Goode, Bill Darling, and Rita
Pederson, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James.
Commissioner Schmidt was absent and excused.
Tim Piepkorn from Westonka Community Education and Services was
also present.
NEW COMMISSIONER
Rita Pederson was welcomed to the Commission.
MINUTES
MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Byrnes to approve the
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of September 14,
1995 as written. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
Meyer requested discussion on a proposed modification to the 1996
dock application forms. Chair Casey added this as discussion item
8.A.
SUMMARY OF 1995 PARKS AND BEACHES PROGRAM
Tim Piepkorn, Recreation Coordinator for Westonka Community
Education and Services, summarized highlights of the 1995 Parks and
Beaches Program.
Safety was a priority this year, and they are considering cellular
phones for the lifeguards, or getting radios that would be
compatible with the Police Department's system.
They had cut the parks program back to 4 days per week to encourage
participation in the special trips offered on Fridays. Budgeted
funds that were not spent on the parks budget was used for the
lifeguards. There were very few rain days last summer which
strained the lifeguard's budget and caused them to cut the season
short.
A few lifeguards got badly sunburned this year and they would like
to consider installing some type of sun shelter, such as a tarp or
umbrella.
Ahrens suggested that next year a notification be published in the
paper indicating a date when the beaches will be closing.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Piepkorn explained that they are taking attendance every half hour
in order to more accurately determine peak times. They hope to
determine if quality or quantity is in more demand. He stated that
he will be back to review the 1996 program.
Spraying for weeds at the beaches was discussed, and it was noted
that the Park Supervisors should be notified when the spraying is
going to occur.
Darling suggested that the City look into hiring scuba divers to
remove weeds from the lake and noted that it is a chemical-free
method. He stated that every year the Waconia Lake Association
hires them to remove weeds from that lake.
Piepkorn noted that the Park Commission had expressed concerns
about the lifeguard's pay schedule at previous meetings, and he
informed them that a new pay schedule has been instituted and it
allows for raises each year a lifeguard returns.
DOCK LOCATION MAP
Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, explained to the Commission that no
changes are being proposed to the Dock Location Map and that the
number of dock sites is proposed to remain at 448.
Ahrens requested that the map show each dock site number instead of
just a range of numbers. The Parks Director agreed that this could
be done, and also suggested that the Type of Common for each dock
site also be included.
Pederson recalled that a task force member had mentioned an error
on the map in the Devon area. The Parks Director confirmed that
the error is that the map shows Pembroke Park on land that is
actually privately owned and confirmed that this can be corrected.
Pederson requested that Waterbank Common be correctly labeled, she
noted that the map currently shows this area as Waterside Common.
She also suggested that the Centerview Fishing Pier be added to the
map.
Byrnes requested that Wychwood Commons also be correctly labeled on
the map. The Parks Director indicated that he will check the
original plat on this issue.
The Park Commission will hold a public hearing on November 9, 1995.
STAIRWAYS ON COMMONS - CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed a memorandum from the
Building Official regarding building code application to stairways
on the commons. The Building Official contacted Orono and found
that their Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) requires building
permits for detached stairways leading to the lake. A maximum 4
foot wide stairway is allowed with a maximum landing size of 4' x
8', and they are required to meet the building code.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
The Park and Open Space Minutes from the last meeting were briefly
reviewed. Fackler noted that Councilmember Mark Hanus had
suggested that the stairs be "structurally sound."
Darling stated that there has to be some specific standard to
follow, you cannot be ambiguous. He would like to see a different
set of standards, but does not know if that can happen for stairs
located on public lands.
Ahrens questioned if stairways on the commons are considered to be
private property. Darling stated that even though the stairs may
be private property, they are still on public land.
Fackler noted that these stairs should provide a safe and
comfortable access to the docks, and questioned if their purpose is
to achieve safe access, or a structurally sound stairway. Fackler
noted that if safe access is their objective, the building code
would be the proper standard to follow.
Casey commented that stairs which are constructed to code do not
look good and appear as being over-built. Fackler noted that there
are other ways to construct stairs which would be less obtrusive,
such as building the stairs into the ground or on-grade with
railroad ties or concrete block.
Ahrens commented that she would like to get a written opinion from
the attorney on whether the stairs on commons are considered as
private or public? She does not see the difference between the
dock and the stairs.
Darling commented that there are building codes for a reason, and
we do not want to send a message that a stairway can be built
otherwise. Ahrens reviewed the history of this issue and why it is
being discussed. Ahrens explained that the Park Commission and
City Council have approved a stairway located on public lands which
does not meet the building code, and if stairs get approved that
don't meet the code, then we should not have an ordinance that says
they have to meet the code. Goode questioned if the City Council
could be found negligent if they do not require the stairs to meet
code.
Geffre noted that according to the City Council minutes of October
12, 1993, staff had questioned if the building code should apply to
existing stairways and what to do with new stairways. The City
Council directed the building official to draw a policy which would
say that new stairways shall meet the Uniform Building Code. She
stated that it should not be up to the Park Commission to recommend
what determines a safe stairway. Meyer feels the Building official
could determine what constitutes a safe stairway. Darling
questioned when the flexibility would stop? Where do you draw the
line?
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Casey suggested that maybe the Building Official does not have to
be the person to inspect the stairs. Fackler commented that no
public employee would want to be responsible to declare what
constitutes a safe stairway as they could personally be held
liable, and if someone did get hurt on a stairway, that employee
could also suffer emotionally.
Ahrens commented that there is nothing that would prohibit them
from putting basic requirements in the procedure manual, such as it
needs a handrail, without getting specific. She does not see a
problem with the City designing basic standards that is not as far
reaching as the UBC so they do not end up with cattle chutes.
Who could develop a set of standards was discussed. Ahrens
suggested that the Commission send a recommendation to the Council
informing them that they think the standards are too stringent and
asking them if they would consider the possibility of new standards
to be drafted.
Geffre suggested that they get an opinion from the Building
Official and City Attorney to make sure there is no legal aspect
involved in coming up with a new set of standards so they do not
put time and effort into it before investigating. She would like
to see stairs that are not so obtrusive to the shoreland.
Casey suggested that a motion could be made stating that they would
like to see the standards relaxed, however, they should be defined,
and that they need an opinion from the City Attorney on the public
versus private nature of the stairways.
Geffre would like more input from the Building Official and city
Attorney on the legality of the standards being changed.
Casey suggested that the Park Commission recommend that standards
be relaxed and redeveloped subject to the Attorney's opinion that
it is legal.
Fackler questioned what part of the standard they do not want to
apply in order to reduce the cost? Casey commented that making the
determination of what the standards should or should not be can be
made after they find out if the City Council agrees that the
standards are too strict.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to
the City Council that the construction standards for
stairways on commons be redefined and an opinion from the
Building Official and City Attorney be obtained on the
legality of doing so.
4
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Ahrens suggested the motion be modified as follows:
Recommend to the city Council that upon an opinion from
the Building official and City Attorney on the
legalities, the Park Commission recommends that the
construction standards for stairways on public lands be
redefined.
Darling questioned what they mean by "redefine," what is their
purpose? Ahrens reiterated that the Park Commission and Council
have approved a stairway which is in total disagreement with the
Policy and Procedure Manual, and she thinks this is the impedance
for the redefinement. Darling feels that a mistake was made, and
now is the time to correct it, but to say that just because it was
done that way once, does not constitute a change. Darling feels
that the Commission is going down different paths, he has heard
some say that they want it redefined because the stairs look bad,
and some say it is because it cost too much to build a stairway to
meet the building code. Casey summarized that all of those are
reasons and suggested that a friendly amendment be made to include
those items in the motion. The reasons to redefine the
construction standards for stairways were reviewed by the
Commission to be:
COST (cost of materials in order to build to code)
AESTHETICS (some look like a cattle chute because they
were built to code)
SAFETY (over-building, does not have to meet code to be
considered safe)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (when built to meet code, impacts
vegetation and appearance of the shoreline)
Goode agreed to amend the motion to include the four reasons.
Ahrens commented that it is not necessary. Darling stressed that
an end objective should be clarified. Ahrens summarized that the
objective is that we are making a recommendation because the city
Council told us we are disavowing the language on the books now.
Darling does not agree that one instance is substantiating.
Casey stated that he would like the four reasons included in the
motion. As seconder, Ahrens agreed to include the reasons in the
motion. The motion was reiterated, as follows:
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to
the City Council that upon an opinion from the Building
official and City Attorney on the feasibility and or
legal liability, the Park Commission recommends that the
construction standards for stairways on public lands be
redefined for the following reasons:
cost
aesthetics
safety
environmental impact
5
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Ahrens and Casey both agreed that the Building official should not
be included in the motion to give an opinion on the legal
liability. Ahrens suggested that the Building Official's opinion
may not be needed until new standards are being drafted.
Darling asked for a friendly amendment, and read a proposed motion:
The Park and Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney
to identify the legal liability in change and risk
associated with redefining the stair construction
standards for safety, aesthetics, environmental impact,
and durability.
Goode withdrew her motion. Ahrens withdrew her second.
Darling moved, and Ahrens seconded a motion that the Park
and Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney to
identify the legal liability in change and risk
associated with redefining the stair construction
standards for safety, aesthetics, durability, and
environmental impact.
Casey questioned if we are not also recommending the standards be
changed? Ahrens suggested to add language stating that if there
are no additional risks, that we would recommend the standards be
changed. Darling attempted another re-wording of the motion, as
follows:
The Park and Open Space Commission asks the city Attorney
to identify the legal liability in changes and risks
associated with redefining the stair construction
standards for safety, aesthetics, durability, and
environmental impact. And, if there is no additional
risks found that the city explore and define new
standards that meet our objectives of safety, durability,
aesthetics, and minimal environmental impact.
Casey summarized that the motion implies that if there is no risk,
then they can go forward. He feels that sometimes there needs to
be some risk. Darling stated that this way the risks can be
identified, and then they can determine if they want to move
forward. Darling wants to know what the risks are. Ahrens does
not want their recommendation to die because a slight risk may be
identified. Pederson asked if the City's insurance company would
not be the party to tell them what the risks are.
Ahrens withdrew her second. Goode seconded the motion. Geffre
commented that the Building official already determines if existing
stairways are safe, so he must have some idea of what constitutes
a "safe" stairway, and therefore, she would agree that there may be
some possibility of a change.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Meyer agreed with Casey and Ahrens that he does not want to see
their recommendation die just because there may be some risk.
Ahrens commented that the Commission should agree that some
liability or risk may need to be accepted in order to reduce the
standards. Darling agreed that he wants this issue brought back to
the Commission for discussion if it is determined that there are
risks, he wants to know what the risks are. Casey noted that the
attorney will not be able to identify the risks without knowing
what the standards will be. Darling then suggested that the
standards be developed first. Casey emphasized that they need to
know if the Council is interested in having them work on this
change.
Meyer called for the question for the Motion on the floor:
MOTION by Darling, seconded by Goode, that the Park and
Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney to identify
the legal liability in changes and risks associated with
redefining the stair construction standards for safety,
aesthetics, durability, and environmental impact. And,
if there is no additional risks found that the City
explore and define new standards that meet our objectives
of safety, durability, aesthetics, and minimal
environmental impact.
MOTION failed i to 7.
opposed were: Goode,
Geffre, and Pederson.
Darling was in favor.
Byrnes, Meyer, Casey,
Those
Ahrens,
Goode suggested the following motion:
to recommend to the City Council that minimum standards
for stairways on public lands be redefined and a
recommendation from the City Attorney regarding legal
liability be made, and the purposes of the recommendation
are based on cost, aesthetics, safety, and environmental
impact.
Goode explained that this would get somebody to first draft a set
of standards, and then have those standards reviewed by the
Attorney to determine legal liability. Darling does not agree that
the standards should be first redefined without knowing the risks.
Darling suggested that the language be modified to recommended the
standards be redefined "subject to an opinion. · ." Ahrens
proposed another motion and the lanuage was discussed.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Casey, to inform the City
Council that it is the consensus of the Park and Open
Space Commission that the standards for stairways on
public lands should be redefined for the purposes of
considering cost, aesthetics, safety, and environmental
impact, and that an opinion be rendered by the city
Attorney on the legal liability, and the opinion should
be reviewed and considered in formulating the standards.
Motion carried unanimously.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutez October 12, 1995
WINTERFEST 1996.
The Lions are organizing Winterfest and it has been scheduled for
January 13 and 14. Darling expressed the importance of the City
getting more involved with organizing and supporting the event.
Fackler explained how his department assisted in preparations last
year. Darling would like to see the City officially involved in
Winterfest. Ahrens offered to ask the City Manager that if he is
contacted by the Lions about things the City can do for Winterfest,
that the City Council should be kept apprised of what is being
requested so maybe the Council can find more ways to help.
DOCK APPLICATION FORMS
Meyer referred to the bottom of the second page of the "information
sheet" where it states the following:
"NOTE: The use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is not
recommended on city property. These chemical drain into the lake
and can cause serious environmental problems.
Meyer noted that this statement is very small and not easy to see,
and suggested that a statement be added to the "Notice" as follows:
"The City of Mound discourages the use of fertilizer, weed killers
and pesticides on public land. Chemical drift and runoff ADVERSELY
affects the quality of our lakes and wetlands."
It was suggested this statement be printed in a larger type and
bolded. It was also suggested that the "Notice" be copied onto
yellow paper.
There was no objection to this change. The forms will be forwarded
to the city Council for their approval in November.
UPDATE ON COMMONS TASK FORCE.
The Parks Director explained that the surveys were mailed and are
starting to come back. The task force will be making call backs
next week if not enough are received.
Ahrens briefly reviewed that previous Mayor, Skip Johnson, spoke at
the last Council meeting and expressed a concern that the surveys
will give misleading results due to the way they were written.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT.
Ahrens informed the Commission that the Council had discussions
relating to the Park Commission unable to maintain a quorum at two
different meetings, and the Council asked that she emphasize to the
Commission that if you know you are unable to attend the meetings
that you people not continue to take up a position that could be
filled by someone who can be in attendance.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Geffre offered a suggested that a separate commission be formed to
review commons and dock issues as she feels the parks and open
spaces are getting neglected. Casey suggested that the Commission
could meet every two weeks. The Parks Director stressed that the
commons is a big part of the park system and that the two
interrelate. It was determined that this issue could be discussed
in January when the 1996 calendar and work rules are reviewed.
P]~RKS DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
Fackler informed the Commission that they have been working on
cleaning the NCA's and establishing walking paths.
Darling informed the Parks Director that someone damaged trees in
Langdon Park with an ax. Fackler will check into this.
Fackler reported that there is no news from the Hockey Association
regarding the establishment of an outdoor recreational skating
rink.
DOCK INSPECTOR'S REPORT.
McCaffrey had nothing specific to report.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by &hrens to adjourn the
Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Property tax reform should recognize the tax/cash flow needs of and not jeopardize
existing development districts, tax increment finance districts or enterprise zones.
A program such as income-adjusted circuit breaker and renters' credit should
continue.
III.
General Legislation (No Board changes)
Housing and Economic Development and Land Use
III-B-1 Cities Economic Development Responsibilities.
The Bold policy statement language is identical but reordered as follows:
A state development strategy should be established to provide job creation and
redevelopment, prevent blight and decay, clean up polluted lands and provide
adequate housing opportunities.
In partnership with the state, cities should be charged with locally administering a
development policy created by the legislature and governor, as well as any local
economic development plans or policies.
The state should acknowledge cities as the primary units of government responsible
for implementing these strategies and land use controls. Additional tools should be
developed for cities to accomplish these objectives.
III-B-9 Livable Wage Policy.
Change the second bold bulleted statement to read:
· Assistance be a loan or grant equal to or greater than $25,000. TIF, for purposes
of this act is not assistance if used for housing, redevelopment, renewal, or soils
correction districts.
III-C Land Use Planning and Regulation.
This policy was combined with a similar policy in chapter IV and deleted from this section
of policy. See new policy IV-D-3 Land Use Planning and Regulation below.
Metropolitan Governance, Structure, and Issues
IV-D-3 Planning and Land Use Controls Adjacent to the Metropolitan Area.
Two committees adopted similar policy dealing with the same issue from different
perspectives. The Board is recommending combining policy III-C Land Use Planning and
Regulation and policy IV-D-3 as follows. Please disregard policies III-C and IV-D-3 as
contained in the previously mailed proposed policy packet.
V
beyond the metropolitan area, tightening of MUSA expansion criteria within the
metropolitan area will cause one or more of the following:
· Increased leap-frog development into adjacent counties and Wisconsin.
· Increased housing costs within the metropolitan area.
· Decreased economic growth due to increased development costs.
· Increased development activity in the Rural Service Area.
IV-G-3 Regional Wetlands Management.
This policy is deleted and m-referred to committee for additional consideration. The
Board expects to review this issue and possible committee reconsideration at the January
Board meeting.
Transportation
V-C Transportation Highway and Transit Funding Alternatives.
The word transportation in the last sentence of the first bold statement was changed to
highways. It now reads:
Funding assurances for transit and highways should be dedicated in a consistent
manor.
V-D Regional Transit System.
A bold policy statement was added as follows:
The Metropolitan Council should work with local units of government to encourage
appropriate land use controls along designated transit corridors to promote transit
ridership.
RECEIVED OCT 1 7 1995
2360 Commerce Blvd.
Mound, Minn. 55364
October 16, 1995
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Mana9er
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687
RE: NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT:
CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1994-95
Dear Ed:
I am unable to attend the council meetin9 scheduled for
October 24th, 1995, on the above hearin9 for the CBD parkin9
maintenance for 1994 and 1995.
I have several objections and questions on the proposed costs
to the businessmen outlined on the schedule mailed to me.
I would like to have the hearin9 continued on this matter until
the next council meetin9 when I will be able to attend to discuss
this proposed assessment further.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Bill Netka
BN:DN
cc: Bob Polston, Mayor of Mound
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,053.88 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY #13231
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has
met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER
Mound:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
Such water and sewer assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments
at 8% interest and all on Levy #13231 as follows:
PROPERTY ID#
13-117-24-22-0012
13-117-24-21-0020
13 - 117-24-21-0026
13-117-24-12-0123
13-117-24-12-0052
13-117-24-12-0220
13-117-24-24-0010
12-117-24-43-0053
13-117-24-12-0119
13-117-24-12-0189
13-117-24-13-0040
13-117-24-12-0207
13-117-24-12-0009
13-117-24-12-0238
13-117-24-11-0056
13-117-24-14-0029
13-117-24-14-0030
13-117-24-12-0083
13-117-24-12-0093
13-117-24-12-0106
AMOUNT
221.17 13-117-24-12-0096 213.85
161.71 13-117-24-11-0077 298.78
242.38 13-117-24-11-0076 508.26
257.34 13-117-24-14-0005 278.09
268.53 18-117-23-23-0004 408.26
223.54 18-117-23-23-0012 397.08
341.21 18-117-23-23-0039 146.49
141.23 13-117-24-11-0047 178.10
174.35 13-117-24-14-0004 31.11
470.70 13-117-24-14-0021 292.70
235.62 13-117-24-11-0039 179.19
447.43 13-117-24-11-0053 184.85
481.34 13-117-24-12-0075 218.68
30.20 13-117-24-22-0246 482.63
29.28 13-117-24-22-0273 357.23
365.29 14-117-24-42-0082 262.91
93.63 14-117-24-14-0043 279.19
214.67 14-117-24-13-0004 61.48
305.32 14-117-24-41-0042 67.58
396.67 14-117-24-42-0117 375.12
Resolution 95- Octo~r 24, 1995
14-117-24-42-0016
14-117-24-42-0028
14-117-24-42-0035
14-117-24-42-0038
14-117-24-42-0042
14-117-24 -42-0041
14-117-24-42-0044
14-117-24-31-0031
14-117-24-31-0042
14-117-24-32-0045
14-117-24-44-0032
14-117-24-44-0031
14-117-24-41-0015
14-117-24-42-0002
13-117-24-32-0056
13-117-24-32-0004
13-117-24-31-0011
13-117-24-32-0016
13-117-24-32-0107
13-117-24-32-0116
13-117-24-32-0155
13-117-24-32-0152
13-117-24-32-0153
13-117-24-31-0033
13-117-24-34-0014
13-117-24-43-0072
13-117-24-43-0061
13-117-24-43-0086
24-117-24-12-0055
13-117-24-43-0052
13-117-24-43-0096
24-117-24-12-0050
13-117-24-41-0042
13-117-24-41-0011
13-117-24-41-0012
13-117-24-42-0014
18 - 117-23-33-0027
18-117-23-33-0026
13-117-24-44-0061
13-117-24-43-0038
24-117-24-12-0046
24-117-24-21-0030
23-117-24-13-0016
539.36
537.66
81.15
62.12
204.84
260.28
175.23
263.17
142.95
250.49
312.02
446.29
396.57
316.63
230.89
228.22
140.62
379.53
123.09
287.34
182.44
178.97
293.17
210.39
204.78
105.98
103.92
249.82
219.39
96.10
47.37
214.90
279.52
278.37
460.65
251.59
285.40
294.87
166.13
305.64
80.22
351.73
132.80
23-117-24-41-0016
23-117-24-41-0018
23-117-24-42-0054
23-117-24-42-0073
23-117-24-41-0020
23-117-24-42-0085
23-117-24-42-0016
23-117-24-42-0018
23-117-24-42-0020
23-117-24-42-0045
23-117-24-43-0039
23-117-24-43-0008
23-117-24-42-0037
23-117-24-34-0004
23-117-24-34-0086
23-117-24-34-0090
23-117-24-31-0041
23-117-24-34-0102
23-117-24-34-0101
23-117-24-24-0013
23-117-24-24-0062
23-117-24-24-0008
23-117-24-31-0054
23-117-24-34-0066
23-117-24-34-0065
23-117-24-23-0095
23-117-24-23-0056
23-117-24-32-0043
23-117-24-32-0050
23-117-24-32-0058
22-117-24-44-0002
23-117-24-31-0066
23-117-24-32-0064
23-117-24-32-0063
23-117-24-23-0108
23-117-24-13-0034
23-117-24-24-0058
23-117-24-13-0069
13-117-24-22-0251
24-117-24-22-0001
23-117-24-11-0006
23-117-24-11-0026
24-117-24-21-0040
150.83
394.75
372.79
579.55
247.01
145.16
85.86
184.51
200.62
153.93
57.45
392.84
55.24
32.57
95.74
299.44
318.00
293.30
351.03
116.69
256.36
59.50
355.05
402.30
516.67
571.58
295.78
209.85
136.86
132.82
309.20
281.46
147.24
265.93
207.55
201.57
382.10
90.67
126.99
61.95
83.59
208.75
99.82
Resolution 95- October 24, 1995
24-117-24-22-0027
24-117-24-22-0022
24-117-24-21-0006
13-117-24-34-0082
13-117-24-34-0084
13-117-24-34-0085
13-117-24-43-0022
13-117-24-44-0038
24-117-24-12-0016
24-117-24-13-0009
24-117-24-12-0020
19-117-23-23-0093
19-117-23 -23 -0075
19-117-23-23-0135
19-117-23 -23 -0082
19-117-23-24-0037
19-117-23-23-0153
19-117-23-24-0049
19 - 117-23 -21-0039
24-117-24-13-0027
19-117-23-31-0030
19-117-23 -31-0026
19-117-23-32-0159
24-117-24-14-0013
19-117-23-24-0024
19-117-23-32-0183
19-117-23-32-0033
24-117-24-41-0042
24-117-24-41-0087
24-117-24-41-0148
19-117-23-31-0093
19-117-23-31-0062
19-117-23-32-0076
19-117-23-32-0077
19-117-23-32-0082
19-117-23-32-0086
19-117-23-32-0111
24-117-24-41-0162
19-117-23-31-0128
25-117-24-11-0133
25-117-24-11-0068
25-117-24-11-0125
24-117-24-43-0028
344.87
224.43
265.00
246.52
108.29
330.27
422.40
97.70
59.20
147.54
305.21
293.88
63.09
276.81
321.90
211.60
341.23
428.11
93.40
315.70
271.42
173.52
78.70
118.80
291.96
177.94
308.56
374.71
159.72
281.63
437.00
170.27
372.24
382.19
332.61
359.95
565.44
311.89
270.35
101.34
249.37
62.47
149.66
19-117-23-33-0208
19-117-23-33-0196
19-117-23-34-0122
19-117-23-34-0043
19-117-23-34-0127
19-117-23-33-0010
19-117-23-33-0235
19-117-23-33-0075
19-117-23-33-0081
19-117-23-33-0184
19-117-23-33-0125
19-117-23-33-0232
19-117-23-33-0129
24-117-24-44-0041
24-117-24-44-0187
24-117-24-44-0050
24-117-24-44-0061
24-117-24-44-0062
24-117-24-44-0231
24-117-24-44-0182
24-117-24-44-0188
24-117-24-44-0073
24-117-24-41-0022
24-117-24-41-0118
24-117-24-41-0097
24-117-24-41-0068
24-117-24-41-0102
24-117-24-42-0007
24-117-24-43-0019
25-117-24-12-0116
25-117-24-12-0125
25-117-24-12-0195
25-117-24-21-0039
25-117-24-11-0064
24-117-24-44-0079
25-117-24-12-0112
25-117-24-21-0025
25-117-24-21-0029
25-117-24-11-0152
25-117-24-12-0062
30-117-23-22-0034
25-117-24-12-0219
25-117-24-11-0074
110.34
82.27
410.03
527.49
96.87
397.78
402.06
884.40
226.01
350.95
240.24
53.96
415.87
223.30
203.19
59.22
277.57
216.82
23.15
276.26
160.77
291.84
260.92
78.07
258.37
208.69
90.85
270.38
145.76
376.98
38.04
99.45
68.48
136.24
532.65
551.48
195.89
62.15
380.13
324.14
207.68
341.64
Resolution 95- October 24, 1995
25-117-24-11-0023
19-117-23-34-0092
30-117-23-21-0007
30-117-23-22-0049
30-11%23-22-0056
25-117-24-11-0028
25-117-24-11-0035
25-117-24-11-0115
25-117-24-21-0012
25-117-24-21-0106
25-117-24-21-0114
92.01 25-117-24-21-0007 95.40
213.29 25-117-24-21-0080 185.90
288.85 13-117-24-44-0051 203.26
440.03 14-117-24-44-0036 614.76
305.26 13-117-24-33-0057 119.07
195.30 13-117-24-34-0044 205.61
218.39 13-117-24-44-0014 116.92
335.63 13-117-24-33-0024 227.65
394.32 13-117-24-33-0014 81.45
239.48
337.25
Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days
(November 28, 1995) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll.
Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall.
Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section
370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00
increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be
accepted.
If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 28, 1995), interest will be
charged to December 31, 1995.
If the assessment is not paid on or before November 28, 1995 the amount will be
spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest
for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1995, and all of 1996).
Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter
shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3.
The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period is eight percent (8%).
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING LAKESIDE SETBACK
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT
4774 KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 6-8 & 18-23,
BLOCKS 4 & 10, SETON, PID 19-117-23 22 0057
P&Z CASE #95-45
WHEREAS, the owner, Craig Wolfe, has applied for a variance
to recognize an existing nonconforming 25 foot setback from the
deck to the ordinary high water to allow construction of a
conforming two story addition, and;
WHEREAS, the subject parcel abuts a wetland which provides a
substantial separation between the structure and the open water,
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 15 foot rear yard
setback, and; J
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are
conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval.
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
25 foot setback to ordinary high water to allow construction
of a conforming addition. Practical Difficulty exists since
the property borders a substantial wetland open space and
since the proposed improvement conforms to the Zoning Code.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ 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 a 16' x 16' two story
addition.
Broposed Resolution
Wolfe
P. 2
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
Lots 6, 7, 8, Block 4, and Lots 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, Block 10, Seton.
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.
PHONENO.
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, IVIN 55106-6793
772-7910 FILE NO.
October 5, 1995
Mr. Jon Sutherland
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RFC".E~VED
Craig W. Wolfe Variance APplication, (City #95-45), Lake Minnetonka, Black Lake (27-
133P-12), City of Mound, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
We have reviewed the above-referenced variance request (received September 25, 1995) for 4774
Kildare Road. We recommend approval of the proposal with the following comments:
o
The structure on the lot should be screened from view on Lake Minnetonka using existing
vegetation, landscaping, color, and other means approved by the city.
While the existing structure is located within 25 feet of Lake Minnetonka, the proposed
addition meets the 50-foot setback from the lake. We would like to commend Mr. Wolfe for
designing an addition that will help preserve the aesthetics values and water quality of Lake
Minnetonka.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the variance. Should you have any questions
concerning this proposal, do not hesitate to contact me at 772-7910.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
/R/cds
c: City of Mound Shoreland File
30(~1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 1995
.CASE 95-45: CRAIG WOLFE, 4774 KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 6-8 & 18-231 BLOCKS 4 & 10,
.SETON, PID 19-117-23 22 0057. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION
The Building Official reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking variance
approval to construct a conforming two story addition to the existing home. The
existing deck is 25 feet from the ordinary high water line (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka.
The setback required by the ordinance is 50 feet resulting in a 25 foot variance.
The subject parcel is located on a channel of the lake and the area below the OHWL
abutting the parcel is wetland. In similar situations in the past, the City has
considered the fact that a substantial separation exists between the lot line and the
open water area. This, coupled with the fact that the proposed addition is in a
conforming location forms the basis for a finding of practical difficulty.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
requested shoreland setback variance for the existing deck. It is further suggested
that the Planning Commission's finding include a determination that the "practical
difficulty" provision of the ordinance applies to this case since the property borders
a substantial wetland open space and since the proposed improvement conforms to
the Zoning Code.
Hanus noted that the "rock on plastic" as indicated on the survey, is not included in
the hardcover calculations. The Building Official noted that the plastic is very tattered
and allows seepage.
Hanus questioned if it is right not to allow a property owner to count their entire lot
area for hardcover purposes, eventhough it is under the 929.4. Mueller stated that
land under the 929.4 is not considered their property, it is governed by the State. The
Building Official stated that only the area above the 929.4 is considered for lot area
calculations.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval
df the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
inl
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: October 5, 1995
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Mr. Craig W. Wolfe
CASE NUMBER: 95-45
HKG FILE NUMBER: 95-5o
LOCATION: 4774 Kildare Road
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-IA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a two story addition to
an existing home. The addition which totals 256 square feet conforms to all zoning requirements.
A variance is needed to allow the construction due to the location of an existing deck which is 25 feet
from the ordinary high water line (O.H.W.L.) of Lake Minnetonka. The setback required by the
ordinance is 50 feet resulting in a 25 foot variance.
COMMENT: The subject parcel is located on a channel of the lake and the area below the O.H.W.L.
abutting the parcel is wetland. In similar situations in the past, the City has considered the fact that
a substantial separation exists between the lot line and the open water area. This, coupled with the
fact that the proposed addition is in a conforming location forms the basis for a f'mding of practical
difficulty.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the requested shoreland setback variance for the existing deck. It is further suggested that the
Planning Commission's findings include a determination that the "practical difficulty" provision of
the ordinance applies to this case since the property borders a substantial wetland open space and
since the proposed improvement conforms to the Zoning Code.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0~20
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner Public Works
City Engineer q.-Z.'Te- DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property ':/7 7,/ /'(iz.p,.t/~ ,~' 0
Lot ~, ?/ ~> ? /?. /.9 ;..2c~/-2/;..2.,0 .,..TX Block
District
Owner's Name
Owner's Address
Addition
Ad~s
Use of Property:
/>.,,/,e,~ ~/)
PID No.
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
· Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: (NSEW) ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ._~c') ft.
: (NSEW) ft.
Street Frontage: ft.
Lot Size: sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft
ft. ft.
ff. ff.
ff. ff.
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
sqft sqft
sq ff sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage (X) existing situation
(X) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
Variance Application (11/93) Case
Page 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 ~X~. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
,wner's Signature /~_.~.
Applicant's Signature
Date
CITY O.F MOUND
HARDC'OVER C~,L~ULATiONS ""
EXISTING LOTAREA' /Z ~ ~ 'S,Q FT X 80% =
~v~t~ ' ~¢r~a~ x~-'-.". ~'~ '...~' .......
EXISTING LOT AREA _ /7; ~ SQ FI X 15% · =
HOUSE: ' ·
GARAGE:
DRIVEWAY: '"
25So .
LENGTH ,' WIDTH
. ~'o. / 'x 2% / =
· ii.% -. x _ A~. ~ -" _
T(~TAL ................
HOUSE *******************
~,,,17',4/ /v,~4,"y( X ..... ._. ....... = ..
X
· 'GARAGE
TOTAL *' ~'%."~' · ·...... , . . ...
-, x :. ,='.
· ."TOTALDPJVEWAY **************.***
DECK: X
( if £mperv. ious X
'surface under.,
...... deck. -. 100.~). .:,TOTAL DECK-* *
:. TOTAL DECK ~
O.THER: Wo ~. r/6.)" ......... X'
TOTAL OTHER *
TOTAL PROPOSED
~NDER~(ovER) ''''''''..-..-..-............
~ LONGFORD
I.
-.
/5" L~t°r
UNDEYELOPEO
ROAD
Hou$~
· .~ ,2:~.0
i~o oo
~0~5
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
CRAIG WOLFE
COUNTY,
HENNEPIN
IN LOTS 6, 7,&8 BLOCK 4, AND
LOTS 18, 19, 20, 2.1, 29_, & 23 BLOCK 10, SETON
MINNE.SOTA
LEGAL DESCR[?IIOtl OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lots R. 7. R, ~!ock ¢ and Lots 18. 19, 20, 21, Z2,
Block 10. SETON.
· d~,notes Irofl marker o
(~zz,~)-denotes existing si)ut, elevation, mean sea level datum
Th~s surv~,y ir~Len~s tO sho~ the buunda~tes ot Ll~e ebuve
described pruperLy, the location of an exisLing h~use.
and the IocaLiufl uf aJ[ visible "hardcover" thereon.
I[ dnes ,ut purport [o s~o~ any o[~er tmgrovenefl[s or
DRAFTING & DESIGN
TO INSURE THESE Pt. AH$ ARE
ACCURATE AND COMPt. ETE:
HO~/~'VER. THE CONTRAC'~)R MUST
VERIFY All DIMENSIONS,
CONSTRUCTION METHODS. AND
SPEC~RCATION6. AND IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME
ADDRESS:
goad
SURVEY ON FILE? ,,~
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH:
ZONE:
REQ. LOT AREA:
( 000
LOT OF RECORD7 / ?
EXIST. LOT AREA:
1%000
EXISTING LOT WIDTH:
REQUIRED SETBACKS
EXISTING LOT DEPTH:
PRINCIPAL BZJILDING! HOUSE
FRONT: N (S) E W ~.~(~ /
FRONT: N'5' E W
SIDE: N S{~{~
SIDE: N S
REAR: N S E W 1.5L.
LAKESHORE: ~ ~5~'.~measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W ~.Q._f~., /'~"'
FRONT: N S E W '
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
PRINCIPAL ~JJILDING/HOUSE
FRONT: N S~ E W ~::)¢:::~ ,
FRONT: N S&W
SIDE: N S W_
SIDE: N S"~ W~
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE: __~5
TOP OF BLUFF:
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
HARDCOVER CONFORMING? (~EO NO / ? IS
THIS
PROPERTY
CONFORMING7
BY: --
__ DATE: ~/',-~:~ --~ 5
Drdinance,
summarTze__As a p~rements out ~ne ~n t e ~ty o oun orang
For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600,
L
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A Vi~I~CE TO
RECOgNiZE ~N EX~ST~NG NONCONFOI~N~ FRONT SETBACK TO THE DWELL~N~
TO ALLO~ CONSTRUCTION OF A COITFOI~N~ DETACHED ~,~E AT
$9~2 B~RTLETT BLVD.~ LOT
SEIFARTH'S MOUND BAY PARK, PID 23-117-24 42 0093
P&Z CASE #95-46
WHEREAS, the owners, Raymond Loehlein and Tarja Kala have
applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming
front yard setback to the dwelling of 17+/- feet to allow
construction of a conforming 22' x 28' detached garage, and;
WHEREAS, a 30 foot front yard setback is required for the
dwelling resulting in recognition of a 13 foot +/- variance, 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 to Bartlett Blvd. and a 20' front yard setback to
Garden Lane, an 8 foot side yard setback to the east, and a 15 foot
rear yard setback to the north, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed hardcover on this site is conforming at
under 30 percent, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed garage
property and does not create
nonconformance, and;
is a reasonable use of the
additional encroachment or
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
mo
The City does hereby grant a 13 foot +/- variance to recognize
the existing nonconforming front yard setback to allow
construction of a conforming 22' x 28' detached garage.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ 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 22' x 28' conforming detached
garage.
Proposed Resolution
Loehlein/Kala
P. 2
Se
Se
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
Lot 11, Seifarth's Mound Bay Park.
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.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 1995
~ RAYMOND LOEHLEIN & TARJA KALA, 5982 BARTLETT BLVD..
LOT 11, SEIFARTH'S MOUND BAY PARK, PID 23-117-24 42 0093. VARIANCE FOR
¢~ARAGE.
The Building Official reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to
allow construction of a conforming 22' x 28' detached garage. The existing dwelling
is nonconforming to the front yard as shown on the attached zoning sheet and survey.
A 30 foot front yard setback is required to Bartlett Blvd., a 17 foot setback is existing,
resulting in recognition of a 13 foot variance. The proposed hardcover on this site is
conforming at under 30 percent.
The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property and does not create
additional encroachment or nonconformance. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the variance request as noted.
It was noted that the site plan shows a 13.6' front setback and the survey shows an
18.6' setback and it was questioned if the nonconforming front setback should be
clarified by locating property irons. The Building Official indicated that he scaled the
setback on the survey and the house is approximately 17 feet from the front lot line
when measured to the nearest point.
The Building Official commented that the house is a substantial structure, it is not
being modified, and if it is closer than 17 feet to the front property line, it would not
impact staffs recommendation. He had no objection to approving a variance to
recognize a 17 foot (+/-) front setback.
Hanus questioned the 20 foot setback from the proposed garage to the west property
line abutting Garden Lane. He referred to Zoning Ordinance Section 350: 440, Subd.
5. which allows for lots of record with a lot width of 51 to 80 feet to have a 20 foot
setback. Hanus questioned how you measure the lot width and noted that the lot
frontage is 86.75'due to the angle. The Commission requested that staff clarify this
issue prior to the case being heard by the City Council.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend
approval of the variance recognizing an existing nonconforming front
yard setback of 17 feet +/-, to allow construction of a conforming
detached garage. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
CITY OF MOUND
STAFF REPORT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of October 9, 1995
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
Raymond Loehlien and Tarja Kala
95-46
5982 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 11, Seifarths Mound Bay Park, PID 23-117-2442 0093
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a conforming
22:' x 21~' detached garage. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the front yard as
shown on the attached zoning sheet and survey. A 30 foot front yard setback is required
to Bartlett Blvd., a 1 7 foot setback is existing, resulting in recognition of a 13 foot variance.
The proposed hardcover on this site is conforming at under 30 percent.
COMMENT: The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property and does not create
additional encroachment or nonconformance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request as noted.
JS:pj
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request.
October 24, 1995.
This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on
prlnted on recycled paper
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
City Planner ~ 'L~.. Public Works
City Engineer DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
Please type or print the following infor~on:
Address of Subject Property 5q~Z ~a~/~'/t']' ~tVd
Lot !/ ,-
Addition
Zoning District
Use of Prq~exg~:
Owner's Name ~y,.~
Day Phone ~/2. ge7 3~7 4',~'7
Applicant's Name (if other than owner),
Address
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use l~rmit, or other zoning
procedu~ f6r this property? ( ) yes, ~ If yes, list dam(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed descfipton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, ~ of use, etc.):
.tlance Application (11d93)
· -'ajo 2
Case bio.
SETBACKS': required
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), NoWff no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N(~)E W ) ~O ft. 1 7. ~' ft. / Z, 5 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: SCl ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ff sq ft
Does the prese~t~,e of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in .which-'~t is
located? Yes~4~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: '
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
Please describe: X/~q.a.~ ~ ~~
( )soil
(N) existing situation
( ) other: specify
) .lance Application (I 1/93)
.-n~a 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anY0~ having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~). If yes, explain:
7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~.i.~ If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of h~ship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes~ No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and thc ~tatements 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 Sign~ture~
Applicant's Signature
Date
D~te
&O oo
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVI=R CALCULATIONS
{IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
LOT AREA ./,,~ ~ 70 SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA ]_~'~ ~?~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA /~ ~ 7(:::) SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
E~Ar~
D BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC. IV. <;~/~
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted a~ hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
~,7 x_. ?,~ =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
~ x /¥=
x ? = z7
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ET(:: ..................
X =
X --
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ..................... .~..~t.~..~....
PREPARED BY ~""~.v.~,Y- DATE
l
ADDRESS:
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGENVIDTH: ~ ·
ZONE:
EXISTING LOT WIDTH:
REQ. LOT AREA:
IO/000
EXISTING LOT DEPTH: Iq O ' ''j'/'"'
EXIST. LOT AREA:
15/$'70
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL E~qLDING/ HOUSE e .
FRONT: N S(~E~J,, ~ / ~~,~.,,~
SIDE: N
SIDE: ~S --
REAR: ~S E W 15'
LAKESHORE:
50' {measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: ~ ~
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N {~E W
FRONT: N S ~E~') '
SIDE: N ~_~'~
SIDE: N S E(,,W.~ ~7'~'r~;
REAR: ~)S E W
LAKESHORE: §0' (measured from O.H.W.I
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL ~J~ILDING/HOU~
FRONT: N (S)E ,,~ _J~_,"~;;;~'
FRONT:
SIDE: N S ~ ~/+/-
SIDE: N S
REAR: CN~ E W
LAKES--:
TOP OF BLUFF: ~'~
!
.ARDCOVER. CONFORMING ?dyE¢ NO /?
ACCESSORY_ BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N(S~E
FRONT: N '%r E (W~
SIDE: N S .F~'~'
S DE:
REAR: ~.~S E W .~
LAKESHORE: %. '
TOP OF BLUFF:
BY: DATE:. ... S
~~mar,zes a porl~on o onlng
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
4 4,S
='~,:'? ~r LO' ~
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE
AT 6641 HALSTEAD AVENUE, LOT 17,
HALSTEAD PARK, PID 22-117-24 43 0025
P&Z CASE #95-48
WHEREAS, the owners, Terrance & Rita Hughes have applied for
a variance to allow a 6 foot high fence in the front yard. A
maximum fence height of 4 feet is allowed in the front yard as
noted by Zoning Ordinance Section 350:475, Subd. 3.A., and;
WHEREAS, this property is adjacent to an existing
nonconforming use. The development pattern of the nonconforming
use is not consistent with the zoning of single family, and it
appears reasonable to offer some additional separation, and;
WHEREAS, the fence will be on the east lot line only, and;
WHEREAS, the fence height should not have a negative effect
or obstruct the vision of vehicles in this area as the street is a
dead end, 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 15 foot rear yard
setback, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The city does hereby approve a 2 foot fence height variance to
allow construction of a 6 foot high fence along the east
property line up to the front property line subject to the
existence of the adjacent nonconforming trailer court.
Findings of fact are that this is a unique situation, and
additional separation is reasonable in this case.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ 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.
Proposed Resolution
P. 2
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a 6 foot high fence located on
the east side line, up to the front property
line in the front yard.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
Lot 17, Halstead Park.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 1995
~ TERRANCE & RITA HUGHES, 6641 HALSTEAD AVENUE, LOT 17,
HALSTEAD PARK, PID 22-117-24 43 0025. VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT.
The Building Official reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow
construction of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard. A maximum height of 4 feet is
allowed in the front yard as noted by Zoning Ordinance Section 350:475, Subd. 3.A.
This property is adjacent to an existing nonconforming use. The development pattern
of the nonconforming use is not consistent with the zoning of single family, and it
appears reasonable to offer some additional separation.
The fence height should not have a negative effect or obstruct the vision of vehicles
in this area as the street is a dead end. Staff recommended the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the request for a 2 foot fence height variance due to this
unique situation, and the fact that additional separation is reasonable in this case.
The Building Official confirmed that the requested fence will be on the east lot line
only.
Voss questioned the status of the uncompliant situation adjacent to this property. The
Building Official indicated that staff is aware of the situation on the neighboring
property and the case is now in the hands of the City Attorney.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval
of the 2 foot fence height variance for the east side property line only,
subject to the existence of the adjacent nonconforming trailer court.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of October 9, 1995
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ' ¢
Variance Request
Terrance and Rita Hughes
95-48
6641 Halstead Avenue, Lot 17, Halstead Park, PID 22-117-2443 0025
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a 6 foot high
fence in the front yard. A maximum height of 4 feet is allowed in the front yard as noted by
Zoning Ordinance Section 350:475, Subd. 3.A.
COMMENT: This property is adjacent to an existing nonconforming use. The development
pattern of the nonconforming use is not consistent with the zoning of single family, and it
appears reasonable to offer some additional separation.
The fence height should not have a negative effect or obstruct the vision of vehicles in this
area as the street is a dead end.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the request for a 2 foot fence height variance due to this unique situation, and
the fact that additional separation is reasonable in this case.
JS:pj
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request.
October 24, 1995.
This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on
printed on recycled paper
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
SF_P ?_ 0 1995
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
Io -q-q 5
City Planner ~-2.2. Public Works
City Engineer DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
Case No.~
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property
Lot / ?
Addition ~ l s' Z~. ,~/~
Use of Property:
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address
Block
Pm No. ,Z~-.//7--,Z ~z
Day Phone .z/Z~'_..~_ ??,~?'
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (F)"'no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
- -- ?-/
~lt6
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
Street Frontage: ft.
Lot Size: sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft
ft. ft. ff.
ft. ff. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft.
sqft sqft
sqft sq ft
Does the pres~, use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~k, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
~t lqo
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anYx0,n/e having property interests in the lana
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~J~ ff yes, explain:
Was,,tlpe hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
Not?)x 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
ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA:
REQUIRED STRE~ FRONTAGE~IDTH: ~ /
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPALBUILDING! HOUSE
FRONT: N~S E W ~ !
FRONT: N S.E W
SIDE: N S~:~. {~/' ~
SIDE'. N S E(~ [0~ ~
REAR: N S E W ~
LAKESHORE: ~'. t~~red from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: lO ·
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT:~.~S E W ~ !
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' orB'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE
FRONT:(N-'~S E W
FRONT:'-I~ S/J~ W
SIDE: N S(..D W.
SIDE: N S E W~ L~ / 't'//...
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
IHARDCOVER CONFORMING7 YES / NO (9
[BY: Zo~ DATE: ~.-~..~
his General Information Sheet only summarizes a pot ion of the requirements outlined in the City
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
ACCESS,.Q~Y BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT:(,..~)S E W
FRONT: N
S W
SIDE: N S~ W ) [~ / *"/,,-
S DE: N
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 YES
of Mound Zonin
............ I],Z 04PLAT
(z)
- UND[V~LO~D
~I~ROX ~. LINE 01:
TRAV~LEO ROAD PER
AF..RI,I,L I'~OTO tO60
"'.... (3,)
MtNUTES OF A MEETING OF THF_
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 1995
CASE 95-49: GERALD & CATHERINE PALEN, 6545 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 18,
HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID 22-117-24 44 0033. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE.
The applicant, Catherine Palen, distributed copies of a modified survey to the
Commission showing the sewer line location and a drainage plan. This information
was requested within the staff report.
The Building Official reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow
construction of a detached garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on
the same lot. Zoning Ordinance Section 350:435, Subd. 2 states, "No accessory
building shall exceed the height of the principal building in the 'R' District." The
proposed garage is conforming to all setbacks. Impervious surface coverage is over
30 percent, but will be conforming at less than 40 percent for lots of record, with an
approved drainage plan.
The new garage is intended to serve the dwelling shown on the lakeside lot, Parcel A.
The applicant was originally contemplating a minor subdivision that would allow Parcel
A to accommodate the garage. Both parcels are currently under the same ownership.
This property was subdivided as approved by Resolution #71-77, and since
that time, there have been substantial changes in the City's ordinances and in the
subdivision process.
The addition of the garage on the street side parcel raises concerns that could
negatively effect the lakeside parcel if precautions are not taken. The Building Official
commented that a building permit cOuld be issued without a variance if the applicant
simply reduced the height of the proposed garage.
The plans for the garage match the architecture of the dwelling on Parcel A and this
could be considered a positive step towards the eventual combination of these
parcels and the elimination of the rental unit. Currently, there does not appear to be
a reasonable location for a garage on Parcel A. The applicant has proposed to remove
a small deck and the encroaching shed on the east side.
Staff recommended the planning Commission recommend approval of the variance
request for a 22' x 24' detached garage as shown on the survey dated September 21,
1995, subject to the following conditions:
A minimum driveway/access width of 10 feet must be maintained for Parcel A.
This can be accomplished by an easement for the driveway that can also
include the utility services. An easement should be written to accommodate
the existing situation for the driveway and utilities or they could be relocated
to be within the easement.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 1995
Palen, p. 2
The proposed garage must not be placed over any utility services. The sewer
service is not shown on the survey. All utilities must be identified on the
survey an located within a proper easement.
A drainage plan needs to be prepared by the applicant that incorporates the
techniques listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This
plan could be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance.
4. The deck and encroaching shed located on Parcel B shall be removed.
Weiland questioned if there are separate services for each dwelling for sewer and
water, including water meters. It was determined that staff should answer this
question prior to the case being heard by the City Council.
Weiland noted that the street side dwelling is undersized and does not meet the
minimum dwelling size requirement of 840 square feet. Mueller noted that the rental
dwelling is only about 315 square feet.
Mueller commented that if the street side parcel (Parcel B) is ever sold, the lakeside
parcel (Parcel A) will still need a garage. Mueller noted that the proposed garage
would be twice the size of the rental dwelling. He is totally opposed to the proposal
as submitted and would ultimately like to see the parcels combined and the rental unit
removed. Voss and Weiland agreed.
Clapsaddle questioned why the garage was so high. Catherine Palen explained that
the garage is proposed to have a french mansard roof to match the house on the
lakeside parcel.
Voss noted that the Subdivision Resolution from 1971 is conflicting as it states the
subdivision "will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in
harmony with adjacent properties."
Mueller stated that he would rather see a garage constructed on the lakeside parcel,
even if it is setback only a couple feet from the property lines, because Parcel A needs
a garage. Mueller is not in favor of relocating the lot line through a subdivision.
Hanus would also like to see the garage on Parcel A, he would rather see the garage
attached to the house, and the dividing lot line could be moved up a little, but each
lot should retain 10,000 square feet.
/~ MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Mueller, to recommend denial of
the variance as requested.
The Commission further reviewed the option of constructing the garage on Parcel A.
It was noted that the applicant could pull their request from the Council agenda if they
wished to revise their plans.
MOTION to deny carried unanimously.
This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
PHONE NO.
EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
O WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106-6793
772-7910 F~LE NO.
October 5, 1995
Mr. Jon Sutherland
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Gerald A. Palen Variance Application, (City #95-49), Lake Minnetonka (27-133P), City of
Mound, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
We have reviewed the above-referenced variance request (received September 25, 1995) for 6547
Bartlett Boulevard. We do not object to the proposal and recommend the following conditions:
The large amount of impervious surface on the lot should be reduced. Whenever possible,
the impervious surface should be removed or replaced.
The structures on the lot should be screened from view on Lake Minnetonka using existing
vegetation, landscaping, color and other means approved by the city.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance. Should you have any questions, do not
hesitate to contact me at 772-7910.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
IR/cds
c: City of Mound Shoreland File
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
'i ..... '" i" ' ,I
It
I
CITY OF MOUND
STAFF REPORT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of October 9, 1995
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~ .
Variance Request
Gerald & Catherine Palen
95-49
6545 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 18, Halstead Heights, PID 22-117-24 44 0033
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a detached
garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on the same lot. Zoning Ordinance
Section 350:435, Subd. 2 states, "No accessory building shall exceed the height of the
principal building in the 'R' District." The proposed garage is conforming to all setbacks.
Impervious surface coverage is over 30 percent, but will be conforming at less than 40
percent for lots of record, with an approved drainage plan.
It is the understanding of staff that the new garage is intended to serve the dwelling shown
on the lakeside lot, Parcel A. The applicant was originally contemplating a minor subdivision
that would allow Parcel A to accommodate the garage. Both parcels are currently under the
same ownership.
The variance process gives us the opportunity to look at the existing conditions on the site
and balance the proposed improvement against our ordinances and the need for orderly
development in the city. This property was subdivided in 1971 as approved by Resolution
#71-77, and since that time, there have been substantial changes in the subdivision process.
As part of our current process staff evaluates issues such as proper street frontage,
emergency vehicle access, drainage, utility easements, and placement of sewer and water
services, and other issues.
In this case, the addition of the garage on the street side parcel raises concerns that could
negatively effect the lakeside parcel if precautions are not taken. Several issues have been
identified, as listed below.
printed on recycled paper
95-49, Palen
October 9, 1995
Page 2
A minimum driveway/access width of 10 feet must be maintained for Parcel A. This
can be accomplished by an easement for the driveway that can also include the utility
services. An easement should be written to accommodate the existing situation for
the driveway and utilities or they could be relocated to be within the easement.
e
The proposed garage must not be placed over any utility services. The sewer service
is not shown on the survey. All utilities must be identified on the survey an located
within a proper easement.
g
A drainage plan needs to be prepared by the applicant that incorporates the techniques
listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This plan could be
reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance.
COMMENT: It should be noted that a building permit could be issued without a variance if
the applicant simply reduced the height of the proposed garage. The plans for the garage
match the architecture of the dwelling on Parcel A and this could be considered a positive
step towards the eventual combination of these parcels and the elimination of the rental unit.
Currently, there does not appear to be a reasonable location for a garage on Parcel A. The
applicant has proposed to remove a small deck and the encroaching shed on the east side,
these should be conditions in the event of variance approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request for a 22' x 24' detached garage as shown on the survey
dated September 21, 1995, subject to the three conditions as listed above, and subject to
the removal of the deck and encroaching shed.
JS:pj
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on
October 24, 1995. -
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
t~-Z"L City Planner
~- Z-'L City Engineer
Other
VAR/ANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Public Works
D~
; ,SiP 2 I lgg5
Application Fee:
Case No. q5
$50.00
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property
Lot
Addition ~a5/C~.Z,
District ~- /
Owner's Name d~~ d ~
Owner's Address ~'~/7' ~7~
Applicant's Name (if other thaa owner)
Block
PID No..,~
u~ of ~roperty:
!
Day Phone
Address
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? 00 yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonink
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (0. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS': required requested VARIANCE
j (or existing)
I1' " 18' ,g. s
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ff. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft. ff.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ff sq ff
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (~0, 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 describe:
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
( )soil
~,) existing situation
( ) other: specify
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (~), No ~. If yes, explain:
o
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Signature__~~ ~. ~,.~-
Applicant's Signature ~- ~__--~ ~
!
Date ~/.l~,lf~r~?~/~
Date ~t
HOUSES
Cabin
Shed
CONCRETE
Patios
Patios
Walk
wOof.)
Deck
Deck
Deck
Relaining walls
DRIVEWAY
Crushed rock driveway
Crushed rock driveway
Crushed rock dr!veway
Crushed ~rock driveway
LANDSCAPING & MISC.
';tone Pillar
Total Existing Hardcover
Total area of property to OHW
EXISTING ttARDCOVER TABULATION, PARCEL B
bescr~Pti°'~,, - I ~'r~gth I ' W,'id,th IArea· Scl,,.,.Ft
21.1 14.8 312
9.5 8.5 81
4
11
15
4.5
2
2.5
3O
12
6
3
8
5
11
1
7 10
40 38
151 10.5
29 22
3
10.249 Acres
30%;
I 10852
Allowable Hardcover Area
Balance left for future har, dcover~ Pa,rc, el B
PROPosED CHANGES TO HARD COVER ON PARCEL B
Remove shed ......
RemoveS-0Utherly deck on cabin
New garage on'existing crUsh'ed rocl~
Widen drive to back out of garage
Pmposed change_ H.C. Parc~ el ,,B L_ ~ ,, ,,~
Balance left for future hardcover
,,, ,,, , ,, , , [ ,
48
66
45
36
10
28
30
70
1520
1586
638
4478
10852
3256
"' -1~,~
-81
-55
0
~15
-21:
IWOOD ,
~e. taining Wails 62
3
ROck over p~stic
~k overpl~tic 17
~k-Over p~fic 12
~126
62
112
51
84
84
Total area of p~perty to OHW : !0.279 Acres 12174
' ~ 3652
Allowable Hardcover Area_ ~ 30% i 12174;
,_ RCEL B
Delcri on Len-~h Width Area S . Ft.
HOUSES i _ -- i ~ - --
- - - ~ 21 1~ 14 81 312
Cabin ' ~ ' 81
Patios ; ~ ,.
Patios 1151
WOOD
Deck L 4-'5i
2~
DeCk
Retaininj walis : -
~ms~d~[o~k'_~dVeWay L 7[
Crashed r~k driveway . 4~
~{0ne ~il~a~
T~al Existin~ Hardcover :
8.5i
8~
'
'3! '
....... , ,0 249 Acres
iTotal area of prol~_rty to _O_HW_ _ -i ';": ......
IAIIowable H;;r:d'c0ver'Area' i 30% i 10852
IBalance left for futura hmrdcovera ~arcel B i
IPROPOSED CHANGES TO HARD COVER ON PARCEL B
.... ~- -F~d ................... ? .... 9 -~ - 815[
IRemoes ~ -* * ' '1i;
/Newg~age on existir~ crushed ~c~ .i :-
...... · ................ ~ 2 5' 45
_~en drive to back out of ga..~r~ge.. ; . ;
~Balance left for future ,hard¢over i i ,
IT_~_=! excess~ allowable over existI& proposed ,He,, A & B
48
1520
1586
638
9
4478
n085;F
3256
-81
-55
0
115
95351 22/117/24 PAI.[EN. CA'I'ttERINE
AD VANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Itwy. No. I01 Minnetonka. MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7064 Fax (612) 474 8.6/
CA THERINE P/tLEN
June 2. 1905
September 2 i. i 995
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL A:
That part of l,ot 18 lying south of a line running xvest at right angles from a point on the east line thereof
distant 225 feet south of the northeast comer thereof., l IAI,STEAD ItEIGHTS. Itennepin County.
Minnesota.
LEGAL DESCRH~'I1ON O'"~
That part of Lot 18 lying no~nning west at right angles from a point on the east line thereof
distant 225 feet south of the northeast comer thereof. HAI,STEAD IIEIGHTS, ltennepin Count,.
Minne~ta.
LIMITATIONS_:
1. We are not your title attorney. We have surveyed the above legal description hul make no
representation that .vm~ do own that property. If you have doubts about the legal description, check with a
competent atlorney and determine thc correct legal description and we can contrac! with you to correct the
survey. We show only such easements and matters of record as we have been informed of or which come
to out attention.
2. We are not your go between with governmental agencies, we show a proposed siting tbr a garage and
proposed driveway widening and reshaping for your review and for you to pursue approvals with any
governmental age~cies that may have .jurisdiction over those proposals. We make no representation thai
the proposals will or will not be approved by these governmental agencies nor as to how long such
approvals will take.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
"o" Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing Stale License Number 9235, set. il' "o" is filled in, then
denotes f~und iron monument.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certif3~' thai this silrvcy was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that ! am a
Professional Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota.
~.~CAI,E: ONE INCH EQUALS 30 FEET
irllll A i , .. l
,r,~,B,,U,, ,LATi, )N, PARCEL
211I i4.8i '
9.5:
4: '12
11' 6
15' '3
,5
2.5
§0
40
15~
9
3'
8 36
5,
il' 2~
10 70
~ i~o-
ib.~'
22 638
¸3'
Sgz. ~
BART
/,.
BLVD
NORTH'EA~T
co~r~ Oir LOT'
BHORE.'UNF_ JUNE 'Z., 199~
ALSO ORDINARY 141GH
LAKE M INN E~(~"I~,'''
HAL%TED'S BAY
C ON'TOUR
JOB
BARTLETT
/ /
//~.~,.r.,~.,
/
/ GRAVEL
BLVD.
NOI~THIr AST
/ , CORNE,R OFLOTI$
1000
30', 1
71 '10 _
401 38
7~
~-52o
i586
! 4478
.... ]~;2-4-~-A~'~ ! .... 10852
300/01 108521 3256
arcel B ~ -1222
OVER ON PARCEL B
_ . 5.! .... !!_~ -55
, 0
{ -21
~ -1202
, & proposed HCi, A & B i
990
950
99~- I
/
/
LAKE
HAL%TED'S
~0 ORDINARY ~IGN WA~R MARK
MINNETONffA
BAY
CONTOUR
01 i i
,LL
,LL
I¥
/
/
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-O620
September 15, 1995
Mr. Gerald Palen
6547 Bartlett Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE AT
6547 BARTLETT BLVD.
Dear Mr. Palen:
Staff has conducted a preliminary review of your request, and based on the
information you have provided, the following issues have been identified· Please note
this review is preliminary and a more detailed review of your anticipated application
may result in the identification of additional issues or variances·
1. A minOr subdivision is required, an application form is enclosed for your use.
Variances must be requested due to the fact that the proposed northerly parcel
will have less than 10,000 square feet, and the southerly parcel will not have
frontage on an improved public street.
In addition to the subdivision and variance application requirements, the following
information needs to be provided:
Survey with topography or sufficient spot elevations for the surveyor to identify
whether or not a bluff condition exists and for staff to verify the surveyors
conclusion· '~'I~1~ ~ ~~,
The size, location, and setbacks of the proposed garage· The required setbacks
for a detached garage on the southerly parcel are:
North Front
30' if the garage doors face the front, or 8' with the garage
doors facing the side lot line (note handouts)·
East/West Sides
If the doors will be facing the side lot line, a 20 foot
setback is required from that side to the garage doors, and
a 4' setback is required to the opposite side lot line.
printed on recycled paper
Palen
September 15, 1995
Page 2
3. Utility services (sewer and water) must be shown on the survey.
4. Should this request be approved by the City Council, you will be required to
submit a copy of a driveway easement as part of the approval.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Building Official
JS:pj
Enclosures
RESOLUTION ~AIVINO REQUIREMENTS OF CHA~ER
'"""' ~ASt an appl~oat~o'n to va~ the eu~v~s~o~ ~quirement~
contained la Bection 22,00 oX the Village C~e hal ~en X~led with
· ' the Village of ~ound, and
~, sa~d request for a waiver has ~en'~vLe~ed by the
Planning Coanieslon and the Village C~no~l, and
~, Lt lo hereby determined that there are
, c~rcumstanceo affectin~ said:property such that the strict
placation of the ordinance.would deprive the applicant of the
able use of hie land; that the waiver Lo necessary for the
· . preservation and enJoyaent of a substantial 'pro~rty rlghtJ and
' ' ' that granting the waiver w.tll no~ ~ detrimental to the public.
welfare or injurious to other property ~ner~, .
~OW, T~FO~t ~ ~SOL~ BY T~ Vl~O~ C~NCZ~ ~ T~
· .. · 1, The request o~. ~v~6 ~,
'..[' ~or a waiver from the provis~ons o~ 8eotioa 22,~ of the
· ', Code and the request to subd$vide property of less~t~a ~ acres
:" Ls'hereby ~a~ted to pers~t dLvisLon of.the ~oll~l~
2. It is determlne~ that the foregoing division will constitute
a desirable and stable co,unity development and le In harmony vLth
adjacent properties,
3. The Village Clerk is authori~ed to deliver a certified espy
of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the
Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to
show compliance'with the subdivision'regulati~*ns o~ this village.
Adopted this, ,
Attestl
V'£11age Clerk '
ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA:
REQUIRED STRE~ FRONTAGE~IDTH: (~ /
EXISTING LOT WIDTH: ~/, EXISTING LOT DEPTH: ~ /
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIP,~J_BUILDING/ HOUSE
FRONT N~S E W
FRONT: "N' S F~ W
SIDE: N S CE~,
SIDE: N ~,~'E' W(~
REAR: N~,~) E W 15'
LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: lO ·
ACCESSO, B,Y BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N(_..N~S E W .__~__. !
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: ~ 4' 6'
N E W or
REAR: N~ E W 4'
LAKESHORE: §0' (measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: J/~'~ '
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N 15 't/,-
SIDE:
REAR: N(~]E W
LAKESHORET
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDIN~I~
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S,~W
SIDE: N S(..~,~, ~
SIDE: N ,~ E (~..~)
REAR: N (~,) E W
LAKESHORE:.
TOP OF BLUFF:
Fhis Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a por{ion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning
Ordinance. For further inform contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
OUIL01 k
(Z7) i~
I I0. 4B *, I~' l
03 r,~ r,a m O --I -r
J I --. ~
1,o .-h -h '"1 '-~
o o :3:
· ~ Z I'rl '"I
O I'rl :3 I-' :3'
~ :)- "l ~ CC)
0 I:). r't U:)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCES TO
SIDE SETBACK, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AND HARDCOVER
TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT
2117 COMMERCE BLVD., M&B, SECTION 14,
PID 14-117-24 41 0006, P&Z CASE #95-50
WHEREAS, Mound Evangelical Free Church has applied for a
variance to allow for expansion of its existing facilities by
adding additional sanctuary space over the top of an existing
classroom wing which was originally constructed to support a future
addition. The proposed construction will not significantly expand
the footprint of the existing structure, and;
WHEREAS, variances being requested are as follows:
1)
Setback: The existing setback on the west side of the church
abuts and R-2 zone which requires a 50 foot setback. The
existing setback is 36.6 feet resulting in a request to
recognize a variance of 13.4 feet.
2)
Parking: The Zoning Ordinance request a total of 50 parking
spaces to serve the church. The site will accommodate 31
parking spaces. The church has indicated that they have a
parking lot agreement with the Hennepin County Library for the
use of 41 additional parking spaces.
3)
Impervious Surface Coverage: The existing coverage totals
61%, and after the improvements, the total amount will be 62%.
The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 30% Impervious cover
until such time as the City has a storm water management plan.
After adoption of a storm water management plan, the allowable
impervious cover in the B-1 zone will increase to 75%. A
finding of practical difficulty exists allowing approval of
the required impervious cover variance.
and;
WHEREAS, the Mound Zoning Ordinance requires screening and
buffering where uses in the B-1 abut residential uses. In order to
comply with this provision, the church will need to submit a
landscaping plan, and;
WHEREAS, the City has received a copy of the parking
agreement with Hennepin County, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the B-1
Central Business District which allows churches as a permitted use,
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval, with conditions, and;
Proposed Resolution
Mound Evangelical Church
P. 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve of the setback, parking and
impervious cover variances to allow construction of the Mound
Evangelical Free Church's addition subject to the following
conditions:
ae
The Church shall submit a copy of the parking agreement
with Hennepin County. Said agreement shall be required
to ensure use of the library parking lot by church
members.
be
The Church shall submit a copy of an easement agreement
allowing access to the garage of the private residence
abutting the west side of the property.
Ce
The Church shall submit a landscaping plan identifying
the type of screening that will be used along the west
side of the property abutting the parking lot to
eliminate headlight glare onto the adjacent residential
property.
de
The parking lot improvements as shown shall consist of
bituminous surfacing and concrete curb and gutter around
the entire perimeter.~~ ~.
ee
The Church shall prepare a grading and drainage plan and
said plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
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 a second story addition.
Proposed Resolution
Mound Evangelical Church
P. 2
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
That part of the So. 1/2 of the N.E. 1/4 of
the S.E. 1/4 of Section 14, Twp. 117, R. 24,
Hennepin County Minn. Described as follows:
Commencing at the point of intersection of
West line of Cty. #110 which runs along the
East line of said Section 14, and the center
line of Meadow Lane (now vacated) according to
The Plat of the Village of Mound and running
thence along said center line 200 ft. Westerly
thence So. parallel with the East line of said
section 175 ft. to the No. line of Belaire
Drive, (formerly Marion Place) as the same has
been opened by the Village of Mound thence
Easterly parallel with the center line of said
vacated Meadow Lane, 200 ft. to the West line
of County Rd. #110, thence Northerly along
said West line 175 ft. to the point of
beginning subject to an easement of right-away
over the West 18 ft. thereof.
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.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 1995
(~ASE 95-50: DENNIS BATTY & ASSOC. FOR MOUND EVANGELICAL FREE
CHURCH, 2117 COMMERCE BLVD., M&B, SECTION 14, PID 14-117-24 41 0006.
VARIANCE FOR ADDITION.
The Building Official reviewed the planning report prepared by Mark Koegler. The
Mound Evangelical Free Church is proposing to expand its existing facilities by addition
additional sanctuary space over the top of an existing classroom wing which was
originally constructed to support a future addition. The proposed construction will not
significantly expand the footprint of the existing structure.
The variances being requested are for setback
1)
Setback: The existing setback on the west side of the church abuts and R-2
zone which requires a 50 foot setback. The existing setback is 36.6 feet
resulting in a request to recognize a variance of 13.4 feet.
2)
Parking: The Zoning Ordinance request a total of 50 parking spaces to serve
the church. The site will accommodate 31 parking spaces. The church has
indicated that they have a parking lot agreement with the Hennepin County
Library for the use of 41 additional parking spaces.
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
3)
Impervious Surface Coverage: The existing coverage totals 61%, and after the
improvements, the total amount will be 62%. The Zoning Ordinance allows a
maximum of 30% Impervious cover until such time as the City has a storm
water management plan· After adoption of a storm water management plan,
the allowable impervious cover in the B-1 zone will increase to 75%. A finding
of practical difficulty exists allowing approval of the required impervious cover
variance.
The Mound Zoning Ordinance requires screening and buffering where uses in the B-1
abut residential uses. In order to comply with this provision, the church will need to
submit a landscaping plan·
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
setback, parking and impervious cover variances to allow construction of the Mound
Evangelical Free Church's addition subject to the following conditions:
The Church shall submit a copy of the parking agreement with Hennepin
County. Said agreement shall be required to ensure use of the library parking
lot by church members·
The Church shall submit a copy of an easement agreement allowing access to
the garage of the private residence abutting the west side of the property.
The Church shall submit a landscaping plan identifying the type of screening
that will be used along the west side of the property abutting the parking lot to
eliminate headlight glare onto the adjacent residential property,
The parking lot improvements as shown shall consist of bituminous surfacing
and concrete curb and gutter around the entire perimeter.
Be
The Church shall prepare a grading and drainage plan and said plan shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit
issuance·
Weiland questioned condition #2 and asked why the church should be responsible for
the easement and why is it not the homeowners responsibility. Mueller commented
that it would be in the best interest of the church to have an easement.
A representative from the Church submitted a copy of their parking agreement with
Hennepin County to the secretary.
Mueller asked if the church was comfortable with the conditions within the report.
Dennis Batty stated that the conditions are acceptable, however, they would like to
be able to wait one or two years to pave the parking lot. They have no problem
installing the curb and gutters.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1995
The Building Official stated that the requirement for a hard surface parking lot is
consistent with the conditions placed on the approval of the recent parking lot
expansion for St. John's Church.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval
of the variance as recommended by staff.
The Commission discussed the pros and cons of having the parking lot not paved right
away. Clapsaddle noted that there is no timeline stipulated in the recommendation,
and stated that curbing will probably provide for needed water detention. Michael
referred to condition//4 and stated that he interprets the condition to mean that when
the parking lot is improved, it "shall" consist of bituminous surfacing, meaning it shall
be paved right away. Michael requested that this clarified prior to City Council review.
MOTION carried unanimously.
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
FOR USE OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
WESTONKA LIBRARY PARKING LOT
1. The Mound Evangelical Free Church [the Church]
acknowledges that its members and guests have used and wish to
continue to use the Hennepin County Westonka Library parking lot
[the Lot] for parking their motor vehicles while attending church
activities during times when the library is not open for
business. The Church further acknowledges that such use is
non-exclusive, and others may also use the lot during such times.
Lastly, the Church acknowledges that in the event the lot is
unusable due to snow or any other condition, the Church may not
use the lot.
2. In recognition of such use of the Hennepin County
Westonka Library parking lot, the Church agrees that it will
defend, indemnify, and hold Hennepin County, its officers and
employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs,
judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the lot by the
Church, its members or guests.
The Church further agrees to pay for any damage to
the Lot or other maintenance costs incurred by the County
resulting from use of the lot by the Church.
Dated:
:: CIVIL$: [ MGMT ] KATZMAN. FA9; 3
Mound Evangelical Free Church
Title
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
lllgl
gill
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: October 5, 1995
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Mound Evangelical Free Church
CASE NUMBER: 95-50
HKG FILE NUMBER: 95-5p
LOCATION: 2117 Commerce Boulevard
EXISTING ZONING: Central Business District (B-l)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial
BACKGROUND: The Mound Evangelical Free Church is proposing to expand its existing facilities
by adding additional sanctuary space over the top of an existing classroom wing which was originally
constructed to support a future addition. The proposed construction will not significantly expand the
footprint of the existing structure.
COMMENT: In order to construct the new addition, the church needs to obtain variance approval
from the City of Mound focused on three areas: 1) setback, 2) parking, and 3) impervious cover. The
existing church meets all required setbacks except the west side which abuts a residential use which
formerly served as the pastor's residence. The single family home was sold a few years ago and is
occupied by a private resident not associated with the church. The Mound Zoning Code requires that
uses in the B~I zone observe a 50 foot setback from residential districts. The existing setback on the
west side of the church which abuts an R-2 zone is 36.6 feet resulting in a setback variance of 13.4
feet. The requested variance is a "recognition" situation since the addition will sit on top of an
existing structure.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Mound Evangelical Free Church Planning Report
October 5, 1995
Page 2
The Mound Zoning Code also requires screening and buffering in situations where uses in the B-1
zone abut residential uses. In such cases, "required screening or buffering may be achieved with
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials." In order to comply with this
provision, the church will need to submit a landscaping plan with plant materials or fencing along the
western edge of the property that complies with the screening provision.
Approval of the proposed plan will also require a variance from the parking provisions contained in
the zoning code. Mound's ordinance requires a total of 50 parking spaces to serve the church.
According to the submitted site plan, the site will accommodate 31 parking spaces which is 19 spaces
short of the required total. The Church has indicated that they have use of 41 additional parking
spaces in the Hennepin County Library parking lot immediately north of the church property. Their
architect has also indicated that they have some form or written agreement regarding use of the
parking spaces.
The third item requiring variance approval is the amount of impervious cover on the site. The
proposed church addition will not significantly increase the amount of impervious cover on the site.
The existing church has impervious cover that totals 61% of the lot area. After the improvements
occur, the total amount of impervious cover will be 62%. The Zoning Code limits properties in the
B-1 zone to a maximum of 30% impervious cover until such time as the City has a storm water
management plan in place. After adoption of the storm water management plan, the allowable
threshold of impervious cover in the B-1 zone will increase to 75%. In this case, the existing
hardcover is under the eventual threshold of 75%. Since there are no feasible alternatives to reduce
the amount of existing hardcover, a finding of practical difficulty exists allowing approval of the
required impervious cover variance.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomn~nds that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the setback, parking and impervious cover variances to allow construction of the Mound Evangelical
Free Church's addition subject to the following conditions:
1. The Church shall submit a copy of the parking agreement with Hennepin County. Said agreement
shall be required to ensure use of the library parking lot by church members.
2. The Church shall submit a copy of an easement agreement allowing access to the garage of the
private residence abutting the west side of the property.
The Church shall submit a landscaping plan identifying the type of screening that will be used
along the west side of the property abutting the parking lot to eliminate headlight glare onto the
adjacent residential property.
4. The parking lot improvements as shown shall consist of bituminous surfacing and concrete curb
and gutter around the entire perimeter.
Mound Evangelical Free Church Planning Report
October 5, 1995
Page 3
5. The Church shall prepare a grading and drainage plan and said plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
October 9r 1995
October 24, 1995
City Planner (~--Z-7.. Public Works
City Engineer t~.'/.Z. DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
q,5 -50
Please type or print the following information: ................................................
Address of Subject Property Mound Evanqelical
Lot - coca T~ 'ir l~
Addition ~<,~_F--~ ~ c~ IZ~'
Free Church 2117 Commerce Blvd.
Block
Pm No.
0o0 o
Zoning District
Owner's Name
Owner's Address
B- 1 Um of l~operty: Church
Mound Evan§elical Free Church
Rev. George Thompson
2117 Commerce Blvd.
Day Phone 472-1723
Applicant's Name(ifotherthanowaer). Dennis Batty ~ Associates, Architects
Address 6860 Shinqle Creek Pkwy. Mpls., MN 55430 Day Phone560-6814
1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure ftr this property? ( ) yes, (rO 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.):
Expand the present worship facilities over the lower level classroom win9
to the west. The existin9 structure was designed to support an addition.
V~=c~ Al~cs6on (1
Page 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (×). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
Existing' west setback is 50 feet, foundation is 36'-8" Addition requires
84 parking spaces, site has room for 29 at 10' wide.
SETBACKS: required requested
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: ( N/-xS~,~)W ) ~C O ft. 30 ft. ft.
Side Yard: (N~ S(,~E W ) ~ O ft. 30 ft. ft.
Side Yard: ((~0S E W~_~) 50 ft. 50 ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E~__.)) 50 ft. 36'-8" ft. 13'-4" 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 ff sq ft sq ft
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:
Existing foundation is 36'-8" from west property line.
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow
(x) too small
( ) too shallow
( ) topography
( ) drainage
( ) shape
( ) soil
(X) existing situation
( ) other: specify
~easede~ibe: Unable to expand lot size to accommodate required parkin9 or
for setback requirements.
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lane,
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (x). If yes, explain:
o
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No (x). If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (X), 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 _ .~t},~!~o¥ ~,,rt~l/-/'~ f.~Date t~//~/~~
Applicant's Signatur~ Date E? _ Z/"d~"'
'l
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That part of the So. ~/~ of the N.E. '/4 of the S.E. V4 of Sec. 14, Twp. 117, R. 24, Hennepin County
Minn. Described as follows:
Commencing at the point of intersection of West line of cry. # 110 which runs along the East line
of said Sec. 14, and the center line of Meadow Lane (now vacated) according to The Plat of the
Village of Mound and running thence along said center line 200 ft. Westerly thence So. parallel
with the East line of said section 175 ft. to the No. line of Belaire Drive, (formerly Marion Place)
as the same has been opened by the Village of Mound thence Easterly parallel with the center
line of said vacated Meadow Lane, 200 ft. to the West line of County Rd. #110, thence Northerly
along said West line 175 ft. to the point of beginning subject to an easement of right-away over
the West 18 ft. thereof.
O · WOOD STAKE PLACED _ o - IRON MeN. SET . ' · · IRON MeN. INPLACE
· OI TY ~AYn
BEARINGS .ON PROPOSED INFORMATION
ASSUMED DATUM 1st FLOOR ELEV. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
BASEMENT ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV..
DRAINAGE 000.0 - EXIST. ELEV. ~000.0J, PROPOSED ELEV.
E
&
P=
EXIST.
&
PROP.
ELEV.
000.0
I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was JOB~.
i $CHOBORG prepared by me or under mydlrect supervision and that lam ~8
~' a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws el the State Book - Page
..~IN D sU P~VE-¥'NG . o, .
3Z-3
.... /'L-
S72-322t DelJno. MN S5321
/VD
(01. I. GYOU
· '( "[- z
-J
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2117 Commerce Blvd.
OWNER: Mound Evangelical Free Church
Lot Area 33,775 S.F. X 30%
Lot Area 33,775 S.F. X 40%
= 10 , 132 . 5
= 13 , 510 . 0
Existing Building:
Existing Parking:
Existing Sidewalk:
Existing Concrete Slab:
6,011
13 , 306 . 5
661.5
504
Total Existing Coverage:
20 , 483
Proposed Building:
Proposed Parking:
Proposed Sidewalk:
6,515
13 , 58 3
860.5
Total Proposed Coverage
20 , 958 . 5
Coverage Dif ferance
Proposed:
Existing:
20,958 . 5
20~483.0
475.5
Additional coverage due to required handicap parking require-
ments. Par~compacted~, gravel.
PREPARED BY DATE
Councilmember Ulrlck moved the following resolution,
409
September 11, 1979
RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 379
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE SIGN
VARIANCE AS REQUESTED
WHEREAS,
Mound Evangelical Free Church, being owner of property described as Plat
61214 Parcel 7800, with'metes and bounds description in Section 14, and
located at 2117 Commerce Blvd. has requested a sign variance, and
WHEREAS, there is now a sign on the property and it will be replaced with a Slgn
having exterior dimensions of 6-1/2 ft by 6-1/2 ft with' the sign surface
being 4.5' X 6', and
WHEREAS, there is a front yard variance of 11.5 ft-and a side yard variance of
18 feet, and Planning Commission has recommended approval of said request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That Council does hereby concur with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and does approve the sign variance as stated
m te
above with the stipulation that groun§~,g~ts be directed toward
the sign away from roadway.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolutlon was duly seconded by Couneil-
member Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor ther~
of; Lovaasen, Swenson and Ulrick, the following voted against the same; Polston and
Withhart, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the
Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk.
Mayor
Attest: CMC City Clerk
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH:
I REQ. LOT AREA: '1' EXIST. LOT AREA:
LOT WIDTH:
EXISTING LOT DEPTH: [ C;r '~'~ "J" / _
:~EQUIRED SETBACKS
PR'NC'PAL BU'LD'NG! HOUSE
FRONT: N S~ETW ~O.i~IY~ ~:
FRONT: N[ST W ~
SIDE: ~E W .... ~
SIDE: ~S E W
REAR: N S E~ ~ ~ ~
LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' Imeasured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUII~)ING/HOUSE
FRONT: N .,~,,~__~W ~ '
FRONT: I~10~-~ W ..~0 '
SIDE: ~..~"~ E W _~{~) ~'
SIDE: ~ S E ~ --
REAR: N S E W~ ~._~ ~
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
HARDCOVER CONFORMING7 ·
~ormatlon
YES ~ ?
'S"'h'~-~?_._y_summarmzes a port
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 YES ~/? ~1~
DATE: q.
~requirements outme m t e ~ty o oun on,rig
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
:j s7 ~./
r~(~) (28) zoo
(5~) ~,o ~ (30)
'ER:..RDzm :, -~
(56)
f
(10)
400 *- ·
~u~ 8
Octobor 24, 1995
RESOLUTION g95-
RF~OLUTION ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE BID
FOR 1995-96 CBD SNOW REMOVAL TO WIDMER BROS.
WHEREAS, an advertisement was placed in the official newspaper, The Laker,
and bids were solicited for the Central Business District snow plowing for 1995-96; and
WHEREAS, the only bid received was as follows:
1995-96 CBD SNOW REMOVAl.
WIDMER, INC., ST. BONIFACIUS, MN.
966 E Cat
Model 66 Kawasaki
950 Cat
300 Komatsu
140G Cat
99E Cat
Tracks with Plow & Spin Sanders
4 x 4 Pickups
1845 Case Skid Loaders with or w/o brooms
Tandem Dump (for hauling)
Salt-Sand Delivered
5yd.
4yd.
3-3.5yd.
3yd.
$95.00/hour
$85.00/hour
$82.00/hour
$82.00/hour
$85.00/hour
$73.00/hour
$60.00/hour
$53.00/hour
$65.00/hour
$56.00/hour
$40.00/ton
WHEREAS, Widmer Bros., Inc., was the only bid received and met all the
specifications required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby award the C.B.D. snow removal contract to Widmer Bros.,
Inc., for the quoted costs, as stated above, for the 1995-96 winter plowing season.
The forgoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Manager
Mayor
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 20, 1995
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: DECEMBER CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
The City Council desires to cancel the December 26, 1995 regular City Council meeting and
move it to Tuesday, December 19, 1995. A motion is requested.
1S
DECEMBE~ ~ 2
3 4 5 6~_7 9
17 i8~-'-~_~)20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
December 6 Budget Hearing
December 8 Christmas Party
December 12 Regular Council Meeting
December 13 Budget Hearing Continued (if needed)
December 19 Rescheduled December 26 meeting
pr~nted on recycled paper
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
REF:
CITY MANAGER, ED SHUKLE
SERGEANT JOHN McKINLEY
PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF NO PARKING SIGNS
This memo is in response to the request to ovaluate the requested petition for the removal
of thc NO PARKING signs located on thc west sidc of Fairvicw Lanc.
Fairvicw Lane is 3g' wide, curb to curb. I have checked with the City of Mound stroot
department and have been advised by thorn that the n,Jnimmn width for safe passage of
traffic with parking on both sides of a street is 33'.
I have checked Mound Police records for tramc contacts in that are, a. Th~n~ w~r¢ 2 DWI
arrests in 1988 and one parking citation in 1989.
I have driven the area~ Fairview Lane is mostly a north/so~ running street. Just a~ter the
driveway entrance for St. John's Church, Fab'view Lane tums somewhat southeast and
goes down grade. There are mailboxes located on the west side of Fairview Lane. There is
an over growth of weeds, grass, and trees promuting from the west side of Fairview Lane.
At thi~ time of the year there is also a large gathering of leaves on the curbs side of the
street. The over growth and the leaves would make it somewhat difficult to park cars
properly on the west side of Fait-view Lane.
In summation, the request for pattdng on thc west side of Fairview Lane from Maywood
Road south to Bartlett Blvd is not ~ble and could be granted with the following
conditions;
Proper singing for no parking winter hours
Cut back and clean up of over growth on west side of Fairvicw Lane
Moving mailboxes if applicable (post office personnel will not deliver mail if boxes are
blocked by cars)
falli
he
_d
that
uld
~er
safe
~ormi:
:-re
nds '~
3oof
ind
hind
Des
Df
she
ut
put
and
't h~
_-ailil
February 9, 1993
Mayor Johnson stated that he would not have a problem with a
railing all the way around the structure to keep people off of
the building. He stated he failed to see how all of the items
~-.requested are needed to alleviate a safety issue.
The vote was 2 in favor with Ahrens and Smith voting nay.
Motion fails.
ON made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to continue this
item until the March 9, 199.3, Regular Meeting (when all five
councilmembers are present and the applicant can return), with
~direction to the Building Official to work with the applicant
for alternatives to consider to resolve the safety issue as it
relates to the boathouse. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
_e~.S & SUGGESTIONS FROM cITIZENs PRESENT
T~er. were none.
~T',:'~992 DEPARTMENT HEAD ~NNUAL REPORTS
Department Heads presented their annual reports to
Council: Park Director Jim Fackler; Sewer, Water & Street
Greg Skinner; and Fire Chief Don Bryce.
DISCUSSION: MOUND ENVIRONMENTAL & APPEARANCE MODEL
~ce Chamberlain, Consultant to the EDC, presented the Mound
~vironmental & Appearance Model to the Council. This is trying to
forth a design vision for downtown Mound. The EDC with input
~one has worked to fine tune it. The way the wording has
was to soften the ways things were said. Mr. Chamberlain
if the Council had any changes they would like to make.
complimented the Economic Development Commission and
they are very excited about the Model. The consensus was to
PETITION FOR'NO PARKING SIGNS FROM RESIDENTS ON
FAIRVIEW LkNE - WEST SIDE OF STREET
Manager explained that a petition has been received with
request. The Police :have looked at the situation and
is that "No Parking" signs be installed on the West side of
Lane from County Road 15 to Bartlett Blvd.
moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
45
43
February 9, 1993
RESOLUTION NO. 93-23
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE "NO PARKING"
ON T~E NEST SIDE OF FAIRVIEW LANE FROM
COUNTY ROAD 15 SOUTH TO BARTLETT BLVD.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve "No Parking Anytime" in the
West side of Fairview Lane from County Road 15 South to Bartlett
Blvd. and to authorize the installation of "No Parking Anytime"
signs.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith
and seconded by Mayor Johnson.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused.
43
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 1995
STAIRWAYS ON COMMONS - CONSTRUCTION BT/~NDARDS
The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed a memorandum from the
Building Official regarding building code application to stairways
on the commons. The Building Official contacted Orono and found
that their Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) requires building
permits for detached stairways leading to the lake. A maximum 4
foot wide stairway is allowed with a maximum landing size of 4' x
8', and they are required to meet the building code.
lTq
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
October 12, 1995
The Park and Open Space Minutes from the last meeting were briefly
reviewed. Fackler noted that Councilmember Mark Hanus had
suggested that the stairs be "structurally sound."
Darling stated that there has to be some specific standard to
follow, you cannot be ambiguous. He would like to see a different
set of standards, but does not know if that can happen for stairs
located on public lands.
Ahrens questioned if stairways on the commons are considered to be
private property. Darling stated that even though the stairs may
be private property, they are still on public land.
Fackler noted that these stairs should provide a safe and
comfortable access to the docks, and questioned if their purpose is
to achieve safe access, or a structurally sound stairway. Fackler
noted that if safe access is their objective, the building code
would be the proper standard to follow.
Casey commented that stairs which are constructed to code do not
look good and appear as being over-built. Fackler noted that there
are other ways to construct stairs which would be less obtrusive,
such as building the stairs into the ground or on-grade with
railroad ties or concrete block.
Ahrens commented that she would like to get a written opinion from
the attorney on whether the stairs on commons are considered as
private or public? She does not see the difference between the
dock and the stairs.
Darling commented that there are building codes for a reason, and
we do not want to send a message that a stairway can be built
otherwise. Ahrens reviewed the history of this issue and why it is
being discussed. Ahrens explained that the Park Commission and
City Council have approved a stairway located on public lands which
does not meet the building code, and if stairs get approved that
don't meet the code, then we should not have an ordinance that says
they have to meet the code. Goode questioned if the City Council
could be found negligent if they do not require the stairs to meet
code.
Geffre noted that according to the City Council minutes of October
12, 1993, staff had questioned if the building code should apply to
existing stairways and what to do with new stairways. The City
Council directed the building official to draw a policy which would
say that new stairways shall meet the Uniform Building Code. She
stated that it should not be up to the Park Commission to recommend
what determines a safe stairway. Meyer feels the Building Official
could determine what constitutes a safe stairway. Darling
questioned when the flexibility would stop? Where do you draw the
line?
3
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Casey suggested that maybe the Building Official does not have to
be the person to inspect the stairs. Fackler commented that no
public employee would want to be responsible to declare what
constitutes a safe stairway as they could personally be held
liable, and if someone did get hurt on a stairway, that employee
could also suffer emotionally.
Ahrens commented that there is nothing that would prohibit them
from putting basic requirements in the procedure manual, such as it
needs a handrail, without getting specific. She does not see a
problem with the City designing basic standards that is not as far
reaching as the UBC so they do not end up with cattle chutes.
Who could develop a set of standards was discussed. Ahrens
suggested that the Commission send a recommendation to the Council
informing them that they think the standards are too stringent and
asking them if they would consider the possibility of new standards
to be drafted.
Geffre suggested that they get an opinion from the Building
Official and City Attorney to make sure there is no legal aspect
involved in coming up with a new set of standards so they do not
put time and effort into it before investigating. She would like
to see stairs that are not so obtrusive to the shoreland.
Casey suggested that a motion could be made stating that they would
like to see the standards relaxed, however, they should be defined,
and that they need an opinion from the City Attorney on the public
versus private nature of the stairways.
Geffre would like more input from the Building Official and City
Attorney on the legality of the standards being changed.
Casey suggested that the Park Commission recommend that standards
be relaxed and redeveloped subject to the Attorney's opinion that
it is legal.
Fackler questioned what part of the standard they do not want to
apply in order to reduce the cost? Casey commented that making the
determination of what the standards should or should not be can be
made after they find out if the City Council agrees that the
standards are too strict.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to
the City Council that the construction standards for
stairways on commons be redefined and an opinion from the
Building Official and City Attorney be obtained on the
legality of doing so.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 199§
Ahrens suggested the motion be modified as follows:
Recommend to the City Council that upon an opinion from
the Building official and city Attorney on the
legalities, the Park Commission recommends that the
construction standards for stairways on public lands be
redefined.
Darling questioned what they mean by "redefine," what is their
purpose? Ahrens reiterated that the Park Commission and Council
have approved a stairway which is in total disagreement with the
Policy and Procedure Manual, and she thinks this is the impedance
for the redefinement. Darling feels that a mistake was made, and
now is the time to correct it, but to say that just because it was
done that way once, does not constitute a change. Darling feels
that the Commission is going down different paths, he has heard
some say that they want it redefined because the stairs look bad,
and some say it is because it cost too much to build a stairway to
meet the building code. Casey summarized that all of those are
reasons and suggested that a friendly amendment be made to include
those items in the motion. The reasons to redefine the
construction standards for stairways were reviewed by the
Commission to be:
COST (cost of materials in order to build to code)
AESTHETICS (some look like a cattle chute because they
were built to code)
SAFETY (over-building, does not have to meet code to be
considered safe)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (when built to meet code, impacts
vegetation and appearance of the shoreline)
Goode agreed to amend the motion to include the four reasons.
Ahrens commented that it is not necessary. Darling stressed that
an end objective should be clarified. Ahrens summarized that the
objective is that we are making a recommendation because the City
Council told us we are disavowing the language on the books now.
Darling does not agree that one instance is substantiating.
Casey stated that he would like the four reasons included in the
motion. As seconder, Ahrens agreed to include the reasons in the
motion. The motion was reiterated, as follows:
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to
the City Council that upon an opinion from the Building
official and City Attorney on the feasibility and or
legal liability, the Park Commission recommends that the
construction standards for stairways on public lands be
redefined for the following reasons:
cost
aesthetics
safety
environmental impact
5
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Ahrens and Casey both agreed that the Building Official should not
be included in the motion to give an opinion on the legal
liability. Ahrens suggested that the Building Official's opinion
may not be needed until new standards are being drafted.
Darling asked for a friendly amendment, and read a proposed motion:
The Park and Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney
to identify the legal liability in change and risk
associated with redefining the stair construction
standards for safety, aesthetics, environmental impact,
and durability.
Goode withdrew her motion. Ahrens withdrew her second.
Darling moved, and Ahrens seconded a motion that the Park
and Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney to
identify the legal liability in change and risk
associated with redefining the stair construction
standards for safety, aesthetics, durability, and
environmental impact.
Casey questioned if we are not also recommending the standards be
changed? Ahrens suggested to add language stating that if there
are no additional risks, that we would recommend the standards be
changed. Darling attempted another re-wording of the motion, as
follows:
The Park and Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney
to identify the legal liability in changes and risks
associated with redefining the stair construction
standards for safety, aesthetics, durability, and
environmental impact. And, if there is no additional
risks found that the City explore and define new
standards that meet our objectives of safety, durability,
aesthetics, and minimal environmental impact.
Casey summarized that the motion implies that if there is no risk,
then they can go forward. He feels that sometimes there needs to
be some risk. Darling stated that this way the risks can be
identified, and then they can determine if they want to move
forward. Darling wants to know what the risks are. Ahrens does
not want their recommendation to die because a slight risk may be
identified. Pederson asked if the City's insurance company would
not be the party to tell them what the risks are.
Ahrens withdrew her second. Goode seconded the motion. Geffre
commented that the Building Official already determines if existing
stairways are safe, so he must have some idea of what constitutes
a "safe" stairway, and therefore, she would agree that there may be
some possibility of a change.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Meyer agreed with Casey and Ahrens that he does not want to see
their recommendation die just because there may be some risk.
Ahrens commented that the Commission should agree that some
liability or risk may need to be accepted in order to reduce the
standards. Darling agreed that he wants this issue brought back to
the Commission for discussion if it is determined that there are
risks, he wants to know what the risks are. Casey noted that the
attorney will not be able to identify the risks without knowing
what the standards will be. Darling then suggested that the
standards be developed first. Casey emphasized that they need to
know if the Council is interested in having them work on this
change.
Meyer called for the question for the Motion on the floor:
MOTION by Darling, seconded by Goode, that the Park and
Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney to identify
the legal liability in changes and risks associated with
redefining the stair construction standards for safety,
aesthetics, durability, and environmental impact. And,
if there is no additional risks found that the City
explore and define new standards that meet our objectives
of safety, durability, aesthetics, and minimal
environmental impact.
MOTION failed L to 7.
opposed were: ~oode,
Geffre, and Pederson.
Darling was in favor.
Byrnes, Meyer, Casey,
Those
Ahrens,
Goode suggested the following motion:
to recommend to the City Council that minimum standards
for stairways on public lands be redefined and a
recommendation from the City Attorney regarding legal
liability be made, and the purposes of the recommendation
are based on cost, aesthetics, safety, and environmental
impact.
Goode explained that this would get somebody to first draft a set
of standards, and then have those standards reviewed by the
Attorney to determine legal liability. Darling does not agree that
the standards should be first redefined without knowing the risks.
Darling suggested that the language be modified to recommended the
standards be redefined "subject to an opinion. ." Ahrens
proposed another motion and the lanuage was discussed.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Casey, to inform the City
Council that it is the consensus of the Park and Open
Space Commission that the standards for stairways on
public lands should be redefined for the purposes of
considering cost, aesthetics, safety, and environmental
impact, and that an opinion be rendered by the City
Attorney on the legal liability, and the opinion should
be reviewed and considered in formulating the standards.
Motion carried unanimously.
7
Park and Open Space Commission September 14, 1995
DISCUSSION: STAIRWAYS ON COMMONS (Should they be required to be
constructed to code?)
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, referred to page 33 of the packet
which is Exhibit J of the Public Land Permits Procedure Manual.
This section states that "All new stairways shall be constructed
according to the Uniform Building Code standards for residential
stairways." Byrnes noted that stairs that are built to meet code
are not pleasant to the eye, they are too bulky and zig zag down
the hill because of landing requirements. Fackler noted that less
obtrusive stairs could be constructed and still meet code, such as
if they are built into the ground. The type of stairway depends on
personal taste and cost.
Ahrens commented that stairs on private property don't have to meet
code, and suggested that the building code not be the standard
required for stairs on commons, but that they just be safe. Geffre
questioned if the city Attorney has ever given an opinion on
liability issues on stairs. Ahrens commented that there has never
been a lawsuit relating to an injury on the commons. Councilmember
Hanus suggested that as long as a stairway is structurally sound it
should be okay. Fackler questioned how the city can determine if
a structure is "safe" without standards to follow. Hanus agreed
that the city cannot declare a structure as "safe" without
standards.
Geffre questioned if the DNR has standards. Fackler suggested that
the City of Orono may have standards for stairs.
NOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Geffre, to table
discussion relating to building standards for stairways
on the commons, pending further information. This item
should be placed on the October agenda for discussion.
Notion carried unanimously.
REVIEW STATE ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTIONS
The Parks Director referred to the memorandum from the Building
official relating to electrical work on the commons. Councilmember
Hanus noted that he agrees with the statements made by the Building
official that when you cross your property line with electrical
services, a licensed electrician and a permit are required by the .
State. Ahrens commented that the problem is with existing
electrical work and asked why these people should bother getting
the work certified.
A letter from the State of Minnesota Board of Electricity regarding
the Riebe residence at 1749 Avocet Lane was reviewed by the
Commission. It was determined that the existing process for
electrical devices on the commons is consistent with the State
requirements, and the city must comply with the State requirements.
CITY OF MOUND
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 9, 1995
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Park and Open Space Commission
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
BUILDING CODE APPLICATION TO STAIRWAYS ON THE COMMONS
The Park Commission has recently discussed the building code application to
stairways on commons versus private stairways, and you requested me to review the
City of Orono's standards and their process. I contacted Orono's Building Official and
Zoning Administrator and have determined the following.
It is my understanding that Orono does not have public lands with stairways,
however, private stairways are regulated through their Shoreland Management
Ordinance (SMO). Their SMO requires a building permit for detached stairways
leading to the lake, and they are required to meet the building and zoning code.
Similar to the City of Mound's ordinance, a maximum 4 foot wide stairway is allowed
with a maximum landing size of 4' x 8'.
Due to the fact that there are no specific building permit requirements for landscape
stairways on private land in Mound, building permits are not required. A permit is
required and the code applies if a stairways serves as an exit path from a building.
JS:pj
printed on recycled paper
1VrlNUTES OF A MEETING OF
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 14, 1995
DISCUSSION: STAIRWAYS ON COMMONS {Should they be required to be
constructed to code?}
Parks Director, Jim Fackler, referred to page 33 of the packet
which is Exhibit J of the Public Land Permits Procedure Manual.
This section states that "All new stairways shall be constructed
according to the Uniform Building Code standards for residential
stairways." Byrnes noted that stairs that are built to meet code
are not pleasant to the eye, they are too bulky and zig zag down
the hill because of landing requirements. Fackler noted that less
obtrusive stairs could be constructed and still meet code, such as
if they are built into the ground. The type of stairway depends on
personal taste and cost.
Ahrens commented that stairs on private property don't have to meet
code, and suggested that the building code not be the standard
required for stairs on commons, but that they just be safe. Geffre
questioned if the City Attorney has ever given an opinion on
liability issues on stairs. Ahrens commented that there has never
been a lawsuit relating to an injury on the commons. Councilmember
Hanus suggested that as long as a stairway is structurally sound it
should be okay. Fackler questioned how the city can determine if
a structure is "safe" without standards to follow. Hanus agreed
that the city cannot declare a structure as "safe" without
standards.
Geffre questioned if the DNR has standards. Fackler suggested that
the City of Orono may have standards for stairs.
MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Geffre, to table
discussion relating to building standards for stairways
on the commons, pending further information. This item
should be placed on the October agenda for discussion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
July I3, 199.5
Casey commented that it is his opinion the these new stairways should not have to be built
to code. It is his opinion that these stairways are over-built, over-safe, and they detract from
the shoreline, they look like cattle chutes. Ahrens noted that it was the former council that
voted in favor of requiring the stairs be constructed to code, and noted that if this was private
shoreline, a permit would not be required.
Knutson questioned the issue with his light. He stated that the bulbs are frosted, and he has
checked with several places and nobody sells shields. His light does not shine into the lake,
and it does not stay on all night. The Parks Director stated that he can work with the
applicant on this issue, and it is his opinion that if the light is adjusted so it does not shine into
the lake it is probably okay.
Meyer agreed that the City could ease up on the code requirements for stairways. The
Commission determined to place on the next Park and Open Space Commission meeting
agenda the discussion of stairways.
There was discussion relating to the requirement for an electrical inspection, and Ahrens
questioned what the electrical inspector looks at when a light is existing. What is involved
in an after-the-fact electrical inspection? Is it really needed? Darling noted that the
consequences of having hazardous electrical service on the commons should be considered.
MOTION carried with 6 in favor and I absteption. Those in favor were:
Darling, Meyer, Byrnes, Schmidt, Casey, and Geffre. Ahrens abstained.
This case will be heard by the City Council on July 24, 1995.
The issue of electrical inspections was further discussed. Schmidt questioned the
consequences of a dock license not be issued. The Parks Director confirmed that no dock
licenses have been denied to-date due to noncompliance of a public land permit.
Meyer suggested that the Electrical Inspector attend a meeting or provide an explanation about
after-the-fact electrical inspections and inspections on commons property. The Commission
agreed and directed staff to follow-through.
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Exhibit J
Page 1 of 3
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits.
Staff reports shall be written according to applicable ordinances, regulations, and policies,
including:
Use Plan
Comprehensive Plan
Shoreland Management Ordinance (City Code Section 350:1200)
"Policy for Structures on Public Lands" adopted by Resolution No. 93-142 on October
26, 1993
Recommendations for permissible uses, according to the Decision Flow Chart, such as stairways,
retaining walls, land alterations, etc., will be based on the following:
If a structure is in good condition and meets the building code, staff will recommend to
the City Council permit approval for 5 years.
If a structure is in good condition but does not meet building code, staff will recommend
approval and the structure must comply with code within the time specified by the City
Council and dock permit will not be issued until structure meets code. If structure is not
corrected or removed within time specified by City Council that dock site will be exempt
from dock license issuance. The permit holder for that structure must remove or correct
the structure at their expense, if not, the City will attempt to abate through legal
channels.
If a structure is in hazardous condition staff will recommend removal or correction
immediately. The Site Holder's Dock License will not be issued until structure meets
code. The dock site will be reserved for the that dock site holder until the structure is
corrected, however, the dock will not receive it's license.
Recommendations for uses inconsistent with the Decision Flow Chart and other applicable
regulations shall be reviewed on a case by case basis. Recommendations will be for termination,
amortization, removal, and restoration to natural condition, as applicable in the Use Plan.
Buildings or other structure require separate legal review, and the following information should
be assembled: pertinent facts, history, existing conditions, current photos, and a draft report.
This information should be submitted to the City Manager and City Attorney for review, when
necessary.
(rev. 1/27/94)
- 77
PROCEDURE MANUAL. Public Land Permits
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits, cont.
Exhibit J
Page 2 of 3
4. Stairways:
New Stairways. All new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform
Building Code standards for residential stairways.
be
Existing Stairways. All stairways existing upon the date of the adoption of this
Procedure Manual (4-27-93) and that are not deemed structurally unsafe or otherwise
unsafe by the Building Official are considered legal nonconforming uses. Legal
nonconforming uses may have their use continued according to the permit procedures,
provided such continued use is not dangerous to life.
Alterations or Repairs to Exis'ting Stairways. Alterations or repairs may be made to any
stairway without requiting the whole stairway to comply with the building code, provided
the alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new stairway.
Maintenance of Stairways and Other Structures. All stairways, both existing and new,
and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe condition. The person to which the
permit is issued is responsible for all maintenance.' Minor maintenance of any currently
permitted stairway, dock storage platform, or retaining wall can be done without a
permit, but must have prior approval of the Building Official. The Building Official shall
inspect and approve such repairs.
Correction Orders. All stairways or parts thereof that are determined to be unsafe by
the Building Official shall be issued a correction order to be abated by repair or removal.
Electrical: All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a
qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical
Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan
must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land.
All power supply to the abutting property must be disconnected by a qualified electrical
contractor until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify
disconnection with staff.
Expiration Date for Permits:
concurrently.
Alii permits, for each property, will be made to expire
Minor Maintenance: Minor maintenance of any currently permitted existing stairway, dock
storage platform, or retaining wall can be repaired without a permit with approval by the
Building Official, Parks Director, or Dock Inspector. The Dock Inspector currently writes
correction orders for minor items such as loose treads, handrails, or replacement of boards on
docks. The Building Official is to be copied on all correction orders regarding building code
items.
~v. 1127194~
- 78
PROCEDURE MANUAL - Public Land Permits
Guidelines for Writing Staff Reports
for Public Land Permits, cont.
Exhibit
Page 3 of
Platforms: Platforms (one edge on-grade) for the use of dock storage, not exceeding 4' x 8',
consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance at 32 square feet, are allowable on Class
A and C Common areas only, due to steep slope and nontraversibility.
Riprap: Riprapping of the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka that is below the 100 year floodplain
elevation of 931 is regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and below the
Ordinary High Water Elevation of 929.5 is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources.
Permits are required from these agencies before a Public I_ands Permit can be granted by the
City of Mound.
10.
Seawalls: Basically the same as riprapping (above). Refer to the Shoreland Management
Ordinance for more regulations.
11. Vegetation Alterations and Trimming: Refer to the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
(rev. 1127194)
- 79 -
October 26, 1993
RESOLUTION NO. 93-142
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT TIlE POLICY ON STAIRWAYS
ON PUBLIC LANDS AS SUBMITTED
WIIEREAS, at the October 12, 1993, Council Meeting, the Building Official asked for
direction from the City Council on existing stairways on public lands as they relate to the
Building Code; and
WIIEREAS, the City Council discussed the above and asked the Building Official to
draw a policy which would say:
1. New stairways shall meet the Uniform Building Code and the standards.
Existing stairways shall be considered legal nonconforming uses unless they are
structurally unsafe (a percentage to be determined by the Building Official). As
long as they are safe, perlnits will continue and be considered a legal
nonconforming use. If the stairways are replaced, they have to meet the new
standards. If they are unsafe based upon the criteria set, then they have to be
replaced at the time of the appli,'ation. The Council directed the Building Official
to write the criteria.
WHEREAS, the Building Official presented the proposed policy.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following policy and it is to be incorporated into the Policy
& Procedure Manual for Structures on Public Lands:
Policy for Structures on Public Lands
New Stairways. All new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform
Building Code standards for residential stairways.
Existing Stairways. All stairways existing upon the date of the adoption of this
Procedure Manual (4-27-93) and that are not deemed structurally unsafe or otherwise
unsafe by the Building Official are considered legal nonconforming uses. Legal
nonconforming uses may have their use continued according to the permit procedures,
provided such continued use is not dangerous to life.
Alterations or Repairs to Existing Stairways. Alterations or repairs may be made to any
stairway without requiring the whole stairway to comply with the building code, provided
the alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new stairway.
338
o
October 26, 1993
Maintenance of Stairways and Other Structures. All stairways, both existing and new,
and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe condition. The person to which the
permit is issued is responsible for all maintenance. Minor maintenance of any currently
permitted stairway, dock storage platform, or retaining wall can be done without a
permit, but must have prior approval of the Building Official. The Building Official shall
inspect and approve such repairs.
Correction Orders. All stairways or parts thereof that are determined to be unsafe by
the Building Official shall be issued a correction order to be abated by repair or removal.
The forgoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by
Councihnember S,nith.
The following Councihnembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Councihnmnbers voted in the negative:
nOlle.
Councihnember Jessen was absent and excused.
/
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
339
October 26, 1993
RESOLUTION #93-142
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A 8'9" REAR YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 4822
GLASGOW ROAD, RLS #1571, TRACT A, PID #24-
11%24 44 0214, P & Z CASE #93-019
The vote was 2 in favor with Ahrens and Johnson voting nay. Motion fails.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were none.
1.7 DISCUSSION: PROPOSED POLICY ON STAIRWAYS ON PUBLIC LANDS
The Building Official explained that the following is his recommendation for the Policy on
Stairways on Public Lands:
Policy for Structures on Public Lands
1. New Stairways. All new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform
Building Code standards for residential stairways.
2. Existing Stairways. All stairways existing upon the date of the adoption of this
Procedure Manual (4-27-93) and that are not deemed structurally unsafe or otherwise
unsafe by the Building Official are considered legal nonconforming uses. Legal
nonconforming uses may have their use continued according to the permit procedures,
provided such continued use is not dangerous to life.
3. Alterations or Repairs to Existing Stairways. Alterations or repairs may be made to any
stairway without requiring the whole stairway to comply with the building code, provided
the alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new stairway.
4. Maintenance of Stairways and Other Structures. All stairways, both existing and new,
and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe condition. The person to which the
permit is issued is responsible for all maintenance. Minor maintenance of any currently
permitted stairway, dock storage platform, or retaining wall can be done without a
permit, but must have prior approval of the Building Official. The Building Official shall
inspect and approve such repairs.
5. Correction Orders. All stairways or parts thereof that are determined to be unsafe by
the Building Official shall be issued a correction order to be abated by repair or removal.
365
October 26, 1993
The Council agreed.
Ahrens moved ~d Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g93-142
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE POLICY ON
STAIRWAYS ON PUBLIC LANDS AS SUBMITTED
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8
DISCUSSION: ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
REPORT - WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The City Manager reported that the preliminary engineering report for water treatment has been
updated and was presented to the City Council at their Committee of the Whole Meeting last
week.
The Mayor explained that the Council has discussed the report and decided not to go forward
at this time because of the costs to residents. He stated the Council will look at this again in
a few years.
Eric Lindberg, Sherwood Drive resident, presented a fact sheet to the Council from the EPA
regarding drinking water standards.
The Council assured Mr. Lindberg that they and the Staff will stay up-to-date on drinking water
standards and the latest information from the EPA on requirements for the City of Mound.
No action was taken on this item.
1.9
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE:
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS
The City Manager explained that there are currently 3 openings on the 9 member Park & Open
Space Commission (Steve Kirschbaum - term expires 12/31/93), (Brian Asleson - term expires
12/31/94), and (Mo Mueller - term expires 12/31/94). The Commission held interviews made
their recommendations, ranking them in order of choice, as follows:
1. Janis Geffre
2. Mary Goode
3. David Steinbring
4. Peter Meyer
5. Charles Champine
6. John Edewaard
366
October 12, 1993
RESOLUTION #93-134
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MOVING BUILDING
PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE TO BE
MOVED FROM: 2010 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT~
2 & 3, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT; T~,
MOVED TO: 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 &
6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, P & Z CASE
//93-040
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.3
CASE #93-052: NORMAN HEMERICK, 4716 BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOTS 12, 13
& 14. BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0039, RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-135
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL
DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4716
BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOTS 12, 13 AND 14, BLOCK 7,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0039, P &
Z CASE//93-052
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.4 DISCUSSION: ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS
The City Manager explained that at the August 27th Meeting there was a list of 7 or 8 applicants
for getting permits or approving stairways on public lands to access the Commons. There was
concern by the Council of whether to approve separately or in a batch. The Staff was following
a process developed earlier in the year and approved by the City Council to go forward and look
at all of the commons areas and public lands areas to inventory each and determine what was
there and whether there were permits for these structures. There was confusion as to what the
Council was looking at for existing stairways as they relate to the Building Code. Is the staff
to apply the Building Code to existing stairways and what is staff to do with new applications
for new stairways?
336
October 12, 1993
After discussion the following was determined. The Building Official is to draw a policy which
would say:
I. New stairways shall meet the Uniform Building Code and the standards.
Existing stairways shall be considered legal nonconforming uses unless they are
structurally unsafe (a percentage to be determined by the Building Official). As
long as they are safe, permits will continue and be considered a legal
nonconforming use. If the stairways are replaced, they have to meet the new
standards. If they are unsafe based upon the criteria set, then they have to be
replaced at the time of the application. The Council directed the Building Official
to write the criteria.
1.5
RESOLUTION DECLARING OCTOBER 27. 1993. AS "UNFUNDED MANDAT~
DAY" IN THE CITY OF MOUND
Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//93-136 RESOLUTION ON UNFUNDED MANDATES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were none.
1.6 DISCUSSION: POSSIBLE DISSOLUTION OF THE LMCD
The Mayor stated that this item is on the Agenda to get a feel for the Council's position on
dissolving the LMCD. The Mayor stated that he attended a recent LMCD Mayor's Meeting
which was supposed to be an informational meeting to allow better communication between the
cities and the LMCD. Before they got very far, the Mayor of Orono starting talking about
dissolving the LMCD. Mayor Johnson stated he asked the remainder of the Mayors to bring
the dissolution of the LMCD up at their Council meetings to get a feel for the majority's
feelings. Mayor Johnson stated there has not been a suggestion of a workable alternative to the
LMCD.
The Council did not express an interest in dissolving the LMCD. They agreed that they did not
have a better alternative. They did, however, feel that there should be some changes made in
the LMCD: more accountability to the cities; cities should have more involvement through their
representative.
337
BILLS
October 24, 1995
Batch 5102
Total Bills
$153,939.03
$153,939.03
-I
crrY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
Sept. 1995
75.00%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non -Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovemmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Charges to Other
Departments
Sept. 1995 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
1,254,200 0 618,256 (635,944) 49.29%
9,800 0 3,519 (6,281) 35.91%
66,000 7,648 75,294 9,294 114.08%
888,590 5,685 508,438 (380,152) 57.22%
47,850 583 5,953 (41,897) 12.44%
60,000 6,315 48,912 (11,088) 81.52%
81,900 1,179 19,105 (62,795) 23.33%
0 868 8,250 8,250 N/A
TOTAL REVENUE
2~408 ~340 22~278 1 ~287,727 (1.120.613} 53.47%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
325,785 30,560 251,226 (74,559) 77.11%
88,320 21,072 93,929 5,609 106.35%
1,400,000 122,121 1,047,551 (352,449) 74.83%
400,000 31,785 296,687 (103,313) 74.17%
730,000 60,460 533,696 (196,304) 73.11%
5,650 1,000 2,595 (3,055) 45.93%
70,800 180 70,875 75 100.11%
10/13/95
rev95
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
Sept. 1995
75.00%
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Sum mer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
Sept. 1995
BUDGET EXPENSE
69,330
4,000
1,380
184,000
2,670
51.700
155 920
24800
103 520
833 35O
4 610
162 280
4OO 860
101 160
133 53O
28,960
15,000
14O,96O
YTD PERCENT
EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
4,176 51,699 17,631 74.57%
0 4,000 0 100.00%
125 723 657 52.39%
10,931 118,231 65,769 64.26%
7 1,928 742 72.21%
17 52,647 (947) 101.83%
11,951 117,704 38,216 75.49%
1,483 14,094 10,706 56.83%
5,046 70,354 33,166 67.96%
61,965 580,351 252,999 69.64%
44 1,828 2,782 39.65%
13,613 108,051 54,229 66.58%
40,902 287,858 113,002 71.81 %
9,377 73,169 27,991 72.33%
15,663 100,632 32,898 75.36%
0 21,554 7,406 74.43%
3,526 19,848 (4,848) 132.32%
10,587 95,280 45,680 67.59%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2~418~030 189~413 1~719,951 698~079 71.13%
Area Fire
Service Fund 285,330 15,587 231,781 53,549 81.23%
Recycling Fund 118,590 9,249 102,660 15,930 86.57%
Liquor Fund 197,410 15,781 147,928 49,482 74.93%
Water Fund 371,690 32,131 283,549 88,141 76.29%
Sewer Fund 1,019,480 88,538 884,313 135,167 86.74%
Cemetery Fund 5,840 515 3,299 2,541 56.49%
Docks Fund 78,700 4,342 42,929 35,771 54.55%
exp95
10/13/95
G.B.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 9, 1995
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill
Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Lisa Crum, Ed Surko, and Becky Glister, City Council Representative
Mark Hanus, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James.
The following people were also in attendance: Jerry & Catherine Palen, Wende Brady, Craig
& Nancy Wolfe, Rita & Terry Hughes, and Raymond Loehlein, and Dennis Batty.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of September 11, 1995 were presented for approval.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of September 11, 1995 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE 95-44: VOIDED.
CASE 95-45: CRAIG WOLFE, 4774 KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 6-8 & 18-23, BLOCKS 4 & 10,
SETON, PID 19-117-23 22 0057. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION
The Building Official reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking variance
approval to construct a conforming two story addition to the existing home. The
existing deck is 25 feet from the ordinary high water line (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka.
The setback required by the ordinance is 50 feet resulting in a 25 foot variance.
The subject parcel is located on a channel of the lake and the area below the OHWL
abutting the parcel is wetland. In similar situations in the past, the City has
considered the fact that a substantial separation exists between the lot line and the
open water area. This, coupled with the fact that the proposed addition is in a
conforming location forms the basis for a finding of practical difficulty.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
requested shoreland setback variance for the existing deck. It is further suggested
that the Planning Commission's finding include a determination that the "practical
difficulty" provision of the ordinance applies to this case since the property borders
a substantial wetland open space and since the proposed improvement conforms to
the Zoning Code.
Hanus noted that the "rock on plastic" as indicated on the survey, is not included in
the hardcover calculations. The Building Official noted that the plastic is very tattered
and allows seepage.
Planning Cornrnission Minutes October 9, 1995
Hanus questioned if it is right not to allow a property owner to count their entire lot
area for hardcover purposes, eventhough it is under the 929.4. Mueller stated that
land under the 929.4 is not considered their property, it is governed by the State, The
Building Official stated that only the area above the 929.4 is considered for lot area
calculations.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval
of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
CASE 95-46: RAYMOND LOEHLEIN & TARJA KALA, 5982 BARTLETT BLVD.,
LOT 11, SEIFARTH'S MOUND BAY PARK, PID 23-117-24 42 0093. VARIANCE FOR
GARAGE.
The Building Official reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to
allow construction of a conforming 22' x 28' detached garage. The existing dwelling
is nonconforming to the front yard as shown on the attached zoning sheet and survey.
A 30 foot front yard setback is required to Bartlett Blvd., a 17 foot setback is existing,
resulting in recognition of a 13 foot variance. The proposed hardcover on this site is
conforming at under 30 percent.
The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property and does not create
additional encroachment or nonconformance. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the variance request as noted.
It was noted that the site plan shows a 13.6' front setback and the survey shows an
18.6' setback and it was questioned if the nonconforming front setback should be
clarified by locating property irons. The Building Official indicated that he scaled the
setback on the survey and the house is approximately 17 feet from the front lot line
when measured to the nearest point.
The Building Official commented that the house is a substantial structure, it is not
being modified, and if it is closer than 17 feet to the front property line, it would not
impact staffs recommendation. He had no objection to approving a variance to
recognize a 17 foot (+/-) front setback.
Hanus questioned the 20 foot setback from the proposed garage to the west property
line abutting Garden Lane. He referred to Zoning Ordinance Section 350: 440, Subd.
5. which allows for lots of record with a lot width of 51 to 80 feet to have a 20 foot
setback. Hanus questioned how you measure the lot width and noted that the lot
frontage is 86.75'due to the angle. The Commission requested that staff clarify this
issue prior to the case being heard by the City Council.
Plann/ng Co/nm/ss/on Minutes October 9, 1995
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend
approval of the variance recognizing an existing nonconforming front
yard setback of 17 feet +l-, to allow construction of a conforming
detached garage. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
CASE 95-47: WENDE BRADY, 2174 CENTERVlEW LANE, LOTS 11 & 28,
BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID 13-117-24 31 0055.
VARIANCE FOR GARAGE.
The Building Official reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking a variance to
allow construction of a conforming 22' x 26' detached garage. The existing dwelling
is nonconforming to the side yard with a 4.2 foot setback to the required 6 foot side
yard setback requirement resulting in recognition of a 1.8 foot variance.
The proposed hardcover on this site is nonconforming at over 30 percent. Hardcover
up to 40 percent, with conditions, is allowable for lots of record, according to Zoning
Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.
The Building Official explained that an amended report has been prepared because the
original recommendation included a condition that a hard surface driveway be
installed. After discussions with other staff, it was determined that this could not be
required.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance
request with the condition that a drainage plan for the property be developed by the
applicant, and approved by staff, that will be consistent with Zoning Ordinance
Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend
approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried
unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 10, 1995.
CASE 95-48: TERRANCE & RITA HUGHES, 6641 HALSTEAD AVENUE, LOT 17.
HALSTEAD PARK, PID 22-117-24 43 0025. VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT.
The Building Official reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow
construction of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard. A maximum height of 4 feet is
allowed in the front yard as noted by Zoning Ordinance Section 350:475, Subd. 3.A.
This property is adjacent to an existing nonconforming use. The development pattern
of the nonconforming use is not consistent with the zoning of single family, and it
appears reasonable to offer some additional separation.
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
The fence height should not have a negative effect or obstruct the vision of vehicles
in this area as the street is a dead end. Staff recommended the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the request for a 2 foot fence height variance due to this
unique situation, and the fact that additional separation is reasonable in this case.
The Building Official confirmed that the requested fence will be on the east lot line
only.
Voss questioned the status of the uncompliant situation adjacent to this property. The
Building Official indicated that staff is aware of the situation on the neighboring
property and the case is now in the hands of the City Attorney.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval
of the 2 foot fence height variance for the east side property line only,
subject to the existence of the adjacent nonconforming trailer court.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
CASE 95-49: GERALD & CATHERINE PALEN, 6545 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 18,
HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID 22-117-24 d'!. 0033. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE.
The applicant, Catherine Palen, distributed copies of a survey to the Commission in
staff which shows the sewer line location and a drainage plan which was information
requested as part of the recommendation from staff.
The Building Official reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow
construction of a detached garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on
the same lot. Zoning Ordinance Section 350:435, Subd. 2 states, "No accessory
building shall exceed the height of the principal building in the 'R' District." The
proposed garage is conforming to all setbacks. Impervious surface coverage is over
30 percent, but will be conforming at less than 40 percent for lots of record, with an
approved drainage plan.
The new garage is intended to serve the dwelling shown on the lakeside lot, Parcel A.
The applicant was originally contemplating a minor subdivision that would allow Parcel
A to accommodate the garage. Both parcels are currently under the same ownership.
This property was subdivided in 1971 as approved by Resolution #71-77, and since
that time, there have been substantial changes in the City's ordinances and in the
subdivision process.
The addition of the garage on the street side parcel raises concerns that could
negatively effect the lakeside parcel if precautions are not taken. The Building Official
commented that a building permit could be issued without a variance if the applicant
simply reduced the height of the proposed garage.
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
The plans for the garage match the architecture of the dwelling on Parcel A and this
could be considered a positive step towards the eventual combination of these
parcels and the elimination of the rental unit. Currently, there does not appear to be
a reasonable location for a garage on Parcel A. The applicant has proposed to remove
a small deck and the encroaching shed on the east side.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance
request for a 22' x 24' detached garage as shown on the survey dated September 21,
1995, subject to the following conditions:
A minimum driveway/access width of 10 feet must be maintained for Parcel A.
This can be accomplished by an easement for the driveway that can also
include the utility services. An easement should be written to accommodate
the existing situation for the driveway and utilities or they could be relocated
to be within the easement.
The proposed garage must not be placed over any utility services. The sewer
service is not shown on the survey. All utilities must be identified on the
survey an located within a proper easement.
A drainage plan needs to be prepared by the applicant that incorporates the
techniques listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This
plan could be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance.
4. The deck and encroaching shed located on Parcel B shall be removed.
Weiland questioned if there are separate services for each dwelling for sewer and
water, including water meters. It was determined that staff should answer this
question prior to the case being heard by the City Council.
Weiland noted that the street side dwelling is undersized and does not meet the
minimum dwelling size requirement of 840 square feet. Mueller noted that the rental
dwelling is only about 315 square feet.
Mueller commented that if the street side parcel (parcel B) is ever sold, the lakeside
parcel (Parcel A) will still need a garage. Mueller noted that the proposed garage
would be twice the size of the rental dwelling. He is totally opposed to the proposal
as submitted and would ultimately like to see the parcels combined and the rental unit
removed. Voss and Weiland agreed.
Clapsaddle questioned why the garage was so high. Catherine Palen explained that
the garage is proposed to have a french mansard roof to match the house on the
lakeside parcel.
5
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
Voss noted that the Subdivision Resolution from 1971 is conflicting as it states the
subdivision "will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in
harmony with adjacent properties."
Mueller stated that he would rather see a garage constructed on the lakeside parcel,
even if it is setback only a couple feet from the property lines, because Parcel A needs
a garage. Mueller is not in favor of relocating the lot line through a subdivision.
Hanus would also like to see the garage on Parcel A, he would rather see the garage
attached to the house, and the dividing lot line could be moved up a little, but each
lot should retain 10,000 square feet.
MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Mueller, to recommend denial of
the variance as requested.
The Commission further reviewed the option of constructing the garage on Parcel A.
It was noted that the applicant could pull their request from the Council agenda if they
wished to revise their plans.
MOTION to deny carried unanimously.
This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 24, 1995.
CASE 95-50:
DENNIS BATTY & ASSOC. FOR MOUND EVANGELICAL FREF
CHURCH, 2117 COMMERCE BLVD., M&B, SECTION 14, PID 14-117-24 41 0006.
VARIANCE FOR ADDITION.
The Building Official reviewed the planning report prepared by Mark Koegler. The
Mound Evangelical Free Church is proposing to expand its existing facilities by addition
additional sanctuary space over the top of an existing classroom wing which was
originally constructed to support a future addition. The proposed construction will not
significantly expand the footprint of the existing structure.
The variances being requested are for setback
1)
Setback: The existing setback on the west side of the church abuts and R-2
zone which requires a 50 foot setback. The existing setback is 36.6 feet
resulting in a request to recognize a variance of 13.4 feet.
2)
Parking: The Zoning Ordinance request a total of 50 parking spaces to serve
the church. The site will accommodate 31 parking spaces. The church has
indicated that they have a parking lot agreement with the Hennepin County
Library for the use of 41 additional parking spaces.
Planning Comrniss/on Minutes October 9, 1995
3)
Impervious Surface Coverage: The existing coverage totals 61%, and after the
improvements, the total amount will be 62%. The Zoning Ordinance allows a
maximum of 30% Impervious cover until such time as the City has a storm
water management plan. After adoption of a storm water management plan,
the allowable impervious cover in the B-1 zone will increase to 75%. A finding
of practical difficulty exists allowing approval of the required impervious cover
variance.
The Mound Zoning Ordinance requires screening and buffering where uses in the B-1
abut residential uses, In order to comply with this provision, the church will need to
submit a landscaping plan,
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
setback, parking and impervious cover variances to allow construction of the Mound
Evangelical Free Church's addition subject to the following conditions:
The Church shall submit a copy of the parking agreement with Hennepin
County. Said agreement shall be required to ensure use of the library parking
lot by church members.
The Church shall submit a copy of an easement agreement allowing access to
the garage of the private residence abutting the west side of the property.
The Church shall submit a landscaping plan identifying the type of screening
that will be used along the west side of the property abutting the parking lot to
eliminate headlight glare onto the adjacent residential property.
The parking lot improvements as shown shall consist of bituminous surfacing
and concrete curb and gutter around the entire perimeter.
The Church shall prepare a grading and drainage plan and said plan shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit
issuance.
Weiland questioned condition #2 and asked why the church should be responsible for
the easement and why is it not the homeowners responsibility. Mueller commented
that it would be in the best interest of the church to have an easement.
A representative from the Church submitted a copy of their parking agreement with
Hennepin County to the secretary.
Mueller asked if the church was comfortable with the conditions within the report.
Dennis Batty stated that the conditions are acceptable, however, they would like to
be able to wait one or two years to pave the parking lot. They have no problem
installing the curb and gutters.
7
Plann/ng Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
The Building Official stated that the requirement for a hard surface parking lot is
consistent with the conditions placed on the approval of the recent parking lot
expansion for St. John's Church.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval
of the variance as recommended by staff.
The Commission discussed the pros and cons of having the parking lot not paved right
away. Clapsaddle noted that there is no timeline stipulated in the recommendation,
and stated that curbing will probably provide for needed water detention. Michael
referred to condition #4 and stated that he interprets the condition to mean that when
the parking lot is improved, it "shall" consist of bituminous surfacing, meaning it shall
be paved right away. Michael requested that this clarified prior to City Council review.
MOTION carried unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT.
The commission discussed with Mark Hanus the role of a City Council liaison to an
advisory commission. Hanus' interpretation of his responsibility as a Council
Representative is, "to honestly and openly represent the Planning Commission's
positions if or when the Council asks for this information or wishes any elaboration on
the minutes or the discussion at the commission meeting." Mueller questioned if the
Council would agree with Hanus' interpretation.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to request from the
City Council a clarification of the role and responsibilities of a council
liaison. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Mueller,
Clapsaddle, Surko, Voss, Michael, Crum, Glister, and Weiland. Hanus
was opposed.
Hanus stated that he was opposed because he feels he has already related to the
Commission what his role should be.
The Commission asked for an update from Hanus on the response received from the
City Attorney relating to their concerns about the Park Dedication Ordinance. Hanus
explained that he thinks the attorney misunderstood their concerns, and he will have
to review the issue with him.
8
-321
Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 1995
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting
a! 10:12 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Geoff Michael
Attest:
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 1995
Present were: Vice Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes,
Peter Meyer, Janis Geffre, Mary Goode, Bill Darling, and Rita
Pederson, Council Representative AndreaAhrens, Parks Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James.
Commissioner Schmidt was absent and excused.
Tim Piepkorn from Westonka Community Education and Services was
also present.
NEW COMMISSIONER
Rita Pederson was welcomed to the Commission.
MINUTES
MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Byrnes to approve the
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of September 14,
1995 as written. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
Meyer requested discussion on a proposed modification to the 1996
dock application forms. Chair Casey added this as discussion item
8.A.
SUMMARY OF 1995 PARKS AND BEACHES PROGRAM
Tim Piepkorn, Recreation Coordinator for Westonka Community
Education and Services, summarized highlights of the 1995 Parks and
Beaches Program.
Safety was a priority this year, and they are considering cellular
phones for the lifeguards, or getting radios that would be
compatible with the Police Department's system.
They had cut the parks program back to 4 days per week to encourage
participation in the special trips offered on Fridays. Budgeted
funds that were not spent on the parks budget was used for the
lifeguards. There were very few rain days last summer which
strained the lifeguard's budget and caused them to cut the season
short.
A few lifeguards got badly sunburned this year and they would like
to consider installing some type of sun shelter, such as a tarp or
umbrella.
Ahrens suggested that next year a notification be published in the
paper indicating a date when the beaches will be closing.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes
October 12, 1995
Piepkorn explained that they are taking attendance every half hour
in order to more accurately determine peak times. They hope to
determine if quality or quantity is in more demand. He stated that
he will be back to review the 1996 program.
Spraying for weeds at the beaches was discussed, and it was noted
that the Park Supervisors should be notified when the spraying is
going to occur.
Darling suggested that the City look into hiring scuba divers to
remove weeds from the lake and noted that it is a chemical-free
method. He stated that every year the Waconia Lake Association
hires them to remove weeds from that lake.
Piepkorn noted that the Park Commission had expressed concerns
about the lifeguard's pay schedule at previous meetings, and he
informed them that a new pay schedule has been instituted and it
allows for raises each year a lifeguard returns.
DOCK LOCATION MAP
Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, explained to the Commission that no
changes are being proposed to the Dock Location Map and that the
number of dock sites is proposed to remain at 448.
Ahrens requested that the map show each dock site number instead of
just a range of numbers. The Parks Director agreed that this could
be done, and also suggested that the Type of Common for each dock
site also be included.
Pederson recalled that a task force member had mentioned an error
on the map in the Devon area. The Parks Director confirmed that
the error is that the map shows Pembroke Park on land that is
actually privately owned and confirmed that this can be corrected.
Pederson requested that Waterbank Common be correctly labeled, she
noted that the map currently shows this area as Waterside Common.
She also suggested that the Centerview Fishing Pier be added to the
map.
Byrnes requested that Wychwood Commons also be correctly labeled on
the map. The Parks Director indicated that he will check the
original plat on this issue.
The Park Commission will hold a public hearing on November 9, 1995.
STAIRWAYS ON COMMONS - CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
The Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed a memorandum from the
Building Official regarding building code application to stairways
on the commons. The Building official contacted Orono and found
that their Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) requires building
permits for detached stairways leading to the lake. A maximum 4
foot wide stairway is allowed with a maximum landing size of 4' x
8', and they are required to meet the building code.
Park and Open Space Commission M/nutes October 12, I995
The Park and Open Space Minutes from the last meeting were briefly
reviewed. Fackler noted that Councilmember Mark Hanus had
suggested that the stairs be "structurally sound."
Darling stated that there has to be some specific standard to
follow, you cannot be ambiguous. He would like to see a different
set of standards, but does not know if that can happen for stairs
located on public lands.
Ahrens questioned if stairways on the commons are considered to be
private property. Darling stated that even though the stairs may
be private property, they are still on public land.
Fackler noted that these stairs should provide a safe and
comfortable access to the docks, and questioned if their purpose is
to achieve safe access, or a structurally sound stairway. Fackler
noted that if safe access is their objective, the building code
would be the proper standard to follow.
Casey commented that stairs which are constructed to code do not
look good and appear as being over-built. Fackler noted that there
are other ways to construct stairs which would be less obtrusive,
such as building the stairs into the ground or on-grade with
railroad ties or concrete block.
Ahrens commented that she would like to get a written opinion from
the attorney on whether the stairs on commons are considered as
private or public? She does not see the difference between the
dock and the stairs.
Darling commented that there are building codes for a reason, and
we do not want to send a message that a stairway can be built
otherwise. Ahrens reviewed the history of this issue and why it is
being discussed. Ahrens explained that the Park Commission and
City Council have approved a stairway located on public lands which
does not meet the building code, and if stairs get approved that
don't meet the code, then we should not have an ordinance that says
they have to meet the code. Goode questioned if the City Council
could be found negligent if they do not require the stairs to meet
code.
Geffre noted that according to the City Council minutes of October
12, 1993, staff had questioned if the building code should apply to
existing stairways and what to do with new stairways. The City
Council directed the building official to draw a policy which would
say that new stairways shall meet the Uniform Building Code. She
stated that it should not be up to the Park Commission to recommend
what determines a safe stairway. Meyer feels the Building Official
could determine what constitutes a safe stairway. Darling
questioned when the flexibility would stop? Where do you draw the
line?
3
Park and Open Space Commission M/nu=es October 12, 1995
Casey suggested that maybe the Building Official does not have to
be the person to inspect the stairs. Fackler commented that no
public employee would want to be responsible to declare what
constitutes a safe stairway as they could personally be held
liable, and if someone did get hurt on a stairway, that employee
could also suffer emotionally.
Ahrens commented that there is nothing that would prohibit them
from putting basic requirements in the procedure manual, such as it
needs a handrail, without getting specific. She does not see a
problem with the City designing basic standards that is not as far
reaching as the UBC so they do not end up with cattle chutes.
Who could develop a set of standards was discussed. Ahrens
suggested that the Commission send a recommendation to the Council
informing them that they think the standards are too stringent and
asking them if they would consider the possibility of new standards
to be drafted.
Geffre suggested that they get an opinion from the Building
Official and City Attorney to make sure there is no legal aspect
involved in coming up with a new set of standards so they do not
put time and effort into it before investigating. She would like
to see stairs that are not so obtrusive to the shoreland.
Casey suggested that a motion could be made stating that they would
like to see the standards relaxed, however, they should be defined,
and that they need an opinion from the City Attorney on the public
versus private nature of the stairways.
Geffre would like more input from the Building Official and City
Attorney on the legality of the standards being changed.
Casey suggested that the Park Commission recommend that standards
be relaxed and redeveloped subject to the Attorney's opinion that
it is legal.
Fackler questioned what part of the standard they do not want to
apply in order to reduce the cost? Casey commented that making the
determination of what the standards should or should not be can be
made after they find out if the City Council agrees that the
standards are too strict.
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to
the City Council that the construction standards for
stairways on commons be redefined and an opinion from the
Building official and City Attorney be obtained on the
legality of doing so.
4
Park and Open Space Commission Minu=es Oc=ober 12, 1995
Ahrens suggested the motion be modified as follows:
Recommend to the City Council that upon an opinion from
the Building Official and City Attorney on the
legalities, the Park Commission recommends that the
construction standards for stairways on public lands be
redefined.
Darling questioned what they mean by "redefine," what is their
purpose? Ahrens reiterated that the Park Commission and Council
have approved a stairway which is in total disagreement with the
Policy and Procedure Manual, and she thinks this is the impedance
for the redefinement. Darling feels that a mistake was made, and
now is the time to correct it, but to say that just because it was
done that way once, does not constitute a change. Darling feels
that the Commission is going down different paths, he has heard
some say that they want it redefined because the stairs look bad,
and some say it is because it cost too much to build a stairway to
meet the building code. Casey summarized that all of those are
reasons and suggested that a friendly amendment be made to include
those items in the motion. The reasons to redefine the
construction standards for stairways were reviewed by the
Commission to be:
COST (cost of materials in order to build to code)
AESTHETICS (some look like a cattle chute because they
were built to code)
SAFETY (over-building, does not have to meet code to be
considered safe)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (when built to meet code, impacts
vegetation and appearance of the shoreline)
Goode agreed to amend the motion to include the four reasons.
Ahrens commented that it is not necessary. Darling stressed that
an end objective should be clarified. Ahrens summarized that the
objective is that we are making a recommendation because the City
Council told us we are disavowing the language on the books now.
Darling does not agree that one instance is substantiating.
Casey stated that he would like the four reasons included in the
motion. As seconder, Ahrens agreed to include the reasons in the
motion. The motion was reiterated, as follows:
MOTION made by Goode, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to
the City Council that upon an opinion from the Building
Official and City Attorney on the feasibility and or
legal liability, the Park Commission recommends that the
construction standards for stairways on public lands be
redefined for the following reasons:
cost
aesthetics
safety
environmental impact
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October 12, 1995
Ahrens and Casey both agreed that the Building official should not
be included in the motion to give an opinion on the legal
liability. Ahrens suggested that the Building official's opinion
may not be needed until new standards are being drafted.
Darling asked for a friendly amendment, and read a proposed motion:
The Park and Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney
to identify the legal liability in change and risk
associated with redefining the stair construction
standards for safety, aesthetics, environmental impact,
and durability.
Goode withdrew her motion. Ahrens withdrew her second.
Darling moved, and Ahrens seconded a motion that the Park
and Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney to
identify the legal liability in change and risk
associated with redefining the stair construction
standards for safety, aesthetics, durability, and
environmental impact.
Casey questioned if we are not also recommending the standards be
changed? Ahrens suggested to add language stating that if there
are no additional risks, that we would recommend the standards be
changed. Darling attempted another re-wording of the motion, as
follows:
The Park and Open Space Commission asks the city Attorney
to identify the legal liability in changes and risks
associated with redefining the stair construction
standards for safety, aesthetics, durability, and
environmental impact. And, if there is no additional
risks found that the city explore and define new
standards that meet our objectives of safety, durability,
aesthetics, and minimal environmental impact.
Casey summarized that the motion implies that if there is no risk,
then they can go forward. He feels that sometimes there needs to
be some risk. Darling stated that this way the risks can be
identified, and then they can determine if they want to move
forward. Darling wants to know what the risks are. Ahrens does
not want their recommendation to die because a slight risk may be
identified. Pederson asked if the City's insurance company would
not be the party to tell them what the risks are.
Ahrens withdrew her second. Goode seconded the motion. Geffre
commented that the Building official already determines if existing
stairways are safe, so he must have some idea of what constitutes
a "safe" stairway, and therefore, she would agree that there may be
some possibility of a change.
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes October I2, 1995
Meyer agreed with Casey and Ahrens that he does not want to see
their recommendation die just because there may be some risk.
Ab_tens commented that the Commission should agree that some
liability or risk may need to be accepted in order to reduce the
standards. Darling agreed that he wants this issue brought back to
the Commission for discussion if it is determined that there are
risks, he wants to know what the risks are. Casey noted that the
attorney will not be able to identify the risks without knowing
what the standards will be. Darling then suggested that the
standards be developed first. Casey emphasized that they need to
know if the Council is interested in having them work on this
change.
Meyer called for the question for the Motion on the floor:
MOTION by Darling, seconded by Goode, that the Park and
Open Space Commission asks the City Attorney to identify
the legal liability in changes and risks associated with
redefining the stair construction standards for safety,
aesthetics, durability, and environmental impact. And,
if there is no additional risks found that the city
explore and define new standards that meet our objectives
of safety, durability, aesthetics, and minimal
environmental impact.
MOTION failed 1 to 7.
opposed were: Goode,
Geffre, and Pederson.
Darling was in favor.
Byrnes, Meyer, Casey,
Those
Ahrens,
Goode suggested the following motion:
to recommend to the City Council that minimum standards
for stairways on public lands be redefined and a
recommendation from the City Attorney regarding legal
liability be made, and the purposes of the recommendation
are based on cost, aesthetics, safety, and environmental
impact.
Goode explained that this would get somebody to first draft a set
of standards, and then have those standards reviewed by the
Attorney to determine legal liability. Darling does not agree that
the standards should be first redefined without knowing the risks.
Darling suggested that the language be modified to recommended the
standards be redefined "subject to an opinion. . ." Ahrens
proposed another motion and the lanuage was discussed.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Casey, to inform the City
Council that it is the consensus of the Park and Open
Space Commission that the standards for stairways on
public lands should be redefined for the purposes of
considering cost, aesthetics, safety, and environmental
impact, and that an opinion be rendered by the City
Attorney on the legal liability, and the opinion should
be reviewed and considered in formulating the standards.
Motion carried unanimously.
7
Park and Open Space Commission M/nu=es Oc=ober 12, I995
WINTERFEST 1996.
The Lions are organizing Winterfest and it has been scheduled for
January 13 and 14. Darling expressed the importance of the City
getting more involved with organizing and supporting the event.
Fackler explained how his department assisted in preparations last
year. Darling would like to see the City officially involved in
Winterfest. Ahrens offered to ask the City Manager that if he is
contacted by the Lions about things the City can do for Winterfest,
that the City Council should be kept apprised of what is being
requested so maybe the Council can find more ways to help.
DOCK APPLICATION FORMS
Meyer referred to the bottom of the second page of the "information
sheet" where it states the following:
"NOTE: The use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is not
recommended on city property. These chemical drain into the lake
and can cause serious environmental problems.
Meyer noted that this statement is very small and not easy to see,
and suggested that a statement be added to the "Notice" as follows:
"The City of Mound discourages the use of fertilizer, weed killers
and pesticides on public land. Chemical drift and runoff ADVERSELY
affects the quality of our lakes and wetlands."
It was suggested this statement be printed in a larger type and
bolded. It was also suggested that the "Notice" be copied onto
yellow paper.
There was no objection to this change. The forms will be forwarded
to the City Council for their approval in November.
UPDATE ON COMMONS TASK FORCE.
The Parks Director explained that the surveys were mailed and are
starting to come back. The task force will be making call backs
next week if not enough are received.
Ahrens briefly reviewed that previous Mayor, Skip Johnson, spoke at
the last Council meeting and expressed a concern that the surveys
will give misleading results due to the way they were written.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT.
Ahrens informed the Commission that the Council had discussions
relating to the Park Commission unable to maintain a quorum at two
different meetings, and the Council asked that she emphasize to the
Commission that if you know you are unable to attend the meetings
that you people not continue to take up a position that could be
filled by someone who can be in attendance.
Park and Open Space Commission M/nuCes October 12, I995
Geffre offered a suggested that a separate commission be formed to
review commons and dock issues as she feels the parks and open
spaces are getting neglected. Casey suggested that the Commission
could meet every two weeks. The Parks Director stressed that the
commons is a big part of the park system and that the two
interrelate. It was determined that this issue could be discussed
in January when the 1996 calendar and work rules are reviewed.
P~RKS DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
Fackler informed the Commission that they have been working on
cleaning the NCA's and establishing walking paths.
Darling informed the Parks Director that someone damaged trees in
Langdon Park with an ax. Fackler will check into this.
Fackler reported that there is no news from the Hockey Association
regarding the establishment of an outdoor recreational skating
rink.
DOCK INSPECTOR'S REPORT.
McCaffrey had nothing specific to report.
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn the
Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
9
RECEIVED OCT 1 3 lg§5
Notice to Counties and Municipalities
Under Minn. Stat. § 216B.16 Subd. 1
BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION - STATE OF MINNESOTA
In the Matter of the Application
of Minnegasco, a division of NorAm
Energy Corp., for Authority to Change
Its Schedule of Natural Gas Rates
for Retail Customers Within the
State of Minnesota.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
FOR RATE IN~REA~F
MPUC Docket No. G-OOS/GR-95-700
On August 11, 1995, Minnegasco, a division of NorAm Energy Corp., (Minnegasco)
filed a request with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for a
general rate increase of $24.3 million or 4.2%. In accordance with Minn. Stat. §
216.16 Subd. i (1994), the Commission ordered an interim rate schedule into effect on
October 10, 1995. The Commission has approved a total interim increase of
approximately $17.8 million o? 3.12%. Most Minnegasco customers will receive a 3.127%
increase, however, Minnegasco s market-based flexible rate customers will receive a
lower interim increase of 1%.
Below are examples of the effect of the proposed and interim increase on
typical bills for Minnegasco customers. Individual changes may be higher or lower
depending on actual natural gas usage.
Rate class Average Average Average Average
(usage shown in monthly monthly monthly monthly
Therms) usage in bill: bill: bill:
Therms current interim proposed
rates rates rates
Residential 98 $51 $52 $55
Commercial/
Industrial
- up to 1,500/yr 77 $44 $45 $47
1,500-5,000/yr 246 $125 $129 $131
5,000 or more/~r 1~28g $613 $633 $600
Small Volume
Dual Fuel
- up to 120,O00/yr 3,210 $916 $944 $900
120,000 or more/yr
16,612 $4~472 $4~512 $4,310
Large General Service 38~227 $15,135 $15~608 $15,135
Large Volume Dual
Fuel*
-up to 1.200,O00/yr
-1,200,000 or 50,000 $12,148 $12,527 $12,036
more/yr
100,000 $24,095 $24,848 $23,553
*Nfnnega$co'$ market-based flexible rate customers will receive ~n interim increase of
The Commission will determine the amount of the final rate increase on or before
June 11, 1996, If the final approved rates are less than the interim rates the
difference will be refunded to customers, with interest. '
The proposed rate schedules, and a comparison of present and proposed rates, may
be examined by the public during normal business hours at their nearest Minnegasco
office, or at the Department of Public Service, 121 Seventh Place East, Suite 200, St
Paul, Minnesota 55101-2145. ·
A public hearing will be scheduled by the Commission. Public notice of the
hearing, dates and locations will be published in local newspapers in Minnegasco's
serwce areas.
Persons who wish to intervene or testify in this case should contact the
Administrative Law Judge, Allen Giles, Office of Administrative Hearings, 100
Washington Square, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2138.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 19, 1995
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER(~.~'
SUBJECT: CITY TRIMMING TREES ON PUBLIC LANDS
Councilmember Hanus and Ahrens had asked at the last Council meeting abbut some trees
removed and fill being brought into the Beachside Road area of Three Points. I checked with
Jim Fackler, Parks Director, who indicated that following the August 6, 1995 storm, a neighbor
in this area had called regarding some willow trees that were leaning. Jim investigated and some
of these trees needed to be removed due to the effects that the storm had on them. With regard
to the silt fence, he told me that the fill was brought in at least 20 feet from the lake and didn't
require a silt fence.
The question that has been raised with regard to whether the City must get a public lands permit
for instances like this need to be looked at in terms of how can the City do its parks, streets,
sewer and water and other maintenance functions that go into the normal operations of a city if
it is required to issue staff permits for these types of activities? The general, normal day-to-day
operations will never get done if the City has to put itself through the public lands permit
process. I don't think this process is designed to, or was ever intended to, restrict the City's
normal work operations.
ES:ls
printed on recycled paper
October 16, 1995
as ociati.on of
metrooohtan
municipalities
RECEIVED OCT i.§ 19115
To: Managers/Administrators
From: Veto Peterson
1996 Proposed Policy Addendum-Errata sheet
The following changes to the previously mailed 1996 proposed policy were adopt~l by the Board
of Directors at their October 12, 1995 meeting.
Please copy and distribute these changes to your Mayor and Councilmembers for their
deliberation along with the policy pamphlet.
I. Revenue
I-D-4 Property Tax Reform.
Eliminate the 6th bold paragraph starting 'The changes in tax statement...', be~n the 7th
bold paragraph with, 'A program such as; and move the 8th (las0 bold paragraph to the
beginning changing the words 'above tenets' to 'below tenets'.
Policy statement now reads:
Simplification and accountability are desirable goals that should be addressed
within the tenets below.
The impact of any proposal should be thoroughly analyzed for its impact statewide,
on the metropolitan region and on individual cities.
Major shifts that increase disparities in tax burdens among taxing jurisdictions or
regions within the state should not occur.
All significant changes should be phased in so that cities can adequately plan for any
needed adjustments.
A property tax relief program, LGA, should remain an essential component of the
property tax system. Categorical aid programs should not become a substitute for
LGA and related property tax relief programs.
3490 lexington avenue north, st. paul, minnesota 55126 (612) 490-3301
Property tax reform should recognize the tax/cash flow needs of and not jeopardize
existing development districts, tax increment finance districts or enterprise zones.
A program such as income-adjusted circuit breaker and renters' credit should
continue,
IlL
General Legislation (No Board changes)
Housing and Economic Development and Land Use
III-B-1 Cities Economic Development Responsibilities.
The Bold policy statement language is identical but reordered as follows:
A state development strategy should be established to prOvide job creation and
redevelopment, prevent blight and decay, clean up polluted lands and provide
adequate housing opportunities.
In partnership with the state, cities should be charged with locally administering a
development policy created by the legislature and governor, as well as any local
economic development plans or policies.
The state should acknowledge cities as the primary units of government responsible
for implementing these strategies and land use controls. Additional tools should be
developed for cities to accomplish these objectives.
III-B-9 Livable Wage Policy.
Change the second bold bulleted statement to read:
· Assistance be a loan or grant equal to or greater than $25,000. TIF, for purposes
of this act is not assistance if used for housing, redevelopment, renewal, or soils
correction districts.
III-C Land Use Planning and Regulation.
This policy was combined with a similar policy in chapter IV and deleted from thi.q section
of policy. See new policy IV-D-3 Land Use Planning and Regulation below.
Metropolitan Governance, Structure, and Issues
1V-D-3 Planning and Land Use Controls Adjacent to the Metropolitan Area.
Two committees adopted similar policy dealing with the same issue from different
perspectives. The Board is recommending combining policy III-C Land Use Planning and
Regulation and policy IV-D-3 as follows. Please disregard policies IlI-C and IV-D-3 as
contained in the previously mailed proposed policy packet.
(NEW) IV-D-3 Land Use Planning and Regulation.
City land use regulation in the metropolitan area is governed by the statewide Municipal
Pla~.ning Act (MS 462) and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MS 473), which was
revised and updated during the 1995 Session. While not a perfect framework, the
guidelines and requirements in these laws have worked well for metropolitan cities. There
is a growing perception, however, that existing land use planning law is not adequate to
deal with current development issues and concerns. Part of this perception may be based
on the fact that Minnesota does not have a statewide growth management policy.
State legislators, Metropolitan Councilmembers, local officials and the public have
expressed increased concern about the continued pattern of outward growth, or urban
sprawl, in the metropolitan area. Specific issues include constrained funding for expansion
of regional systems, a desire to preserve the urban core, the need for affordable housing
throughout the region, protection of agricultural uses, environmental impacts and a desire
to promote development patterns consistent with maintenance of a viable public
transportation system.
At the same time, studies have documented continued acceleration of often unplanned and
uncontrolled growth in the next ring of counties surrounding the metropolitan area,
including western Wisconsin. AMM members are concerned that imposing increased
requirements and cost on growth within the seven counties covered by the metropolitan
Council, while leaving unaddressed the issue of exurban development outside the seven
counties, will simply accelerate the trend of leap-frog development and make it more
difficult to produce affordable housing. Similar issues, albeit on a smaller scale, are of
concern to cities throughout Greater Minnesota, particularly the regional centers.
The AMM strongly encourages the Metropolitan Council and the State of
Minnesota to devise effective methods of ensuring responsible and controlled
development in counties surrounding the metropolitan area. Options may include
expansion of the Metropolitan Council's area of land use planning authority in
surrounding counties, granting additional planning authority to Regional
Development Commissions; and or adoption of a planning law requiring more
· responsible regulation of land development in counties surrounding the metro area.
Discussions should also be continued with officials in western Wisconsin to
encourage their adoption of effective growth control measures. Further investment
in transportation infrastructure to connect with Wisconsin should be contingent
upon their implementation of such controls.
The AMM also encourages the Metropolitan Council to continue its flexible guided
growth policy regarding Metropolitan urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion
requests as outlined in the Regional Blueprint. However, the Metropolitan Council
must recognize that until there are effective growth management strategies and tools
V
beyond the metropolitan area, tightening of MUSA expansion criteria within the
metropolitan area will cause one or more of the following:
· Increased leap-frog development into adjacent counties and Wisconsin.
· Increased housing costs within the metropolitan area.
· Decreased economic growth due to increased development costs.
· Increased development activity in the Rural Service Area.
IV-G-3 Regional Wetlands Management.
This policy is deleted and m-referred to committee for additional consideration. The
Board expects to review this issue and possible commiUee reconsideration at the lanuary
Board meeting.
Transportation
V-C Transportation Highway and Transit Funding Alternatives.
The word transportation in the last sentence of the first bold statement was changed to
highways. It now reads:
Funding assurances for transit and highways should be dedicated in a consistent
manor.
V-D Regional Transit System.
A bold policy statement was added as follows:
The Metropolitan Council should work with local units of government to encourage
appropriate land use controls along designated transit corridors to promote transit
ridership.
MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
The meeting was called to order at 7 am. Members present: Paul Meisel, Jerry
Pietrowski, Jerry Longpre, Councilmember Jensen, Dave Willette and Mark Brewer.
Absent: Stan Drahos. Also present: Sharon Cook, ex-officio non voting member;
Teresa Fogarty, ex-officio non voting member and new Executive Director of the
Westonka Chamber; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator and Ed
Shukle, City Manager.
Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Pietrowski and carried unanimously, the minutes
of the August 17, 1995 meeting were approved.
Lost Lake Improvement Pr0iect
Bruce Chamberlain gave an update on the Lost Lake Improvement Project. He
reviewed a conceptual drawing of the Auditor's Road, Lost Lake area and discussed
various concepts regarding the street design and the related amenities.
Auditor's Road Improvement Project
City Manager Ed Shukle gave a report indicating that appraisals are being worked on
for the various properties along the Auditor's Road right-of-way.
Westonka Community Center
City Manager Ed Shukle gave update indicating that the survey results were presented
to the Westonka School District Board and the City of Mound Council. He stated that
the task force will be continuing to meet to finalize a recommendation to the School
District on the future of the existing community center.
It was noted that Jerry Pietrowski is scheduled to bring the rolls at the next meeting
scheduled on October 19, 1995, 7 am, Mound City Hall.
Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Pietrowski and carried unanimously, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:05 AM.
Ed Shukle
City Manager
ES:Is
MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - OCTOBER 19, 1995
The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Mark Brewer, Stan
Drahos, Jerry Pietrowski, Councilmember Liz Jensen, Jerry Longpre. Absent and
excused: Paul Meisel and Dave Willette. Also present: Teresa Fogarty, Executive
Director, Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic
Development Coordinator; Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Ex-officio non-voting member;
Gino Businaro, Finance Director and Ed Shukle, City Manager.
Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Pietrowski, and carried unanimously, the
Minutes of the September 21, 1995 meeting were approved.
Bruce Chamberlain gave a brief report on the status of the Lost Lake Improvement
project. He indicated that he and other city staff members met with representatives
of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to discuss storm water management as
it relates to the downtown project and the City overall. He also reported that City
officials had met with Meisels, regarding the need for a permanent easement on the
Meisel property in order to accommodate the seawall and other construction related
to the Lost Lake Improvement project. City Manager Ed Shukle pointed out that the
agreement with Meisels should be ready for approval at the October 24, 1995 regular
City Council meeting.
Ed Shukle, City Manager, gave a report on the Auditor's Road Improvement project.
He indicated that negotiations had begun with two of the seven property owners.
Ed Shukle, City Manager, reported on the Westonka Community Center Status. The
task force is continuing to meet and has tabled discussion until November 8th to
follow the school district's operating levy referendum.
Teresa Fogarty provided some ideas on increasing local business activity for
downtown Mound.
Ed Shukle reported on a new business to be located in the former SuperAmerica
building. The name of the business is "The Coffee Place" and will be starting business
shortly.
Discussion focused on whether the EDC should provide a recommendation in the form
of a resolution to the task force on the Community Center on the need for a
community center. It was moved by Drahos, seconded by Pietrowski, and carried
unanimously, to direct the city manager to prepare a resolution indicating the
Economic Development Commission's full support of a new community center. This
resolution will be presented to the task force on November 8th.
Economic Development Commission Minutes - October 19, 1995 Page 2
It was noted that the next meeting of the EDC will be held on November 16, 1995,
7 AM, Mound City Hall. Upon motion by Pietrowski, seconded by Longpre, and
carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 am.
Ed Shukle
City Manager
ES:Is