The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-09-22C~TY OF MOUND M]~S{ON STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REG~ MEgFING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, SEIYI'E-M~ER 22, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 REGULAR MEETING· PG. 3233-3243 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO ELDO SCHMIDT, CHAIR, MOUND H.R.A. PG. 3244 Se CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - HERB PAULY - 100 YEARS OLD - PARTY OCTOBER 5, 1992. PG. 3245 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #92-048: VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT LOCATED AT 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WOODCREST OF MOUND, PID #23-117-24 23 0022, SHARON WEBB. PG. 3246-3259 CASB ~92-049: PHYLLIS MC ALPINE, 4621 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 1-7, BLOCKS 2 & 3, WYCHWOOD, PID #19-117-23 32 0018. REQUESTS VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT GARAGE. CASB ~92-05~: PG. 3260-3272 HARRISON BAY MOBIL (PAT ANDRE), 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID #13-117-24 44 0014. REQUEST: SIGN VARIANCE. PG. 3273-3292 CASE ~92-05~.: DONALD SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID #25- 117-24 11 0038. REQUESTS VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME. PG. 3293-3306 3230 e 10. #92-053: MAXINE BEISSEL, 1720 DOVE LANE, LOTS 7-9, BLOCK 12, PID #13-117-24 13 0006. REQUESTS MINOR SUBDIVISION. PG. 3307-3323 MICHAEL GARBERICK, 1586 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 14 & 15, BLOCK 5, WOODLAND POINT, PID #12-117-24 43 0068. PG. 3324-3338 3231 REQUESTS VARIANCE TO EXPAND DETACHED GARAGE. 11. CASE ~92-055: MARY MONAHAN & DAN MORSETH, 1901 LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 14, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0059. REQUEST~ VARIANCE TO ADD DECK. PG. 3339-3349 12. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 13. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF DOCK LICENSE - DOCK SITE #20890, JANE & SCOTT KEMPF. PG. 3350-3361 14. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A STAIRWAY BY DWIGHT & VIRGINIA GARDSTROM, 2867 CAMBRIDGE LANE. PG. 3362-3371 15. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A STAIRWAY BY DEAN & JULIE STEFFEN, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE. PG. 3372-3380 16. PAYMENT REQUEST #3 - 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT - GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION - $79,475.33. PG. 3381-3382 17. CHANGE ORDER #2 - 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT - GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION. PG. 3383 18. PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 3384-3393 19. INFORMaTION/MISCELLANEOUS A. August 1992 Monthly Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. (This will be handed out Tuesday evening) B. LMCD Mailings. Pg. 3394 C. Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 1992. Pg. 3395-3403 D. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of September 10, 1992. Pg. 3404-3411 He Memo from Recycling Coordinator regarding brush disposal. Pg. 3412 REMINDERS Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting is to be held Tuesday, September 29, 1992, 7:30 P.M. The main agenda item will be a detailed discussion on the Shoreland Management Ordinance. If time allows, other items will be discussed. REMINDERs Emergency Preparedness Meeting, Tuesday, September 29, 1992, 3:00 P.M., Mound City Hall. Plan to attend, if you can. REMINDERS. Hennepin County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days scheduled for Friday, September 25 and Saturday, September 26, at the Hennepin County Public Works Garage, Spring Park. REMINDER= Reception for John Norman, Thursday, October 1, 1992, 3:00 P.M., City Hall. Invitation from Metropolitan Council Chair Mary E. Anderson to attend the annual Regional Breakfast Meeting to be held Tuesday, September 29, 1992, at 7:30 A.M., at Boston Subway, 1019 Main St., Hopkins. Please let Fran know by September 24, 1992, if you plan to attend. The cost is $6.00. 3232 September 9, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 9, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 9, 1992, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Park Director Jim Fackler and the following interested citizens: Christy & Luanne Palmer, Bonny Polley, Helen Eiss, Vera Frahm, Susan & Mike Gardner, Gretchen Smith, Mildred Pierce, Dayton Williamson, Steven Kirshbaum, Dennis Flack, Ron & Mary Motyka, Louise & Howard Hagedorn, Christine & Larry Hauskins, James Walters, Margaret & Bernard Gaudette, Ron Johnson, Michael & Moe Mueller, Dean Hanus, Mike Mason, John Gabos, Rod Plaza, Ton Casey, Jim Walters, and Greg Knutson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Je~sen to approve the Minutes of the August 25, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO ELDO SCHMIDTt CHAIR, MOUND H.R.A. The City Manager reported that this Certificate will be given at a future meeting because Mr. Schmidt was not able to attend this evening. 1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CODE MODIFICATIONS The City Planner highlighted his memo to the Council, dated September 1, 1992, on the proposed changes for the Zoning Code. He explained that at a recent Committee of Whole Meeting, the Council expressed the desire to delay final action on adoption of the modifications until the shoreland management ordinance is completed. The shoreland management draft is due to come before the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 29, 1992, coming back on October agendas as needed and then the public hearing on November 10th and 24th. He therefore, suggested that the Council continue this hearing until November 10, 1992, when the shoreland provisions are scheduled for a hearing. 179 September 9, 1992 The Mayor opened the public hearing. MIKE MUELLER, 5910 Ridgewood Road - stated that he did not agree with the 10,000 square foot lot requirement in areas that have already been developed into a majority of 6,000 square foot lots. He felt in these areas, 6,000 square feet was more conducive to the neighborhoods. There was discussion about the following: a® There has to be some differentiation between splitting raw land and splitting and combining lots of record. be The need to put some major and minor subdivision language into this ordinance so there is a differentiation between the two. Ce Also discussed was the fact that at the present time the minor subdivision language does not allow for variances. The way the ordinance is proposed the requirement is 10,000 square feet for subdivision in any case. The only way that you can build on under 10,000 square feet is on a lot of record. The intent is good but there is a point that this does not take in the whole city and could cause problems. The Planner suggested he take these items to the Planning Commission and check on the subdivision section (the minor versus major) and how that can be tied into this ordinance. Councilmember Jensen suggested that before the November 10th hearing the Council think about the following: ae Locations of sheds on lots (lakeshore or non lakeshore lots). be If the language in section 23.506.2 subd. (5) conveys that if a variance is not used within one year only 1 extension of that variance will be allowed and then a new variance would have to be applied for. Councilmember Smith asked the Building Official at what height of a retaining wall do you need a railing? The Building Official stated that it depends on what the area around the retaining wall is used for. If it is general landscaping of a yard and not used for picnicking then a guard rail would not be required at all whatever height (could be 6, 8 or 10 feet and no guard rail would 180 September 9, 1992 be required). If the area was to be used as a patio area, for instance, at the point of 30 inches, a guard rail would be required (anything over 30 inches, just like a deck). He commented that in Section 23.302, subd. (106), (5), he and the City Planner plan on changing the wording to read as follows: (5) retaining walls not having or requiring a railing and not exceeding ~ "'~ ~ ~,~ ~ feet in height. The Council asked that the PIA (Planned Industrial Area) be clarified a little better. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to continue this public hearing until November 10, 1992, at which time the Council will also be discussing the shoreland management ordinance. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF THE REMOVAL OF THE DECK LOCATED ON PUBLIC LAND AT 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL The Building Official reported that he and the Park Director inspected the site today and that no action to remove the deck has been taken. The City Manager reported that on August 26, 1992, a certified letter was sent to Ms. Munson, with a copy to her attorney. In that letter were the two resolutions that were approved at the August 11, 1992, Council Meeting, and notice that the deck removal should be substantially completed by today, September 8, 1992. The letter has not been picked up at the Post Office as of this date. The Post Office attempted to deliver this letter to Ms. Munson on August 27, 1992, and a second notice was given on September 4. The City Attorney stated that he noticed the for sale sign on the pictures that the Building Official submitted. He asked that Staff find out how this property is being advertised with regard to the lakeshore and the current encroachments. The Building official stated he would check this out. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to direct the City Attorney to proceed with all necessary legal action, criminal and/or civil, for the removal of the deck. The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. 1.4 REQUEST FROM CURT JOHNSON, WEST LAKE STENO SERVICE, TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CBD PARKING PROGRAM The City Manager reported that Mr. Johnson was not able to attend this evening but submitted a letter (dated September 8, 1992) 181 September 9, 1992 regarding the concerns the Council had at the last meeting on adequate parking and snow removal for his property. The Council discussed the difference between retail and office uses and that if the building use changed to retail, Mr. Johnson would need to again be included in the CBD Parking Program because he would not have enough parking spaces. The City Attorney stated that since Mr. Johnson has the required parking spaces and the City has no agreement/lease on the property, Mr. Johnson is making a valid request to withdraw from the CBD District Parking Program. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to remove property owned by Mr. Curtis Johnson, at 5545 Shoreline Drive, from the CBD Parking Program, effective July 1, 1992. The Council discussed the fact that Mr. Johnson will be charged for July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 DISCUSSION: COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC LANDS LITIGATION AND SOURCES OF ~uSDS TO PAy THES~ COSTS The City Manager stated that this is on the agenda because there is a difference of opinion on where the legal costs associated with public lands litigation should be charged. He stated that when this question came up the costs were being charged to the Commons Dock Program. The Council discussed this item. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to direct Staff to make the appropriate adjustments and take the costs associated with public lands litigation out of the Legal Budget instead of the Cocoons Dock Fund. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 gOMMONS MARKINGS. The City Manager reviewed the background. He explained that the Park Director has reviewed all the sites that were proposed for marking and has listed those sites out by areas, telling where each common area is in the community and whether it is a dedicated or nondedicated commons. The Park Director then looked at each plat and took the language off the plat for each area. The Mayor read, from the Park Director's memo dated September 2, 1992, all the subdivisions and the language on each plat. 182 September 9, 1992 Of the seventeen areas under consideration for markings, 4 are what is considered dedicated commons to those particular subdivisions. The Park Director stated he would have to check on Wychwood which was not included in this report. The Council discussed the difference between commons and the ends of unimproved streets that are listed. The city Attorney stated that the original idea for marking the commons came about because people abutting commons have said that their property was being trespassed upon because people do not know where the commons areas start. The following persons commented against the commons markings: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 17. Helen Eise, 1563 Eagle Lane Larry Hauskins, 1749 Bluebird Lane Mike Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road Vera Frahm, 1555 Dove Lane Ron Motyka, 1545 Bluebird Lane Steve Kirshbaum, 4590 Denbigh Road John Gabos, 4687 Island View Drive Jim Walters, 1601 Bluebird Lane Ron Johnson, 4416 Dorchester Road Rod Plaza, 4539 Island View Road Moe Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road Greg Knutson, 4701 Island view Road Dayton Williamson, 2021 Villa Lane Denny Flack, 1609 Bluebird Lane Mike Garner, 1599 Bluebird Lane Bonny Polley,. 1554 Eagle Lane Comments made were: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The markings would be infringing on the homeowners who abut the commons. A well prepared brochure, handout, or map would serve the same purpose of letting residents know where accesses are and which ones are for all to use and which ones are only for specific subdivisions. These markings are too expensive. The Park Commission did not recommend markers. Some of the areas proposed for marking are not necessarily safe for people to use. Objections to the costs that could be involved in placing the markings to be sure they are not on private property. Should have containers around the commons area for people who have docks to deposit their garbage. Everyone knows where the commons are. 183 September 9, 1992 9. The markers would not provide enough information on the particular type of commons they are identifying. Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge Lane, Park Commissioner, spoke in favor of the markings for the commons. Councilmember Smith stated he would be willing to work on a committee of both abutting commons people and nonabutting commons people to try to come up with something that is agreeable with everyone and that would promote the city. This could be done over the winter. The Council agreed that setting up a committee would be a good starting point. They could use the information that has already been provided by the Staff with regard to commons. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens, to form a committee of citizens, both abutting commons people and nonabutting commons people to work on & program of identifying the commons (by making it more identifiable and getting information out to citizens on where the commons are); look at the commons issues and come back to the City Council before spring. A suggestion was made to spend some time at the next committee of the whole meeting on the following: A. how to structure this committee, i.e. number of meetings per month, decide a date to have this project completed; B. how many people on the committee should be abutting commons users; C. how many people on the committee should be nonabutting commons users; D. how many people on the committee should be just citizens of Mound, not commons users at all; E. deciding on a Council Liaison. The Council agreed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council asked that anyone interested in serving on this committee, write a letter expressing their interest to the City Manager or Mayor at City Hall. 1.7 gOMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS pRESENT Denny Flack, 1609 Bluebird Lane, stated he works hard to keep his commons area cleaned-up and would like to have other areas kept clean. He stated that he was under the impression from speaking to Hennepin County that in the past people have gotten control of certain public land. 184 September 9, 1992 The City Attorney stated that some people used to torrens off parts of the public land. This was prior to when he became City Attorney and the city did not appear at the hearings to protect their interest. But in the last 27 years there have been no transfers of public rights to private people. Ben Gaudette, 1605 Bluebird Lane, an abutting commons owner. Mr. Gaudette asked about the Park Commission's recommendation on the markings. The City Manager explained that the Park Commission had a divided opinion and did not make a recommendation on the markings. ~.8 ~RESENTATION OF ~993 PROPOSED BUDGET; RESOLUTION APPROVING TH~ ?RELIMINARY ~99~ TAX ~VY, PRELIMINARY X995 BUDGET, APPROVIN~ T~ PRELIMINARY OVEI~LL BUDGET FOR ~993m ~ SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES The city Manager explained that this is the first step as required by the Truth in Taxation Laws. The Preliminary Budget and Preliminary Tax Levy is required to be at Hennepin County prior to September 15, so that they can send out the notices, of the upcoming public hearings, to all taxpayers. The Budget will be presented in greater detail and all department heads will be present at the public hearing which is suggested to be Wednesday, December 9, 1992, and Wednesday, December 16, 1992, for the Reconvened Public Hearing, if necessary. The City Manager then explained that due to a shifting of the tax rate tiers by the Legislature, the HACA credit aid has increased. It is up about 11% from 1992. The actual levy is an increase of 2.32%, but the net levy is 1.23% decrease, due to the change in HACK. The expenditures proposed for 1993 are $9,710 less than the total revenues. The City Manager further explained that sales tax is now applied to most purchases made by the City, as of June 1, 1992. The level of spending for 1993 is about the same as 1992 except that with sales tax added on, this accounts for the increase. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~9Z-~4 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ~993 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2~25~780; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $1~734~80L; APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVEI~LL BUDGET FOR X993; ~ND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 185 September 9, 1992 1.9 SOLUTION APPROVING LEVY NOT TO EXCEED 2 000 FO T E PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION PURSUANT O THE PRO ISIONS OF MSA 69 THE HOUSING REDEVELOPME AU HORITY OF THE IT OF MOUND FO THE YEAR 199 The City Manager explained that the HRAhas requested this levy to defray operating costs at 2020 Commerce Blvd. (Indian Knoll Manor). Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~92-115 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1993 The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.10 APPOINTMENT TO T~ H~~ Motion carried. The City Manager reported that Leonard Kopp has agreed to fill the unexpired term of Eldo Schmidt on the Mound HRA. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-115 RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEONARD KOPP TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF ELDO SCHMIDT OF THE MOUND HRA The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 DISCUSSION: RECYCLING BUDGET RECAP/FALL RECYCLING DAY[ The City Council decided to have another special recycling clean-up day like the one that was held in the Spring of this year. They also discussed including brush and scrap wood. The City Manager reviewed the report on brush and scrap wood submitted by the Recycling Coordinator. The Council also discussed having another leaf pick-up around the first part of November. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to hold another special recycling clean-up day around the end of October, including brush and scrap wood, also to advertise for bids for a Fall leaf pick-up to be held around the first part of November. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 186 September 9, 1992 1.12 APPOINTMENT OF ~DDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-117 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PRIMARY~%ND GENERAL ELECTIONS SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 & NOVEMBER 3, 1992 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $226,595.29 when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADD-ON ITEMS 1.14 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENTS MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to set the date for a public hearing on special assessments (delinquent utility, unpaid tree removal, unpaid mowing, eto., and CBD parking maintenance program) for October 27, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 600:85, 610:70, 370:15 & 540:00 - CERTIFICATION FEE The city Clerk explained that these sections need to be amended to allow a $25.00 certification fee to be charged when special assessments are certified to Hennepin County. This charge will help defray administrative costs. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following: ORDINANCE %59-1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 370:15, 450:00, 600:85 AND 610:70 RELATING TO CERTIFICATION FEES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.16 DAKOTA RAIL UPDATE The City Manager explained that the City Attorney has presented a determination by the Fourth Judicial District Court Administrator of Hennepin County, Jack Provo. This determination relates to 187 September 9, 1992 combining the two Dakota Rail cases into one. The determination said that it will not consolidate the two cases (the fraud and misrepresentation case and the condemnation appeal), but rather would move them before one judge. The City will now ask Judge Fitzgerald to combine these two cases. INFORMATION/MISCELL~NEOU~ A. Department Head Monthly Reports for August 1992. B. L.M.C.D. Representative's Monthly Report for August 1992. C. LMCD Mailings. Mailings from Hennepin County on Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days scheduled for Friday, September 25 and Saturday, September 26, at the Hennepin County Public Works Garage, Spring Park. Letter from Hennepin County Community Service Department re: assistance provided by Officer Steve Grand. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting is rescheduled for September due to the Primary Election. It has been rescheduled to Tuesday, September 29, 1992, 7:30 P.M. The main agenda item will be a detailed discussion on the Shoreland Management Ordinance. If time allows, other items will be discussed. Ge REMINDERs Emergency Preparedness Meeting, Tuesday, September 29, 1992, 3:00 P.M., Mound City Hall. Plan to attend, if you can. H. Information on yard waste. Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy for the period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1997. This policy references the elimination of the 80% reimbursement policy by changing to $1.75 per household per month. It also requires cities to recycle 18% of their residential waste stream or the percentage achieved in 1992, whichever is greater. Je Invitation from Metropolitan Council Chair Mary E. Anderson to attend the annual Regional Breakfast Meeting to be held Tuesday, September 29, 1992, at 7:30 A.M., at Boston Subway, 1019 Main St., Hopkins. Please let Fran know by September 24, 1992, if you plan to attend. The cost is $6.00. 188 September 9, 1992 MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 12=15 &.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 189 CITY OF MOUND CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION PRESENTED TO ELDO SCHMIDT FOR HIS YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF: MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION - 1965-1968 MOUND CITY COUNCIL - 1969-1972 MOUND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - 1974-1992 This Certificate is presented in grateful appreciation of the unselfish, dedicated service to the citizens of this community. Dated this 8th day of September, in the year 1992. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION W~EREAS, Herb Pauly will be honored by friends and relatives on the occasion of his 100th birthday on October 5 1992; and , ~EREAS, he has lived in the community for 100 years; and W~EREAS, over the years he built and repaired many of the homes and businesses in this area; and W~EREAS, he has crafted many beautiful toys that have delighted many children and adults; and W~EREAS, he has grown and provided fresh vegetables for the Westonka Community Food Shelf for many years. ~OW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby deem it an honor and pleasure to extend this Certificate of Recognition to Herb Pauly on the occasion of his 100th birthday, with sincere congratulations and best wishes for many more happy, productive years in the future. Mayor Skip Johnson Councilmember Andrea Ahrens Councilmember Liz Jensen Councilmember Phyllis Jessen Councilmember Ken Smith PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT AT LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WOODCREST OF MOUND, PID #23-117-24 23 0022; 2615 HALSTEAD LANE; P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-048 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412,851 provides that the City Council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any park thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so; and WHEREAS, The City of Mound has claimed a street easement over the lands described as Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound; and WHEREAS, Ms. Sharon Webb, the owner of the above described property, address 2615 Halstead Lane, has requested that a street easement be vacated; and WHEREAS, A public hearing was held by the city Council on September 22, 1992, as required by law; and WHEREAS, Reason for the existence of this street easement is unknown and the City Engineer, John Cameron, sees no reason to retain this easement; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval of the vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, as follows: To approve the vacation of the street easement as described in Hennepin County Document Number 3445910, as follows: Beginning at a point in the West Line of the East 480 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being 59 feet South, measured along said West line, from the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North along said West line 59 feet to the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along said North line 684 feet; thence South at right angles 69 feet; thence Easterly to the point of beginning. The subject street easement to be vacated is located on the following legally described property: Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound, PID #23-117-24 23 0022. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings. It is the responsibility of the owner to record this certified resolution in the office of the County Recorder and/or the Registrar of Titles, as set for in M.S.A. 412.851. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION WHEREAS, Herb Pauly will be honored by friends and relatives on the occasion of his 100th birthday on October 5, 1992; and WHEREAS, he has lived in the community for 100 years; and WHEREAS, over the years he built and repaired many of the homes and businesses in this area; and WHEREAS, he has crafted many beautiful toys that have delighted many children and adults; and WHEREAS, he has grown and provided fresh vegetables for the Westonka Community Food Shelf for many years. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota does hereby deem it an honor and pleasure to extend this Certificate of Recognition to Herb Pauly on the occasion of his 100th birthday, with sincere congratulations and best wishes for many more happy, productive years in the future. Mayor Skip Johnson Councilmember Andrea Ahrens Councilmember Liz Jensen Councilmember Phyllis Jessen Councilmember Ken Smith PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT AT LOT 1, BLOCK 1, NOODCREST OF MOUND, PID #23-117-24 23 0022, 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-048 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412,851 provides that the City Council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any park thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so; and WHEREAS, The City of Mound has claimed a street easement over the lands described as Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound; and · WHEREAS, Ms. Sharon Webb, the owner of the above described property, address 2615 Halstead Lane, has requested that a street easement be vacated; and WHEREAS, A public hearing was held by the City Council on September 22, 1992, as required by law; and WHEREAS, Reason for the existence of this street easement is unknown and the City Engineer, John Cameron, sees no reason to retain this easement; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval of the vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, as follows: 1. To approve the vacation of the street easement as described in Hennepin County Document Number 3445910, as follows: Beginning at a point in the West Line of the East 480 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being 59 feet South, measured along said West line, from the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North along said West line 59 feet to the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along said North line 684 feet; thence South at right angles 69 feet; thence Easterly to the point of beginning. The Subject street easement to be vacated is located on the following legally described property: Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound, PID #23-117-24 23 0022. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings. It is the responsibility of the owner to record this certified resolution in the office of the County Recorder and/or the Registrar of Titles, as set for in M.S.A. 412.851. .MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMlVlISSION SEPTEMBER 14~ 1992 CRSE ~92-048: SHARON WEBB, 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, REQUEST TO VACAT~ STREET EASEMENT AT BLOCK 1, LOT 1~ WOODCREST OF MOUND~ PID 23-117- 24 23 0022. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed John Cameron's letter regarding the requested street easement. The easement, for some reason, is located on the westerly part of the lot, while the driven road and utilities are located on the east side, in the platted right-of-way of Halstead Lane. Cameron recommended that the easement be vacated. Mueller questioned if the City of Minnetrista has a need for this easement to provide access to the parcel to the west. Staff noted that the City of Minnetrista was mailed a copy of the notice. Jensen questioned if there is an identical easement on Lot 23? The Commission noted that the survey received by the applicant does not visually show the subject easement and the legal description is difficult to interpret. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to recommend approval of the easement vacation as requested upon the condition that the description and location of the easement be clarified. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer~ Michael, Hanus, Mueller, ross and Jensen. Clapsaddle opposed. Clapsaddle commented that he opposed due to lack of information. A public hearing is scheduled by the City Council on September 22, 1992. SEP 17 '9~ 04:19PM MCCOMBS FRAMK ROOS Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Wood Stake Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elsvstion O X000.O (ooo.o) Denotes Direction of Surf;ce Drainage Proposed Top of Foundation Elevation= Proposed Garage Floor Elevation= ./4~.o Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation- ')4 ~. I I~reby certify fiat this lea true and correct rel~reeentaflon of a Survey of fie bou~Klaries of:. Lot: 1, Block 1, WOODCREST OF MOUND, Hennepin County, Minnesota, And of the location of all buildings, If any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if on said land. It also shows the location of the stakes as set for a prol3osed building. by me or under my direct supervision 'this ~ day of April, ,19.85 any, from or As surveyed Land Surveyor, Minn. Reg. No. 10938 ~.~.,~l / 17, : o,iCERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I ASSOCIATES, INC. for I '~"'""" "" '~""'" ~ ~ ~ A/A//~ ~ ~ A / I PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-048 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT LOCATED AT 2615 HALSTEAD LANE~ LOT 1~ BLOCK It WOODCREST OF MOUNDt PID $23-117-24 23 0022 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22, 1992 to consider the vacation of a street easement at 2615 Halstead Lane, Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound. The legal description of the street easement requested to be vacated is as follows: Beginning at a point in the West Line of the East 480 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being 59 feet South, measured along said West line, from the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North along said West line 59 feet to the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along said North line 684 feet; thence South at right angles 69 feet; thence Easterly to the point of beginning. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker" August 31, 1992 and September 7, 1992. Mailed to property owners within 350' by September 7, 1992. Posted by September 1, 1992. printed on rec},'cled pape: McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 August 27, 1992 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX RECEIVED AU$ 3 1 1992 ,,.,.'.~.',,~. & Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Application to Vacate Easement Case #92-048 MFRA #8902 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the request to vacate the subject street easement over a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound. This easement, for some reason, is located on the westerly part of said platted lot, while the driven road and utilities are located on the east side, in the platted right- of-way of Halstead Lane. We see no reason for the City to return this easement and, therefore, are recommending that it be vacated. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. JC: jmk Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John ¢~aeron An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-048 NOTICE OF AN INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT LOCATED AT 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, LOT 1~ BLOCK 1~ WOODCREST OF MOUND, PID #23-117-24 23 0022 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, September 14, 1992 to consider the vacation of a street easement at 2615 Halstead Lane, Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound. The legal description of the street easement requested to be vacated is as follows: Beginning at a point in the West Line of the East 480 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being 59 feet South, measured along said West line, from the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North along said West line 59 feet to the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along said North line 684 feet; thence South at right angles 69 feet; thence Easterly to the point of beginning. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Cl~erk Mailed to property owners within 350' by August 1, 1992. printed on rec)~,cled paper MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 24, 1992 Minnegasco Northern States Power GTE Fire Department Public Works Department Police Department City Engineer Parks Department Peggy James, Planning and Inspections Secretary~ REQUEST TO VACATE STREET EASEMENT, DOC. #3445910, AT 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WOODCREST OF MOUND, PID #23-117-24 23 0022. The City of Mound has received a request from Sharon Webb, the owner of 2615 Halstead Lane, to vacate a street easement on her property. A copy of the recorded easement and a plat map is enclosed for your reference. Do you foresee a need for this street easement? Are there any utilities involved? Do you have any recommendations? Please submit your comments and concerns in writing to me by 4:30 on Monday, September 7, 1992. This request will be heard by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1992 and by the City Council on September 22, 1992. If you have any questions, please call me at 472-0607. pJ CC: CITY OF MINNETRISTA 9-2-92 3151_ pr~nted on rec}c/od pz~per APPLICATION TO VACATE CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 472-0600, fax: 472-0620 Applicant's Name .~ ~ Y~%7 /~'~ & Applicant's Address ~.~__~-/.~-- /~c~3/~_~? Legal description of property owned by applicant: Lot / Street or Easement to be Vacated:g/. ~!~'~ PID No. Date Filed S-I0 '-¢i '2 Application Fee: $150 Day Phone Block / Reason for Request & Interest in Property': there a public need for the right-of-way to be retained for a public purpose?. X~/~~ I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the'premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature ~'/.~.,,~ ~ /~.~:~.~.~,~.~ Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Recommendations from Utilities: NSP. Minnegasco Recommendations from City Depts.' Public Works Engineer Police Chief Other GTE Fire Chief 3. s3 (2) ( (~).'. (35) (26) s (~) 4 (~) (I06) { IO~ (8) (3) (~5) QK~.OT A (60) 6S~L,~ I M ~d ~-~-;- £ . BOg~, ~ir~, at & point in the We&t 1Lne o£ t. he ~a~t [~80 feet o£ the '.;out. eat :uarter. of the Nort~e~t said point betn~ ~? feet South, ~e~sured alert: said '"~st line, fron the ~or~. line of ~aid 3outSpent ~r of ~e ~ort~w~est ~aa~r; t~e ::ort,-, ~lo~: s~id Wemt line 59 feet ~ the North li~ of =aid ~ut.l~est ~ter Bf ~e .:ort~st 'u~er; the~e West' alert- said ':or~u l~me ~h fcct; thence ~uth at ~Eht ~les 69 feet; thc~e F~rl~,, to Eqe ~.nt of.be~h%niag, ttnto ~lon~in~ or in ,tny~vi.~ ap~rf,ti.in~, to fl.t' ~i,I p.t, t/t ,,/ thc ~ron'] ~rt. it.~ mtre¢~.~ors and ~t~i~a~. Fore,er. hand S the da~J and ylear fir~! ,~1~.,', ..rill,.,, Filed for reoord on't~e 2 day of D~o AD 1963 at 2~30 o'olock -:;-ATE OF MINNESOTa, COUNTY OF HENNLrPIh; .gr/,:~cd to be a true and correct co~ of t~ ,':~r,.:~,~;al 3~ fil~ and of recp,~t,l~3 my office JUL ~, 2 ]~ R. ~n ~, ~x~ R~ 0 (ooo.o) Denotes Iro~ Monument De~otea Wood Stake C)em~tes Existing Elevation ~tes Proposed Elevation Denotes Direction of Surface Drainage Propoaed To~ of Foundation Elevation- Proposed Garage Floor Elevation= ,~4s.o Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation- ')4 $. I hMeby certify that this ia a true and correct re~esentation of a survey of the boundarte~ of:. lot 1, Block 1, WOODCREST OF HOU,~D, Xennepin County, Minnesota. And of the location of all buildings, if any. thereon, and all visible encroachmenta, if any, from or on said land. It also shows the location of the stakes as set for a proposed building. Al ~urveyed by me or under my direct supervision this 18ch day of ^prtl .1g,85 . McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Land Surveyor. Minn. Reg. No. 10938 /'- ~0' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for CITY ()f IO'L ND July 16, 1992 Mr. Tom Turner Re/Max A-1 Excellence 2477 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Subject: Anderson Property 2615 Halstead Lane Mound, MN 55364 PID 23-117-24 23 0022 Dear Mr. Turner: Upon review of documents you forwarded to City Hall, it appears that the subject easement for street purposes over a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound is not required by the City of Mound. In order to eliminate this easement, the Owners will need to request a street vacation by applying for same at City Hall. In addition, the City will also need a copy of the document on Page 610 of Book 2419 in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, Hennepin County. The vacation procedure requires review by the City's Planning Commission and a public hearing before the City Council. This will take some time, because of the required published notices; therefore, it is important that the application is completed as soon as possible. Please see Peggy James of the Planning and Zoning Department at City Hall for the necessary application forms. Sincerely, ~ hukle, Jr. City Manager cc: John Cameron, City Engineer Curt Pearson, City Attorney ES:ls printed on recycled paper .MINUTES OF A ME~G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 CASE ~92-048; SHARON WBBB~ 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, REOUEST TO VACAT~ STREET EASEMENT AT BLOCK 1~ LOT 1, WOODCREST OF MOUND~ PID 23-117 24 23 0022. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed John Cameron's letter regarding the requested street easement. The easement, for some reason, is located on the westerly part of the lot, while the driven road and utilities are located on the east side, in the platted right-of-way of Halstead Lane. Cameron recommended that the easement be vacated. Mueller questioned if the City of Minnetrista has a need for this easement to provide access to the parcel to the west. Staff noted that the City of Minnetrista was mailed a copy of the notice. Jensen questioned if there is an identical easement on Lot 23? The Commission noted that the survey received by the applicant does not visually show the subject easement and the legal description is difficult to interpret. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to recommend approval of the easement vacation as requested upon the condition that the description and location of the easement be clarified. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were= Meyer, Michael, Ranus, Mueller, Voss and Jensen. Clapsaddle opposed. Clapsaddle commented that he opposed due to lack of information. A public hearing is scheduled by the City Council on September 22, 1992. SEP 17 'g2 04:1gPM MCCOMBS FRI:tNK ROOS ~.. P,2x2 _ f I 0 X 000.0 (ooo~) Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Wood 8take 'Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elevation Oenotee Direction of Surface Drainage Proposed Top of Foundation Elevation= es~l.s Proposed Garage Floor Elevation= 94 S,o Proposed Lowest Floor Elevatlont 9,* 'J. ~ I hereby certify that this ies true and correct representation of a 8ur~ey of the boundaries of:. LoC 1, Block 1, ~OODCREST OF ~OUND, Henne9~n Coun=y, M~nneeota, And of the location of all buildings, If any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. It also shows the location of the stakes as set for a proooeed building. Aa surveyed by me or uncler my direct supervision'this [8ah day of Apr±~, ,19.85 . (21TX ' ()f IOI !ND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-048 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT LOCATED AT 2615 HALSTEAD LANEv LOT lv BLOCK 1, WOODCREST OF MOUND, PID #23-117-24 23 0022 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22, 1992 to consider the vacation of a street easement at 2615 Halstead Lane, Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound. The legal description of the street easement requested to be vacated is as follows: Beginning at a point in the West Line of the East 480 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being 59 feet South, measured along said West line, from the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North along said West line 59 feet to.the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along said North line 684 feet; thence South at right angles 69 feet; thence Easterly to the point of beginning. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker" August 31, 1992 and September 7, Mailed to property owners within 350' by September 7, 1992. by September 1, 1992. 1992. Posted printed on recycled pape¢ McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 August 27, 1992 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX RECEIVED AU$ 3 1 1992 & IMOD ' '~'"":' "J ,;,or. Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Application to Vacate Easement Case #92-048 MFRA #8902 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the request to vacate the subject street easement over a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound. This easement, for some reason, is located on the westerly part of said platted lot, while the driven road and utilities are located on the east side, in the platted right- of-way of Halstead Lane. We see no reason for the City to return this easement and, therefore, are recommending that it be vacated. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC: jmk ~SP An Equal Oppodunity Employer CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-048 NOTICE OF AN INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT LOCATED AT 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, LOT lv BLOCK lv WOODCREST OF MOUND~ PID #23-117-24 23 0022 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the city of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, September 14, 1992 to consider the vacation of a street easement at 2615 Halstead Lane, Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound. The legal description of the street easement requested to be vacated is as follows: Beginning at a point in the West Line of the East 480 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being 59 feet South, measured along said West line, from the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North along said West line 59 feet to the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along said North line 684 feet; thence South at right angles 69 feet; thence Easterly to the point of beginning. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Mailed to property owners within 350' by August 1, 1992. printed on recycled p;~per ~P-J~O~DU~ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 24, 1992 Minnegasco Northern States Power GTE Fire Department Public Works Department Police Department City Engineer Parks Department Peggy James, Planning and Inspections Secretary~ REQUEST TO VACATE STREET EASEMENT, DOC. #3445910, AT 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WOODCREST OF MOUND, PID #23-117-24 23 0022. The City of Mound has received a request from Sharon Webb, the owner of 2615 Halstead Lane, to vacate a street easement on her property. A copy of the recorded easement and a plat map is enclosed for your reference. Do you foresee a need for this street easement? Are there any utilities involved? Do you have any recommendations? Please submit your comments and concerns in writing to me by 4:30 on Monday, September 7, 1992. This request will be heard by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1992 and by the City Council on September 22, 1992. If you have any questions, please call me at 472-0607. pJ CC: CITY OF MINNETRISTA 9-2-92 3352_ prit;ted on recycled p,3per CITY OF MOUND 15341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 472-0600, fax: 472-0620 APPLICATION TO VACATE Date Filed ~)-10--9 2_ Application Fee: $150 Legal description of property owned by applicant: Lot / Street or Easement to be Vacated: PID No. Day Phone ,, ,E Reason for Request & Interest in Property', tis there a public need for the right-of-way to be retained for a public purpose? ~'/~ I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature '~ .- -~'~-- ~ ~--'~-~/'~----' Date '7 ---~-~- ~'.~2. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Recommendations from Utilities: NSP Minnegasco GTE Recommendations from City Depts.: Public Works Fire Chief Engineer Police Chief Other SUBJEt (3O) (~4)' (~s) (35) ( !o~ (8) (3) ~OT A L ~t~ at a ~lnt ~ t~ We~t 1~ of the ~t 480 feet of t~ :;out, est lu~r. J said ~int be~ 59 feet South, ~asu~d aions said '"~st line, from ~e [Mr~ line of J West' alo~ said ;:orth l~e ~ feet; thence ~uth at ~t ~clcs 69 feet; thence F~rl~., to ~qe oo~.nt of.be~t~qing. t~nto ~n~in~ or in anllwi.,e ap~rtai,ing, to II, c ~ett,; p.t,tft ,[ tl, t srcon.l ~i,'l. it., m~ee,'~so,.s and n~i~as. ~or~ver. hand S tl~ da~J and !lent fir~l ,~bn,'; .'rill,',, In presence of ~ Filed for reoo~d On ~he 2 day of D~o il) 1963 at 2s30 o'olo~k .L :-:ATE OF MINNE'c3OTA, COUNTY OF HENNLrPtN or'gma~ ~n file a~ of ~ID ~ ~ JUL ~ g ]99Z ~ ~n ~ ~ R~ 0 (000.0) ~ Imn Monument Denotes Wood Stake De~otes Existing Elevation Denotes Pro~x)sed Elevati<m Denotes Direction of Surface Drainage Proposed ToG of Foundation Elevation- 9~.~. $ Proposed Garage Floor Elevation- ./4s.o Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation- 9e '~. ~ 8M FCM/4 ¢ ~ /'/ol-~/eao/la. g I~/¢z/Ev~'e -elev. = 940.54- I/7~. = ~ZZe4 I h~eby certify mat this is · true and correct relxese~tatio~ of · survey of the bound·ri# ot Lot 1, Block 1, WOODCREST OF HOUND, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if on said land. It also shows the location of the stakes as set for a proposed building. by me or under my direct supervision this ECOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. . I.)'~!'/l'''-'''~ '~'~ ,.,.,,,.,-.--. ,.,..,,. ,u,..~.,--.'"""'". ,.,,,--,.,. ,~...,. any, from or Al~urveyed [8ch day of Aortl 19 85 Land Surveyor. Minn. Reg. No. 10938 l~r..~ k I I /'..~o CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for 75Z5 CITY ()f X'IOUND July 16, 1992 Mr. Tom Turner Re/Max A-1 Excellence 2477 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Subject: Anderson Property 2615 Halstead Lane Mound, MN 55364 PID 23-117-24 23 0022 Dear Mr. Turner: Upon review of documents you forwarded to City Hall, it appears that the subject easement for street purposes over a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound is not required by the City of Mound. In order to eliminate this easement, the Owners will need to request a street vacation by applying for same at City Hall. In addition, the City will also need a copy of the document on Page 610 of Book 2419 in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, Hennepin County. The vacation procedure requires review by the City's Planning Commission and a public hearing before the City Council. This will take some time, because of the required published notices; therefore, it is important that the application is completed as soon as possible. Please see Peggy James of the Planning and Zoning Department at City Hall for the necessary application forms. SincerelI' ~Edw~ard ~~S~ukle, jr. City Manager cc: John Cameron, City Engineer Curt Pearson, City Attorney ES:ls printed on recycled paper 0 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECO~NI$ING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4621 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 4; S; 6 AND 7, IN BLOCK 3 AND LOTS I AND 2 IN BLOCK 2, TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF VACATED SUSSEX LANE, WYCHWOOD, PID #19-117-23 32 0018, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-049 WHEREAS, The applicant has applied for a variance to recognize the following existing nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a conforming detached garage: House (Wilshire) House (Suffolk) Garage (Wilshire) Existing Required Variance 18.80' 30' 11.20' 7.90' 30' 21.50' 1.95' 30' 28.05' WHEREAS, The existing condition and is actually Wilshire Blvd.; and garage is in reasonable structural setback 40' from the curb line of WHEREAS, The proposed garage is subject to a 20 foot front yard setback as this property is a through lot, and a 6 foot side yard setback; and WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-3 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 15 foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. The Planning Commission found that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house and garage variances are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house and garage setback variances are considered practical difficulties under the Zoning Code since the location of both of the structures were established prior to the adoption of the current code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve recognition of the existing nonconforming setback variances for the house and garage in order to allow construction of a new conforming detached garage subject to the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the existing house and garage variances for the purpose of construction a new conforming detached garage shall not confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house or the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE #92-049 PAGE 2 e The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 24' x 22' detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 in Block 3, and Lots 1 and 2 in Block 2, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with that part of vacated Sussex Lane described as follows: that part of Sussex Lane lying between a line drawn from the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2, Wychwood to the Northwest corner of Lot 7, Block 3, Wychwood and the Southwesterly line of County Road 125, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. ~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION " SEPTEMBER 14~ 1992 CASB ~92-049: PHYLLX8 MCALPXNEa 4621 #XLSHZRE BLVD., VARX~CE Tt; ~NSTRUCT GkR~GE AT BLOCKS 2 & 3, LOTS 1-7, WYCfI~OOD, PID 19-117-2] 0018. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the house and detached garage, as follows: ~ e u~ yariance House (Wilshire) 18.8' 30' 11.2' House (Suffolk) 7.9' 30' 21.5' Garage (Wilshire) 1.95' 30' 28.05' The existing garage is in reasonable structural condition and is actually setback 40' from the curb line of Wilshire Blvd. The proposed garage is subject to a 20 foot front yard setback as this property is a through lot. As shown on the plan, the proposed garage will conform to all setback requirements with a 22' front yard setback to Suffolk and a 6' side yard setback. Staff recommended approval of the recognition of the existing nonconforming setback variances for the house and garage in order to allow construction of a new conforming detached garage subject to the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the existing house and garage variances for the purpose of construction a new conforming detached garage shall not confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house or the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. The following finding of fact was also suggested: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house and garage variances are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house and garage setback variances are considered practical difficulties under the Zoning Code since the location of both of the structures were established prior to the adoption of the current code. Mueller questioned if tree removal would be required, and if so, would the applicant consider a different location for the garage to save trees. The applicant commented that she thought the garage was proposed to be 20' from Suffolk versus 22' and that no large trees will be removed to construct the garage.' MOTXON made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dennis Hopkins, neighbor, questioned the commission on the legal description of the applicant's property, he claimed that his legal description included some of the same property. Staff determined that this was not the case. This request will be reviewed by the City Council September 22, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO:. Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Phyllis McAlpine CASE NUMBER: 92-049 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37a LOCATION: 4621 Wilshire Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Two-Family Residential (R-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential B ACK G R OUN D: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize two nonconforming setbacks, one involving the existing house and the other involving an existing nonconforming garage. The variances are being requested to allow construction of a new conforming detached garage. The existing nonconforming setbacks include the following: House (front yard) Garage (front yard) Existing Required Variance 18.8' 30' 11.2' 1.95' 30' 28.05' COMMENT: The subject property is a through lot as classified by the Mound Zoning Code. Correspondingly, the proposed garage is subject to a 20 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot side yard setback. As shown on the plan, the garage exceeds all of these minimum requirements and is therefore conforming. The existing garage lies 1.95 feet from the property line. At this location, it is approximately 40 feet from the curb line of Wilshire Boulevard. The garage is in reasonable structural condition. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 McAlpine Planning Report September 8, 1992 Page Two RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested (existing) variances to allow construction of the new conforming garage will not intensify the nonconforming aspects of the property. At the same time, recognition of the variances which allows construction of the new structure does not change the nonconforming status of the existing house or garage. The intent of the Zoning Code is that they will be brought into compliance over a period of time. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the recognition of the existing nonconforming setback variances for the house and garage in order to allow construction of the new conforming detached garage subject to the following condition: · Approval of the recognition of the existing house and garage variances for the purpose of constructing a new conforming detached garage shall not confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house or the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house and garage variances is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house and garage setback variances are considered practical difficulties under the Zoning Code since the location of both of the structures was established prior to the adoption of the current Code. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND 5341 Heywood Roadv Moundv MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: q-}~"'q'2 Application Fee: $50.00 q-, 7/~-- q'~ Case' No. 9~--0~q Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~/ Owner's Name 7~/1/1/,///)'.5 /¢'/C ,'¢//} .'.~' ¢- Owner's Address pplicant's Name Address (if other than owner) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Addition .~)y e Zoning District ~-~ Day Day Phone Block PID No. Use of Property: ~ ~ ~JeA/~/4 L Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit: o,-~ ~th~ - e--. zoningp.~~-~.-,.--~= for ~h~.~- property? '~ ~, yes~'~9{~ '"" .... If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration of stories, type of use, etc.): 24' x J (size, number revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. q2-04°I 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for va~lance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) + de+r, %0 c o. e -! o -l on I SETBACKS: Front Yard: Rear Yard: Lake Front: Side Yard: Side Yard: Lot Size: (~S EW ~ ( SEWi ( N SEW ) ( N SEW ) ( N S E W ) Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE ~O~ ~t~ (or existing) 50' ~o' ft. 16,~' I,~5' ~,~. !I,~' Z&05'ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. i sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to a~)regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes , No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: 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: soil existing other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests i~the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No · If yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~- Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain e 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? 8. 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 by law. Applicant's Signature.~~f~ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY LEGAIg DESCRITION , [,Ot 4.5,6 and 7, Block 3. and Lots 1 and 2, Wychwood .,.~ Renneptn Cou. nt¥, Minnesota. ~ ~ Together with that part of vacated Sussex Lane ~' [ ~ ~o the North west corner of ~t 7, aloc~ 3, Wychwood T~ [ '~ and ~he Southwesterly liae o~ County Road 125, ~ ~ ~ Hennepin County, Minnesota. O~ ~ * ~NOTE$ IRON SET _.~ KlM AREA~E BOOK ~ PAGE 7~' ,.~.: ...... 2 4-0, 5'--d' \. CRUSt I.'(3F3R. PI A.~. "'~ CONC. SLA'B-~ , :7' STEEL FLU!H ITE L~ 2 X l HDR. .] FL OOD _.~] ...... 3257 p-,o'~ i ~ b..J Z 0... "'~F- -- X C)~n~ ~ROFOSED RESOLUTION ~92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE FOR HARRISON BAY MOBIL AT 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1 TO 4 INCLUSIVE AND LOTS 21 AND AND THAT PART OF..THE~:VA~ATEDALLEY, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID #13-117-24 44 0014, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-051 WHEREAS, Pat Andre of Harrison Bay Mobil, applicant, has applied for a setback variance for a free standing sign to City Code Section 365; and WHEREAS, An existing sign base located approximately 3' from the property line and approximately 12 ' from the closest curb line is to be used; and WHEREAS, The proposed 3.5' x 8' sign will project into the public right-of-way approximately 1' resulting in a -1' setback variance request; and WHEREAS, The height (15.5') and area (28 square feet) of the proposed sign are conforming; and WHEREAS, A free standing sign at this location will not obstruct traffic along either Bartlett Blvd. or Shoreline Drive; and WHEREAS, Free standing signs in the B-2 Zoning District cannot exceed 25' in height, 48 square feet in size, and must be setback 10' from the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. The Planning Commission found that the variance to utilize the existing sign base is consistent with section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission considered the following factors: 1) property was taken to accommodate intersection construction, 2) that the pole has been used historically for free standing signs and it does not obstruct vision for vehicle operators, and 3) there is an inordinately large amount of green space between the sign and the adjacent traveled right of way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a -1' setback variance for a free standing sign at 4831 Shoreline Drive upon the following conditions: Ae Upon installation of the new freestanding sign, all existing nonconforming signage on the property shall be removed. Specifically, the changeable message sign that is located on the northern pump island which is not in conformance with the Mound Sign Ordinance shall be removed. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE #92-051 PAGE 2 Be The use of seasonal signs on the property shall be limited to 1 sign advertising the subject business (or any other business), regardless of placement location, not exceeding 48 square feet of area, not exceeding a two month duration per occurrence and not occurring more than two times per year. C. The sign must comply with Building Code provisions. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 1 to 4 inclusive and Lots 20 and 21, and that part of the vacated alley lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from the Northwest corner of Lot 4 to the Southwest corner of Lot 20, all in Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A sign permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. ~ OF A MEglZ~G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION : SE/q'EMBER 14, 1992 CASE ~9~-05)~ HARRISON BAy MOBIL (PAT ANDRE), 483~ SHORELINE DRIVB, REQUEST FOR 8IGM VARI~CB ~T BLOCK 1, LOTS 1-4, BHXRLB¥ HILLS UNIT a. pID 13-XX7-24 44 00X4. City Planner, Mark goeqler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a setback variance for a free standing sign. There is an existing sign base located approximately 3' from the property line and approximately 12 ' from the closest curb line. The sign will overhang into the public right-of-way approximately 1' resulting in a -1' variance request. The height and area of the proposed sign are conforming. A free standing sign at this location will not obstruct traffic along either Bartlett Blvd. or Shoreline Drive. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance to place a freestanding sign on the existing sign base. This recommendation is contingent on the following conditions: Prior to issuance of the building permit for the new freestanding sign, all existing nonconforming signage on the property shall be removed. Specifically, the changeable message sign that is locate on the northern pump island which is not in conformance with the Mound Sign Ordinance shall be removed. The use of seasonal signs on the property shall be limited to i sign advertising the subject business (or any other business), regardless of placement location, not exceeding 32 square feet of area, not exceeding a two month duration per occurrence and not occurring more than two times per year. The condition of the foundation was discussed, and it was noted that if it is found that the foundation is bad, the sign should be relocated to a more or total conforming location. It was clarified that the variance, if approved, should allow up to 48 square feet so if an additional sign is added and it does not exceed this minimum it would be okay. The applicant requested that the existing signs be allowed to remain until the new sign is up. MOTION made by Welland, seconded by Claps·ddle to recommend approval of the requested sign variance as recommended by staff with the conditions modified as followe~ Upon installation of the new freestanding sign, all existing nonconforming siqnage on the property ehall be removed. Specifically, the changeable message sign that is located on the northern pump island which is not in conformance with the Mound Sign Ordinance shell be removed. 2. The use of seasonal signs on the property shall be limited to I sign advertising the subject business (or any other business), regardless of placement location, not exceeding 48 square feet of ·re·, not exceeding · two month duration per occurrence and not occurring more than two times per year. 3. The sign must comply with Building Code provisions. Motion c&rried un&nimously. The Planning Commission agreed upon the following finding of fact: The Planning Commission finds that the variance to utilize the existing sign base is consistent with section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission considered the following factors: 1) property was taken to accommodate intersection construction, 2) that the pole has been used historically for free standing signs and it does not obstruct vision for vehicle operators, and 3) there is an inordinately large amount of green space between the sign and the adjacent traveled right of way. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Sign Variance APPLICANT: Freedom Oil Co. CASE NUMBER: 92-051 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37b LOCATION: 4831 Shoreline Drive EXISTING ZONING: General Business (B-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variance approval to place a pole and freestanding sign on an existing sign base and foundation. The proposed sign will have a height of approximately 15.5 feet, a total area of 28 square feet and will be located approximately 3 feet from the property line. The height and area of the proposed sign are conforming, however, the Sign Ordinance requires a 10 foot setback resulting in the 7 foot variance. COMMENT: The existing sign base is the former location of a freestanding sign for the property. At this location, the sign is within three feet of the right-of-way, however, due to the amount of green space in the area, it is setback approximately 12 feet from the closest curb line. It_~will overhang the public right-of-way ~t. A freestanding s~g-fi~t ~not obstruct traffic- along either B~Boulevard or Shoreline Drive. The location and appearance of signage at the corner of Bartlett Boulevard and Shoreline Drive has an impact on the image of Mound. This intersection is the "front door" for one of Mound's major entrances. Approval of the variance for the freestanding sign should allow removal of some of the temporary signage that has been used in recent months on the subject parcel. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Freedom Oil Co. Planning Report September 8, 1992 Page Two RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to place a freestanding sign on the existing sign base. This recommendation is contingent on the following conditions: Prior to issuance of the building permit for the new freestanding sign, all existing nonconforming signage on the property shall be removed. Specifically, the changeable message sign that is located on the northern pump island which is not in conformance with the Mound Sign Ordinance shall be removed. o The use of seasonal signs on the property shall be limited to 1 sign advertising the subject business (or any other business), regardless of placement location, not exceeding 32 square feet of area, not exceeding a two month duration per occurrence and not occurring more than two times per year. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CI?Y OF NOUND 5341 Nay~ood Road, Mound, NI~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 Planning Conunission Date:_ City Council Date: .. Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: Case No. ~~1 $50.00 Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property q~Bt ~_~'~%{~ ~, Owner's Name~ ~ ~, , Day Phone Owner's Address <~c~UC'~U'Oc'a.~ Applicant's Name (if °ther than °wner)~~ ~6~ A~%il (~C~'~ ~r~f'~~ Address~t ~~%¥~%~, Day Phon2 q~g~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning District~--~ Use of Property: ~~ ~%~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, con~t~onal use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,~ no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of propos.ed construction or al~ra.~on (size~ number of stories, type of use, etc.) . ~C~.~ 3X? ~ev£oed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. q~--~l e Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? YeSso~n), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe rea for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required req.~.~ted VAR~E Fr°nt Yard: I~S~WI ~ '0/ ft. ~[ {~'~ ft. ~ ft Rear Yard: N SEW ft. ~'~% ~P~ ft. ft[ Lake Front: ( N S E W ) ft. . It ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Street Frontage ft. ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to ao~regulati0ns for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes(~;), No ( . If no, specify each non-conforminguse: 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 I~ existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape other: specify Please describe: ~-~ ~6~(~ ~ ~~ pC~ o~x ~)~)~ Se Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoninq ordinance wa~a4dopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain N ~ ~ .A~~~O revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. 6. Was the hardship created ~ any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes , No (). If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a ~arSance 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. City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-06130 FAX: 472-0620 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION (if other than O~ef) - ' ..... ~PLI~t S ~D~SS ' ~, SIGN Co~~R~:' ':~ '':~ ~ ~ '~' ~' ~ ' ' ' PHONE~~~ PLEASE INDICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: being req~ested, see back): (if more than one wall sign is ~_~ermanent sign(s) __seasonal/temporary sign(s) banner(s) TYPE OF SIGN: wall mount X free standing __~ortable SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: igh x wi4e = ~~I sq ft SBASONALSIGN: LENGTH OF TIME TO BE ERECTED: STANDING: HOW HIGH WILL SIGN BE FROM GROUND LEVEL TO THE TOP~~t WALL SIGN: WALL A~EA: high x wide = sq ft NUMBER OF EXISTING WALL SIGNS: TOTAL SQ. FT. OF ALL EXISTING WALL SIGNS: sq ft DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (materials, is it illuminated, etc.): ....... ' DESCRIBE~SON FOR~UEST:~ .... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Recommendat ions: APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL: Date 162 July lq~ 1~87 RESOLUTION N0, 87-1Z6 RESOLtrfION AUTH~ZI~ A ~~~ USE P~ ~ OP~~ ~ A ~HICLE IM~U~ME~ ~, S~ ~ATI~I~.~ ~ (M~) FA~L~ ~ S~ ~ ~ MI~~~ FIS~ ~C~E ~ L~ BAIT AT 4831 S~ORELI~ ~EV~, PID ~13-117-24 44 0014, P & Z ~E ~ 87-6qq WHEREAS, the City Council on June 23, 1987, held a public hearing pursuant to Seotio~ 23.505 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for PID .%13-117-24-440014 for the sale of small' miscellaneous fishing tackle and live bait; and WHEREAS, the use of the subject property PID t13-117-24-440014 ia governed by four previous Conditional Use Permits 70-302, 70-302A,. 70-302B and 87-:27; and W~$, it is the desire of the Mound City Co'nell to oonsolidata the previous permits and combine them with the permit for sales of small miscellaneous fishiQg tackle and live bait; and :. - WHEREAS, the subject property is within the B-2, General Business Zone which allows motor fuel stations, retail sales, minor auto ·repair and a'ssoc.~ated vehicle storage by Conditional Use Permit; and : WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and does reconmend approval; and WHERe, all persons wishing to be heard were heard. NOW, THEREFCRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that ~he Conditional Use Permit is hereby granted for the following USeS: Motor Fuel Station Minor Automotive Repairs Valve Jobs 'Tire Repairs Service Maintenance on Automobiles Cas Welding Vehicle Impoundment Area Sales of Small Miscellaneous Fishing Tackle and Live Bait BE IT F[FKIt{ER RESOLVED that the aforementioned uses shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. No major mechanical overhauls shall occur on the premises. All wrecked, abandoned and impounded vehicles shall be stored within the fenced enclosure. j: g3 July 14, 1587 3. Retail sales shall be limited to live bait and the sal'es of small mlscellaneous fishing tackle only. Sales of fishing equipment, rods, reels, boats, motors and trailers shall be expressly prohiblted~ All slgnage for the buslnes~ shall be brought Into conformance with the Hound Sign Ordinance. Existing illegal temporary signs shall be removed immediately. Storage wi:thin the fenced area shall include only abandoned, wrecked and Impounded vehicles referred by the Hound Pollc~ Department and Vehicles resulting from normal business repair operations. Storage and sales of used auto parts shall be expressly prohlblte~ Wooden fencing shall be maintained In good condltlon at all times and worn or broken boards .shall be replaced immediately.. No slgnage shall be,placed on any fencing..... Gates shall be closed at all times except when transferring vehicles into and out of the enclosed area. 10. The conditional use permit shal. I be reviewed annually. 11. There shall be~no boat storage on the premises. 12. All appl|cable ordinances and statutes be complied with prior to the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit and all fees and penalties for existin~ building violations shall be pald prior to Issuance of ~his permit by the City Bulldin~ Official. All existing sales In violation of the Zoning Ordinance shall cease and desist within 30 days and the use shall be brought into compliance with the Ordinance and this permit wlthln said time period. Applicable provisions of Resolutions 70-302, 70-302A,. 70-302B and 87-27 are hereby incorporated into this permit_~resolutlon rendering the four previous resolutions null and void. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Johnson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Abel, Jansen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk F.¢bru~r¥ 10~ 1~7 RESOLUTION NO. 87-27 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZINGA coNDITIONAL USE PER~IT FOR OPERATION OF A VEHICLE IHPOUNDHENT AREA AgO SERVICE STATION?VEHICLE REPAIR (HINOR) FACILITY AT q831 SHORELINE BOULEVARD, PID #13-117-2q.k~ O01q P & Z CASE #86-567 I~ER~, the City Council on February 10, 1985 held a public hearing pursuant to Section 23.505 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, tm consider the issuance of a Conditic~al Use Permit for PID t13-117-24-440014 for the operation of a vehicle impoundment area; and WHEREAS, the use of the subject property PID 113-117-24-440014 i~ goyerned by three previous conditional use permits 70-302, 70-302A and 70-302BI and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Mound City Council to consoli~te the previous permits and combine them with the permit for'operation of the impoundment area; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the B-2, General Business Zone which allows motor fuel stations, minor auto repair and associated vehicle storage by conditional use permit; and W~EREAS, the Plannin9 Commission has reviewed the request and ~oes · ~n~ approval; WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard. NOW, THERe, BE IT RESOLV~ by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the conditional use permit is hereby granted for the following uses ~ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ~otor Fuel Station Minor Automotive Repairs Valve Jobs Tire Repairs Service Maintenance on Automobiles Gas Welding 7. Vehicle Impoundment Area BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned uses shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. No major mechanical overhauls shall occur on the premises. All wrecked, abandoned and impounded vehicles shall be stored within the fenced enclosure. February 10, 1987 3. Storage within the t~enced area shall include only aber~oned, ~rcecked and impounded vehicles re~erred by the Mound Police Department and vehicles .resulting from normal business repair operations. 4. Storage and sales of used auto [~arts shall be expressly prc~hibited. 5. Wooden fencing shall be maintained in goo~ ccx~ition at all times and worn or broken boards shall be replaced immediately. ~1o signage sba/1 be plaoed on any fencing. Gates shall be closed at all times excepb when transferring vehicles into and out of the enclosed area. The conditional use ~etmit shall be reviewed annually. There shall be'no boat. storage on the p'remlses. · Applicable provisions of Resolutions 70-302, 70-302A and 70-302B are hereby incorporated into this permit resolution rendering the 'bhree previous resolutions null and void. The foregoing resolution,was moved by ¢ouncllmember Jessen and seconded by.Councilmember Jensen. The'following C0uncIlmembers voted In the affirmative: Jensen, Je~sen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councllmembers voted In the negative: none, ~ay6r- Att~'st: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO..8t;-: 176 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR 141TH THE PLANNING COI~qiSSION TO November 25, 1986 APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PART OF LOTS I THROUGH 20 ANO 21, BLOCK.I,-SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A PID # 13-117-2q qq O01q (q831 Shoreline Boulevard) P & Z CASE NO. ~IHEREAS, Ben I~allnskl, c~ner of the p'roperty described as part of Lots I through q, 20 and 21, Block I, Shirley Hills Unit A, PlO # 13-117-2~ qq 001~ (~831 Shorellne Boulevard)' has applled for a variance In setback to the front' yard .to allow the construction of a 6 foot hlgh ~,~od privacy fence.wlthln ;the required 30. foot front yard setback; and 14HEREAS, Exhibit A has .al'so been submitted to Indicate ihe requested setbacks of zero feet to the'east property line; and · I~IEREAS, l~he Clty Code Section. 23.~15(1~) a11o~s a four' foot fence In the front yard location In the B-'2 Seneral Buslness Dlstrlct; a~d t~IEREAS, the Plannlng Coa~lsslon has revle~ed the request and does .recommend approval of the setback variance with condltlons: "' 'NO~, THEREFORE, BE IT R~SOLVEO that the Clty' Councll of the Clty of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the t~o foot fence height va~lance to a11c~ a privacy fence constructed In the required 30 foot setback as sho~n on Exhiblt A fbr part of Lots 1 through ~, 20 and 21, Block 1,'Shirley Hllls Unlt A, PlO 13-117-2q aa o01q (q831 Shorellne Bbulevard). upon the condltlon that t~e curre~tl~ adopted resolutlons 70~302, 70-302A, 70-302B' a11owlng a conditional Use permit for t~e property be modified If any abanSoned vehicles are to be stored on the~ p~'emlses. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councllmember Smith and seconded by Councllmember Peterson. The.following Councllmembers voted in the afflrmatlve: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson,. Polston and Smith. ~' ~' I' The followlng Councilmembers voted In the negative: " none. .. Attest: City Clerk 70-302B 12-8-70 R~SOLilTiON NO. 70-302B (Spec.iai Use Permit) Lots I-U, Block 1, $.H. "A") BE iT P~SOL~7~ BY THE ~T.t..%GE COUNCIL OF PDUND, P~UND, ~W~.~ESOTA.. THAT no storage of wrecked or abnndoned cars be pe-..'mitted on ,the Cro~n Oil Property (Lots l-U, Block 1, S.H. "A".) Adopted by t4~e Council this ~th day of December, 1970. 70-332~ - 12-8-70 70-302A 12-8-70 P~OLUTION NO. 70-302A P~SOLUTION TO DENY THE USE OF THE Pi~OPERTY ~LEASED BY CHAPJ2S HESS, COM~DNLY REFFEP. ED TO AS ~HE PFLUG PPDPE,?I'Y, FOR THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES BE IT .RESOLVED BY THE VILL',GE COUNCIL OF MODND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: ~nat the p~operty leased by Charles Hess, con~only referred to as the Pflug Property, ( Lots 5, 18, 19 and that part of Lo%s 15, 16, and 17 lying E of a line par with and 10 ft. W from the W line of Lot 18 and same extended incl adj vac alley lying between the Nk~y extenstion of the NEly and SWly lines of said Lot 5 Lot 5,15,16,17, 18, and 19, Block 1, S.H. "A" ) should not be used for the storage of vehidles. Adopted by the Council this 8th day of December, 1970. RESOLUTION 1~0. 70-302 SOL TON SP CLU 'mUU Charles Hess has asked for a Special Use Permit for filling station, including automotive repair, valv& Jobs, tire repair, towing; service maintenance on automobiles and medium welding · on Lots 1-4, Block 1, S. H. "A", and ~S, hearing was held o~ December 8~ 1970,' : ' N~W, ~, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAOE COUNCIL'OF MOUND, 'I~UI~ ." -' "'i?l special use permit be granted' £or~ ~he following, ' .. · (- . : .;:'.. ~ . ~ · .. ~,. - · .. :~;~k. ·...~ .... . '~.. 1. Filling Station ... .;. ':' "'::~'~-';:" ."' " ' '~'~':.'"? ' i'? . ' 2. Automotive Repairs -~. }. Valve =ohs ,' .. 4. aepa ms ": :.'.' · . ~. Service ~aintenanoe on Automobiles 6. Cas Welding -.-. FU~T~ RESOLVED 8 ' ' " BE IT '- ..- ' · ..;.:. . ~ ':. '~, There a~e to ~e no maJo~ overhauls aha the 'permit is to be' ~ ...... :.. .~- : . ..'. '. . ; "?.., · . · ,' -,'~,-..'-....~ ....· ~%..[.. ..a.~ . ... .:. · .... ,..~...j... ~.. .,.,... . ~.~, ,.. . ..:,...... ,.... :.... .... . ...- ..-.~.~..:~...~ .; ';.....~'., , ~'.. . · . . :..-.. ...... : ..--: · ,..,, . ..' ,.~- :. , .:...~i;:.~w..,.:~ .'.',.: .:~' :~.:'.....' ....,,. :...: ~,'[..'..-~',.: ~.. . "; " ':' ~'[:-'.2 z~.;' ,: i . "~-' ..... ,, :';' · .,j~. ~- ... ... : ....... ? . · ,.~. ..~ .... . ~..4.~.., . ~.. . .. ~ .. :%.',. .. .~' Adopted b~ the Counoil this Otb day of. Deoember, 1970, :. 6~-67 RESOLUTION NO. 69-67 RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPEN A PILLING STATION ON LOTS 1, 2, 5, 4, 20 and 21, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A, CONDITIONAL ON PLACING OF SHRUBS TO CLOSE THE DRIVEWAY ON THE POI~T~ and IF SUCH SHRUBS ARE REMOVED AND THE DRIVEWAY OPENED, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS IMMEDIATELY CANCELLED , WFRREAS, the Crown 0il Company has appeared before the Planning Commission requesting a special use permit to 'operate a gasoline service station on Lots 1, 2, 5, 4, 20 and 21, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A, and the Planning Commission has recommended that a special use permit be granted for the operation of a gasoline service station at this location provided that the northeast corner at Bartlett and Shore- line Boulevards be landscaped and that the most northeasterly driveway on Bartlett Boulevard be closed and not used, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA 8 That a Special Use Permit be granted the Crown 0il Company to operate a gasoline service station on Lots 1, 2, 5, 4, 20 and 21, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A, provided the northeasterly d~iveway on Bartlett Boulevard be closed by placing shrubs across it,.and BE IT I~RTHER RESOLVED~ If such shrubs are removed and the driveway opened, the Special Use Permit shall be immediately cancelled. Adopted ~y the Council this 8th day of April, 1969. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW,~SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 4857 ISI.%ND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOTS 5 & 6, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11 0038. P&Z C&SE NUMBER 92-052 WHEREAS, Donald Swens°n, applicant, has applied for the following front yard setback variances to allow construction of a new single family dwelling: House (Island View) House (alley) Proposed Required Variance 8' 20' 12' 6' 20' 14' WHEREAS, Two nonconforming structures have recently been removed from the subject property; and WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 15 foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming; and WHEREAS, A sanitary sewer easement on the lot complicates the placement of a new structure; and WHEREAS, According to the zoning code, a detached garage could be built within 8' of the front property line if the doors faced the side property line; and WHEREAS, The 6' setback to the alley will become conforming if the proposed zoning code modifications are adopted; and WHEREAS, The total amount of impervious cover on the site (including the deck at 50%) is 40%; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. The Planning Commission found that the approval of the setback variances for the proposed house is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The location of the existing sanitary sewer easement and the alley abutting the west side of the property constitute a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 12' front yard setback variance to Island View Drive and a 14' side yard setback variance to the platted alley to allow construction of a new single family dwelling at 4857 Island View Drive. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-052 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a new single family dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 14, Devon. 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 Tt[E MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION · ' SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 CABE ~92-052~ DONALD 8WENSONt 4857 ISLAND VIE~ DR~VBt REQUEST FO~ V~RXANCB TO CONSTRUCT NEM HOME AT BLOCK 14, LOTS 5 & 6, DEVON, PXD 25-117-24 11 0038. city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a new single family dwelling. Two nonconforming structures have recently been removed from the subject lot. The requested variances include the following: House (Island View) House (alley) Proposed Required Variance 8' 20' 12' 6' 20' 14' A sanitary sewer easement on the lot complicates the placement of a new structure. According to the zoning code, a detached garage could be built within 8' of the front property line if the doors faced the side property line. The proposed attached garage has side facing doors. The 14' setback variance to the alley will be irrelevant if the proposed zoning code modifications are approved. The total amount of impervious cover on the site (include the deck at 50%) is 40%. Staff recommended approval of the requested variances to allow construction of a new home with the following finding of fact: The Planning Commission finds that the approval of the setback variances for the proposed house is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The location of the existing sanitary sewer easement and the alley abutting the west side of the property constitute a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. Mueller questioned if the deck is of sufficient size to accommodate a table and chairs as he does not want to see a variance for a deck in the future. It was noted that the deck cannot be built onto or cantilevered over the sewer easement. Mueller expressed a concern relating to the proposed 40% hardcover. It was noted that there is additional green space adjoining this parcel including the common area and the alley which should be taken into consideration when looking at hardcover. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried $ to 2. Those in favor were~ Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Voss, Weiland and Jensen. Mueller and Meyer were opposed. Mueller commented that he opposed due to the amount of hardcover and the lack of deck size. Meyer feels there is too much house proposed for the lot. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. BO PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Donald B. Swenson CASE NUMBER: 02-052 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37c LOCATION: 4857 Island View Drive EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of two variances in order to construct a new single-family dwelling. The subject lot contained a small single- family home and detached garage, however, both structures were demolished within the past few months. The requested variances include the following: House (front yard) House (front yard, alley) Proposed Required Variance 8' 20' 12' 6' 20' 14' COMMENT: The placement of a new structure on the subject lot is complicated by the presence of a sanitary sewer easement that runs parallel to the rear lot line. The sanitary sewer and corresponding easement is located entirely on private property instead of being located in the adjacent public property, the commons area. An alley that provides access to the commons area abuts the property on the west. These factors combined create a "practical difficulty" situation as described in the Zoning Code an form the basis for the issuance of the requested variances. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 Swenson Planning Report September 8, 1992 Page Two The new home has a proposed 8 foot setback off of Island View Drive. The portion of the proposed structure abutting Island View is an attached garage. According to the Zoning Code, a detached garage could be built in this location if the doors faced the side of the property instead of the street. The proposed attached garage has side facing doors. In this particular case, the amount of building mass abutting Island View Drive does not exceed the amount of building mass allowed in a detached configuration. Abutting the alley on the west side of the site, the house has a proposed 6 foot setback which is 14 feet short of the 20 feet required in the Code. At the present time, the City of Mound is considering modifications to the Zoning Code which are consistent with the proposed house location. The proposed modifications state, "In residential districts, street frontages created by the existence of alleys, such alleys having a width not exceeding 15 feet, shall be considered side yards and shall be subject to applicable district setbacks." If the proposed modifications were in effect at this time, the variance for the alley setback would not be required. The total amount of impervious cover on the site (including the deck at 50%) is 40%. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variances to allow construction of the new home. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the approval of the setback variances for the proposed house is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The location of the existing sanitary sewer easement and the alley abutting the west side of the property constitute a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF NOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~N 55354 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: s~rr. _~ Rat? Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~~ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property_ ~ ~ S-7 ~_~p V~3 Owner's Name ~,~0~ 5.~~1~) ~~O~ay Phone Owner's Address )q ~l~O~ ~>, D~DDD. ~)~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner)b~~. ~0~6~ Address 5n~ Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots ~- ~ Addition Zoning District Block I ~/: P'rD No.¢5-'11"7--f4 II 005% Use of Property: ~'--~--'-~J[~-'~:/[f-F/t~L Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): LO.CZ. Lava~ uxrr~ w~x-O revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No.~~_~~__ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations fo~ the zoning district in which it is located~ Yes (), No (). If/no, specify each non-conforming use (describ~ reason for variance re.~est, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: _Front Yard: (~S E ~~r Yard: ( N S E~I Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S~W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ft. _,, ft. ft. ft. I~ ft. IO' ft. ft. V~I~ ft. V~]~ ft. ft. ~ ft. -- ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft /~ sq ft -- sq ft ft. ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevente~ its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (~'~ topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ~J drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Se 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 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~0~ e Was the hardship created by any ~. r man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No If yes, explain e Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a var.~ance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~, No (~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 40P5 7-0 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. ISLAND VIEW LANE 2 - STORY HOUSE '~7.0 80. O0 ~,1 JL~'~ ~ "' to be removedJ '~2- STO~ HOUSE ii.o DEMARS - GABRIEL jND SURVEYORS, INC. Fk I II~J:zy certify that ~ i~ I rue a~d correct ro~'el~ntatio~ of a ~urv~y of if amy. thereof% and aJI vi~b~ e~or~to, if a~y, from o~ o~ said him:L 9ook - PaO~ ORY SE o (O00.O) Denotes ~ ~ Oenotes offset stake PREPARED FOR DONALD Proposed lowest fkxx ekw.= ~-~. Proposed top of foundation elev.= 'd SWENSON RECEIVED SEP zt 1992 ROAD ~coMMON __ EASEMENT. 2o' pER~ANE~T PHELPS BAY) I(~D-ROAD ".SERVICE',ROAD,- :' .~ R~c6V~o SEP /i 1992 MOUND PLANN!NG & INSP. ~ O~ A ME~ O~ ~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14~ 1992 CASK #92-0532 MAXIMS BEZ88EL, ~720 DOVK LJ~qB, REOUES? FOR MINO~ SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK 0006, Planning Commissioner Michael Mueller stepped down from the Commission as he has a conflict of interest with the application. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report, The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two lots. Each proposed parcel will meet the minimum 6,000 square foot requirement as follows: Parcel A = 7,280 square feet and Parcel B = 6,046 square feet. The existing house on Parcel B will reguire a 7' rear yard setback variance until the house can be removed which is the intent of the applicant. Both parcels, as proposed, can accost<late conforming houses. Regarding adverse effect on remaining property, if any adverse effect is caused by the proposal,-it occurs between Parcels A and S. The proposed subdivision does not constitute an ideal lot arrangement due to the stacking of the proposed homes on Parcels A and B. The proposal is, however, generally consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and therefore, is eligible for approval by the City. If the Planning Commission approves the subdivision request including the issuance of a variance for Parcel B,.it is suggested that the following conditions be included: 1. Prior to the time this item appears before the City Council, the applicant shall file a variance application with the City of Mound including all applicable fees. 2. Parcels A and B are under common ow~ership. A building permit for construction on Parcel A shall not be issued until the existing house on Parcel B has been removed and properly backfilled. Removal of the house will alleviate the nonconforming status of Parcel B and will negate the continued necessity for the variance. 3. Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer and shown on Exhibit A. 4. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to recording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. 5. Pay deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90. 6. A cash deposit in the amount of $500 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required by Mound City Code Section 330:145, Subdivision 2. The Commission questioned if there is a minimum amount of frontage required on common property to be considered an abutting property. Staff confirmed that there is not. Jensen commented that the subdivision as proposed is a poor layout and it does not consider use by future owners. Clapsaddle commented that this proposal over utilizes the property, there are no back yards and one house is very narrow. He commented that a duplex would be an ideal use for this property. Michael questioned that even though the proposal may not be desirable, does it not meet the intent of the code? Humus commented that if the property was split down the middle with a straight line it would be a better use for the property as it would be conforming and more useable and practical. MOTION made by Clapsaddla, seconded by Michael to deny the subdivision request. Motion to deny carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. SEP' 1-'6 1992 VARIANCE APPLICATION ~hone~ 472-0600; Fax, 472-0620 Zoning Sheet Completed= L . , Copy to City Planner~ Copy to Publio Work$~ ...... Copy to City Engineer= ~lease tF~e or print the following informations Address of Subject Property /22~) ~Jv~/' g,d'd~' Owner, s Name ~ _ _ / Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIP?ION= Lot koTs ~ Addition 0~ ~tl MoOD Zoning Distr~ct:__.'./~'-J~,, Use application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional for thi.s, property? ( ) yes, O<), no... action taken, resolution number(s) Has-an permit, or other zo.ning procedure yes, list date'(s) of application, provide copies of resolutions. use and 1. Detailed descrtpton of proposed construction or qltera~ton (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.)~ ...... . ..... . Case 2. DO the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is o Yes (X), No (). If ~o s 1 cared? tease, for variance re-u -~ pecify ~h non-conforming use (describe ~ ~--, i.e. setbuck, lot area, etc.) . . .______' - · ~ ~ ~gu~rea requested ~'~ $~'~/~'~/~// (o~~) VARIANCE. "~, Rear Yard: .. ~5- '~ ft. - ft. ._ g ..... ft. Lake Front! ( N $ E W ) ft. - ' ft, - .._ ft, Side Yard: ( N $ E W ) " '!~ ft. - ac --- ft. ....... ft. Side Yard: ( ~ S E # ) L_. /~" -- ft. ~ ft. ' ft. Lot Size: ~~q ft .. ~.~¢ sq ft - .. ~ ~sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to zoning district in which it is located? yes ~regulatiO~s specify eachnon-conforminguse: ' , No (), f~[the ~O,' Street Frontage Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ~ ~ too shat~ .... ~ ! ~?lnage ( ) existing Was th~ hardship described above created by the action o~ anyone having ProPerty lnterests in the land at~er the zonlng ordinance was adopted Variance Application Page 3 Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. If yes, Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a var~nce peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes C~', No (). Xf no, lis~ 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 herewit~ 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 Lnspecttng, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be uired by law. ]tppl~cant's signature ss// Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision Request APPLICANT: Maxine D. Beissel CASE NUMBER: 92-053 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37d LOCATION: 1720 Dove Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two lots. According to the Mound Code,. minor subdivisions must conform to the following: They must have frontage on a public road. Both proposed lots fulfill this requirement. They must not require construction of any new public facilities or public improvements. The new lot will require utility connections but will not require any public facilities or improvements. There will be no adverse effect on remaining or adjoining property. This requirement will be addressed later in this report. There is to be no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance or Official Map. The proposal is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the Official Map. Comments on the proposal's conformity with the Zoning Ordinance appear later in this report. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Beissel Minor Subdivision Planning Report September 8, 1992 Page Two COMMENT: The proposed subdivision calls for the establishment of two new lots identified as Parcels A and B. Parcel A which has a lot area of 7,280 square feet is an "L" shaped parcel with 40 feet of frontage on Dove Lane and approximately 15 feet of frontage on the Common. Parcel B is an irregular shaped parcel having approximately 80 feet of frontage on Dove Lane and a total lot area of 6,046 square feet. All existing structures identified on the survey have been noted as "to be removed". The proposed structures on Parcels A and B conform to all setback requirements. The existing house on Parcel B will be nonconforming upon approval of the subdivision since the rear yard setback will be approximately 8 feet which is 7 feet short of the required 15 foot setback. The applicant has indicated that it is her intent to remove the existing house prior to construction of the new home on Parcel A. When removal of the existing house occurs, a variance will no longer apply. Until that time, technically, Parcel B will require a rear setback variance. Item #4 in the list of requirements for minor subdivisions addresses conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. The existing house will require a variance and therefore, is not in compliance with the setback provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Once the existing home is removed, however, a new home can be built if full compliance with the Code. Since the property can accommodate a conforming house, staff is of the opinion that the proposal is not in conflict with the Zoning Code. Item #3 in the list of requirements for minor subdivisions addresses adverse effects on remaining or adjoining properties. The shape of the proposed parcels is not without precedent in the immediate area. The property directly east of the proposed subdivision is an "L" shaped lot consisting of two 40 x 80 foot parcels. Regarding adverse effect on remaining property, if any adverse effect is caused by the proposal, it occurs between Parcels A and B which are the subject of the subdivision rather than involving neighboring parcels. Therefore, staff is unable to definitively state that the subdivision is in conflict with the adverse effect provision. Due to this fact and the status of the Zoning Ordinance compliance in the above paragraph, staff has concluded that the subdivision is appropriate for processing as a minor subdivision rather than a major subdivision. The utility superintendent had reviewed the proposed subdivision and has identified that the locations of the proposed driveways may need to be adjusted to avoid an existing water shut-off. Additionally, new service taps will be required for the proposed home on Parcel A. Beissel Minor Subdivision Planning Report September 8, 1992 Page Three RECOMMENDATION: The proposed subdivision does not constitute an ideal lot arrangement due to the stacking of the proposed homes on Parcels A and B. The proposal is, however, generally consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and therefore, is eligible for approval by the City. If the Planning Commission approves the subdivision request including the issuance of a variance for Parcel B, it is suggested that the following conditions be included: Prior to the time this item appears before the City Council, the applicant shall file a variance application with the City of Mound including all applicable fees. e Parcels A and B are under common ownership. A building permit for construction on Parcel A shall not be issued until the existing house on Parcel B has been removed and properly backfilled. Removal of the house will alleviate the nonconforming status of Parcel B and will negate the continued necessity for the variance. Additional conditions are found in the City Engineer's report dated September 8, 1992. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors September 8, 1992 Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 53~1Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 5536~ SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Beissel Minor Subdivision Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 12, Dreamwood Case #92-053 MFRA #10135 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the plans for the above mentioned minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: Grading and Drainage The survey shows runoff from the northerly portion of Parcel A directed towards the lake along the dividing line between the two parcels and also along the east side of Parcel A. We would like to see drainage easements included in this subdivision. Enclosed is a copy of the survey with said easements indicated. Utilities There are no existing sewer or water services available at the mains in Dove Lane to serve Parcel A. These will need to be installed at the Developer's expense. If the services are not installed prior to recording of the subdivision, some type of guarantee should be provided. Streets This parcel was charged for one unit when the streets were improved in 1978. Policy has been to charge for one additional unit when subdividing, which in this case would amount to $1,170.90. In conclusion, we are recommending that the following conditions become a part of the subdivision approval: Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer and shown on Exhibit A. An Equal Opportunity Employer ~.~ I ~" Mr. Jon Sutherland September 8, 1992 Page TWo US. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to recording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. Pay deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90. A cash deposit in the amount of $500.00 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required by Mound City Code Section 330:1~5, Subdivision 2. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact JC:pry Enclosures Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron ! / / / / ! 33/7. Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND ~ty o£ Moun~ $341 Ma~oo~ Road~ ~oun~ ~ 55364 ·hone: 472-0600; Pax: 472-0620 Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee:. $50.00 Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? Zoning Sheet Completed= Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Other: . Please 2~e or prat the felling ~fomtion: ~er'sN~e ~~ Y ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ k {~ ~O~DayPhone Applicant's N~e (if other th~ ~er) Day Phone Block / c~ PIDNo. /3- ~/?~g /~ ~~ UseofProperty: R~sf~r/~ ~,- 2 Name of Surveyor:_,/l//~/~[ Name of Engineer: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning District ~~ 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. This application must be signed by .all owners of the given why this is not the case. S'ignatu~e of vO~ner subject property, or an explanation-~- Signature of Owner Date RECEIVED t,,~J~ Z 11S~Z MOUND PLANNING & INSP. __ PROPOSED PROPERTY DIVISION FOR MAXINE BEISSEL IN LOTS 7, 8. & 9, BLOCK 12, DREAMWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA / / / / D \ ® . · @ .'. D R E A M W 0 0 D ............., .............................. . ....... ' ..tu J,t~.. · · ~..-,.7-__~ -:.-.:,-..::::::;-_-~::.:;::.'~. ~::..[. ~ ... ... ~; .............. ...-:E_. .................................... ~-'t ........ - ...................................... l .... MH_ Length. No. Between_ and _ Sewer Service Oistanc~ Depth at P.L..._.____. Contractor_ Installed by Tied by_ MH Block_ Length _ Water Service Size____ Date Contractor Installed by Tied by Distance Type Pipe Da te _.~?._~~ 33;~1 'dSNI '~ 9NIN,I~t~d CiN,rlOI~ Q3Ai303~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 1586 BLUEBIRD LANE, BLOCK 5, LOTS 14 & 15, WOODLAND POINT, PID 12-117-24 43 0068, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-054 W~ER~AS, Michael Garberick, applicant, has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming front yard setback to the existing house of 13.2' resulting in a 6.8' variance request to allow expansion of an existing conforming detached garage; and W~ER~AS, The subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record,,, and a 15 foot rear yard setback; and W~ER~, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming; and W~ERF~, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. The Planning Commission found that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house variance is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house variance is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the structure was established prior to adoption of the current code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve .a variance recognizing a nonconforming 13.2' front yard setback to the existing dwelling to allow conversion of the existing carport to an enclosed garage stall. Approval is contingent on the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the existing house variance for the purpose of converting the conforming carport to an enclosed garage stall shall not confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: PROPOSED I~SOLUTION CASE #92-054 PAGE 2 Conversion of 9.8' x 22' carport to an enclosed garage stall. The finished garage will measure 21' x 22'. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 14 and 15, Block 5, Woodland Point. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 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 TttE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 CASE 192-054: HICHABL GARBERICK, 1586 BLUEBIRD LA~E, REOUEST FO/'_ VARIANCE TO EXPAND DETACHED GARAGE AT BLOCK 5, LOT8 14 & 15, .~OODL~%~ POINT, PID 12-117-24 43 0068. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 13.2" resulting in a 6.8' variance request to allow expansion of an existing conforming detached garage. Staff recommended approval of the recognition of the existing house setback variance for the purpose of allowing the conversion of the existing carport to an enclosed garage stall. This recommendation is contingent on the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the existing house variance for the purpose of converting the conforming carport to an enclosed garage stall shall not confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. It was suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house variance is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house variance is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the structure was established prior to adoption of the current code. The Planning Commission confirmed that the Building Official will verify that the existing slab is acceptable for the proposed construction. HOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. ~otion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on September 22, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Michael D. Garberick CASE NUMBER: 92-054 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37e LOCATION: 1586 Bluebird Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize a nonconforming setback for the existing house for the purpose of converting an existing carport into a fully enclosed garage. The carport which is attached to an existing detached single stall garage conforms to all setback requirements. The variance being requested involves the following: House (front yard) Existing Required Variance 13.2' 20' 6.8' COMMENT: The improvement of the carport involves a structure that conforms to all setback requirements. The proposed construction will not intensify the existing nonconforming situation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the recognition of the existing house setback variance for the purpose of allowing the conversion of the existing carport to an enclosed garage stall. This recommendation is contingent on the following condition: Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 Fax: (612) 835-3160 Garberick Planning Report September 8, 1992 Page Two Approval of the recognition of the existing house variance for the purpose of converting the conforming carport to an enclosed garage stall shall not confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house variance is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house variance is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the structure was established prior to adoption of the current Code. rev£sed 4/2/92 yARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound; MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: AU~ 2 5 1992 ~:~'5~'&, i~{iD ~ dl-:i¥' ~F Application Fee: $50.00 c....o. -oS<q Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to city Engineer: °ee~eee~ee~leeOeoee~OeelOee~oooeeeeloellloeoeoeoeeoeoee.eeoeeo.~eoeee~ee. Please type or print the folZoving information= Address of Subject Property Owner' s Name ~( c~_4_ ~. ~R~F~¢(/c_ Day Phone. 53 5-2273 Owner's Address {.~& ~~,,~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot~ !¥~f ~lock J~ Addition ~%~~S ~~ PID No. ~ --~__~~_~~ ~~ Has an applicat~on ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, /~4 no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc. ): ~,/_~f~%,__ ~.~ (~/~ ~_/~,~. T~_n~/,S ~'ev£~ed 4/2/92 Variance Application 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: Front Yard: ( N S E~) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ft. /,5.20 ft. ft. ft. ft. -- ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft ~q ft sq ft ft. ft. 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-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: topography drainage ~ soil existing shape ( ) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the aCtion of anyone having property interests in'/he land after ~he zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain 08,-'24/92 10:54 FAX 612 472 0620 CITY OF )IOUND [~006 rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. 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 ~W~. If list some other pro~)erties 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. 8/20/92 City of Mound Building Permit Dept. From: Mike Garberick 1586 Bluebird Lane Mound, MN 55364 472-4187 or 533-2275 Dear People, I would like to apply for a building permit to enclose the car port which is attached to my garage. The garage is detached and shares a roof and concrete slab with the car port. Enclosed are elevations and plan views of the current configuration. Also enclosed are drawings of what I proposed to do. Basically, I would like to remove the outer wall of the garage (shown with the door to the right) leaving the structure of two by fours and cap there. There is a ceiling in the car port that is anchored on this wall below the top plate that extends out to the metal supports on the outside. This I would remove to simplify connecting the new wall. As far as the base goes, I would lay a four in four inch concrete footing all around on top of the existing slab. I plan: a 9 foot partitioned garage door similar to the existing door a pre-hung 36"x6'8" metal exterior door a prebuilt horizontal window 3/4" plywood siding 16 on center studs cedar shingle siding from the old wall and buying the rest I have also included the plat drawing for the lot that was made in 1979. Since then an addition was added (I think about 8-10 years ago?). I've constructed a drawing from this adding the new den and a lean-to. These are aS accurate as I could figure from the plat drawing. Please let me know what else I need to do. I was planning on doing this work in October. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Mike Garberick RECEIVED AUG 2 4 lgg2 MOUND PLANNING & INS1). O0' OL. 0 0 0 .000'08 .000'~8 .OOS'Cj8 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 1901 LAKESIDE L~NE, BLOCK 11v LOT 14, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0059 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-055 WHEREAS, Mary Monahan and Dan Morseth, applicants, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 16.5' front yard setback resulting in a 13.5' variance to allow construction of a conforming 8' x 28' deck; and WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation; and WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. The Planning Commission found that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the structure was established prior to the adoption of the current code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing an existing nonconforming 16.5' front yard setback to allow construction of a conforming deck addition subject to the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the existing house variance for the purpose of constructing a new conforming deck addition shall no confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming 8' x 28' deck. 333? PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-054 e This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 14, Block 11, Shadywood Point. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 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. 33 0 MINIYrES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SE ER 14, 1992 CASE ~92-055: MARY MONAHAN & DAN MORBETHm 1901 LAKESIDE LANEm REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ADD DECK AT BLOCK 11~ LOT 14m 8HADYWOOD POINTm PID 18-117-23 23 0059. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 16.5' front yard setback resulting in a 13.5' variance to allow construction of a conforming 8' x 28' deck. Staff recommended, approval of the recognition of the existing nonconforming setback variance for the house in order to allow construction of the conforming deck addition subject to the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the existing house variance for the purpose of constructing a new conforming deck addition shall no confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. It was also suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the structure was established prior to the adoption of the current code. Neighbor, Pam Amidon, expressed a concern about a drainage problem between their two properties. The Commission suggested that the two neighbors work together to solve this issue and it was noted that the deck will not affect the drainage problem. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on September 22, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Mary Monahan and Dan Morseth CASE NUMBER: 92-055 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-37f LOCATION: 1901 Lakeside Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval (recognition) of an existing variance in order to construct a deck addition that conforms to all setback requirements. The proposed deck which will be added to the southwest side of the existing deck measures 8 feet by 28 feet. In order to construct the deck, a variance recognizing the front yard setback of the house needs to be granted. The variance involves the following: Existing Required Variance House (front yard) ~.~l' 30' ~ 16.5' 13.5' COMMENT: Construction of the new deck will not intensify the nonconforming aspect of the front yard setback. Therefore, the deck addition constitutes reasonable use of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the recognition of the existing nonconforming setback variance for the house in order to allow construction of the conforming deck addition subject to the following condition: 33B2. Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Monahan/Morseth Planning Report September 8, 1992 Page Two · Approval of the recognition of the existing house variance for the purpose of constructing a new conforming deck addition shall not confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the structure was established prior to the adoption of the current Code. 33 3 rev£sed 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPL!CATIO CZT¥ OF HOUND 534]. Raywood Road, l~ound, ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 AUG 2 7 1992 Planning Commission Date:_? City Council Date: -? Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case Zoning Sheet Completed: ~ Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: ~~ Copy to City Engineer: Address of Subject Property . o- Owner,s Name~~//~//~ /~/~o~3m~/Day Phone_ ~/7~ ~/~' Owner's Address Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot /~___~ .... Block_ // Addltlon~ PID No. Zoning District_.~--% _ Use of Property: -.~-I I~--~ ~ ~~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variancc, - ~.. co,:d~lo..al use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size number of stories, type of use, etc.): , revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard~ (~S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. A~,w ~0' ft. ,49' ft. ft. - -- ft. - ft. ft. ft. ft. 'ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. ft. 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-conforminguse: , · , Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for district? any of the uses permitted in that zoning ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: soil existing other: specify Se 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 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. e 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? 8. 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. Certificate of Survey for Dan Morseth of Lot 14, Rlock 11, #SHADYWOOD PO]N?, HENNEP[N COUNTY, MTNN.# and Dart of Vacated Street E_xisting Leoal Description L~t 14, an~ that part of the vacated ~treet ]yinq southeasterly of the northeasterly extension of the northwesterly lin,~ of [Jot 14, Block 11 "SNADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPTN CC)lINTy, MINN." , This sur~,ev ~hows the location of an existing house in relatio~ to thc boundaries the above described property. It does nee purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. o : Iron ~rker set e.: Iron ntarker found Bearings shown are base~ on an assumed datum. RECEIVED SEP 1 ~ 1992 MOUND P~Nf~'=,~G & IN~. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 CONSIDERATION OF R OCA ON O · _~,NB & SCOTT KEHPF_ OCA ON O CE 8 OR DOCK 8~ Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed the history of this issue, as follows: 6-3-91: Written notice that dock must be completely rebuilt as it is falling apart. 7-15-91: Telephone message for owner to call Dock Inspector. ?-16-91= Written notice that if dock is not Properly installed the dock and boat will be confiscated and dock license will be revoked for balance of 1991 and 1992. 7-24-91~ Written notice that 1991 license was issued and warning that next year dock should be installed level with safe boards and sturdy. 6-23-92: Left message on recorder to have Kempf,s call regarding dock. 6-24-92= Telephone discussion With Scott Kempf, he said he would do the dock himself in next day or two. 6-30-92: Letter to Kempf,s stating that if dock is not replaced by July 10, 1992, revocation of dock license will be recommended to the Park Commission. 7-13-92: Telephone message on Kempf,s recorder to remove dock by this weekend and that revocation of their dock privileges will be recommended. 8-25-92: Certified letter received by Steve Kempf on 8-27-92 notifying that recommendation will be made to the Park Commission to revoke dock license for the remainder of 1992 and all of 1993 at September 10, 1992 meeting. Ms. Jane Kempf addressed the Commission and stated that she has had this dock site for 14 years. They fixed the'dOck in July and have not been down to see it until this week and she didn't know what happened to it, she said it looked like something. They would like the opportunity t~ boat rammed it or remove the dock for the balance of 1992 and then the spring. Ms y Will build a · Kempf claims th new dock next information in the mail as no*~ ~e~ dad 9ot receiv, ail the ~=u o¥ ~ne Dock Inspector and they have had many problems with the post office in other matters. Three times last year they did not get their water bill in the mail. She does not recall being notified that the dock had to be totally replaced, they have repaired it, but have not been to their dock since August. Tom commented that the wood on the dock is definitely rotting. The Commission discussed the fact that the Kempfs have had the dock for 14 years and they should be given the opportunity to correct the situation properly. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson, to recommended that the dock be removed by this Weekend (9- 14-92 is Monday} and that next spring a new dock be installed that meets all specifications. Motion carried unanimously. The applicant was notified that this issue will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. ':":"":~'~..~.~--,?,~.,...~.'~h: ............ . ...... . . ' . ...... -~...,? .... ~ ..... --.~ ...... ..-~- CITY of MOUND 5,341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOJND MINNESOTA 55364-~687 t612 472-1155 FAX ,6~2) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 10, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector .,r-~,~ c/ NON-COMPLIANCE OF DOCK SITE #20890, JANE AND SCOTT KEMPF BACKGROUND: See attached pages for a partial list of communications. RECOMMENDATION:. Staff recommends the revocation of dock license for the Kempf's for the remainder of 1992 and all of 1993. The present dock at dock site //20890 must be removed within ten (10) days of City Council approval at the owners expense. TM:Pi Enclosures printed on recycled paper CIT ' of ,\ IOL'NI) ='3-" N"~'¢'/.CCC =C:' · 612, 4'2.,., =~ I was by your dock site today to Inspect your dock For Issuance oF your 1991 permit tag. However, Your dock was not approved For the Following reasonsJ Please correct the above In the next seven (7) days and i will return to Issue your 1990 tag, Thank you ?or your cc~peratlon, Tom Dock Inspector pJ CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD RC~-_' MOUND MINNESOTA 552~- ';~7 (6",2, 472-1155 FAX ,612, 472-062.' ! was by your dock site today to inspect your dock for Issuance oF your 1991 permit tag. However, your dock was not approved For the following reasons.' /' "' ' - - - 7 ~ .~-.v.,.,..,.,,~. v~,~~ .,~~~,,,., Please correct the above In the next seven (7) days and I will return to issue your 1991 tag. J~. Thank you for your cooperation, Tom HcCaf~r~ Dock Inspector pJ printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND 534: MAYWOOD MC:,JND, MiNNES,OTA 553~.:. ~6'~2, 472-I 155 FAX t6'~2~ 472-062C I was Dy your dock site today to Inspect your dock for Issuance oF your 1991 permit tag. However, your dock was not approved For the fo!lowing reasons: Please correct the above in the next seven (7) days and I will return to Issue your 1991 tag. Thank you For your cooperation, Tom Mc Dock Inspector pJ printed on recycled paper '7 '7' CITY of MOUND 6'2 -''-' 6'2 June 30, 1992 Jane Kempf 2207 Centerview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Kempf: We have had several conversations concerning the replacement of your dock which does not meet safety or appearance standards. Since you have not complied with these requests, I have no choice but to recommend the revocation of your dock license. If your dock is not replaced by July 10, 1992, that will be my recommendation to the Parks Commission. If this recommendation is approved, you will lose your rights to a Mound City dock for the remainder of 1992 and all of 1993. Sincerely, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND August 25, 1992 Ms. Jane Kempf 2207 Centerview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mrs. Kempf: This is your notification that according to Section 437:10, Subd. 9 "Notice of Revocation,, that I will be recommending to the Park and Open Space Commission revocation of your dock license for the remainder of the 1992 season and all of 1993 (Section 437:20 penalties). This recommendation will be made at their regular meeting on September 10, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. I would suggest you appear at the meeting to provide any input you may have. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this action with me before the September 10th meeting, please call me at 472-0613. Sincerely, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector TM:pj cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director printed on recycled paper PS Form 3800, June 1985 I I~l ~ I I~1 I · SENDER: Complete Item~ 1 end 2 when additional ler~icea ara de~lred, and complete Itamt 3 Ind 4. to and We dat~ for . . or ee~ a x e~ for additional ~rvI .ce(8) re,qued..e~. ' ............ · r'l how to whom delivered, date, an~ ac~re~ee s a<mreas, z. ,, ._et~n~.e~ 3. Article Addre~ed to: -- I 4. ,~rtiole Number Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 8 dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shorelands under the contro . (ORD. ~40-1990, 1-29-90) 1 of the City. Sad. 8. ot o o-cornelia e L . o.~gXfig_~J~.. The Dock Insnect-~ ......... - ce ~ v. u~ ~ucn o~er officer as may De designated by the C~ty Manager or the Ci at any reasonable t~me ~ns-e-~ ..... fY.Council, may ~ ~ u~ ca~se to b ~, roa~, park, or co~ons ~--.~ ~ pon any P~lic , ",~ ~ ~ shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or properly · atntained or the area surrounding the dock site is not being ~atntained tn accordance ~lth the application or the license granted therefore, or ~lth the plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it a ear is In a condition fha* ~ ,-- PP _~hat such dock ~ ,.~ ~onger co~plles ~lth the r~lrements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the C~ty, the City, by its City Hanager or any other officer designated by the City Hanager, shall forth~ o~er thereof in ~ritin- s~ecif--' .... lth notify the said d~k does not co~ply ~lth the ordinance ~t~r-hic~ said o~er sh~ll have t~ ~---- ~ of the Cit~, ~" ~y~ ~O ~e~ove s~ch uoc~ or ma~e the same comply with the te~s , ordinances and the te ......... of the City s · ~ ~z nne application and [ssuance-of the license granted to said licensee. In t o~er shall fail. aa].,~ ....... he event such . ~-~ .... , ur reruse to remo mgke the same comply with ~- - ...... ~e such dock or - ~-= ue~s or the City re~lat~ons within the peri~ of ten days, the license th . revoked by directio- ~, -~ ...... erefor shall be · . -~ u.e ~lty Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the lice not,ce shall be issue~ ~.. -- ..... nsee, and said officer designaked by h%;~;"~e2I'y .anager or any other letter or by personal del ive~ to the City ~anager for his or her consideration. (O~. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) S~. 9. ~otice of Revocation. Ail notices herein re~lred shall be in eritinq by cer[lfied ~ail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Subd. 10. Winter Dock Storage. Winter dock storage by permit holders: - - a. Docks may be left in the water during the winter months providing the following conditions are met: 1. The required dock license for the following year must be applied for and paid by the tenth day of January. 2-25-91 Mound City Code Section 437:15 Bection 437115. ~aximua Dlmensio~sm ~ohibited Design of Docke. Docks for uhich a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" vide or.more than 48" in vidth vith the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allo~ed on L, ?, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of l0 feet from private property and shall not infringe on an ad~acent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except vhere necessary to reach a minimum rater depth of 36", using Lake Hlnnetonka elevation levels of 929.40 feet above sea level. Channel docks, vhere navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less [han 24" ~ide or more than 72" in ~idth. The length shall be limited to a setback of l0 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least tvo rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built or placed ~[th the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations o[her~ise may be permitted in accordance vith the conditions of the area. Docks ~hich are in existence ~une l, 1989, shall be brough[ into compliance vith all provisions of the City Code vhen expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. #38-1989 - 1-2-90) (ORD. 45- 1990 - 12-29-90) Section 431120. Fenaltieso Any person or persons vho shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected vithout a license a required by this Sec[ion 437, or vhere any license has been revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks vhich fail to comply vith the City Code rill be at the expense of [he ovner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating ~o docks rill be issued a dock license for [he present or for [he next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth in this Section 437. 8ubd. 437125. ~[cense Fe~. The annual license fee shall be as set by the Council in Section 510:00o Residen[s of the City of Hound 65 years of age or older shall pay 50% of the required license fee for a dock. (ORD. ~53-~991, 12-23-91) 12-23-91 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON BRIGHTON COMMON ABUTTING 2867 CAMBRIDGE LANE, BLOCK 37, LOT 12, NYCHNOOD, DOCK SITE #$152S WHEREAS, Dwight and Virginia Gardstrom have applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway; and WHEREAS, An existing stairway currently shared by the applicant and their neighbors, Dean and Julie Steffen of 2873 Cambridge Lane, is proposed to be removed; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, Subd. 1. requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for a Construction on Public Lands Permit; and WHEREAS, due to the topography of this area and the riprapping at the shoreline it is difficult to traverse from the existing shared stairway to the applicant,s dock site; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City of Mound does hereby approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Brighton Common abutting 2867 Cambridge Lane, Block 37, Lot 12, Wychwood, Dock Site #51525 for Dwight and Virginia Gardstrom, upon the following conditions: ae The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit. be The stairway must comply with current building code. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. de ee fe The applicant shall remove the existing joint use stairway, regrade, and reDlant, etc., to prevent erosion. The applicant is ~o provide erosion control measures under the new stairway. The maintenance permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property at 2867 Cambridge Lane. , > ISUBJECT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 CONSTRUCTION ON pUBLIC LkNDS PERMIT AppLICATION FOR A STAIRWAY By DWIGHT ~ VIRGINIA GARDSTROMf 2867 CAMBRIDGE LANE~ Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicants request to remove an existing hazardous stairway which is used by owners of both 2867 Cambridge Lane and 2873 Cambridge Lane. Each owner is now requesting to build a stairway of their own for easier access to their docks. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Brighton Common abutting the property at 2867 Cambridge Lane, Lot 12, Block 37, Wychwood, Dock Site $51525 for Dwight Gardstrom, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time the application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit. 2. The stairway must comply with current building code. 3e The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The applicant shall remove the existing joint use stairway, regrade, and replant, etc., to prevent erosion. The applicant is to provide erosion control measures under the new stairway. 6. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property at 2867 Cambridge Lane. Casey questioned the applicant if it would not be less expensive and easier to re-build the existing stairway and continue to share a stairway. The applicant commented that due to the topography and the ~ at the shoreline it makes it. very difficult t9 traverse from the sta-T~way to their ~D_ck. T~e applica~ also ~d wh° would be liable for the stairway if it was shared. MOTION mmda by Byrnes, seconded by~nderson, to recommend approval of the request as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to ~. Those in favor were= Andersen, asleson, Byrnes, Mueller, 8koglund, and Ahrens. Casey abstained. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L]~NDS pERMIT APPLICATION FOR A STAIRWAY BY DEAN ~ JULXB STEFFEN~ 2873 CAMBRIDGB LANE. This request is identical to the previous item, and therefore, the following motion was made. MOTXON made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval of the request as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were~ Andersen, asleson, B2rnes, Mueller, Skoglund, and ~hrens. Casey abstained. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. VIOLET J. SOLLIE AT'FORNEY AT LAW 2855 CAMBRIDGE LANE ~u,o. M,NN. SS3e4 Sept. l0,1992 (612) 472-416~' MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND IPEN SPACE COMMISSION Greetings ~ I have the notice of hearing on the petition by Dwight and Virginia Gardstrom for a permit to construct a stairway over pa~t of the Wychwood Commons to Cook's Bay. I urge approval.. I own the property at 2855 Cambridge Lane abutting their property and I know one needs some means to get to the lake in front of one. W{~ have forty-four steps from our lot to the lake level, and the hill is steep. Without a stairway one would soon wear away the hill and we need to keep the vegetation holding this hill to avoid rapid erosion. The vegetaion we have also contributes oxygen and habitat for our birds, squirrels and chipmonks. I can understand why the City does not provide access,, it costs money to build and maintain a safe satairwya. The dedication of public lands on the Wychwood plat specifies that the dedicat!on, including the Commons, is for the benefit of the owners of the lo/ts in this addition. When someone asks a permit for a safe structure over this hillside, and is willing to pay the cost, I think the duty of the trustee of these commons has a duty to grant such a perm it--it takes nothing away from any other holder of a property interest in Wychwood and it can be a benefit. 0w~ner of Lots 9,10 and 11, .... -..,~, Wychwood. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOU~;~ L~iNNESOTA 55364 1687 6~2 472-I~55 FAX (~121 472 0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: September 10, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official / Jim Fackler, Parks Director (~ Dwight and Virginia Gardstrom 2867 Cambridge Lane, Lot 12, Block 37, Wychwood Brighton Common 51525 C Construction on Public Lands Permit Application for a Stairway BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing hazardous stairway which is utilized by owners of both 2867 Cambridge Lane and 2873 Cambridge lane, and each property owner is requesting to build a stairway of their own for easier access to their dock sites. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Construction on Public Land permit to allow construction of a stairway on Brighton Common abutting the property at 2867 Cambridge Lane, Lot 12, Block 37, Wychwood, Dock Site #51525 for Dwight Gardstrom, subject to the following conditions: The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time the application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit, printed on recycled paper Staff Report Dwight Gardstrom September 10, 1992 Page 2 The stairway must comply with current building code. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The applicant shall remove the existing joint use stairway, regarde, and replant, etc., to prevent erosion. The applicant is to provide erosion control measUres under the new stairway. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property at 2867 Cambridge Lane. The abutting property owners have been notified. This request will be heard by the Park Commission on September 10, 1992 and by the City Council on September 22, 1992. RevLeed 2/18/92 PUBLIC LANDS STATUS SHEET ADDRESS OF ABUTTING OWNER' S NAME Gardstrom, Dwight 2867 Cambridge Ln. Mound MN 55364 LEGAL LOT(S) DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: PIp ~ z~J-I II- ~4- ~z-Oo z 0 NAME OF PUBLIC LAND DOC~ SITE, 5'/5' Z SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO PHOTOGRAPHS ON FILE? YES / NO AUTHORISED BNCROACHMENTS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE EXPIRATION DATE / UNAUTHORIZED ENCROACH)lENT8 Revised 2/18/92 (Public. Ap) Application for PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 pistribution: Date Received Building Official Park Meeting Date Watershed City Council Date" DNR LMCD MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION ,,---~, (check one)= CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction or improvement, NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND. ,.' ,' PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to maintain or repair an exiat£ng atructur. ,,' ,' LAND ALTERATION -. change in shoreline, drainage, elope, trees, fill, etc. e"e e e e eeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee®eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee®e®eeeeeeeeeeee O~ER' S DAY PHONE # BLOCK ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: nOT(S) ADDITION NAME OF PUBLIC LAND PID # DOCK SITE # .$-! .5-~f--..~g-. SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION APPLICANT, S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK Ge), I I I a ~x_ --~ ~ Z? CONTRACTOR' S LICENSE #' ' -~/~/~' ..... V~UATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING Signatu4'°f Applicant-- - - D~te~' .............................................................. Approved Denied DATE CITY COUNCIL Approved Denied DATE 9h /0 ~ r~t woll 9 (40) II I0 9 ,.37 (40) (4o) 0 IL/ ~ To PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON ~UBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON BRIGHTON COMMON ABUTTING 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, BLOCK 37, LOTS 8 & 9, NYCHWOOD, DOCK SITE #51495 WHEREAS, Dean and Julie Steffen have applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway; and WHEREAS, An existing stairway currently shared by the applicant and their neighbors, Dwight and Virginia Gardstrom of 2867 Cambridge Lane, is proposed to be removed; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, Subd. 1. requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for a Construction on Public Lands Permit; and WHEREAS, due to the topography of this area and the riprapping at the shoreline it is difficult to traverse from the existing shared stairway to the applicant,s dock site; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City of Mound does hereby approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Brighton Common abutting 2873 Cambridge Lane, Block 36, Lots 8 & 9, Wychwood, Dock Site #51495 for Dean and Julie Steffen, upon the following conditions: ae The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit. be The stairway must comply with current building code. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. de ee f® The applicant shall remove the existing joint use stairway, regrade, and replant, etc., to prevent erosion. The applicant is to provide erosion control measures under the new stairway. The maintenance permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property at 2873 Cambridge Lane. 337 OF A ME G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMA'IISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APpLICaTION FOR A STAIRWAY BY DWIGHT AND VIRGINIA G~RDSTROM~ 2867 CAMBRIDGE LAME, Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicants request to remove an existing hazardous stairway which is used by owners of both 2867 Cambridge Lane and 2873 Cambridge Lane. Each owner is now requesting to build a stairway of their own for easier access to their docks. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Brighton Common abutting the property at 2867 Cambridge Lane, Lot 12, Block 37, Wychwood, Dock Site t5152§ for Dwight Gardstrom, subject to the following conditions: The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time the application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit. The stairway must comply with current building code. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 4e The applicant shall remove the existing joint use stairway, regrade, and replant, etc., to prevent erosion. [SUBJECT, > The applicant is to provide erosion control measures under the new stairway. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property at 2867 Cambridge Lane. Casey questioned the applicant if it would not be less expensive and easier to re-build the existing stairway and continue to share a stairway. The applicant commented that due to the topography and the riprapping at the shoreline it makes if very difficult to traverse from the stairway to their dock. The applicant also questioned who would be liable for the stairway if it was shared. MOTION mads by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval of the request as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to X. Those in favor were~ Andersen, asleson, Byrnes, Mueller, Skoglund, and Ahrens. Casey abstained. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. CONSTRUCTION ON pUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A STAIRWAy By DEAN AND JULIE 8TEFFENf 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE. This request is identical to the previous item, and therefore, the following motion was made. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval of the request as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to I. Those in favor were: Andersen, Asleson, Byrnes, Mueller, Skoglund, and Ahrens. essay abstained. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 5536.4 1687 i612, 472-1155 FAX (612) 472 0620 ,STAFF REPORT DATE: September 10, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant FROM: APPLICANT: Sutherland, Building Official JimJ°n Fackler, Parks Director Dean & Julie Steffen ADDRESS: 2873 Cambridge Lane, Lots 8 & 9, Block 36, Wychwood COMMONS: Brighton Common DOCK SITE: 51495 CLASS: C SUBJECT: Construction on Public Lands Permit Application for a Stairway BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing hazardous stairway which is utilized by owners of both 2867 Cambridge Lane and 2873 Cambridge lane, and each property owner is requesting to build a stairway of their own for easier access to their dock sites. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Construction on Public Land permit to allow construction of a stairway on Brighton Common abutting the property at 2867 Cambridge Lane, Lot 8 & 9, Block 36, Wychwood, Dock Site #51495 for Dean Steffen, subject to the following conditions: The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time the application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Dean Steffen September 10, 1992 Page 2 2. The stairway must comply with current building code. 3. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. 4. The applicant shall remove the existing joint use stairway, regarde, and replant, etc., to prevent erosion. 5. The applicant is to provide erosion control measures under the new stairway. 6. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property at 2867 Cambridge Lane. The abutting property owners have been notified. This request will be heard by the Park Commission on September 10, 1992 and by the City Council on September 22, 1992. Revised 2/18/92 PUBLIC LANDS STATUS SHEET 5i4~5 :i~';ie'f'fen, Dean ADDRESS OF ABUTTING 2~73 Cambridoe Lane Mound hlN 55.'S64 OWNER' S NAME LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO PHOTOGRAPHS ON FILE? YES / NO AUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE EXPIRATION DATE UNAUTHORI ZED ENCROACHMENTs DATE: Rev£sed 2/18/92 (Public. Ap) Application for PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT CITY OF HOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Hound, Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 MN 55364 Distribution: Date Received Building official Park Meeting Date Watershed City Council Date DNR LMCD TYPE OF ,----~, APPLICATION (check one): CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction or improvement, NOTE'. NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND. ' ' PUBLIC LAND 5~%INTEN~CE PERMIT - to maintain or repair an existing structure ,' ,' LAND ALTERATION. -change in shoreline, .drainage, slope, trees, fill, etc. ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY 2 ~ ? _~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: ADDITION ~A)V..~ ~ to DOb NAME OF PUBLIC LAND OWNER' S DAY PHONE B~CK 35 PID # ~OC,~SITE,' 5'lq q--~ S.OREr~NDCU~SSI~ICATION APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK t~)',il ;¢~ ,,,,. '~') t- u_~_~ e.l [ ~o,~-~_,.,~, .,~.~ ¢~.~</,~,~,~lr ,4~,,~-~_/,~..; ,,~ · CONTRACTOR' S LICENSE # PHONE VALUATION/PROPOSED COST Or PRO~ECT (INCLUDING L~BOR ~ Dated ~'~6~~6~ ........ '~:~;~;~:A;g~i ........ '~TJ~d .... ;~;~:r~ ...................... CITY COUNCIL Approved Denied DATE 'ood ramp wide and conc. -2H. ~ C~C. ret. high II $37~; s/rwy, I0 coMi o ret wall ~V~c{ ~ .trw.~ ~a~ll ret, Mil ,shed- no £ndtn..$ £t.x 6/'1'. i. II 37' (40) D~ 55%0 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors September 15, 1992 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota 1992 Lift Station Improvements Payment Request No. 3 ~FRA #9868 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Gridor's Payment Request No. 3 for work completed through September 11, 1992 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $79,475.33. We have reviewed this request, find that it is in order and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. Also enclosed is a request for approval of Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $1,924.52. This Change Order covers extra work at Stations A-2 and C-5 and a credit for piping eliminated in the four wet well stations. Item #1 at Station A-2 was extra labor and material to locate the existing forcemain for connection to bypass pumps. Item #3 was extra work to excavate and repair broken forcemain leading from the lift station work. Item #4 was extra costs incurred during repairs to seal the leak at the bottom of the lift station. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmk Enclosures $3 l An Equal Opportunity Employer OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ENGINEER: CHANGE ORDER NO, Z City of Mound, Minnesota 1992 Lift Station Improvements MFRA #9868 City of Mound, Minnesota Gridor Construction, Inc. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Additional Cost to Locate and Connect to Existing Forcemain (Station A-2} Delete 90' Bends at Influent Inlet (4 Stations) e Additionai Cost to Excavate and Repair Broken Forcemain (Station C-5) Additional Cost for Repairing Leak in L.S. Structure (Station C-5) TOTAL FOR CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - ADD CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - ADD REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT RECOMMENDED: ~cC0mbs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. ADD $ 693.00 DEDUCT $ 436.48 ADD $ 1,061.00 ADD ADD $ 195,8oo.oo $ 2,461.80 $ 1,924.52 $ 200,186.32 $ 607.00 $ 1,924.52 APPROVED~. ~ ~/~/ . ~'~idor Constr ~,~c. DATE: ACCEPTED: By: City of Mound, Minnesota DATE: BILLS .................. September 22, 1992 Batch 2092 TOTAL BILLS $90,623.46 $90,623.46 z 0,, Z uJ LU 0 O0 O0 ! 0 ,4" ! I LAKE HINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Monday, September 21, 1992, 4:30 PM Norwest Bank Building 900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Room 135 (Elevator access for Handicapped; use west entrance on Wayzata Blvd.) Special Events A. New event application: Ice Fishing Excursions by George Stodola & Art Bollmann, Excelsior MN, 12/26/92 thru 2/28/93 B. Request for late fee to be waived for a renewal application submitted less than 90 days prior to event: Viking Bassmasters 16th Annual Bass Tournament, 10/4/92 (letter of 8/18/92 attached) C. Citizen complaint on 8/16/92 bass tournament boat noise 2. Shoreline Boat Count Summary Report 3. Water Patrol Report A. Monthly Activity Report Snowmobile registration number size reduction evaluation progress by MN DNR; LMCD Staff Report Discussion of License Fee Schedule for 1992 and 1993 Additional business PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-057 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE TORO COMPANY AT 5330 SHORELINE DRIVE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF A BULLET HEATER TEST BUILDING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 13, 1992 to consider an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for The Toro Company at 5330 Shoreline Drive to allow construction of a 16' x 32' Bullet Heater Test Building at the northeast corner of the property. This Conditional Use Permit Amendment is for the property known as the Balboa Building, and legally described as follows: BLKS 5 AND 6 SYLVIAN-HEIGHTS ADDN TO MOUND AND LOTS 10 THRU 15 BLK 2 L P CREVIERS SUBD LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK ALSO E 25 FT OF LOT 36 AND SUBD NO 170 AND THAT PART OF E 25 FT OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING N OF SAID LOT 36 AND S OF A LINE PAR WITH AND 50 FT SLY FROM CTR LINE OF BN RR R/W INCL ADJ VAC ST EX ST ALSO BLK 11 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDN TO LAKESIDE PARK EX ST INCL PART OF VAC ST AND LOTS 23 THRU 28 INCL KOEHLER'S ADDN TO MOUND SUBJECT TO ROAD. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in "The Laker" 9-28-92, and mailed to property owners within 350' by 9-28-92. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-058 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE TEEN CLUB AT 2313 COMMERCE BOULEVARD TO ALLOW A POOL TABLE AND 13 VIDEO MACHINES ON THE MAIN FLOOR NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 13, 1992 to consider an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Teen Club at 2313 Commerce Boulevard to allow one pool table and increase the number of video machines allowed from 4 to 13 on the main floor of the teen club. This Conditional Use Permit Amendment is for the property legally described as "Lynwold Park" Lake Minnetonka, E 150 FT OF LOT 55 AND COM ON S LINE OF LOT 54 AT A PT 30 FT W FROM SE COR THEREOF THE N PAR WITH E LINE THEREOF 10 FT THE W AT RT ANGLES 120 FT TH S AT RT ANGLES TO S LINE OF LOT THE ELY TO BEG LOTS 54 AND 55. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in "The Laker" 9-28-92, and mailed to property owners within 350' by 9-28-92. GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND DOCKS FUND RECYCLING FUND CEMETERY FUND CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT AUGUST 1992 66.7% AUGUST YTD PER CENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1188250 820900 3260 69500 41250 75000 10000 51250 2259410 0 593661 594589 49.96% 66922 486294 334606 59.24% 25 3129 131 95.98% 221600 1180000 350000 650000 71000 118730 3200 11753 63540 5960 91.42% 861 9623 31627 23.33% 6243 41599 33401 55.47% 1195 11596 -1596 115.96% 1051 5177 46073 10.10% 88050 1214619 1044791 53.76% 11219 191664 29936 86.49% 109938 764125 415875 64.76% 30815 230283 119717 65.80% 51240 416793 233207 64.12% 366 71431 -431 100.61% 8169 33213 85517 27.97% 1260 5240 -2040 163.75% CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES AUGUST 1992 66.67% BUDGET GENERAL FUND Council Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets Shop & Stores City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers 67280 1380 166790 14800 46260 147090 31000 83950 744890 3350 127000 402900 20180 90150 132990 31610 20000 119730 AUGUST YTD PER CENT EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 3425 42835 24445 63.67% 0 848 532 61.45% 12974 108701 58089 65.17% 571 4316 10484 29.16% 5 271 45989 0.59% 11158 91470 55620 62.19% 59 21457 9543 69.22% 4403 33594 50356 40.02% 53271 500309 244581 67.17% 60 1146 2204 34.21% 12872 98568 28432 77.61% 34290 262977 139923 65.27% 1046 8279 11901 41.03% 4641 55903 34247 62.01% 12709 89529 43461 67.32% 0 9894 21716 31.30% 1323 8796 11204 43.98% 9397 75181 44549 62.79% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2251350 162204 1414074 837276 62.81% Area Fire Service Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Recycling Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund 221600 28307 135617 85983 61.20% 178920 13433 119186 59734 66.61% 353060 22076 239825 113235 67.93% 971190 62152 499873 471317 51.47% 100900 5538 58776 42124 58.25% 4230 516 2876 1354 67.99% 46850 1400 30055 16795 64.15% fC'O SEP 2, 1 199; LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM - Public Hearing 7:30 PM - Regular meeting Wednesday, September 23, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901Manitou Road (County Rd 19) 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Halsted Bay Quiet Waters Area - to determine the need for establishing a quiet waters area, 5 mph speed limit, in part of Halsted Bay 2. Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Association, Carman's Bay, Orono - new multiple dock license application for a pre-existing six slip dock 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS READING OF MINUTES - 8/26/92 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance not on agenda COMMITTEE REPORTS LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, meetlng of 9/21/92 B. Special Events 1) New event application: Ice Fishing Excursions by George Stodola & Art Bollman, Excelsior MN, 12/26/92 thru 2/28/93 2) Request for late fee to be waived for renewal application from Viking Bassmasters 16th Annual Bass Tournament, 10/4/92 C. Prosecuting Attorney Tallen, report on summer's prosecutlons D. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report E. 1992 and 1993 License Fee Schedule review per committee discussion F. Additional business recommended by committee WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 9/12/92 B. Appoint subcommittee to review draft ordinance relating to the effect on licenses of failure to construct within a certain time, amending Code Sect. 2.05 Board Agenda, 9/23/92, Page 2 C. First reading of draft ordinance relating to deicing equipment on Lake Minnetonka, amending Code Sect. 2.09, recommending attorney's Option 2 for Subd. 7, authorizing the executive director to issue renewal deicing licenses with no violations the prior season, all other applications referred to the Board (accompanied by further staff report) D. Orono ordinance prohibiting the use of non-encased styrofoam as a dock flotation device, recommending scheduling a public hearing prior to adopting similar ordinance E. Additional business recommended by committee ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurt A. Approval of minutes, meeting report of 9/15/92 B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn LAKE ACCESS TASK FORGE, Ghair Grathwol A. Subcommittee progress and October Task Force meeting announcement FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. August Statement of Cash Transactions B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. Election of Officers, Nominating Committee Report ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REO'[3 SEP 3 1 1992 PUBLIC HEARING HALSTED BAY QUIET WATERS AREA Wednesday, September 23, 1992 7:00 PM, Tonka Bay City Hall The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) was petitioned, in a letter received 6/19/92, by 10 lakeshore residents of Kings Point Road, Minnetrista, to designate part of Halsted Bay a quiet waters area. The proposed area would be the cove in which the DNR access is located, between the ends of Kings Point and Sheehans Point. This request was discussed at the 7/20/92 and 8/17/92 Lake Use and Recreation committee meetings. It was decided to hold a public hearing to invite comments on the addition of .slow buoys in this area. The residents' concern is primarily that boat traffic from the DNR access, which has been increasing each year, is creating damaging wakes. The speed of the boats leaving the access creates wakes that erode the shoreline and disturb the lotus beds. Another concern is the noise from boats operating at speed. Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvements, supports the addition of two slow buoys in this cove per the attached map. The map shows the approximate locations and distance from shore where he recommends placing the buoys. Hennepin County already shows the proposed area as a quiet waters area on its lake map. 3409 Kings Point Road Excelsior, Mn. 55331 June 12, 1992 Mr. Eugene Strommen The LMCD 900 East Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Dear Mr. Strommen & LMCD Directors: We, the undersigned Minnetonka Lake Shore owners, wish to petition the LMCD to declare an area of Halsted's Bay a "Quiet Waters Area". This area includes the small bay existing between the end points of King's Point and Sheehan's Point (now owned by Carlson Companies) and the DNR Access. Since the DNR established the Access, boat traffic has steadily increased. Now large and small boats come and go at full and half .throttle creating very large wakes. These wakes are damaging not only to our shorelines but also to any watercraft tied up to our docks. We would very much appreciate having this item placed on the agenda for your July meeting and a positive consideration. JUN ! 9 1992 L.M.C,D. JVB/ab cc/Scott W. Carlson Y~urs truly, J~hn V. Borry / ff 5-'9o 2_. :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: =========================== ::::::::::::::::::::: :.:::: !. ~,iFi Distances: 300'± from north shore 300'± from s6uth shore appr6ximately 280' apart ~ ~){ ~/ HALSTEDS BAY \ ~O~I \ \ 650' from west shore by ~ccess LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: Lake Minnetonka Sun-Sailor for Excelsior, Minnetonka, Wayzata, and Westonka editions FAX: 896-4754 FROM: Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director PHONE: 473-7033 DATE: September 2, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE HALSTEDS BAY QUIET WATERS AREA Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing at the Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901Man£tou Rd, Tonka Bay, on Wednesday, September 23, 1992 at 7 pm for the purpose of determining the need for establishing a Quiet Waters Area (5 mph speed limit) in part of LMCD Area 1, Halsteds Bay, near Kings Point, Lake Minnetonka. Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND DOCKS FUND RECYCLING FUND CEMETERY FUND BUDGET CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT AUGUST 1992 AUGUST YTD REVENUE 66.7% PER CENT REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1188250 820900 3260 69500 41250 75000 10000 51250 2259410 0 593661 594589 49.96% 66922 486294 334606 59.24% 25 3129 131 95.98% 11753 63540 5960 91.42% 861 9623 31627 23.33% 6243 41599 33401 55.47% 1195 11596 -1596 115.96% 1051 5177 46073 10.10% 88050 1214619 1044791 53.76% 221600 11219 191664 29936 86.49% 1180000 109938 764125 415875 64.76% 350000 30815 230283 119717 65.80% 650000 51240 416793 233207 64.12% 71000 366 71431 -431 100.61% 118730 8169 33213 85517 27.97% 3200 1260 5240 -2040 163.75% CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES AUGUST 1992 66.67% GENERAL FUND Council Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets Shop & Stores City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers GENERAL FUND TOTAL Area Fire Service Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Recycling Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund BUDGET 67280 1380 166790 14800 46260 147090 31000 83950 744890 3350 127000 402900 20180 90150 132990 31610 20000 119730 2251350 AUGUST YTD EXPENSE EXPENSE PER CENT VARIANCE EXPENDED 3425 42835 24445 63.67% 0 848 532 61.45% 12974 108701 58089 65.17% 571 4316 10484 29.16% 5 271 45989 0.59% 11158 91470 55620 62.19% 59 21457 9543 69.22% 4403 33594 50356 40.02% 53271 500309 244581 67.17% 60 1146 2204 34.21% 12872 98568 28432 77.61% 34290 262977 139923 65.27% 1046 8279 11901 41.03% 4641 55903 34247 62.01% 12709 89529 43461 67.32% 0 9894 21716 31.30% 1323 8796 11204 43.98% 9397 75181 44549 62.79% 162204 1414074 837276 62.81% 221600 28307 135617 85983 61.20% 178920 13433 119186 59734 66.61% 353060 22076 239825 113235 67.93% 971190 62152 499873 471317 51.47% 100900 5538 58776 42124 58.25% 4230 516 2876 1354 67.99% 46850 1400 30055 16795 64.15% PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-057 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE TORO COMPANY AT 5330 SHORELINE DRIVE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF A BULLET HEATER TEST BUILDING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 13, 1992 to consider an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for The Toro Company at 5330 Shoreline Drive to allow construction of a 16' x 32' Bullet Heater Test Building at the northeast corner of the property. This Conditional Use Permit Amendment is for the property known as the Balboa Building, and legally described as follows: BLKS 5 AND 6 SYLVIAN-HEIGHTS ADDN TO MOUND AND LOTS 10 THRU 15 BLK 2 L P CREVIERS SUBD LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK ALSO E 25 FT OF LOT 36 AND SUBD NO 170 AND THAT PART OF E 25 FT OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING N OF SAID LOT 36 AND S OF A LINE PAR WITH AND 50 FT SLY FROM CTR LINE OF BN RR R/W INCL ADJ VAC ST EX ST ALSO BLK 11 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDN TO LAKESIDE PARK EX ST INCL PART OF VAC ST AND LOTS 23 THRU 28 INCL KOEHLER'S ADDN TO MOUND SUBJECT TO ROAD. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in "The Laker" 9-28-92, and mailed to property owners within 350' by 9-28-92. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-058 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE TEEN CLUB AT Z313 COMMERCE BOULEVARD TO ALLOW A POOL TABLE AND 13 VIDEO MACHINES ON THE MAIN FLOOR NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 13, 1992 to consider an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Teen Club at 2313 Commerce Boulevard to allow one pool table and increase the number of video machines allowed from 4 to 13 on the main floor of the teen club. This Conditional Use Permit Amendment is for the property legally described as "Lynwold Park" Lake Minnetonka, E 150 FT OF LOT 55 AND COM ON S LINE OF LOT 54 AT A PT 30 FT W FROM SE COR THEREOF THE N PAR WITH E LINE THEREOF 10 FT THE W AT RT ANGLES 120 FT TH S AT RT ANGLES TO S LINE OF LOT THE ELY TO BEG LOTS 54 AND 55. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. C~ark, City Clerk Publish in "The Laker" 9-28-92, and mailed to property owners within 350' by 9-28-92. MOUND LODGE NO. A.F. and A. M. Post Office Box 232 · Mound,Minnesota 55364 September 15, 1992 SEP 1 8 1992 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Mound Lodge #320 requests release from the CBD parking program. We have not received replies to the two previous requests (letters of October 23, 1990 and December 16, 1990 copies attached). We therefore ask that immediate action be taken. Current CBD charges have become exorbitant and we cannot afford this expense and Mound Lodge receives no benefits from this program. This excess limits our ability to contribute our share to local charities. Masons in the United States contribute $2,000,000.00 per day to charity. We are a nonprofit charitable organization recognized by the State of Minnesota and the IRS. Please advise the undersigned, or Douglas Bryce, secretary of Mound Lodge #320 when this matter will be brought up for action. Cordially yours Mound Lodge ~326 Board of~~~ees Orval Fens~ad W~ )te~ Wglf. e ~ IN ~eee met ia ~he ~eg~m previeue %e 198~ b~t ~ma eeavi~4ed ty a ee~a~% mad ~e%ae% me, nail aerobe% that we ahewld 3e~ ia the Ye ~eAae4 the I~eg%m ia 19B6. Ltmte~bbelee ere the ~ mi~ee thmmt 1990 lgN we ee~plmi~ed Ibeut %h~ bill einee eur b~ild bu%med d~ tm ~o. a~ t~ ~w ~ w~ ~~ t~t 7ee~ fo% ~, in froot ~t yeaz'mt t~ew ~ ~e ~ered tm ~% 1~. ~ bi~ q~ bi~ w~ eut ~ 1~ ~e m~in e~~ed a~ut t~ b~ e~e t~ ~1~ wee ~t ~whed e~ ~t ~ e~ ~t~ ep~, egala ~ bi~ ~e eut ia ~f. ~ ~ eve~m~ ~ at abe~ ~O ~ yem~. X~ ema wee f~ t~ m~ve It tw t~e t~t e~e mp~e~ fa% mu% buildi~ ~t, ~ agreed te wt~ ia ~ ~re~. H~eve% ee were met teld t~t the c~t ef the p%e~ wmw g~ ~ i~%eaee. A~e ~ were net t~d t~t t~ t~ ~~ i~r ~ ~mci~ em es% ~tche~w g~ te %eq~i%e we ~e ~y wa e~ ~t fee eft ~r ~ m~ mm i~otien fee Nm~ S~.~ ~th t~ ~y ~ee ~ H~ ~e. ~ were ~a~ ~ a~ b~~. ~y maid ~ e~ld ~aqe ~ ~ eur ~ {mimi{ qbe e~e mm we did bef~. ~y Qid may t~ w~ ask fez more ef th equi~eat tc ~ etai~ems ~eel. ~th ~mit fees ee ~gh, ~ decided &e re~ t~ ~on el~b d~ }~ f~ ou~ ~ }miming dimerm mt ~5.~ ~r ~. ~mg ~ ~uireme~ ~ fr~ ~ t~ ~5 earee fe~ ou~ re~ar ~duled ~e~:~'+ ~~ml ~~ ~ui~emeat are a~eet zero. We de ~ belei~ t~ p~o~rty t~ eity inte~m te buy, being next ~ge A. F. and A. M. 2372 Coemmree Blvd. City of ~und Att: Ctt~ Ccmncil We believe that we should be dropped from the Clt~ CBD program. T~ oft~l blllm mub~tted ~ us the lmm% t~ the mr0~ of $3~ par ye~. ~ in about $1~ ~ year ~re t~a ~ oan have the sn~ r~md by ~tmtml ~ pl~e~e, ~lso ~th the elm~et~on the b~l~ i~ctor placad en ~ ~te~n %~ ~ fume t~mmmed so ~eh t~t it ie ~eh ~e eeo~leel ~ ~e~ t~ ~g~ C!u~ f~cllitie. t~n ~ msm ~v mfer ~r mo~y rmim~,g di~erm. T~m requirmnta d~ ~ 10 er 15 cmr8 ~ ~eeti~ ~eh ~re held in the eve~ about ~ ti~s ~r T~nk yoe for ~r ee~ider~tl~. ~eure t~, Jebn Madaon Worshipful Iqmater City of Mound 5341 Ms,wood Rd. M~nd, M~ 55364 Att: City Council Da ':his our 3rd request that Mound ~'sonic Lodge No. 320 ~'zthdr~w from the CBD program. ?iAe tWO previous reques~e hav~ not in anyway been honored. We therefore request that i,~ediate .! actto~ be tske,~ on this request and that~e b~ r~imbursed for cr, arges In lO91 and 1992. Please advise the undersigned when this mmtter wi]! be brought up for acticn. truly, Ma,~er, Treasure an~ Secretary rhoul~ sign. 2O5 December 18, 1990 Cameron reviewed the history of the proposed assessment. He explained the formula used, the land acquisition costs, improvement costs, and the splits available for consideration, they are: 35 City / 65 CBD, 40 City / 60 CBD, 45 City / 55 CBD, or 50 City / 50 CBD. Mayor Smith opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in favor of the 50/50 split: John Royer, Paul Meisel, Curt Johnson, Dick Schwert, Peter Johnson, Walt Wolfe, Mike Mueller Sr., Michael Mueller, and Dorothy Netka. In addition to agreeing with the 50/50 split, the following objections were voiced. John Royer of Ben Franklin would like credit for the parking spaces he will gain when he purchases the lot to the south of him. The Council did not agree with this request, Jessen noted that this area is used for outdoor seasonal retail sales, and therefore, is not always available for parking. Curt Johnson objected to the number of spaces required by the CBD plan of 15, versus the Zoning Code requirement of only 6. The Finance Director explained that all of the CBD parking requirements are calculated the same way, and it has always been calculated this way. The CBD formula does not correlate with the Zoning Code. The City Attorney reminded Mr. Johnson that he may file a written objection if he chooses. Walter Wolfe, representing the Masonic Lodge asked if his previous request to be dropped from the CBD was granted. The City Manager commented that it was not. The Council reviewed Parking requirements for the Masonic Lodge and discussed how they benefit from the CBD parking. It was determined that they currently do not have adequate parking, and according to the Zoning Code they could be required to have up to 100 spaces. Jerry Longpre stated that he and Bill Netka were involved in the creation of the original CBD plan and the original formula. He raised the topic of the distance factor which involves measuring how far the businesses were from acquired parking lots; the closer the businesses were to the lots the more they were assessed and the further away they were the less they were assessed. Both Mr. Longpre and Mr. Netka agreed that the distance factor should be implemented into the current formula. The City Engineer stated that the distance factor was not ignored when the current formula was created. The distance factor has not been used in the formula since 1981. He explained that there were flaws in using the distance factor because it was difficult to determine where to start and stop the measuring. In addition, October 23~ 1990 as being up-to-date, i.e. parking provided, customer parking required, employee parking required. He then submitted three plans for sharing the costs of the acquisition and improvements. The following are the city - business splits being proposed: Alternate 1 - 50% City - 50% Business of $118,000.00. Alternate 2 - 40% City - 60% Business of $141,600.00. Alternate 3 - 25% City - 75% Business of $177,000.00. The Mayor reconvened the Public Hearing. The following persons spoke in favor of the City/businesses acquiring the parking lots: Peter Johnson, Dick Schwert, Jerry Dodds, Mike Mueller, Jr., Mike Mueller, Sr., Paul Meisel, Roger Dolliff. Mike Mueller, Sr. stated he would like to know that there will be continued ingress and egress on Commerce Blvd. from the parking lot in front of his Tonka West Center and the Coast to Coast. The city Attorney stated that the Johnson's offer to purchase is contingent upon cross easements being obtained from Mueller/Lansing, the City of Mound and the Johnsons. Mike Mueller, Sr., stated that he would agree to the cross easements as long as there is ingress and egress on Commerce Blvd. Walt Wolfe, Mound Lodge, objected to the assessment and asked that the Mound Lodge be removed from the CBD District. The City Manager explained that the Lodge obtained their building permit for their new building on the basis that they were members of the CBD District. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The City Attorney stated he has prepared 2 resolutions, one denying the improvement and one ordering the improvement. Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~90-128 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN OPTION AGREEMENT WITH DAKOTA RAIL~ INC. The Mayor read proposed resolution. The Council discussed verifying the parking space numbers and the formula; the percentage split between the City and the businesses; and when an assessment role could be prepared and a public hearing on the assessment held. The City Engineer stated that Staff's recommendation would be to hold the hearing December 11, 1990. He would then have time to present the Council with a preliminary roll. R£C'D SEP 2 3. 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM, Wednesday, August 26, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran at 7:40 PM ROLL CALL Members Present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior: Wm. A. Johnstone, Minneton- ka; Michael Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Treasurer, Minnetrista: JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood: Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park: ~om Penn, Tonka Bay; George C. Owen, Victoria; Duane Markus, Wayzata: Robert Slocum. Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault. Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Member Absent: Thomas Reese, Vice Chair, Mound. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chair had no announcements. READING OF MINUTES Rascop Moved, Babcock seconded, to approve the minutes of the 7/22/92 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from persons in attend- ance not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Foster moved, Babcock seconded, to approve the following by unanimous consent: Special Events, Deposit Refunds at $100 each: 1) MN WI Pro Am Bass Tournament, 5/31/92 2) Wednesday Evening Bass Tournaments, 6/3/92 - 8/12/92 3) Westonka MDA Brighter Light Bass Open, 8/16/92 Motion carried unanimously. MOTION TO AMEND AGENDA: Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to move Agenda Item UNFINISHED BUSINESS, A. Conflict of Interest Policy Statement to precede the Committee Reports. DISCUSSION: In response to a question from Babcock as to the purpose of the motion, Hurr stated the conflict of interest item should be discussed before there was discussion on any other item on the agenda. Cochran said he would rather postpone any discus- sion until the occasion for a discussion arises. Grathwol, noting he had served on the committee which de- veloped the conflict of interest statement adopted by the Board, said he would like to hear Hurr's reasoning for discussion at this time. Hurr replied that there had been a discussion of conflict of interest in connection with an item on the Committee Report agenda at the last meeting and she feels it should be discussed before the reports. Carlson said the fact that there is this discussion means it should be talked about now. Rascop said he thought there would be comments from LeFevere. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 VOTE: Motion carried, Grathwol, Babcock. Cochran and Siocum voting nay. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Conflict of Interest Policy Statement - application to on-going circumstances. Rascop said the Board has looked into financial considera- tions as a matter of concern in the past when discussing con- flicts of interest. He said he has a personal concern that if a Board member has a membership in a corporation or organization, even though there is no financial gain, there is still an inter- est over and above the public good that should be taken into consideration. LeFevere proceeded to outline some general ideas which could be of interest to the members. He said the Board is talking about membership in a yacht club on the Lake, in this specific case. It might be helpful to divide conflict of interest issues into four: 1) One category is a statutory conflict of interest. Minnesota Statutes prohibit a public body from entering into a contract in which one of its members has an interest. That kind of conflict is faced most often on city councils, where a city council is proposing to enter into a contract with a business in which a member of the council has some direct or indirect inter- est. This is the only kind of conflict of interest that is dealt with specifically in Minnesota Statutes. That kind of conflict is not what the Board is talking about. 2) Another conflict of interest is that of incompatible of- fices. Under that doctrine it is not proper for a public offi- cial to hold two offices which by their nature are incompatible. The Attorney General has ruled, for example, that the offices of school board member and city council member are incompatible. If a school board member takes a seat on a city council, that member automatically forfeits its seat on the school board. The Board is not talking about that type of conflict. 3) There is another category of conflict of interest that is an ethical or political type. This involves a perception of fairness, a question of perception of public trust and a confi- dence in the decisions made by the public officials. It is not a legal conflict of interest in that a member of a board is dis- qualified or that a member has committed a crime, or that an action of a board can be reversed because of participation. This is a matter of propriety. I am no more qualified to pass .judg- ment on a matter of ethics than any other member of a board, so I will not try to do that. 4) What the Board is left with is the common law doctrine of conflict of interest. In Minnesota there is very little guidance, even in case law. But in a number of Minnesota cases, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have recognized that if a member has a sufficient interest he/she ought not be quali- fied to vote. - continued LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 LeFevere continued that the conflict of interest policy statement adopted by the Board generally deals with that type of conflict of interest, and is consistent with the law, although it is somewhat of an over simplification of the law. There have been just a handful of cases in Minnesota in which the courts have ruled that even though there is nothing in the statutes, the courts will step in and say it is improper for a Board member to have voted. At the outset I can say I am not aware of any case in Minne- sota where the courts have ruled that someone ought to be dis- qualified when a member has an interest which is not pecuniary. In other words, everything I have found in case law has indicated that that interest has to be pecuniary. It has to be of finan- cial or economic benefit to the Board member for disqualification to occur. In cases where there is not a pecuniary interest, any alleged conflict could be a matter of ethics or propriety of the act, but would not be illegal conflict of interest. LeFevere continued that there are three cases that he would call to the Board's attention that he thinks might tell how a court might have viewed such a conflict of interest. In one case a city council acted on a variance application for a church. One of the council members was a contributing member of that church. It was for an ordinary expansion of the church's physical plant. The court concluded that there was nothing improper about that, at least in the legal sense. That action was not a basis for overturning the decision and the court took no action. They simply concluded that there was no reason mere membership in the organization was sufficient to justify overturning the decision of the city council. Probably the leading case. the one that is cited most often, was Lenz vs. the Coon Creek Watershed District, in 1967. The Minnesota Supreme Court laid out some standards to consider in deciding whether there was improper conflict. Reading from this case tells where the court was coming from. This language has been cited, I think, in every case since this case, as guidance to the courts in deciding if conflict exists. "The purpose behind the creation of a rule which would disqualify public officials from participating in proceed- ings in a decision making capacity when they have a direct interest in its outcome is to ensure their decision will not be an arbitrary reflection of their own selfish inter- est. There is not a general rule as to whether such an interest will disqualify an official. Each case must be decided on the basis of the particular factors present. Among the factors to be considered in making the determina- tion are: 1) The nature of the decision being made 2) The nature of the pecuniary interest 3) The number of the officials making the decision. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 4) The need to have interested persons make tire decision 5) The other means available, if any, such as the opportu- nity for review that serves to ensure that the officials will not act arbitarily to serve further their selfish interest." That case involved a decision by a Watershed District to construct a major ditch improvement. Some of the officials owned a considerable amount of real estate in the district which would be substantially benefited by the proposed improvement. Never- theless, a court found that under those circumstances and apply- ing that standard of review, there was not a sufficient need for the court to create a rule disqualifying those officials from acting. Even though they had an interest in that case, the court substantial property would not disqualify them from acting. There were some factors there that may have influenced the court. The court was not very helpful in explaining which factors were most important. One of tile factors, however, was that in order for the project to go forward there was a need for the manaeers to make a decision. There would not have been enough managers left to make a decision if they had been required to be disquali- fied. It is quite clear that in that balancing analysis, it is quite possible for someone to have a fairly substantial pecuniary interest and still not be disqualified under Minnesota law. A more recent Supreme Court case of 1985 was a case in which a liquor license renewal was denied. One of the councilmembers had a piece of property across the street from the liquor estab- lishment. That councilmember had stated as a matter of public record that the presence of the liquor establishment diminished the value of his property by $100,000. The Supreme Court held that his participation in that process was a direct, obvious and flagrant conflict of interest, disqualifying that party from acting on any future liquor license application for that estab- lishment. As long as he owned that property a conflict would exist. LeFevere said in summary that membership in a club that has an application before this body, in his opinion, is not enough, per se, if that is the only factor, to disqualify someone from voting. It is not a legal conflict of interest. However, there may be circumstances in any given case where a person could have a direct interest, a pecuniary interest, which would result irt that person being disqualified. You can take as art example a yacht club, a non-profit organization, which [las ten members. If the license is granted that allows the club to have ten slips, it offers considerable economic value. If the license is not grant- ed, the members would have only one slip. Therefore, tile value to the individual board member is fairly direct and fairly obvi- ous and results in a fairly large economic benefit. Irt that case. it is not the mere membership in the club which raises the conflict of interest. The finding that that person's pecuniary interest in having that application granted is suffi- ciently direct that it is fair to state that their judgment may be clouded in acting fairly on the application. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 In our case, I do not know what all the facts are, other than that several of the board members are members of the yacht club. Given that fact alone, I would not be of the opinion, if that were the only fact presented to the court, that the court would rule that an improper conflict of interest existed. There may be other facts out there. Those are facts that I do not have any knowledge of. So I cannot really render an opinion. It may be better to discuss that matter first. There is no guidance or judgment in any of the municipal law treatises that I have found and consulted as to what a body can do when a conflict of interest situation arises. In other words. if a body concludes that a conflict of interest exists, there is no guidance as to what that body can do about it. There is no stated authority anywhere for a body to state that those people may not be heard in discussion or that their votes may not be counted. A Board can get into some very questionable areas about what the authority of the board is. There are very difficult ques- tions about the authority of the board to disenfranchise one community or take away their right to vote on an application be- cause the public body thinks there may be a conflict of interest situation. It would be nice if we didn't have to get to those issues. I do not know if this is a case where we will have to address them. That would be a difficult mine field for us to feel our way through. Cochran said he does not feel the Conflict of Interest sub- ject can be discussed without getting into the specifics of a case. He suggested proceeding with the agenda and then discuss Conflict of Interest when it arises. Hurr responded that the Board voted to discuss the issue. Bloom said his understanding of the motion is for discussion for all matters brought before the Board, not just one. Hurr. said the motion was to hear objec- tions to the policy itself. Carlson said he believes the policy is firmly in place. For the record he stated he does not believe the Board wants to tell members how to vote. lte does not believe anyone's mind is going to be changed by the discussion. Babcock said he would rather discuss this topic before going on to the agenda. Hurt stated she sat on the committee at which the policy was determined by consensus. The committee was dealin~ with the public perception of the appointed members of the Board. She does not believe LeFevere spoke directly to the policy the LMCD has. She said his statement deals with court cases. LeFevere responded that in Conflict of Interest situations, an economic or pecuniary benefit, if direct or indirect, is impermisable. He said he was focusing on whether it was pecuni- ary. Hurr asked for an explanation of pecuniary. LeFevere responded the LMCD policy refers to direct or indirect. Indirect could also be a violation. The I. MCD policy is dealing with direct or indirect personal financial gain. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 Hurt said financial gain, whether $1 or $100. is a relative thing. Hurt asked the executive director for his comments. The executive director said the policy was arrived at after a fairly long discussion with several community leaders arid members of the Board. He does not believe he should comment on the policy or this discussion as he is not a Board member, tie did state he was enlightened by what he has heard from the attorney so far. Cochran referred to the last paragraph of the Policy which refers to the National League of Cities Standards of Conduct Guidelines for Government Decision Makers. This fits in with dealing with the perception of conflict. LeFevere added that no one can control the perception of a conflict in the mind of the public and press. LeFevere suggested assuming a case that is not a legal violation of the LMCD policy. If it is not a legal conflict of interest the Board does not have the authority to refuse to allow someone to participate in the discussion. The Board does not have the authority to say people cannot vote. It is not a legal conflict of interest just because the Board believes it is not ethical or believes it may not be proper. The Board cannot decline to count the w~tes. The Board could censure the member or adopt a Resolution of Findings that the policy was violated. Those are things that would be within the authority of the Board. Penn said the Board needs to look at the conflict of inter- est policy as it applies to a case. He personally looks at it as it applies to the Wayzata Yacht Club. He has knowledge that members of the LMCD Board of Directors belong to the Wayzata Yacht Club. He does not know if they personally gain financial- ly. However, if the public perceives that the Board has not acted in the public interest, then the perception of a conflict of interest exists. He does have questions about the LMCD Conflict . of Interest Policy Statement. Even though someone does not gain personally by voting, it is necessary for each member to ask him/herself if the public perception is harmed if he/she w~tes on that issue. He would hope each member of the Board would person- ally refrain from voting if there is a public perception of conflict even though there is no legal violation. Babcock said rather than let the public drive the LMCD policy, the Board should educate the public or press that ,just being a member of a yacht club should not prohibit voting, and doing that the public percept ion would change. Penn responded that whether legal or not, the perception is important to the community. Markus took exception to Babcock's state~ncnt, lie said it appears to him the Board would be educating *he public rather than managing the Lake. He used the Wayzata Yt.cht Club proposal as an example of a possible benefit to the mtmbers based on a financial benefit to the Club through the Lake } innetonka Sailing School. as well as a future increase in the ntmber of prams on Wayzata Bay. Slocum objected to extending the discussio~ to specifics. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26~ 1992 Carlson said any perception of a conflict of interest dam- ages the Board's ability to manage the Lake. It is his belief that members must be more careful in their actions as appointed officials because the public has no recourse. He said there are higher standards to be met when one is appointed than when elect- ed. One thing to be considered is if there is a need for that person to vote on an item when there could be a perception of a conflict. Grathwol said he is personally concerned with ethical ques- tions. When appointed he took an oath involving public trust. The people who appointed him expect him to accept the responsi- bility. Each member should talk to and listen to the presenta- tions, seriously, and then vote what they feel is honest and true. Bloom said it is his belief members should hold to a high standard. This discussion is talking about ethical appearance of impropriety which are personal decisions. He asked the Board to proceed to the agenda. MOTION: Rascop moved, Carlson seconded, to close the discus- sion, to leave the LMCD Conflict of Interest Policy Statement as it is and to allow the members to use their own conscience when voting. DISCUSSION: Markus suggested asking each member about membership in the Wayzata Yacht Club when action is called for on the Club's request. Babcock questioned who has the responsibility to bring a conflict of interest to the Board's attention. Rascop called the question, stating the discussion was not pertinent to the motion. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES~ Chair Babcock A. Approval of Minutes Babcock moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the minutes of the Water Structures Committee of 8/15/92 with the following corrections: Page 3 - First paragraph - Correct spelling - Don Blaser Page 3 Last four lines to read: At the same time. fishing boats stored in the water will have to be counted, exeeed~ng-~he nthmiye-r--o-f-~t-s--t-he--~MO~-w~}}-}iee,se= Grathwol expressed opti- mism in finding a solution to the problem with the boat rental amenity. Page 4 First sentence, second paragraph to read: There was no action eequi~ed at this time. Page 6 Last sentence last paragraph to read: Rascop sug- gested looking at the 1983 Report of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force. Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 B. Multiple Dock License Renewals - committee recommending approval. 1) Wayzata Yacht Club-Site 2, Wayzata Bay, Wayzata NOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the Water Structures Committee recommendation for approval of the Wayzata Yacht Club-Site 2 amendment with a new site plan replacing the platform on the island with a seasonal dock '6' wide x 40' long, noting that no boat storage is allowed at this dock. DISCUSSION: Babcock said it was his impression that the commit- tee had agreed upon a 6' x 84' dock to replace the 24' x 84' dock previously approved in 1986. Cochran and Grathwol said it was their recollection the approval was for the 6' x 40' dock asked for in the application. It is a seasonal dock. Don Blaser, Wayzata Yacht Club, said their 1986 application called for a 24' x 84' dock. It was not built because the need did not exist. Currently the WYC would like approval for the 6' x 84' so they could build it as needed. This year they (1o not need any more than 6' x 40' Cochran suggested amending the application to a 6' x 84' dock. Hurt responded that the commit- tee voted on a 40' dock and that is what the WYC applied for. It is her feeling that the applicant should have to come back to the committee for a change. She said this also raises the question of the Board approving a dock that may not be built to full site. ~OTION CHANGE: Babcock and Grathwol agreed to change tile (lock dimension in the motion from 6' x 40' to 6' x 84', accepting Slocum's suggestion to add "to meet proper setbacks. DISCUSSION: Johnstone asked if there is any significant public policy involved in the length change. Babcock said the dock size conforms to the Ordinance at 40' or 84' as long as it meets setback requirements. Blaser explained the dock is used by the Lake ~linnetonka Sailing School as a make-ready dock. The boats are stored on land. No boats are stored on the dock overnight. ~arkus asked about the density increase to the WYC license when the Sailing School boat count increases to as many as 80 boats, as mentioned by Blaser. Blaser said the boats are used by 6 - 9 year old children for sailing instruction and the boat count will only increase as the demand for lessons increases. Not all of the boats wi I I be in the water at one t line. Blaser added that there is absolutely no flow of funds from tl~e I,akc Minnctonka School to the WYC. Blaser added that this is a facility' that the WYC allows the Sailing School to use free of charge. Responding to a question from (;rathwol, Foster said there are three sailine schools on the l, ake. LeFevere raised an issue, not necessarily relative to this application, but one everyone should be mindful of. That is tile issue of off lake storage and the number of boats that can be stored off lake under the current Code. This application does not change the number of boats stored off Lake. The off lake storage Ordinance is severely restrictive. The applicant ought not assume, under current ()rdinances, that they can increase the number of watercraft stored of[ the Lake above the number in this application. LMCD BOAKD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 Penn asked how the island got there. Babcock responded it was an existing island, added to by dredging. Hurt asked why the WYC was making the application when the dock was for the Sailing School's use. Babcock said that is because the WYC holds the license for the boats stored at the location. LeFevere added that the District should not have more than one license for one site so one person is responsible for activities. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to amend the Wayzata Yacht Club-Site 2 Multiple Dock License renewal with a new site plan replacing the platform on the island with a seasonal dock 6' wide x 84' long, to meet all setback requirements, noting that no boat storage is allowed at this dock. VOTE: There were 7 ayes, Hurt, Penn, Owen, Markus and Carlson voting nay, Foster abstaining. Motion carried. 2) North ShOre Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono. blOTION: Babcock moved. Penn seconded, to amend the North Shore Drive ~tarina Multiple Dock License with the 8 lagoon slips as transient, 4 of the remaining 85 slips for service as needed. contingent on the applicant being in compliance with Orono's code requirements. DISCUSSION: Babcock suggested amending the mot ion to change contingent on .the applicant being in compliance with Orono's code requirements to "The LMCD recognizes in approvin~o this license that North Shore Drive Marina should meet its responsibilities with other agencies having jurisdiction over the marina's actions on the Lake", as done in a previous license approval. Hurt, speaking against the change in the committee recommendation, said a Wayzata Yacht Club license was contingent upon a valid CUP issued by the City of Wayzata. Babcock cited the case of Gayle's Marina where approval was not subject to a Minnehaha Creek Water- shed District (blCWD) issue about dredging. Hurt responded that the City of Orono is a contributing financial member of the LbtCD. The Gayle's Marina matter was a different issue as the MCWD is not a member of the LMCD. Thibault commented that the City of Wayzata asked the LMCD to wait until a Conditional Use Permit was in effect. The City of Orono has not specifically asked the LblCD not to take action. In response to a question from Foster about what should be put on the LMCD licenses in cases such as this, LeFevere said the Board has broad discretion as to what to do with this kind of issue. To take a hard line, the Code requires that construction of commercial multiple docks must comply with all local, state and federal regulations, municipal zoning, parking and other land use regulations applicable to the facility. If the Board wa~ted to, it could refuse to grant the application on the grounds that it was inconsistent with city code requirements. It would riot be improper for the Board to do that. The Board has the authority within the Code. There have been cases in the past when it has been done. The Board could have upheld a Gayle's Marina license denial. There is a practical consideration. The Lt*I~,[) may deny a license application because it is not consistent with the local zoning upon advice by the City. The existing facility may contin- ue to operate. If so, the Board has no leverage because the LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 District has no authority other than to charge the facility with operating without a license. That forces the District into the position of enforcing the city's zoning code. The LbtCD then has to foot the bill for the litigation. That is the consequence of denying a license for non-lake related issues. LeFevere continued that it is important for the Board to determine what the city's objections are and whether or not they are related to the LMCD's responsibilities. On the other hand, if the reason for the city asking for denial is something like interfering with public lake access or blocking a channel or the criteria the Board looks at in granting or denying a multiple dock license, there is more reason for the LMCD to rely on local zoning codes. LeFevere said the proposed language in the ,lotion does not support the city in agreeing to litigation or to prose- cute or carry the city's burden. The proposed language formally recognizes that the city has jurisdiction over this matter and it has the right to enforce its own restrictions. The LMCD's grant- lng a license in no way affects the city's right to enforce its own regulations. LeFevere said there have been cases where the municipal body and the LMCD have worked cooperatively in an enforcement act ion. Hurr said th.e mot ion before the Board is moving away from cooperating with the cities. Carlson questioned what official notification is needed from a city. He suggested adopting a policy as to who~n the District listens, for an official position. LeFevere said there is no provision as to what is official. Babcock responded that the cities do not want the L~CD to act above the 929.40HWL. Bloom wondered if this motion is suggesting a change from there being nothing to prohibit a city from having stricter requirements than the LMCD. LeFevere said it is a matter of Board discretion. It raises the question as to what the city staff should do. Should they start prosecution the day after the license is issued, should they formally reply that the license is not in compliance with the city code so license revo- cation proceedings can be started or will it be ignored until it comes up again. Foster expressed his concern that the Board would be issuing a license with the knowledge of non-compliance with the city ordinances. Babcock said if the City of Orono came to tile Dis- trict and said it has a serious problem with compliance with its ordinance, he would not have a problem in cooperating with the city. He asked if this compliance issue applies to new licenses or renewals. LeFevere responded that it applies t'o all zoning. The problem is that i t draws the l~Nt?l~ into areas that are not applicable to the LMCD charge regarding the Lake. It is neces- sary to analyze compliance with local regulations as they relate to the standards of interest to the Board. Babcock said this de- mands the LMCD take action before a city does. Gabriel Jabbour, Orono City Councilmember, said tile LblCD should put the cities on notice that they should do something about their shoreline ordinances. He said there should be corn- pi iance wi th court orders affect lng any marina. LeFevere re- viewed the history of the LMCD litigation with North Shore l)rive LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 Marina resulting in a court ruling that required the marina to bring its docks back to 200' from 300' There was later action by the LMCD which allowed North Shore Drive Marina to have more dry stack storage than allowed by the court order. The LMCD Board, not aware of the Orono court order, felt it could not deny that one marina something that other marinas on the Lake were allowed. Hurt and Jabbour said there were two court orders, the one discussed by the committee is an Order involving the Marina and the City of Orono. Babcock said his concern is where the LMCD would have an exposure to enforce someone else's code. He believes the city should enforce its code first. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Grathwol suggested finding alternatives to the stipulations attached to licenses. Cochran said the LMCD should require com- pliance with those items that relate to water and clock use. The committee was asked to recommend wording to cover contingencies involving zoning. Owen was excused. 3) Shorewood Yacht Club, Gideon's Bay, Shorewood MOTION: Babcock moved, Rascop seconded, to approve renewal of the Shorewood Yacht Club Multiple Dock License, without change. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4) Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay. Wood- land MOTION: Babcock moved, Slocum seconded, to amend the .qultiple Dock License of the Methodist Lakeside Assembly trading 5 moor- ings from the District Mooring Area (DMA) for 5 boat lifts at the dock, per site plan dated 2/3/92, amending the length from 60' to 100' and moving 3 slips from docks on the west to the main dock, subject to the east setback of 30' being met. amending the DMA from 7 moorings to 2. DISCUSSION: RascoP asked about the swimming platform location. Thibault responded that the Water Patrol has been asked to check the location. She said it appears, from the drawing submitted, that the swimming platforms are further out than I00' Babcock asked if as-built surveys are required. Thibault responded that they are not required for seasonal docks. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Penn moved, Hurr seconded, to require that the swimming platforms be brought in to the 100' zone. DISCUSSION: Cochran said it is his understanding that the Water Patrol issues permits for structures such as swimming platforms. Babcock asked if there is an ordinance covering this type of structure. LeFevere responded that they have to be in the Dock Use Area {DUA} or be grandfathered. He added, in response to a question from Slocum, that the DUA is the determining boundary, not the DMA. The DUA is the area in which the riparian owner conducts al I kinds of activities such as boat storage, swimming platforms, and water ski jumps. Chandler said, in issuing per- mits, the Water Patrol looks at the 100' area and thc navigation area. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Motion carried, Grathwol, Foster and Cochran voting nay. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Motion carried unanimously. C. Permanent Dock l)efinition. MOTION: Babcock ,loved, Hurr seconded, to approve preparation of a Code amendment adopting the MN DNR definitions for permanent dock and seasonal dock. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurr A. Water Quality Monitoring Study Progress. Hurr announced the next meeting of the committee studying water quality monitor- lng will be held 9/15/92. Hurt announced a monitoring program will begin in early spring with the cooperation of the Freshwater Foundation, the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association and the LMCD. There will be a training session for the people who will become tile monitors at the Lord Fletcher's dock, Saturday, October 3. 10 AM. There will be scientific people there to give assistance. Hurt invited any interested members to participate with them to show LMCD support. B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn Penn reported the harvesting has been completed for 1992. About 300 acres of milfoil was harvested. Consultant Robert Pierce, conducting the program evaluation, is giving the commit- tee interesting numbers on the performance of the crews, a copy furnished to the members. The equipment down time was twice that of 1991. (It should be noted that 1991 was a shortened cutting program using a barge for off-loading.) 'File crews did a quality job of getting as much done as they did in spite of the equipment problems. Penn commended the executive director and Program Supervisor Mike FrJedberg for the work they did. The LMCD has been granted funds for harvesting for 1993 and for Sonar use in the proposed St. Alban's Bay treatment for 1993 from the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners through tile Hennepin County Soil and Water Conservation District in the amounts of $56.000 for milfoil harvesting and $14.(100 toward the Sonar study. Penn believes these grants will mean that the cities will have to pay less in 1993. The City of Deephaven and the City of Wayzata also received matching grant fun(lin~. The EWM Task Force will meet on Friday, August 28. There will be a special presentation by the DNR Chief of Ecological Services, Lee Pfannmuller. John Barten, ttennepin l'arks, will give the first Scientific Sub-committee report. There will also be an update on the St. Alban's Bay aquatic plant inventory in preparation for the proposed Sonar treatment. Carlson asked about a revised budget for the cities in light of the Milfoil grant. The executive director said there will be a review of the budget. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 3. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE~ Chair Grathwol Regarding Agenda Items A, B, and C, Grathwol submitted a revised report of the Data Gathering Subcommittee meeting of 8/12/92. A revised draft of the proposed parking standards for Lake Minnetonka Public Accesses and a revised report from the Lake Access Task Force Data/Standards Subcommittee showing the current and potential car/trailer parking. These amended drafts replaced material mailed with the agenda. Grathwol said the subcommittee will meet on 9/9 to review the drafts. Upon approval, there will be a Task Force meeting in October. Grathwol said the subcommittee may have some additional options along with Maxwell Bay to consider at the Lake Access Task Force October meeting. Gabriel Jabbour commended the executive director for his assistance in gaining consensus at the subcommittee meetings. He cited this as an example of how cities can be brought together to cooperate. 4. LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Minutes. Foster moved. Penn seconded, to approve the minutes of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee of 8/17/92 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Lights at Narrows Channel MOTION: Foster moved, Penn seconded, to approve installation of the lights at the Narrows Channel according to the 8/4/92 memo from Hennepin County Lake Improvements, the lights to be operat- ing only during the boating season, and to thank Hennepin County for its cooperation. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report Sgt. Chandler reported as follows: * There was a drowning involving intoxication as a signifi- cant factor. There are no charges pending among the surviving parties. Milfoil was not a contributing factor. Milfoil did hinder the divers in their body search. * There have been 49 BWI's among all water bodies in ttenne- pin County. * There have been a significant number of thefts from watercraft in the Lafayette Bay area. A more detailed report was made part of the file. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 26, 1992 FINANCIAL REPORTS~ Treasurer Carlson A. July Statement of Cash Transactions B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment MOTION: Carlson moved, Penn seconded, to approve the July state- ment of cash transactions and order it filed. To approve payment of bills in the amount of $71,484.56, Check Nos. 8689 through 8776. DISCUSSION: Carlson pointed out the list of bills included the last payment for the milfoil harvesting program. The executive director said the payment to Biocentric, Inc. is the second payment for the Lake Use Density Study. Markus asked about contracting with outside services for the harvesting vs. using LMCD employees. The executive director responded that was done in 1989 and using LMCD employees is more cost effective. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. The data for the boat storage inventory is still tieing processed for the September meeting. A preliminary count of docks with 3 and 4 boats was submitted to the "Dock" committee in August. B. The Multiple Dock inspections will be completed this week. C. Strommen complimented Bob Pierce for the expertise he has brought to the District. Pierce will be converting previous reports to a new computer-generated summary he has prepared for comparison purposes. Pierce is also monitoring the equipment needs. D. A progress report was received this mornine from Biocen- 'tric, Inc. There are three more flights to be done, which will meet the contract requirements of 20. The access user question- naire interview portion of the study has been completed. Cochran noted that some of the data from those reports will be useful for the Lake Access Committee. E. Strommen distributed the meeting schedule for September. The LMCD office will be closed, Friday, September 4, for a staff floating holiday. F. Strommen complimented the Board on how they handled the Conflict of Interest matter. NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment of Nominating Committee Cochran appointed the following to the nominating committee, to report at the September meeting: Scott Carlson, Chair Robert Slocum Robert Rascop Bert Foster LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS ADJOURNMENT August 26~ 1992 Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 10:10 P. ~. David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures Committee Meeting: 7:30 AM, Saturday, Septenlber 12, 1992 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata. Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair. Spring Park: Robert Slocum, Woodland: James Grathwol. Excelsior: Scott Carlson. Minnetrista: William Johnstone. Minnetonka: Robert Rascop. Shore- wood. Also present: Rachel Thibault. Administrative Technician: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 AM by Chair Babcock. 1. Chapman Place Marina Variance ApPlication, Cooks Bay, Mound The committee received the report of the Public ttearing held on 8/26/92 to consider the application of Minnetonka Dock Serv- ices, Inc. for Chapman Place Marina for a dock length variance for an additional 26 feet, for a total dock length of 155 feet into the Lake. The Public Hearing report included Findings. Attached to the report are the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of a public hearing held on 3/23/88, with the Order approved 2/2'2/89 at which time Chapman Place received a multiple dock license to replace the previous dock license held by the Surfside Supper Club. The committee also received a letter from the Department of Natural Resources advising that the applicant will be required to amend DNR permit #89-6397, if the extension is approved. The applicant submitted a revised drawing of the proposed dock dated 9/10/92 showing the water depths taken at 928.88 water elevation. In presenting the material, Thibault said there are no increases in slip sizes on the proposed site plan and the density at this site is 1:5' Babcock expressed concern about settin~ a precedent by allowing the grandfathered marina to move further into tile lO()' - 200' zone. Before making a decision he would want to have a determination as to what hardship exists. Babcock mentioned Gayle's Marina as having a depth problem. Babcock reviewed the history of the docks from the Surfside 308' dock length with 44 slips to the re-arrangement for Chapman Place of 129' with 27 slips. (lock length Carlson said he would like to hear what hardships are in- volved to justify a variance. As examples, he mentioned whether it is a unique situation, the motivation for tile change, any financial reasons. He would like to see a variance criteria check-list including whether any hardship was created by action of the applicant. ' The executive director explained that typically slips are allowed 3' of water depth, bearing in mind that the water level could decrease during the year as much as one foot or more. It is necessary to consider the fact that marinas have contracts to furnish a service for the full season. It is also necessary to DRAFT WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 12, 1992 provide navigational room around the docks. In response to the mention of Gayle's btarina, the executive director said Gayles is limited to a 200' dock because of the location at the channel. The 200' dock limit and channel caused Gayle's to dredge. As far as a self-imposed hardship, in the case of Chapman place, the rip-rap was installed to prevent erosion. Chapman Place had the proper DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits. The rip-rap was done within the DNR allowance which requires a dis- tance not exceed 5' from the OHWl. to the toe of the rip-rap. Grathwol said he can see flexibility in ~rantin~ licenses to marinas between 100' and 200', treating the applications on a one-by-one basis. He feels that would keep the marinas operating and maintain the outside limit of 200'. Slocum noted the Chapman Place docks are already beyond 100' He suggested an extension to 139' based on the rip-rap taking up 10' Babcock responded that he would base his decision on water depths rather than the rip-rap. Slocum said he views the rip-rap as a benefit to the Lake. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend approval of the application for a variance from Minnetonka Dock Services, Inc. for Chapman place Marina to extend the docks an additional 26' for a total dock length of 155' The Findings are to include the need to obtain navigability, the change in water level since the original application in a low water >,ear and the reason for changing the walkway because of the rip-rap. DISCUSSION: carlson expressed his belief that the LMCD does not have to provide slips for the largest boat possible. Babcock said he would hesitate to change the slip sizes from the compromise reached when the slips were reduced from 44 to 27. Grathwol expressed mixed feelings in that he believes mari- nas should be allowed to operate as they desire, within the limi- tations of the license. At the same time he has a problem with developing slips for 32' boats to the exclusion of smaller boats. He feels the LMCD has a responsibility to see that there are services available for different types of boats, tie said there should be a requirement that a marina provide the slip service based on a percentage available to, for example, 20' boats and ca- fishing boats. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to table the appli tion of Chapman Place to the next meeting, comments on the application are to be requested from the City of btound. VOTE: Motion carried, Carlson and Rascop voting nay. 2. Draft ordinance Relating to the Effect on Licenses of Failure to construct Licensed Docks within a Specified Time, Amending LMCD Code Sect. 2.05. Babcock appointed JoEllen lturr. Orono. as chair of a sub committee to look at abandonment of facilities and lack o[ con- struction o[ new facilities. Babcock will serve on the sub- committee and will solicit members at the next Board meeting. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 12, 1992 3. Draft of Ordinance Amending definitions, of permanent and seasonal docks, adopting DNR definition as directed by the Board. The committee received a draft of a proposed ordinance to adopt the DNR definition of a seasonal dock. The description of a Permanent Dock would be changed to any dock which is not a seasonal dock. Thibault submitted a suggested definition of "mechanized means" in the seasonal dock definition. Babcock questioned whether the definition should be in the Ordinance or definition section of the Code. He observed support on the Board to al low seasonal docks to remain in after the boating season. He, however, would discourage that. fie suggest- ed a provision that it is illegal to leave a dock in which is not in good condition. Enforcement of an Ordinance on docks should not depend on the season of the year. The condition of the dock should be a valid concern. If the. proposed ordinance is adopted the LMCD loses all control on private (lock construction. Carlson thought the definition of "mechanized means" could be improved and suggested referring it to the LMCD attorney. He has a problem with seasonal docks being left in, except in wet- land areas. He noted the debris left in the lake after spring break-up. He said docks left in can be a hazard to cross-country skiers. Carlson suggested making up a list of issues relating to docks and address all of them at one time. It is important to have ordinances in place so action can be taken when needed. Grathwol agreed there could be a study of al I provisions relating to private docks. He suggested a sub-committee on rule changes. Grathwol observed that Thibault and the executive director are experiencing difficulty interpreting the ordinances and, rightly so, are coming to the Board asking for direction. He said there could develop staff frustration in not getting direction as to how forceful to be in enforcement. Grathwol suggested there be a review of the whole code because when a change is made in one section it can have an' impact on other parts of the Code. The executive director agreed with Grathwol's comments. He said there are many violations of the current ordinance requiring seasonal docks be removed at the end of tile season. Currently the staff has to advise the property owner, upon complaint or formal notice, that a permanent dock permit is required if the dock is left in. The one-time fee for a permanent dock is $150. It was also noted in tile discussion that even when the dock boards are removed, the posts left in create a hazard. Johnstone said he has not heard enough to convince himself that the change should be made at this time. He would like more time to consider the implications. MOTION: Carlson moved, Johnstone seconded, to table tile discus- sion of the Ordinance change to further identify the implications of the change. The staff is to review tile discussion and return to the committee with recommendations. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 12, 1992 4. Draft of ordinance authorizing executive director to issue deicing licenses. The committee received .two drafts of amend- merits to the deicing ordinance from LeFevere. option I would al low the executive director to issue renewal deicing licenses with no violations or alleged violations the prior season without Board action and for all other applications the executive direc- tor could issue a provis__i~onal_ l__i__c~ense subject to Board approval. option 2 would allow the executive director to issue renewal licenses without action by the Board provided there were no violations or alleged violations (1urin-° the term of the prior season. In the case of al I other applications and in cases in which tile Executive Director determines not to issue a license for any reason, the application shall be referred to tile Board of Directors. from LeFevere, dated Babcock reviewed the cover letter 9/2/92, in which LeFevere discourages option 1, which allows granting a provisional license subject to later action by the Board. Grathwol said the second option submitted by LeFevere makes the most practical sense. The executive director would have to set up a procedure for new applications and that would g~ive the committee and Board time to discuss them. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Johnstone seconded, to recommend Amend- ment Option 2 to the ordinance relating to deicing equipment on Lake Minnetonka, as submitted by Attorney LeFevere. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. City of Orono ordinance regulating the use of styrofoam in dock construction. The committee received a copy of the City of Orono ordinance prohibiting the use of non-encased styrofoam as a dock flotation device, the LMCD adopt something Babcock said he would like to see along the same lines. He noted Hurt thought the 12\31\94 compli- ance date was too soon. The committee, in previous discussions. recommended a five year period within which to come into compli- ance {blarina operators also requested Orono to consider five years. ) ' Carlson asked about tile useful life of styrofoam Babcock said there are some styrofoam (locks which have been in use for a long period of time. Rascop suggested tile use of styrofoam in dock construction could be limited to five years, carlson said two years for removal would be too short a perio(I of time as there could be a financial hardship on the marina operator. Babcock suggested 3 years and allow a petition for a longer time. Carlson did not agree with a petition process. }te said there should be a (late certain and no repairs to be al lowed to the efer- docks · ' Johnstone suggested adopting tile Orono ordinance bv r ence. The executive director observed that most of the styrofoam docks are in the City of Orono. The LMCD should want to prevent any new styrofoam dock installations, lie noted styrofoam is also used in swimming docks and buoys. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 12, 1992 I~IOTION: Rascop moved, Carlson seconded, to refer the City of Orono Ordinance prohibiting the use of non-encased styrofoam as a dock flotation device to the Board for a public hearing in Octo- ber. The Orono Ordinance will be used as a basis for any LMCD Ordinance. A letter is to be sent to the City of Orono advising them of the committee action. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 15. Multiple Dock License Violations. Thibault reported on the multiple dock license violations discovered during the annual boat storage inventory and/or annual multiple dock inspections. ' She reported letters have been sent to violators of the Col lowing: A. Homeowner Associations that put in seasonal clocks dif- ferent than their site plans. They were advised they have to conform to the site plan or submit a new site plan. B. Boats not stored in a designated boat storage unit (BSU). C. A Yacht Club with an unlicensed platform for two small boats. D. One condominium with a major chan~c in dock configura- tion. E. One Homeowner Association with a resident who insists on putting his two jet skiis in the dock use area. over the licensed number of BSU. Thibault reported that out of 96 licensees there were 12 to 15 who were written letters for license violations. During the boat count she found the following: A. When inspecting residential docks with suspected boat storage violations, it is difficult to determine the boat license numbers because they are obscured by canopies and boat covers. She concentrated on contacting those with five or more boats first. B. She observed some sinai I out lots where there have been three or four boats stored since before tile current ordinances were adopted, allowing them to be grandfathered. C. Most of the complnints received at the office are from neighbors complaining about encroachment into their l)ock Area. D. There were two specific cases of adjacent residential sites combining clock use areas for a multiple dock with 5 or more boats. When advised that a multiple clock license is required for a dock with 5 or more boats, the residents complained. Their comments were that by combining docks they had less impact on the Lake. Carlson suggested there could be a different multiple dock license classification for residents who have combined Dock Use Areas. Rascop noted advertisements in the paper sel ling 40' out lots for dockage. Regulations on boat storage at out lots and resi(lential sites were explained by Strommen and Thibault. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 12, 1992 Babcock suggested a colle°e student or intern could be employed during the summer to do some of the inventorying of boat storage at private docks. Thibault said that would be helpful. Grathwol observed that the members are getting information that they have never had before. The Board has to decide what enforcement steps have to be taken. He thought educating the public may be enough enforcement. Carlson said at some point in time there will have to be enforcement. The executive director distributed a copy of a newspaper article he submitted for release in which he detailed the provi- sions the LMCD requires for keeping boats at docks and moorings. He said in most cases people have been cooperative when advised of a violation. 7. Adjournment Chair Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 AM FOR THE COMMITTEE Eugene Strommen. Executive Director Douglas Babcock, chair R£C'O SEP LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM - Public Hearing 7:30 PM - Regular meeting Wednesday, September 23, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901Manitou Road (County Rd 19) 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Halsted Bay Quiet Waters Area - to determine the need for establishing a quiet waters area, 5 mph speed limit, in part of Halsted Bay 2. Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Association. Carman's Bay, Orono - new multiple dock license application for a pre-existing six slip dock 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS READING OF MINUTES - 8/26/92 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance not on agenda COMMITTEE REPORTS LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 9/21/92 B. Special Events 1) New event application: Ice Fishing Excursions by George Stodola & Art Bellman, Excelsior MN, 12/26/92 thru 2/28/93 2) Request for late fee to be waived for renewal application from Viking Bassmasters 16th Annual Bass Tournament, 10/4/92 C. Prosecuting Attorney Tallen, report on summer s prosecutions D. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report E. 1992 and 1993 License Fee Schedule review per commlttee discussion F. Additlonal business recommended by committee WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 9/12/92 B. Appoint subcommlttee to review draft ordinance relating to the effect on licenses of failure to construct within a certain time, amending Code Sect. 2.05 Board Agenda, 9/23/92, Page 2 C. First reading of draft ordinance relating to deicing equipment on Lake Minnetonka, amending Code Sect. 2.09, recommending attorney's Option 2 for Subd. 7, authorizing the executive director to issue renewal deicing licenses with no violations the prior season, all other applications referred to the Board (accompanied by further staff report) D. Orono ordinance prohibiting the use of non-encased styrofoam as a dock flotation device, recommending scheduling a public hearing prior to adopting similar ordinance E. Additional business recommended by committee ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurr A. Approval of minutes, meeting report of 9/15/92 B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol A. Subcommittee progress and October Task Force meeting announcement FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. August Statement of Cash Transactions B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. Election of Officers, Nominating Committee Report ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REC'D SEP P. 1 199;' PUBLIC HEARING HALSTED BAY QUIET WATERS AREA Wednesday, September 23, 1992 7:00 PM, Tonka Bay City Hall The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) was petitioned, in a letter received 6/19/92, by 10 lakeshore residents of Kings Point Road, Minnetrista, to designate part of Halsted Bay a quiet waters area. The proposed area would be the cove in which the DNR access is located, between the ends of Kings Point and Sheehans Point. This request was discussed at the 7/20/92 and 8/17/92 Lake Use and Recreation committee meetings. It was decided to hold a public hearing to invite comments on the addition of .slow buoys in this area. The residents' concern is primarily that boat traffic from the DNR access, which has been increasing each year, is creating damaging wakes. The speed of the boats leaving the access creates wakes that erode the shoreline and disturb the lotus beds. Another concern is the noise from boats operating at speed. Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvements, supports the addition of two slow buoys in this cove per the attached map. The map shows the approximate locations and distance from shore where he recommends placing the buoys. Hennepin County already shows the proposed area as a quiet waters area on its lake map. 3409 Kings Point Road Excelsior, Mn. 55331 June 12, 1992 Mr. Eugene Strommen The LMCD 900 East Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Dear Mr. Strommen & LMCD Directors: We, the undersigned Minnetonka Lake Shore owners, wish to petition the LMCD to declare an area of Halsted's Bay a "Quiet Waters Area". This area includes the small bay existing between the end points of King's Point and Sheehan's Point (now owned by Carlson Companies) and the DNR Access. Since the DNR established the Access, boat traffic has steadily increased. Now large and small boats come and go at full and half .throttle creating very large wakes. These wakes are damaging not only to our shorelines but also to any watercraft tied up to our docks. We would very much appreciate having this item placed on the agenda for your July meeting and a positive consideration. t't ~(,,.;1:,.t ¥ ~' ~ JUN ! 9 199Z L.M.G,D. ~VB/ab cc/Scott W. Carlson Yi burs truly, Dhn V. Borry / I Distances: \ ~OOI HALSTEDS BAY 300'± from north shore 300'± from s6ut. h shore appr6ximately 280' apart 650' from west shore by ~ccess LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: Lake Minnetonka Sun-Sailor for Excelsior, Minnetonka, Wayzata, and Westonka editions FAX: 896-4754 FROM: Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director PHONE: 473-7033 DATE: September 2, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE HALSTEDS BAY QUIET WATERS AREA Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing at the Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901Manitou Rd, Tonka Bay, on Wednesday, September 23, 1992 at 7 pm for the purpose of determining the need for establishing a Quiet Waters Area (5 mph speed limit) in part of LMCD Area 1, Halsteds Bay, near Kings Point, Lake Minnetonka. Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Mark Hanus, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Brian Johnson was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Dan Morseth, Mary Monahan, Leah Weycker, Mike Garberick, Steven Swenson, Geraldine Swenson, Donald Swenson, Bill Carlson, Pat Andre, Dennis & Margo Hopkins, Maxine Beissel, and Phyllis McAlpine. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 1992 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 1992 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~92-048: SHARON WEBB, 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, REQUEST TO VACATE STREET EASEMENT AT BLOCK 1, LOT 1, WOODCREST OF MOUND, PID 23-117 24 23 0022. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed John Cameron's letter regarding the requested street easement. The easement, for some reason, is located on the westerly part of the lot, while the driven road and utilities are located on the east side, in the platted right-of-way of Halstead Lane. Cameron recommended that the easement be vacated. Mueller questioned if the City of Minnetrista has a need for this easement to provide access to the parcel to the west. Staff noted that the City of Minnetrista was mailed a copy of the notice. Jensen questioned if there is an identical easement on Lot 23? The Commission noted that the survey received by the applicant does not visually show the subject easement and the legal description is difficult to interpret. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to recommend approval of the easement vacation as requested upon the condition that the description and location of the easement be clarified. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Michael, Hanus, Mueller, ross and Jensen. Clapsaddle opposed. Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1992 Clapsaddle commented that he opposed due to lack of information. A public hearing is scheduled by the City Council on September 22 1992. , CASE ~92-049~ PHYLLIS MCALPINE,. 4621 #ILSHIRE BLVD., VARIAI~CE T.. ~ONSTRUCT GARAGE AT BLOCKS 2 & 3, LOTS 1-7t WYCHWOODt PID 19-117-2J 32 O01S. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the house and detached garage, as follows: House (Wilshire) House (Suffolk) Garage (Wilshire) Exist_i~ ~ yariance 18.8, 30, 11.2, 7.9, 30, 21.5, 1.95' 30' 28.05' The existing garage is in reasonable structural condition and is actually setback 40' from the curb line of Wilshire Blvd. The proposed garage is subject to a 20 foot front yard setback as this property is a through lot. As shown on the plan, the proposed garage will conform to all setback requirements with a 22' front yard setback to Suffolk and a 6' side yard setback. Staff recommended approval of the recognition of the existing nonconforming setback variances for the house and garage in order to allow construction of a new conforming detached garage subject to the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the existing house and garage variances for the purpose of construction a new conforming detached garage shall not confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house or the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. The following finding of fact was also suggested: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house and garage variances are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house and garage setback variances are considered practical difficulties under the Zoning Code since the location of both of the structures were established prior to the adoption of the current code. Mueller questioned if tree removal would be required, and if so, would the applicant consider a different location for the garage to save trees. The applicant commented that she thought the garage was proposed to be 20' from Suffolk versus 22', and that no large trees will be removed to construct the garage. Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1992 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dennis Hopkins, neighbor, questioned the commission on the legal description of the applicant's property, he claimed that his legal description included sore of the same property. Staff determined that this was not the case. This request will be reviewed by the City Council September 22 1992. , CASE ~92-051: HARRISON BAY MOBIL (PAT ANDRE), 4831 SHORELIN~ DRIVE, REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT BLOCK 1, LOTS 1-4, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID 13-117-24 44 0014. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a setback variance for a free standing sign. There is an existing sign base located approximately 3' from the property line and approximately 12 ' from the closest curb line. The sign will overhang into the public right-of-way approximately 1' resulting in a -1' variance request. The height and area of the proposed sign are conforming. A free standing sign at this location will not obstruct traffic along either Bartlett Blvd. or Shoreline Drive. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance to place a freestanding sign on the existing sign base. This recommendation is contingent on the following conditions: Prior to issuance of the building permit for the new freestanding sign, all existing nonconforming signage on the property shall be removed. Specifically, the changeable message sign that is locate on the northern pump island which is not in conformance with the Mound Sign Ordinance shall be removed. 2. The use of seasonal signs on the property shall be limited to 1 sign advertising the subject business (or any other business), regardless of placement location, not exceeding 32 square feet of area, not exceeding a two month duration per occurrence and not occurring more than two times per year. The condition of the foundation was discussed, and it was noted that if it is found that the foundation is bad, the sign should be relocated to a more or total conforming location. It was clarified that the variance, if approved, should allow up to 48 square feet so if an additional sign is added and it does not exceed this minimum it would be okay. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1992 The applicant requested that the existing signs be allowed to remain until the new sign is up. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the requested sign variance as recommended by staff with the conditions modified as follows~ Upon installation of the new freestanding sign, all exlstinq nonconforming signaqe on the property shall be removed. Specifically, the changeable message sign that is located on the northern pump island which is not in conformance with the Mound Sign Ordinance shall be removed. The use of seasonal signs on the property shall be limited to 1 sign advertising the subject business (or any other business), regardless of placement location, not exceeding 48 square feet of area, not exceeding a two month duration per occurrence and not occurring more than two times per year. 3. The sign must comply with Building Code provisions. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission agreed upon the following finding of fact: The Planning Commission finds that the variance to utilize the existing sign base is consistent with section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission considered the following factors: 1) property was taken to accommodate intersection construction, 2) that the pole has been used historically for free standing signs and it does not obstruct vision for vehicle operators, and 3) there is an inordinately large amount of green space between the sign and the adjacent traveled right of way. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. CASE ~92-052~ DON~Ln SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT ~ HOME AT BLOCK 14, LOTS 5 & 6t DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11 0038. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a new single family dwelling. Two nonconforming structures have recently been removed from the subject lot. The requested variances include the following: 4 Plann£ng Commiseion M£nutes September 14, 1992 House (Island View) House (alley) Proposed Required Variance 8' 20' 12' 6' 20' 14' A sanitary sewer easement on the lot complicates the placement of a new structure. According to the zoning code, a detached garage could be built within 8' of the front property line if the doors faced the side property line. The proposed attached garage has side facing doors. The 14' setback variance to the alley will be irrelevant if the proposed zoning code modifications are approved. The total amount of impervious cover on the site (include the deck at 50%) is 40%. Staff recommended approval of the requested variances to allow construction of a new home with the following finding of fact: The Planning Commission finds that the approval of the setback variances for the proposed house is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The location of the existing sanitary sewer easement and the alley abutting the west side of the property constitute a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. Mueller questioned if the deck is of sufficient size to accommodate a table and chairs as he does not want to see a variance for a deck in the future. It was noted that the deck cannot be built onto or cantilevered over the sewer easement. Mueller expressed a concern relating to the proposed 40% hardcover. It was noted that there is additional green space adjoining this parcel including the common area and the alley which should be taken into consideration when looking at hardcover. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried $ to Z. Those in favor were: Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, ross, Weiland and Jensen. Mueller and Meyer were opposed. Mueller commented that he opposed due to the amount of hardcover and the lack of deck size. Meyer feels there is too much house proposed for the lot. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1992 CASS ~92-053: MAXIME BEISSEL, ~720 DOVE LANE, REQUEST FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION AT BLOCK 12m LOTS 7-9t DREAMWOODm PID 13-~7-24 ~ 0006. Planning Commissioner Michael Mueller stepped down from the Commission as he has a conflict of interest with the application. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two lots. Each proposed parcel will meet the minimum 6,000 square foot requirement as follows: Parcel A = 7,280 square feet and Parcel B = 6,046 square feet. The existing house on Parcel B will require a 7' rear yard setback variance until the house can be removed which is the intent of the applicant. Both parcels, as proposed, can accommodate conforming houses. Regarding adverse effect on remaining property, if any adverse effect is caused by the proposal, it occurs between Parcels A and B. The proposed subdivision does not constitute an ideal lot arrangement due to the stacking of the proposed homes on Parcels A and B. The proposal is, however, generally consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and therefore, is eligible for approval by the City. If the Planning Commission approves the subdivision request including the issuance of a variance for Parcel B, it is suggested that the following conditions be included: Prior to the time this item appears before the City Council, the applicant shall file a variance application with the City of Mound including all applicable fees. Parcels A and B are under common ownership. A building permit for construction on Parcel A shall not be issued until the existing house on Parcel B has been removed and properly backfilled. Removal of the house will alleviate the nonconforming status of Parcel B and will negate the continued necessity for the variance. Dedicate additional drainage easements to the City as required by the City Engineer and shown on Exhibit A. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to recording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. 5. Pay deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90. Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1992 A cash deposit in the amount of $500 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required by Mound City Code Section 330:145, Subdivision 2. The Commission questioned if there is a minimum amount of frontage required on common property to be considered an abutting property. Staff confirmed that there is not. Jensen commented that the subdivision as proposed is a poor layout and it does not consider use by future owners. Clapsaddle commented that this proposal over utilizes the property, there are no back yards and one house is very narrow. He commented that a duplex would be an ideal use for this property. Michael questioned that even though the proposal may not be desirable, does it not meet the intent of the code? Hanus commented that if the property was split down the middle with a straight line it would be a better use for the property as it would be conforming and more useable and practical. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Michael to deny the subdivision request. Motion to deny carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. CASE #92-054: MICHAEL GARBERICK, 1586 BLUEBIRD LANE, REOUEST FOb VARIANCE TO EXPAND DETACHED GARAGE AT BLOCK 5~ LOTS 14 & 15~ WOODLAND POINT~ PID 12-117-24 43 0068. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 13.'2 resulting in a 6.8' variance request to allow expansion of an existing conforming detached garage. Staff recommended approval of the recognition of the existing house setback variance for the purpose of allowing the conversion of the existing carport to an enclosed garage stall. This recommendation is contingent on the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the existing house variance for the purpose of converting the conforming carport to an enclosed garage stall shall not confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. It was suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1992 of the existing nonconforming house variance is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house variance is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the structure was established prior to adoption of the current code. The Planning Commission confirmed that the Building Official will verify that the existing slab is acceptable for the proposed construction. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on September 22 1992. ' CASE ~92-055: MARY MONAHAN & DAN MORSETH, 1901 LAKESIDE LANE, ~EOUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ADD DECK AT BLOCK lit LOT 14t SHADYWOOD POINTt PID 18-117-23 23 0059. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 16.5' front yard setback resulting in a 13.5' variance to allow construction of a conforming 8' x 28' deck. Staff recommended approval of the recognition of the existing nonconforming setback variance for the house in order to allow construction of the conforming deck addition subject to the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the existing house variance for the purpose of constructing a new conforming deck addition shall no confer upon the property owner, the right to improve or expand the existing house without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. It was also suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming house is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing house is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the structure was established prior to the adoption of the current code. Neighbor, Pam Amidon, expressed a concern about a drainage problem between their two properties. The Commission suggested that the two neighbors work together to solve this issue and it was noted that the deck will not affect the drainage problem. 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1992 MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on September 22, 1992. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF SHORELANDMANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (PDA/PUD). The City Planner referred to the Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 1992 and reminded the Commission that due to lack of consensus they still need to determine what to present to the DNR for Planned Development Areas. After much deliberation, the Commission decided to recommend using the DNR's tier system and density limitations as modified by the City Planner to adapt to Mound's provisions. A public hearing is scheduled for the next Planning Commission Workshop on September 28, 1992. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council Meeting Minutes of August 25 1992. , PLANNING COMMISSION RECOGNITION DINNER Friday, October 9, 1992 was the Commission,s first choice for a date for the dinner. The Secretary is to check with A1 & Alma's for availability. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Nueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:38 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 9 MINUTES OF A MF ETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 Present were: Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Tom Casey, Shirley Andersen, Marilyn Byrnes, and Mo Mueller, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, City Manager Ed Shukle, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Carolyn Schmidt was absent, and Joy Eischeid was absent and excused. The following persons were also present: Jane Kempf, Ted Breckheimer, Keith and Linda Mitchell, Dan and Julie Steffen, and Virginia Gardstrom. MINUTES MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Casey to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of August 13, 1992 as written. Motion carried unanimously. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE REVIEW - BY MARK KOEGLER, CITY PLANNER. (See attached City of Mound Shoreland Ordinance Draft and Statewide Standards for Manaqement of Shoreland Areas.) City Planner, Mark Koegler, highlighted where the City is in the process of adopting a Shoreland Management Ordinance. The ordinance impacts development and should not impact the Park and Open Space Commission other than when developing parks. The Shoreland Management Ordinance will become a part of the Zoning Code. The City of Mound will be seeking flexibility from the state rules, and the DNR understands this because Mound is already a developed community and it would be difficult to change. Koegler reviewed the adoption schedule. adoption is 12-10-92. The issue will discussion through the end of November. The DNR deadline for be open for continued NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION AREAS PLAN (NCA) - BY MARK KOEGLER, CITY PLANNER. The questions in the City Planner's memorandum were reviewed by the Park Commission as follows: 1. What is the purpose of the plan? Asleson: To preserve open space as Mound is 90% developed. The Comprehensive Plan sighted a need for passive parks. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 10, 1992 e Skoglund: To provide criteria when reviewing the release of tax forfeited properties, to be able to give a reason to retain them. Byrnes: To promote the clean-up of vacant lots in neighborhoods that are used for dumping and develop a plan to have these areas maintained. Asleson: To promote public awareness of the value of open space to the public. If a property is designated as a nature area and the neighborhood is aware of this, it may help eliminate dumping. Byrnes: To determine which areas of the City are too dense with homes and would benefit from more green space. Has the inventory been completed for all sites? If not when will the inventory be complete? ' It was noted that not all the photos and inventory sheets have been submitted, but that a lot of time was spent reviewing the sites to choose those with the most potential (hot properties). Casey offered to help finish the inventory sheets, he personally believes the photographs to be a waste of time. Is there a minimum size for an NCA? The Commission commented that none are too small. What types of uses are appropriate for NCA sites? The following were suggested: stairways, wild flower garden, uses consistent with preserving the land, open space with no specific use, etc. What topics should the plan address? Asleson commented that costs need to be addressed. Skoglund commented that possibly the Park Dedication Fund could be used for a concept plan, not to be used on one individual parcel. Fackler added that we need to consider what type of maintenance will be needed due to natural causes (i.e. poison ivy, trees, pests, erosion, etc.). Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 10, 1992 CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF DOCK LICENSE FOR DOCK SITE ~20890, JANE & SCOTT KEMPF. Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed the history of this issue, as follows: 6-3-91: Written notice that dock must be completely rebuilt as it is falling apart. 7-15-91: Telephone message for owner to call Dock Inspector. 7-16-91: Written notice that if dock is not properly installed the dock and boat will be confiscated and dock license will be revoked for balance of 1991 and 1992. 7-24-91: Written notice that' 1991 license was issued and warning that next year dock should be installed level with safe boards and sturdy. 6-23-92: Left message on recorder to have Kempf's call regarding dock. 6-24-92: Telephone discussion with Scott Kempf, he said he would do the dock himself in next day or two. 6-30-92: Letter to Kempf's stating that if dock is not replaced by July 10, 1992, revocation of dock license will be recommended to the Park Commission. 7-13-92: Telephone message on Kempf's recorder to remove dock by this weekend and that revocation of their dock privileges will be recommended. 8-25-92: Certified letter received by Steve Kempf on 8-27-92 notifying that recommendation will be made to the Park Commission to revoke dock license for the remainder of 1992 and all of 1993 at September 10, 1992 meeting. Ms. Jane Kempf addressed the Commission and stated that she has had this dock site for 14 years. They fixed the dock in July and have not been down to see it until this week and she didn't know what happened to it, she said it looked like a boat rammed it or something. They would like the opportunity to remove the dock for the balance of 1992 and then they will build a new dock next spring. Ms. Kempf claims that they did not receive all the information in the mail as noted by the Dock Inspector and they 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 10, 1992 have had many problems with the post office in other matters. Three times last year they did not get their water bill in the mail. She does not recall being notified that the dock had to be totally replaced, they have repaired it, but have not been to their dock since August. Tom commented that the wood on the dock is definitely rotting. The Commission discussed the fact that the Kempfs have had the dock for 14 years and they should be given the opportunity to correct the situation properly. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson, to recommended that the dock be removed by this weekend (9- 14-92 is Monday) and that next spring a new dock be installed that meets all specifications. Motion carried unanimously. The applicant was notified that this issue will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A STAIRWAY BV DWIGHT AND VIRGINIA GARDSTROM~ 2867 CAMBRIDGE LANE. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicants request to remove an existing hazardous stairway which is used by owners of both 2867 Cambridge Lane and 2873 Cambridge Lane. Each owner is now requesting to build a stairway of their own for easier access to their docks. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Brighton Common abutting the property at 2867 Cambridge Lane, Lot 12, Block 37, Wychwood, Dock Site #51525 for Dwight Gardstrom, subject to the following conditions: The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time the application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit. 2. The stairway must comply with current building code. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The applicant shall remove the existing joint use stairway, regrade, and replant, etc., to prevent erosion. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 10, 1992 The applicant is to provide erosion control measures under the new stairway. e The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property at 2867 Cambridge Lane. Casey questioned the applicant if it would not be less expensive and easier to re-build the existing stairway and continue to share a stairway. The applicant commented that due to the topography and the riprapping at the shoreline it makes if very difficult to traverse from the stairway to their dock. The applicant also questioned who would be liable for the stairway if it was shared. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval of the request as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Andersen, Asleson, Byrnes, Mueller, Skoglund, and Ahrens. Casey abstained. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A STAIRWAY BY DEAN AND JULIE STEFFEN, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE. This request is identical to the previous item, and therefore, the following motion was made. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded byAnderson, to recommend approval of the request as recommended by staff. Motion carried $ to 1. Those in favor were: Andersen, Asleson, Byrnes, Mueller, Skoglund, and Ahrens. Casey abstained. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 22, 1992. LAND ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION TO REMOVE TREES ON UNIMPROVED PORTION OF HAMPTON ROAD BY PAUL LARSON, XXXX HAMPTON ROAD (19-117- 2~ 2~ 0094/95)o Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to remove five trees from an unimproved portion of Hampton Road. The sizes of these trees (approximately) include one 6", one 4" and three 2". From an on-site inspection, it was noted that the trees requested for removal were not hardwoods, they are Elm and Boxelder trees. This area has seen a lot of dumping of brush, leaves and grass clippings that should be removed. 5 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 10, 1992 If this area is cleaned-up, one must be concerned about erosion from water run-off. Right now the materials and vegetation that are there are slowing the water run-off so as to not allow the top soil to be disturbed. Also, the tree root system is holding the slope. Staff recommendation is to follow one of three options: 1. Approve request for tree removal to allow temporary access, upon the following conditions: a) b) c) The surrounding dumpings of brush, leaves and clippings must be removed. Two new trees must be planted in the area. The disturbed ground must be seeded and straw placed on surface to prevent erosion. Approve request for tree removal to allow permanent access, upon the following conditions: a) b) The dumping of brush, grass and leaves must be removed. Damage to adjoining private and public property due to drainage and erosion must not occur. Preventative measures shall be investigated by the applicant and a plan must be approved by the Building Official prior to trimming or removal of any trees. Deny request to remove trees. The hazardous trees on the subject property should be removed and this could be accomplished by using a truck with a wench to pull the trees off the lot. Any damaqe done to the ground should be restored immediately to prevent erosion. The Parks Director recommended Option 3 to deny the request. It was recognized that the applicant was not present. Asleson noted that he saw in the City Council Minutes that Mr. Larson was pursuing some type of development for this property and questioned the status. The City Manager informed the Commission that the applicant has not returned with a proposal at this time. Mueller suggested that the item be tabled pending approval of a drainage plan. The Park Director noted that the hazardous trees on private property will now be required to be removed. Asleson suggested that the trees be allowed to be removed as requested upon the condition that better quality trees be replanted. Casey commented that this property can be accessed by Inverness and he expressed a concern about setting a precedence. 6 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 10, 1992 Neighbor, Ted Breckheimer, expressed a concern relating to drainage and questioned the applicants intent for the request. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Asleson, to table the request. Motion carried 6 to l. Those in favor were: Andersen, Asleson, Byrnes, Mueller, Skoglund, and Ahrens. Casey opposed. Casey stated his reason for opposing is that he feels the request should be denied. CONSIDERATION OF WORK RULES FOR PARK ANDOPEN SPACE COMMISSION Planninq Com~ission Work Rules for example.) The consensus of the Commission was that it would be a good idea to adopt work rules. Asleson suggested a subcommittee work on revising the Planning Commission work rules to conform to the Park Commission. A subcommittee was formed, including Mueller, Casey and Asleson. The City Manager suggested that the subcommittee refer to City Code Section 225 when editing the work rules. City Code Section 437. Asleson referred to Section 437:20 which states, "No person convicted of violating City ordinance relating to docks will be issued a dock license for the present or for the next boating season, . . ." Asleson questioned if the City can actually revoke a license without first convicting of a violation? Casey confirmed that Subd. 8. covers the issue in question, however, maybe Section 437:20 relating to penalties should be reviewed. City Council Representative's Report. Ahrens commented that the City Council reviewed the issue of commons markers and a committee is going to be formed to look at the issue. City Manager's Report. The City Manager commented that the Council passed the preliminary budget. October 23 and 24 have been slated for fall recycling days, the same as was done this spring including a drop-off for brush and waste wood. Also, if the Council approves, there will be a fall leaf pick-up the first weekend in November. 7 3 Io Park and Open Space Commission Minutes September 10, 1992 Park Director's Report. Jim reported that the Parks Department preparing the parks for fall and staff is being reduced. Jim informed the Commission that Joy Eischeid has verbally resigned from the Park Commission and that John Norman, Finance Director, is leaving the City of Mound, he has been hired by the City of St. Cloud to be their new Finance Director. Dock Inspector's Report. Tom commented that he is preparing for the change of seasons and soon he will start inspections to see that docks have been removed. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Andersen to adjourn the Park and Open Space Co~mission Meeting at 9:03 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 3till CITY of MOUND 53,~1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536,' ' 687 ~612} 472-0600 FAX (6!2¢ 472 0623 September 10, ]992 TO; FROM; SUBJECT; Ed Shukl e City Manager Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator Brush In talking with John Gerhardson from the City of Orono and the City of Woodbury they at first did not charge for the disposal of brush, but now they do. The City of Orono charges $3.00 per cu. yd., or $9.00 a truck load or a trailer full, with a minimum of $1.00. The City of Woodbury charges $3.40 a cu. yd. with a minimum of $1.00. The City of Orono states that even with this charge they will not come out ahead, but just hope to defray the costs some. The company of Advanced Enviromental Consultants will take any type of wood (brush - up to 12" in diameter, dock sections, scrape wood). Their tub grinder costs $210.00 per hour per grinding time, transportation rate is $65.00 per hour, they are located in Edina and their end products is a very good mulch. They would like to have 8 hours of work when they come out. This is the company the City of Orono uses and strongly recommends them. If we do collect for the brush we could keep this program operating all year long with a minimal cost to the City. I would suggest we set up hours and have someone collecting at the site. printed on recycled paper Primo $1 g,900 Year Built 1930 ~oundatlon ~ize ~3~6 Total Finished !852 1992 Property Tax $2390 Homesteaded 1993F Assessments $0 Total Baths 2 Full Baths 1 3/4 Baths 1 1/2 Baths Basement Bath Yes Master Bath No Total Bedrooms 3 4729 islandview Dr ~..~---~--,s: Lovingly Cared For Lake Home On South Facing Lakeshore.extra Large Living Room Features ~ Cozy Bri-'- ' ~ Ppz , H: Ceilings & Full Front Four Season Porch Perfect For Deck Addition. Beautifully Landscaped And Huge Lakeside Sundeck. See Suppl. # Includedltems ~ Disposal Range Refrigerator Dishwasher Buyers Home Warranty Dryer Washer Bus Line Deck/Patio Metro Phone Location: Living Room Dining Room Family Room Kitchen Other Room 1st Bedroom 2nd Bedroom 3rd Bedroom 4th Bedroom Other Room Lot Size Dimensions: (APPROX.) LR M 21X20 DR M INCL FR L 14Xll KT M 10Xl0 DK L 30X10 lB M !4X12 2B M 12X12 3B L 10X9 4B 2K L 10X7 5O (L) X 150 Mechanics: Jon Scherven Home: 471-0628 Office: 476-0400 Water Sewer Fireplace Air Conditioning Heat Type Exterior Basement Walk Out Garage Gar. Door Opener School District City Water City Sewer Living Room No FA /GAS Metal Vinyl Full Yes, Finished 2 Car Det Yes 277 The Home Information Is Deemed Reliable But Not Guaranteed. Burnet Passion. Burnet Fire. ~ [~. BUR1206 8/11/92 14 19 36 <<< L-$159,900 S- ~>> BR 8 3 TEA: 2 FBT8 1 TBT~ 1 HBT~ STL: RAMBLE FIN~ INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED 4729 ISLANDVIEW DR TAX $239~ /92/F MAP 3C-30 MUN MOUND ZIP 55364 TWA $2390 LAKEFRONT* AR 589 SUB 1 DIV 3 COU HENN ASB$O ASP N MINNETONKA LOT 50 (L) X 15~ ACR .17 HS FOR 1993/ F YBL 1930-N DIR CTY 15W-125S-TUXEDO-DEVON LT-ISLANDVIEW LT-HOME %011388 LOVINGLY CARED FOR LAKE HOME ON SOUTH FACING LAKESHORE.EXTRA LARGE LIVING ROOM FEATURES A COZY BRICK FPLC, HI CEILINGS & FULL FRONT FOUR SEASON PORCH PERFECT FOR DECK ADDITION. BEAUTIFULLY LANDSCAPED AND HUGE LAKESIDE SUNDECK. SEE SUPPL. LGL DEVON LOT 6 BLOCK 7 PID 3e 117 23 22 0054 WAT CONNECT REF,RNG,DWS,DSP L APROX L APROX SEW CONNECT MPH,WSH,DRY,BUS,TRC,D/P* LR M 21X20 lB M 14X12 FPL L AIRN TRM FHA,VA, CON,CIN DR M INCL 2B M 12X12 HEA FA /GAS MTG 0 INT %' FR L 14Xll 3B L 10X9 EXT M/V EXF C/D OD ASM N KT M 10X10 4B BSM W,F,L PIN $ 0 2MC 2MA L 30X1~ 2K L 10X7 GAR 2,D,Y NEW FINANCING NEEDED 21X8 ID U 10X10 BBT Y MBT N NO SIGN ON PROPERTY SDN 277 EDP 472-0362 FEZ 1326 AGF 1326 BGF 526 FSF 1852 AGN JON $CHERVEN 471-0628 BB Y-3.15 SA 3.15 ER OFFICE BURNET REALTY INC LO5168 PH 476-0400 APT 476-0400 List No 011388 Sup~ 1 Add 4729 ISLA~DVIEW DR *** WALKOUT LEVEL INCLUDES SELF CONTAINED SEPARATE LIVING QUARTERS WHICH COULD BE TRANSFORMED INTO A MAGNIFICENT MASTER SUITE OVERLOOKING THE LAKE. *** MAIN LEVEL HAS ALL NEW KITCHEN WITH OAK CABINETS AND NEW APPLIANCES, COUNTERTOPS, FLOORING AND LIGHTING.DINING OPTIONS INCLUDE SPACE ADJACENT TO KITCHEN OR WITHIN THE LAKESIDE WINDOW PORCH. COMPLETING THE MAIN LEVEL ARE TWO BIG BEDROOMS WITH THE MASTER FEATURING A CEILING FAN AND DOUBLE CLOSET. THE FULL BATH HAS ALSO BEEN RECENTLY REFURBISHED. *** TWO CAR DETACHED GARAGE WITH OPENERS HAS MAINTENANCE FREE ALUMINUM SIDING AS DOES THE HOUSE. *** BIG LAKESIDE SUNDECK IS FLANKED BY YOUR OWN BOATHOUSE ON ONE SIDE AND A CHILDRENS PLAYHOUSE ON THE OTHER. STEP DOWN ,M THE DECK ONTO THE INCLUDED DOCK. CLASS C (NON TRAVERSABLE) COMMONS IS SANDY AND AFFORDS OWNER VERY REASONABLE PROPERTY TAXES AND NO SHARED DOCKAGEI *** ALL THIS AND MORE LOCATED IN QUIET FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ~,~0~ BONUS TO SELLING AGENT FOR ACCEPTED OFFER FROM ~ oJALIFIED BUYER WITH CLOSING ON OR BEFORE OCT. 1, 1992~ CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 1687 (612) 472-1155 FAX (612) 472 0620 MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Subject: September 22, 1992 Fran Clark, city Clerk Jon Sutherland, Building Official OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION AND OCCUPANT LOAD FOR THE MOUND MASONIC LODGE - 2372 COMMERCE BLVD. Uniform Building Code (UBC) Occupancy Classification is A-3 (note Exhibit 'A'). UBC Occupant Load per Jan Bertrand is 298 (note Exhibit 'B'). The floor area is also noted on both Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. A copy of Zoning Code Section 23.716.5 relating to off-street parking requirements is enclosed for your reference. JS:pj printed on recycled paper BUI LO I NG PERIl I T APPL I CAT CIIT Of MOUND 5341 MAYtKX)O ROAD, HOUND, IIN 55364 ,472-1155 107 JO6 AOORE$S~ ~)~)l. ,C~/NER/APPL I CANT: OWNER'S ADDRESS: ~'~ ~NTRACTOR' S NAME: CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER: ENG I NE ER: ~2.C t~Ft~'~.~.-, DAY PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE LOT: Io { II l~l~l~Yt~r~ ~1: BLOCK: ADDITION: ~'~-~ ~- RESOLUTION #: RES. DATE: USE OF BUILDING: PID NO.: PLAT #: FLOOD ZONE: YES / NO SOIL REF~)RT: YES / NO DRIVER'S LICEl'~a[ NUI'~ER Jurisdiction of GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST Based on 1985 Edition of the Uniform Bulldlng Code Owner /,/,~-,'~,~-; Job Address Stae 2~;?-/- Total AIIo~ble Floor Area ~ ~0 Sq. Ft. Basis for Increase Plan Check No .... Valuation Use '~b'-*,' _?.' .~ ,; ," . ,. Type of Occupancy Construction lz,--t~-~J'~z,;, ~-,Classification /t ..~ Stories ~ ~' Floor Area: .. Floor (Max.) (.~ -'~ ~ "- .Sq. Ft. Floor (Total) ZT/3 ~ I~ Sq. Ft. Occupant Load ~- ~ F COMMENTS oR ASSUMPTIONS: ~: .,~ '~ ''~ ~ .~; "/' ~!';,3 ht:~tl~~ w ~. ~ons check~ b~l~ are lo bo made on plans before permit is iJsu~. ~ appro~l of plans and sp~ifications does not ~rmit ~e violati~ of any section of the Building C~e or o~er ci~ ordinance or state law. GENERAL 1. Valuation should be $ ,,2:' Show job address on plans. /8. Give name of person responsible for plans. ,,/4~ Submit fully dimensioned plot plan. ' Give all dimensions on plot plan. AREA LIMITATIONS AND GENERAL OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS ' 6. Ground elevations should be shown at corners of the building and at changes in ground slope, The ground elevations should be taken at the lowest point between the exterior wall and a point 5 feet out or at the property line, if closer. Where the exterior wall is parallel to and within 5 feet of a public sidewalk, alley or other public way, the ground elevations should be the elevation of the public way. The number of stories in this building cannot be determined until these data are furnished. 7, The total floor area is limited to ~ 3 2, i~ square feet. Sections 505 and 506. ~ Unobstructed yards of ~ feet should be maintained on /L] z.-~- _ sides of the building for area pu~<)ses. Section 506. ..~ Provide details to show that -hour area separa- tion walls will comply with Section 505 (e). (a) Extend vertically from the foundation to a point 30 inches above the roof. (b) Total width of all openings limited to 25 percent of the wall length in the story under consideration. (c) All openings protected with fire assemblies having a fire-resistive rating of one and one-half (three) hours. (d) Ducts through area separation walls should be avoided. If allowed, duct penetrations should be pro- tected as required in Section 4306 (i}. 10. A fire-resistive occupancy separation in conformance with Table No. 5-B and Section 503 is required between the ( -hour) ( -hour) ( -hour) ,/J4~. Horizontal occupancy separations should be supported with a structural system having equivalent fire-resistive protection. Section 503 (b). 12. The bqil~ ,ng is limited to t'~:v~ stories (. .zT'. ~ . feet in height) as a Type struc[ure. ~ecfion 507 andTable No. 5-D. 13. A room in which a water closet is located should be separated from food preparation or storage rooms by a tight-fitting door. Section 510 (a). TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 14. Roof coverings should be fire retardant. Sections 1704 and 3202 (b). Details or spegifications complyi,0g with Section 3203 (e) are required. ~ 15. Extedor (court) walls within /7} ~ feet of should of ~ ,,-hour property lin~s be construction. Section 03 (a). 16, Openings in exterior (court) walls within feet of property lines should be protecte~l ~vith thre.e- lourths-hour fire assemblies. Section y Usable space under the first floor except in Groups R. Division 3 and M Occupancies should be enclosed as required in Section 1703. ~'8. Fire-resistive construction for structural frame elements in the exterior walls should comply ~ith. F-1L)otnote No. 1 of Table No. 17-A and Section----~c~ t[) _ , See Section 1702 for definition of structural frame. . Appendix B 2).716.) Oesi~n and Maintenance of Off-Street Parkin~ Areas 1) Parking areas shall be designed so as to provide adequate means of access to a public alley or street. Such driveway access shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in width and shall be so located as to cause the least interference with traffic movement. 2) Signs. No signs shall be located in any parking area except as necessary for orderly operation of traffic movement and such signs shall not be a part of the permitted advertising space. 3) Curbing and Landscaping. All open off-street parking areas designed to have head-in parking along the property line shal! provide a bumper curb not less than three (3) feet from the side property line or a guard of normal bumper height not less than one (1) foot from the side property line; When said area is for slx (6) spaces or more, a curb or fence not over five ($) feet In height shall be erected along the front yard setback li'ne and grass or planting shall occupy the space between the sidewalk and curb or fence, Parking space for six (6) or more cars. When a required off-street parking space for six (6) cars or more is located adjacent to a Residential District, a fence of adequate design, not over five (5) feet in height nor less .than four (q) feet in height shall be erected along the Residential District property line, $) Maintenance of off-street parking space, It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the operator and owner of the prlncipal use, uses and/or building to maintain, in a neat and adequate manner, the parking space,.accessways, landscaping and required fences. 6) Design and Maintenance. Parking areas shall be so designed that internal circulation shall be available without utilizing the public street. 23.716.q ,23.716.5 Truck Parking in Resrdential Areas No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially llcensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a servi'ce, Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this prov?slon, Off-Street Spaces Required (One'space equals 325 square feet) (1) One and Two-Family residences (2) Multiple Dwellings (3) Churches, Theaters, Auditoriums, and other places of assembly Business and Professional Offices Two (2) spaces per'dwelling unit. Two and one-half (2½) spaces per dwelling unit, one which must be undercover, One (1) ~pace for each three (3) seats or for each five (5) feet of pew length, based upon maximum design capacity. One (1) space for each 400 square feet of gross floor space. (5) (6) (7) (8) Medical and Dental Clinics Hote| or Hote| School, E~ementary and Junior High School, High School through College (9) Drive-In Food Establishment (10) Bowl ing A1 ley (11) Automobile Service Station (12) Retall Store (13) (lq) (15) Restaurants, Cafes, Bars, Taverns, Night Clubs Funeral Homes Indust'rlal, ~/arehouse,' Storage, Handling of Bulk Good s Uses not speclflcally noted Appendix B Five (5) spaces per professional plus. one. (1) space for each employee. One (1) space per rental unit plus' (1) space per employee. At least one (1) parking space for each classroom plus one (1) additional space for each ten (10) student capacity. At least one (1) parking space for each four (/~) students based on design capa- city, plus one (l) additional space for each classroom. At least one (1) parking space for each fifteen (15) square feet of gross floor space in a building allocated to a drive-in operation. At least five (5) parking spaces for each alley, plus addltlonal spaces as may be required herein for related uses such as restaurant, plus one (1) additional space for each employee. At least t~o (2) off-street parking space: plus four (q) off-street parking spaces for each service station stall. At least one (1) off-street parkir- ace for each one hundred fifty .(~50~ sk. e feet of gross floor area. At least one (1) space for each three (3) seats based on capacity design. One (1) parking space for each five (5) seats or thirty-five (35) square feet of seating area where there are no fixed seats, plus one (1) parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area not used for seating, At least one space for each employee on maximum shift or one space for each t~o thousand (2,000) square feet of gross floor area, whichever is larger. As determined by the Planning Commission and City Count i 1. 23.717 23.717.1 OFF-STREET LOADING AND UNLOADING AREAS Location. All required loadlng berths shall be off-street and shall be located on the same 1or'as the building or use to be served. A loadlng berth shall be located at least twenty-five (25) feet from the inter- section of t~o (2) street rlghts-of-wa¥ and at least fifty ($0) feet from a residentlal district, unless within a building. Loading berths shall not occupy the requTred front yard space. . -57-