1996-04-23ID MISSION STAT
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1996, 7:30 P.M.
OR FOLLOWING THE BOARD OF REVIEW
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PAGE
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION
TO RON AND JERRY HENKE FOR BUILDING NEW
PLANTER BOXES FOR THE ADOPT-A-GREEN
SPACE PROGRAM ............................................ 1171
APPROVE MINUTES OF 4-9-96 REGULAR MEETING .............. 1172-1178
APPROVE MINUTES OF 4-16-96 COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE MEETING .................................... 1179-1183
PRESENTATION OF WOODLAND POINT MEDIATION
WORK GROUP REPORT - CHUCK CHAMPINE ................... 1184-1207
CASE #95-15: VARIANCE EXTENSION
JEFF AND ELIZABETH BJERKSKETT,
2605 TYRONE LANE, LOTS 1-3. BLOCK 17, SETON,
PID 19-117-23 23 0158 ................................... 1208-1219
CASE #96-07: MINOR SUBDIVISION
JACK COOK, 4425/4458 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 2 & 3,
BLOCK 1, AVALON, PID 19-1 17 23 24 0002 & 0003.
............. 1220-1255
CASE #96-11: MINOR SUBDIVISION
AL MCDANIELS, 4932 NORTHERN ROAD,
2131 SANDY LANE, LOTS 33 & 34, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S
RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-117-24 44 0061 & 0062 .................. 1256-1278
CASE #96-13: VARIANCE
JOHN TUCKER & DEBRA PETERSON 4949 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOT 3, BLOCK 23, DEVON PID 25-117-24 12 0002 ............... 1279-1294
1167
10.
CASE 96-14: MINOR SUBDIVISION
PAUL LARSON, 2156 SANDY LANE, LOTS 51 & 52, SUBD.
OF LOTS 1 & 32, RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-117-24 44 0090.
........ 1295-1307
11.
CASE 96-15: MINOR SUBDIVISION
PAUL LARSON, 3051 INVERNESS LANE, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK
9, PEMBROKE, PID 19-117-23 33 0071 ......................... 1308-1327
12.
CASE #96-17: SHED VARIANCE
MIKE MCCARVILLE, 5432 BREEZY ROAD (NOTE: PLANNING
COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THE 4-22-96
MEETING AND WILL FORWARD RECOMMENDATION
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ............................... 1328-1337
13. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ...............
14. BID AWARD: 1996 SEALCOAT PROJECT ...................... 1338-1339
15.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320, POLICE
OFFICER, INVESTIGATOR/DETECTIVE AND JUVENILE OFFICER
FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING1-1-96 AND ENDING 12-31-97 AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT ............................................ 1340-1343
16.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MOUND AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
(LELS) LOCAL NO. 35, SUPERVISOR/STAFF SERGEANT AND
SUPERVISOR/SERGEANT OF PATROL FOR THE PERIOD OF
1-1-96 AND ENDING 12-31-97, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT ....................... 1344-1345
17.
APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT ................................... 1346-1354
18.
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN PERMIT AT THE
SUPER AMERICA FOR FAMILY HEALTH AND SAFETY DAY.
CITY OF MOUND, MAY 18, 1996 ............................. 1355-1356
19.
APPROVAL OF A WEIGH-IN ONLY AT MOUND BAY PARK FOR
MINNETONKA BASS CLASSIC, SAT. JUNE 8, 1996 ................... 1357
20. PAYMENT OF BILLS ...................................... 1358-1370
1168
21.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Ac
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MARCH, 1996 AS PREPARED BY
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ................... 1371-1372
B. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 1996 ........ 1373-1384
Co
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 1996
(TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY NIGHT) ...........................
ANNOUNCEMENT: CELEBRATE SUMMER MUSIC
IN THE PARK ........................................... 1385
Eo
NOTICE FROM THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES:
LMC POLICY COMMITTEES. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED
IN BEING A MEMBER OF A POLICY COMMITTEE, PLEASE
LET LINDA KNOW AND SHE CAN REGISTER YOU ........... 1386-1387
LETTER AND INFORMATION FROM DENNIS MILLER,
DRUG COURT PLANNING COORDINATOR, HENNEPIN
COUNTY RE: COMMUNITY FORUM ON A DRUG COURT
PLANNING INITIATIVE. IT IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY.
APRIL 29, 1996, 7 PM, AT PLYMOUTH FIRE STATION
#3 ................................................ 1388-1392
REMINDER: SPRING CLEANUP AND RECYCLING DAY,
SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1996, LOST LAKE SITE ............. 1393-1394
REMINDER: ANNUAL PARKS TOUR, TUESDAY,
APRIL 30, 1996, 6:30 PM ........................................
1169
~0
~.LO '10.
CASE 96-14: MINOR SUBDIVISION
PAUL LARSON, 2156 SANDY LANE, LOTS 51 & 52, SUBD.
OF LOTS 1 & 32, RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-117-24 44 0090.
1295-1307
CASE 96-15:. MINOR SUBDIVISION
11. ~.(, PAUL LARSON, 3051 INVERNESS LANE, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK
9, PEMBROKE, PID 19-117-23 33 0071 .........................
1308-1327
12.
CASE #96-17: SHED VARIANCE
MIKE MCCARVILLE, 5432 BREEZY ROAD (NOTE: PLANNING
COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THE 4-22-96
MEETING AND WILL FORWARD RECOMMENDATION
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ............................... 1328-1337
13. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ...............
14. BID AWARD: 1996 SEALCOAT PROJECT ...................... 1338-1339
15. RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320, POLICE
~'b '~ OFFICER, INVESTIGATOR/DETECTIVE AND JUVENILE OFFICER
FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING1-1-96 AND ENDING 12-31-97 AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT ............................................ 1340-1343
4(,
16. RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MOUND AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
(LELS) LOCAL NO. 35, SUPERVISOR/STAFF SERGEANT AND
SUPERVISOR/SERGEANT OF PATROL FOR THE PERIOD OF
1-1-96 AND ENDING 12-31-97, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT ....................... 1344-1345
APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT ...................................
1346-1354
18.
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN PERMIT AT THE
SUPER AMERICA FOR FAMILY HEALTH AND SAFETY DAY.
CITY OF MOUND, MAY 18, 1996 .............................
1355-1356
19 -
APPROVAL OF A WEIGH-IN ONLY AT MOUND BAY PARK FOR
MINNETONKA BASS CLASSIC, SAT. JUNE 8, 1996 ................... 1357
PAYMENT OF BILLS ...................................... 1358-1370
1168
Page 2 - HOME & RECREATION GUIDE- Saturday, April 13, 1996
Ron and Jerry Henke with a trailer load of planter boxes they con~tructrd last month. The boxes
will be used to spruce up downtown Mound. PHOTO BY BILL HOLM
Ten new planter boxes
will brighten up Mound
With the coming of spring
comes the greening of nature.
Greening up Mound will happen
soon, too. This year, thanks to
the help of several organi-
zations, there are 10 new
planter boxes for downtown.
Through generous donations
from the Mound Rotary,
Westonka Chamber of
Commerce, Mound VFW,
Mound Masons, Mohawk
Jaycees and the Northwest
Tonka Lions, funds were
collected in 1995 to build the
10 new boxes and provide
plantings for them.
Then two people volunteered
in March to donate their time
and talent to construct these
new planter boxes. Many
thanks to Jerry Henke and son
Ron for all the great work. For
a finishing touch, Minnetonka
Painting donated wood sealer
for the new boxes.
With the addition of these
new planters, more "parents"
are needed to care of them.
Please, if you have some time
and the desire to take care of a
planter box, which includes
planting, watering and weeding
often, call Linda at City Hall,
472-0600 and volunteer.
"Mound will look lovely this
summer with all the blooming
flowers!' Also, there are several
other green spaces to adopt
including parks, roadways and
open green spaces," a
spokesperson said.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 9, 1996
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
April 9, 1996, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Persons in attendance: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also present were: City Manager Ed Shukle, City Attorney Curt
Pearson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Planner Mark Koegler, Parks Director Jim
Fackler and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong.
The following interested citizens were also present: Marilyn Byrnes, Jim Byers, Chris Valerius,
Phil Fisk, Steve Bell, Bev Botko, Mark Goldberg, Gordy Tulberg, Tim Mayek, Rodrigo Plaza,
Peter Meyer, Julie Christensen.
The Mayor opened the meeting.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 1996 REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the March 26,
1996 Regular Meeting. The vote carried 3-0, Jessen and Polston abstained.
1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 96-09: CHRISTINE VALERIUS FOR BRICKLEY'$
MARKET, 2242 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOTS 4 -46, KOEHLER'$
ADDITION TO MOUND, PID 13-11%24 33 0073. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR DRIVE-IN BUSINESS.
City Planner Mark Koegler reviewed the case stating the applicant is proposing to add a drive-in
window on the north side of the building. A conditional use permit is required and the City
needs to recognize an existing non-conforming setback variance for the building in which the
Market is located. Section 350:670 of the Mound Zoning Code identifies Drive-In Retailing
establishments as a conditional use in a B-1 Zone. The plan presented has a number of issues
that can be addressed through physical improvements. A plan for a curb, and drainage areas,
needs to be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to any construction. Based upon
the submitted plan, the City Engineer will determine if a curb is needed or if a series of
decorative bollards should be installed along the edge of the pavement. Bituminous surfacing
was discussed and the driveway entries were in poor condition. The northernmost parking
space along the bay of parking in front of the Market will be removed. The Planning
Commission recommended approval.
Questions and comments were received from the Council. Councilmember Hanus stated item
'h' in the resolution that stated "...well is no longer needed, check if it should be removed."
should be changed to "... well is no longer needed, it shall be removed." Koegler stated
M/nutes - Mound City Council
April 9, 1996
the well had a metal cover and did not hinder driving. Councilmember Jensen inquired if it is
legal to sell cigarettes and 3.2 beer through a drive-in window. The placement of trees along
Lynwood Blvd. was discussed. Koegler stated the bituminous cover was in poor condition and
should be replaced or overlaid, which could result in a change of elevation and subsequently a
change in elevation. Kw.,egle~ s~ted
witt4kain.an&MaaL~.~_g!~esxre~~ ~ tosubmlt a ~tfi sho~the water
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Julie Christensen, owner of "The Coffee Place", located directly across Commerce Blvd. from
Brickley's Market stated the installation of a drive-in window would be in direct competition
with her new business which had been for only 4 months. Did the Council offer any support
for new businesses and competition? The Mayor stated the Council could not legislate
competition.
There being no more comments from citizens present on this item, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution
and including item 'h' be amended and adding that a surface and drainage plan be submitted and
approved prior to permit issuance:
RESOLUTION//96-34
The resolution passed 5-0.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-IN RETAILING
ESTABLISHMENT FOR BRICKLEY'S MARKET
LOCATED IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT AT 2242 COMMERCE BLVD., IN PART
OF LOTS 40-46, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO
MOUND, PID//13-117-24 33 0073, P&Z//96-09
1.2
CASE 96-10: RICHARD MCCARTHY 4877 HANOVER ROAD LOTS 9 10 &
3' OF 8, BLOCK 16, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11 0148. VARIANCE FOK
GARAGE.
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the owner has applied for a variance to recognize an
existing nonconforming front yard setback of 15' and a nonconforming rear yard setback of 6.8'
to allow construction of a conforming 20' x 24' detached garage. Staff and Planning
Commission unanimously recommend approval. The sewer and water connections were
acceptable. Councilmember Jensen asked about the garage on Parcel B. This is the garage that
was supposed to be removed in 1983. She wondered if the property owner now is different than
Minutes - Mound City Council April 9, 1996
the property owner in 1983 who had requested subdivision and did not remove the garage as
instructed. She wanted verification as to who the owners were. The applicant was not present.
Discussion was held to table this item until ownership could be verified.
MOTION made by Ahrens and seconded by Jensen to table this item until the
staff could verify that the current property owner is not the same property
owner in 1983 when the subdivision was granted. The motion carried 5-0.
The item was referred back to staff for verification.
(Note: This item was brought back to the Council at the end of this meeting. See further in
these Minutes.)
1.3 PRF_.~ENTATION OF A PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING COMMONS TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE AREA OF PEMBROKE PARK/DEVQN
COMMONS - MARK GOLDBERG, COMMONS TASK FORCE CHAIR...
Mayor Polston introduced Mark Goldberg. Chair of the Commons Task Force, and Bev Botko,
Gordy Tulberg, Marilyn Byrnes, Rodrigo Plaza as members of the Commons Task Force.
Mark Goldberg shared with the Council their recommendations thus far. The task force wished
to recommend changes at Pembroke Park on Devon Commons and to use this recommendation
as a pilot project for future use in reducing the congestion created with several docks along a
commons area that create problems for the abutting property owners whose homes are close to
the shore and at eye level. Their suggestion was to have the City install a multi-boat dock
complex at the north end of Devon Commons just south of the swimming beach. He discussed
with the Council the costs of installation and how the project could work. The task force will
schedule a meeting of these dock holders involved and work out the details with them before
construction begins. The City would own and install the dock, funds would be used from the
dock fund and not from tax dollars. The Council concensus was that the concept sounded
workable.
MOTION by Polston, seconded by Harms and carried unanimously to
approve the conceptual plans of the Commons Task Force for a multi-boat
dock complex and to set up a meeting with the commons dock holders at
Pembroke Park on Devon Commons to discuss the possibility of a multi-dock
complex to be built by the City at this location to eliminate dock and boat
congestion from abutting properties along this common.
The date of this meeting was set at April 20th or 21st. Goldberg stated place and time would
be set by the task force.
Mark Goldberg also discussed briefly with the Council encroaching structures on the commons.
Ownership and responsibility of structures was discussed. Rules were discussed regarding the
encroachments. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated there would have to be agreement among
Minutes - Mound City Council
April 9, 1996
the owners, an inventory needed to be made as to what is encroaching and where, define the life
time of these structures, work out a program to accept and acknowledge ownership and
responsibility, and the costs.
MOTION by Hanus to direct staff to work with the risk management
organization within the LMC and to have the City Attorney informed and the
City Attorney then detail what the Council would need to do.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Hanus suggested the Task Force needs to be more specific as to exactly what their proposals for
structures on commons involves. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, stated there were records
indicating the encroaching structures. The Task Force will return to the Council with a plan and
proposal for the caring of encroaching structures on the Commons at a future date. Goldberg
stated the task force still had much to do regarding this issue. The Council applauded the Task
Force on their work up to this date and encouraged the Task Force to continue working on the
several commons issues.
1.4 ..COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
Regarding the proposed multi-dock at Pembroke Park.
Peter Meyer, member of the Parks and Open Space Commission, questioned the beach safety
at Pembroke Park if a multi-boat dock was created. He also stated that this dock proposal has
not been brought to the Parks and Open Space Commission for review. He mentioned a storm
sewer at the north end of the park. Hanus stated the dock is proposed on the Commons not at
the beach. Jim Faclder, Parks Director, stated the configuration of the beach boundaries could
easily be changed.
1.5
SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF 12' WIDE
PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAy LOCATED IN BLOCK 2,, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT
A (ADJACENT TO 4873 SHORELINE DRIVE) SUGGESTED DATE: MAY 14
1996. ~
MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to set May 14, 1996 for a public
hearing to consider the vacation of 12' wide platted right-of-way located in
block 2, Shirley Hills Unit A, (adjacent to 4873 Shoreline Drive). Motion
carried unanimously.
4
Minutes - Mound City Council April 9, 1996
1.6
APPROVAL OF PERMITS RE: 1996 MOUND CITY DAYS, NORTHWEST
TONKA LIONS AND MOHAWK JAYCEES, JUNE 14-16, 1996.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to approve the permits requested
by the Northwest Tonka Lions and Mohawk Jaycees as follows for the Mound
City Days June 14-16, 1996:
Entertainment Permits for 6-15 and 6-16, Temporary On-Sale Non-
Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permits and Set Ups, Dance Permit. Also, requests
have been filed for carnival, fireworks and concessions. Approval contingent
upon current insurances.
1.7
LICENSE RENEWALS: GAMES OF SKILL, POOL, BOWLING, AMUSEMENT
DEVICE AND RESTAURANT
The following license renewal period is 5/1/96 through 4/30/97.
all required forms and insurance being submitted:
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to
approve the following listed license renewals. Approval contingent upon all
required forms being submitted.
Games of Skill
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
American Legion Post//398
VFW Post//5113
Pool
VFW Post//5113
Mound Lanes
Approval is contingent upon
Amusement Device
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post//5113
Restaruant
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
American Legion Post #398
Domino's Pizza
Happy Garden
Hardee's
House of Moy
Mound Lanes
Scotty B's
Subway Sandwiches
VFW Post #5113
The Coffee Place
1.2
RICHARD M ARTHY 4877 HANOVER ROAD T 9 10
,.
OF 8, BLOCK 16, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11 0148. VARIANCE FOR
GARAGE.
11'79,
Minutes- Mound City Council
April 9, 1906
Building Official Jon Sutherland presented information to the Council stating the owner of 4877
Hanover Road is a different owner than in 1983, when a resolution was passed to remove the
garage on the Parcel B.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to remove
this item from table, and return it to the Council for action.
Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//96-35
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED
GARAGE AT 4877 HANOVER ROAD, LOT 9 AND 10,
AND THE WEST 3 FEET OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16,
DEVON, PID 24-117-24 11 0148, PZ#96-10.
The resolution passed with a 5-0 vote.
1.8
PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of
bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $219,483.75, when funds
are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.9 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR MARCH, 1996.
B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 1996.
D. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF 3/21/96.
E. MEMO FROM SENATOR GEN OLSON RE: PROPERTY TAX FREEZE.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated that a property tax freeze did not pass. Senator Gen Olson and
Representative Steve Smith will be attending a Council meeting in the future pertaining to this
issue.
F. FLYER FOR SPECIAL RECYCLING DAY SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1996.
6
It' 77. '
Minutes - Mound City Council April 9, 1996
Go
REMINDER: ANNUAL PARKS TOUR, TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1996, 6:30
PM.
REMINDER: COMMI~I~EE OF THE WHOLE MEETING IS SCHEDULED
FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1996, 7:30 PM.
City Manager Ed Shukle referred to a handout, regarding a skating rink on school property, that
Pete Meyer presented for discussion at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting.
REMINDER: ANNUAL BOARD OF REVIEW IS SCHEDULED FOR
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1996, 7:00 PM (NOTE: THIS IS PRIOR TO THE
REGULAR MEETING).
DEADLINE FOR THE WOODLAND POINT MEDIATION PROCESS HAS
BEEN EXTENDED. FINAL MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 1996. RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE
FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AT
THEAPRIL 23, 1996 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. DEADLINE FOR
APPEALING THE FLACK V. CITY OF MOUND LAWSUIT IS APRIL 30,
1996.
Councilmember Phyllis Jessen mentioned that her term expires December 31, 1996 and she will
not be seeking re-election. She stated she believed serving your city was a privilege and
encouraged persons to seek participation in their city government.
MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens, and carried uanimously to adjourn
the meeting at 9:25 PM. The meeting adjourned.
City Manager
Attest:
7
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - APRIL 16, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Polston,
Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Jessen. Also present: Mark Koegler, City
Planner; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; Pete Meyer, Parks and Open
Space Commission; Bill Davey and Stephanie Nyhoos, Hennepin County Assessor's Office; John
Cameron, City Engineer and Ed Shukle, City Manager.
Mark Koegler reviewed streamlining of variances with the Council. He indicated that at the City
Council's direction, the Planning Commission had been reviewing ways in which to lessen the
burden for applicants who apply for variances through the City's Zoning Ordinances. The
purpose of the variance streamlining was to not only lessen the burden placed upon the citizen,
but also the workload placed upon city staff and ultimately Planning Commission and City
Council. After much discussion at the Planning Commission level, two streamlining methods
were recommended for implementation and to be reviewed after one year by a review committee
made up of staff, Planning Commission and City Council members. The purpose of the review
committee would be to look at the effectiveness that the methods had on the actual variance
application process. The following statements were recommended by the Planning Commission:
Planning Commission Motion #1
"That any previously recognized existing principal dwelling structure which was granted
a variance, the property owner be allowed to construct an addition or accessory structure
in a conforming location meeting all oJ, her requirements if such approval of the variance
was granted within the previous ~ years, subject to the con,d]tion of the existing
nonconforming structure, as determi~ by the Building Official . (The motion
subsequently clarified to add all types~of previous variance approvals.) was
Draft Streamlining Statement: ~ I~
~ Nonconforming residential properties that have received variance approval within the past
*20 years for principal structure setbacks, lot area, lot depth or width, hardcover, and/or
street frontage may be improved by adding a conforming addition to the principal
structure or adding a conforming detached accessory building provided that the principal
structure is in sound condition as determined by the Mound Building Official.
Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225,
Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under
prior variance approval.
Staff Comment:
This particular method of streamlining does not omit the variance requirement. It simply
p-lq
Minutes - Committee of the Whole
Apdl 16, 1996
omits the need to get a variance "recognized" if it has been granted in the past ~0 years.
An important aspect of this approach is the fact that the City has previously reviewed and
approved a variance for the nonconforming aspect of the property.
Planning Commission Motion tt2
"That should any one existing nonconformity exist on a property for either lot area,
setback, lot/improved street frontage, or lot width/depth, and a request is received for
an addition, of any sort, that is totally conforming, that they need not get a variance.
The singular existing nonconformity should not exceed a certain threshold as yet to be
determined and investigated by the City Planner. This would be subject to the Building
Official's review of the structural condition of the existing nonconformity.~
Draft Streamlining Statement:
Residential properties having only one (1) nonconforming condition may be improved by
adding a conforming addition to the principal structure or by adding a conforming
detached accessory building provided that the property complies with the following
standards after application of the one nonconforming condition:
- Side Yard Setbacks - 75 % of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code
- Front Yard Setbacks - 75 % of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code
- Rear Yard Setbacks - 90 % of the setback required by the Mound Zoning Code
- Lot Area - 90 % of the lot area required by the Mound Zoning Code
- Lot Width - 90 % of the lot width required by the Mound Zoning Code
- Lot Depth - 90 % of the lot depth required by the Mound Zoning Code
- Improved Street Frontage - 50% of the improved street frontage required by the Mound
Zoning Code
If the existing nonconformity is due to the positioning of a principal or accessory
structure, said structure must be in sound condition as determined by the Building
Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on the lot shall be in compliance with Section
350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound Zoning Code.
Staff Comment
This streamlining provision is different from the first position drafted by the Commission
in that it allows improvement of nonconforming properties (containing only one variance
item) without review by the City of Mound.
Minutes - Committee of the Whole
April 16, 1996
Both of these streamlining statements are in a very preliminary form. After additional review
by the Planning Commission, they can be revised and sent to the City Council for an initial
review. After the Council's review, they will be back before the Planning Commission in an
ordinance format for formal review and recommendation.
The City Council consensus was to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and to
have the City Attorney review it with the City Planner on how these statements could be
implemented into the City's Zoning Ordinance. It would likely require an amendment to the
Ordinance, and subsequent public hearings would have to be held at the Planning Commission
and City Council levels.
Proposal for Recreational Ice Skating Rinks - Peter Meyer, Parks and Open Space:
Commission
Peter Meyer was present to present a proposal that has been discussed with the Parks and Open
Space Commission as well as other community members and organizations. Mr. Meyer
indicated that there is a definite need for a permanent ice skating rink that expands upon the
existing rinks that are currently located within the City of Mound. His proposal pointed to
having the City making an investment on Westonka Public School's property to locate a
permanent rink to the west of the Pond Arena where there is currently an outdoor rink that has
been placed there by the Hockey Association. In addition to the rink there is a warming house
that was constructed during 1995. The plan would make use of that warming house and expand
upon the rink that is currently at the site. The rink is designed to provide skating for non-
hockey activities. However, it was indicated that hockey groups would have use of the rink to
some extent. Meyer presented some cost estimates on the improvements that would be needed
to be made to the site for excavation and berming in 1996 and a proposed budget for 1997. The
council expressed a number of concerns related to investment, operations, involvement of the
school district, the Hockey Association involvement, the public parking in the area, etc. It was
suggested that more information be presented at the next Committee of the Whole meeting from
city staff as it relates to these concerns.
Preview of the Local Board of Review
Bill Davey and Stephanie Nyhoos from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office were present to
discuss the upcoming Board of Review meeting that is scheduled for Tuesday, April 23, 1996
at 7 PM. This is the annual Board of Review which the City Council conducts as part of State
Law requirements. Issues related to 1995 sales, values on lakeshore and off lakeshore, as well
as the differences of values of commons lakeshore and private lakeshore were discussed. It is
anticipated that a number of residents of the community will be asking the Board of Review for
3
Minutes - Committee of the Whole April 16, 1996
a reduction in their valuation.
Lost Lake Improvement and Auditor's Road Improvement Proiects Update
John Cameron, City Engineer and Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator,
were present to update the Council on the Auditor's Road Improvement Project and the Lost
Lake Improvement project. He indicated that he hired Evergreen Land Services to represent
the City on negotiations for the right-of-way acquisition. He stated that the permanent easement
for the Custer property has been secured. The City Council has already approved this. He
indicated that the plan negotiator has received a tentative approval on the residential property.
The plan negotiator has also talked with all of the property owners and is in the process of trying
to negotiate those properties for purchase. The City Manager also explained that because of
state rules, under Municipal State Aid, the City must obtain a second appraisal on commercial
properties in excess of $100,000. This includes the post office, the Lindquist Building and the
Carlock Building. Once the second appraisals are obtained, the City can make formal offers
to those property owners. The City Manager asked the Council on their reaction to the concept
of "eminent domain" or "condemnation" should some of the properties become unobtainable by
negotiation. The City Council consensus was that condemnation should be used in a quick-take
form should it be necessary. John Cameron discussed some of the plan preparation relating to
the Municipal State Aid process. Bruce Chamberlain reviewed the environmental issues related
to the Lost I_ake Project and indicated that an environmental assessment would be presented to
the City Council at its May 14th meeting. This assessment must be approved by the City
Council and submitted to the appropriate federal and state authorities.
Stormwater Management
John Cameron reviewed stormwater management and Interim Non-Point Source Pollution.
Stormwater management relates to the federal and state rules applying to cities who must adopt
stormwater management plans. He indicated that an ordinance must be passed by the City and
a subsequent plan must be adopted. He further indicated that he has developed an ordinance for
the City of Excelsior. The ordinance was distributed and he asked the Council to review it.
The ordinance can be tailored to the City of Mound's needs and be brought to a future City
Council meeting. In relationship to the stormwater management plan, he indicated that the City
has been in contact with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding its involvement.
Specifically its involvement as it relates to the Lost Lake Project and overall City involvement
on an overall stormwater management plan. The Watershed District has indicated that there are
monies through its tax levy authority to assist the City in developing a stormwater management
plan.
4
Minutes - Committee of the Whole
April 16, 1996
With regard to Interim Non-Point Source Strategy, this relates to the water supply plan that was
required by the Metropolitan Council to be prepared. Mr. Cameron reviewed a copy of the
model interim non-point source strategy developed by the Metropolitan Council. He asked the
Council to review this and be prepared to discuss it at a future meeting in conjunction with
stormwater management plan issues.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Programming
This item was continued until the next meeting.
Other Business
Discussion was held about the City of Maple Grove's program called MStudents in Governmenff.
Councilmember Hanus provided some information in regard to the program and asked that it be
discussed at the next Committee of the Whole meeting.
A brief discussion was held regarding the property on Kildare Road and Cavan Lane related to
the former Percy Jacobson property and dock rights to that property.
It was moved by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 11:10 PM.
~~Su~e~Ret~ectfully s.ub~
City Manager
ES:Is
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
April 19, 1996
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ~
SUBJECT: WOODLAND POINT MEDIATION WORK GROUP
Chuck Champine, a Waurika Commons abutting dock holder and the Mediation Work Group
media representative will be present Tuesday evening to present the enclosed report on the
Woodland Point Mediation Work Group. He will highlight the report and as the report
indicates, the Work Group is recommending to the City Council that the lawsuit of Flack et al
vs. the City of Mound not be appealed contingent upon acceptance of the report. The City
Council has until April 30, 1996 to appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals the decision issued
by Judge Albrecht.
The Council may want to move into Executive Session to discuss the potential appeal or if you
are prepared to discuss it in open session, that would be fine also. The point is that the Council
needs to make that decision prior to April 30th. With regard to acceptance of the report, the
Council could delay that for further discussion. However, the Work Group is asking within the
report, that the recommendations be accepted as quickly as possible. Due to the length of
Tuesday's agenda, you may want to delay further discussion of the report to a separate meeting,
or to your next regular meeting which is scheduled for May 14th.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
ES:ls
printed on recycled paper
We the undersigned, participated in the Woodland Point Mediation Work Group. This report
reflects the consensus of the Group.
Plaintiffs Representatives
JeffBishop
Jack Korlath
Denny Flack
Non-litigant Abutting Dock Holders
Bob Lein
Olen Pederson
Jim Walters
Non-abutting Dock Holders - Wawonaissa/Waurika
Mike Aspelin
John Eccles
Leah Weycker
Non-abutting Residents without Docks
Rodney Hein
Cathy Bailey
Paul Erickson
Abutting Waurika Commons Dock Holders
Danie Watson
Chuck Champine
Dave Kunz
City of Mound
Mark Goldberg
Gordy Tulberg
Ed Shukle
I! £6
WOODLAND POINT MEDIATION WORK GROUP
REPORT TO THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 23, 1996
BACKGROUND
On January 30, 1996, the Mound City Council hosted a public meeting to discuss ways of
resolving issues involving the use of Wawonaissa Commons. The Council invited public
participation in its decision to appeal or not appeal a lawsuit limiting the city's authority over
certain lands and activities within the Commons. After considerable discussion, there was a
consensus that a work group, consisting of representatives of various interests in the Commons,
be established to work with a mediator in identifying and addressing the issues and reporting
recommendations back to the Council. The Work Group was directed to complete its activities
not later than April 30, 1996, due to the city's 90 day time limit for appealing the Court's decision
in the lawsuit.
In forming the mediation work group, six interests were identified: litigant abutting dock holders;
non-litigant abutting dock holders; non-abutting dock holders; non-abutting residents without
docks; abutting Waurika Commons dock holders; and, the City of Mound. Interest groups were
asked to choose their representatives to the mediation. The list of representatives is attached as
Appendix A.
MEETINGS
The Mediation Work Group met a total often times between February 6th and April 17th. The
first meeting was dedicated to a discussion of "ground rules" or procedures as to how the Work
Group would interact and conduct its business.
The second meeting focussed on issues from the perspective of the six interests represented at the
table. These issues are displayed by interest group on Appendix B and by categories on Appendix
C. The issues list formed the basis for the agenda at all subsequent meetings and will provide the
structure to this report.
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Issue 1: Appeal of Lawsuit
The Mediation Work Group reached consensus that this report, if implemented, would eliminate
the need, in our opinion, for the City to appeal the court's decision in the Flack, et al. V. City of
Mound lawsuit.
aL ,i,I,
Page Two
Issue 2: Implementation of Recommendations
Recommendations:
A. The recommendations in this report should be implemented as quickly
as possible.
The City should reconvene the Mediation Work Group during the Fall
of 1996 to evaluate the implementation of recommendations contained
in this report.
Issue 3: Dock Program
Clearly, docks are the number one concern for abutters and non-abutters alike - how many, where
they are located and who administers a dock program. Docks were discussed, in one form or
another, at every meeting of the Mediation Work Group. To gain information about dockage
options, the Group invited Mr. Greg Nybeck of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and
the District's attorney, Charles LeFevere to discuss how the LMCD Code would deal with
dockage on the Commons in light of the order to the court in the lawsuit. A memo from Mr.
LeFevrere is attached as Appendix D. The Work Group also reviewed the recommendations of
the Commons Task Force pertaining to docks. The City prepared an aerial photo of the
Commons, showing dock locations and a plat map that actually sited each dock in relation to the
lots abutting the Commons. A sub-committee of the Work Group formulated five dock options
which were thoroughlY discussed by the Work Group along with a sixth option generated during
that discussion. The options with Work Group comments are listed in Appendix E. A listing of all
docks within the City of Mound is attached as Appendix F.
Recommendations: That the future dock program:
mo
maintain the number of existing dock sites currently on the two
Commons - 54 dock sites (two of which are unavailable due to
obstructions).
allow one dock site in front of each abutter's house and continue to
give the abutters priority for permits on those docks. Allow non-
abutter's to cluster their individual docks at ends of streets, other than
Canary Lane, on both Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons. Clustered
docks can be placed closer together than 20-30 feet.
rewrite City rules to encourage and provide positive incentives for all
dock owners - abutters and non-abutters - to share docks. Do not
punish permit holders for sharing a dock one year by not granting a
permit for an individual dock the next year.
t! £7
Page Three
D. consider providing fishing docks for use by Woodland Point residents.
E. consider the possibility of allowing docks accommodating more than
one boat (multiple docks) in the future if supported by dock owners.
F. The Work Group further recommends that the City negotiate with the
LMCD to implement the provisions of this dock program.
Issue 4: How should the Commons be Used?
The Mediation Work Group discussed many different uses of the Commons by abutters and non-
abutters. Some abutters were concerned about trespass on their private property by those gaining
access or egress to the Commons. Non-abutters were concerned about continuing their right to
use the Commons in an unobstructed manner, while considering the rights of abutters. Generally,
it was felt that common sense could and should prevail among all parties.
Kecommendations: A. Information dissemination:
As a means of clarifying appropriate use of the Commons by Woodland
Point residents, it is recommended that an informational brochure be
developed and distributed to Woodland Point residents only.
B. Access points:
Free and unobstructed access to the Commons should be a continued
right of all Woodland Point residents. Some existing access points are
in need of improvements to facilitate access while the use of others
should be discontinued.
Woodland Road - consider adding stairs or handicap access
Bluebird Lane North - regrade path
Bluebird Lane South - not an appropriate public access due to
wet conditions. Work with abutting property owner to
discourage trespass and limit access to Commons at this point with
possible landscaping and by listing appropriate access points in the
informational brochure.
Co
Pedestrian Use
To provide privacy for abutters and unobstructed passage for
pedestrians, walkers should be encouraged to traverse the Commons
Page Four
near the waters edge and away from close proximity to homes. The
fight of privacy of abutters should be respected to the extent possible.
D. Shoreline fishing
Fishing should be permitted from the shoreline of the Commons. Dock
fishing should be limited to dock owners or those gaining permission
from dock owners. Include information in proposed brochure.
Noise: Include reference in informational brochure
Snowmobiling/ATV's
Motorized machines should not be allowed to traverse the Commons.
Machines should access/egress the Commons perpendicular to the
shoreline and only at Canary and Finch Lanes. Abutters may
access/egress the lake directly from their property.
G. Overnight Use
Although some water-related use will occur at night, no overnight use
of the Commons should be permitted.
H. Encroaching Structures
Governing encroaching structures more stringently than the
Shoreland Management Ordinance is justified only where
nonabutting users are hindered by an encroachment's existence.
Hinderance of access to the Commons is defined here as actions or
structures which block access to docks, block the ability to traverse
the Commons, or block the ability to conduct other permitted
activities.
In order to prevent hinderance of access to the lakeshore, structures
would be allowed only in accordance with Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District (LMCD) and Shoreland Management
Ordinance (SMO) regulations. To the extent possible, a thirty foot
traversable area adjacent to the lake would be maintained. In some
cases the area of traversable lakeshore may be narrower than thirty
feet. In those cases, the LMCD and SMO regulations would apply.
No new lock boxes or decks that would be permissable under
LMCD or SMO regulations will be allowed on Wawonaissa or
Waurika Commons.
Page Five
3. Prohibited activities and encroachments which fall under the
regulation of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District or the MN
Dept. Of Natural Resources will continue to be governed by those
agency's regulations.
4. The current permitting process should be simplified to reduce the
time required to obtain a permit and to create an approval
mechanism consistent with the potential impact of the action
requiring the permit.
Some activities currently requiring a permit should be allowed
without one. Examples of these activities include:
- lawn mowing
- trimming of tree limbs below a height of 8 feet
- maintaining existing stairways or other existing structures, and
- planting new flower beds which do not exceed 25 sq. it., nor
exceed 5 linear feet on any one side (for example, a 5'x5'
flower bed is okay; a 2'x10' bed would require a permit
Not all permits should require City Council approval. The
appropriate City staff should have the authority to grant some
permits, with residents having the ability to appeal any decision
to the parks commission and/or the city council. Examples of
those activities include landscaping and major maintenance
activities such as:
- trimming of tree limbs above a height of 8 feet
- tree removal
- landscaping
- planting new flower beds which exceed 25 sq. ft. or which
exceed 5 linear feet on any one side, and
- clearcutting
c. All construction activities should continue to require approval
of the appropriate city authority and the City Council.
5. When granted for an encroachment, a permit should be granted for
the life of the structure, provided there is no change in the nature or
extent of the encroachment that hinders or discourages access.
6. Planting is undertaken at one's own risk.
II
Page Six
Issue 5: Roles and Responsibilities:
The Mediation Work Group had spirited discussion over the past role of the City of Mound in
administering the Commons. Some abutters felt that the City was guilty of micro-management,
requiring lengthy reviews of permit applications for improvements considered by them to be
insignificant and/or beneficial. Other abutters felt comfortable with the City's past actions and
expressed interest in continued oversight. Many non-abutters see the City as their ally, protecting
their interests and fights in the Commons. Clearly, some feel that without continued City
presence, the fights of non-abutters will gradually erode away.
The Work Group considered various ways of administering the Commons in the future. The two
most commonly discussed methods were a Woodland Point homeowner's association and
continued City administration. It was the consensus of the work group that a homeowner's
association not be pursued at this time.
Recommendations: A. Public Safety
The Work Group recommends that the Mound Police Department
continue to enforce all municipal laws in the Commons and respond to
calls and complaints about inappropriate use.
B. Maintenance/Trash Pickup
1. The City should continue to maintain the Canary Beach swimming
area
2. Abutters and non-abutters will be responsible for maintaining the
commons.
C. Dock Program Administration
1. The City of Mound should continue to issue dock site permits and
uniformly enforce the ongoing maintenance of docks on both
Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons, excluding the six litigants.
2. The Commons Task Force should work with the City to develop
appropriate standards for maintaining and enforcing the maintenance
of docks.
Page Seven
Issue 6: Resolution of Future Disputes
Recommendation:
The City should continue to use a representative group of Woodland Point
residents, on an ad hoc basis, to make recommendations on resolving
future disputes.
APPENDIX A
Woodland Point Mediation Work Group Members
WOODLAND POINT SUBDIVISION
MEDIATION PARTIES
NON-LITIGANT ABUTTING DOCK HOLDERS
Bob Lien 1583 Bluebird Lane 472-4095
Jim Walters 1601 Bluebird Lane 472-2622
Olen Pederson 1593 Bluebird Lane 472-7158
NON-ABUTTING DOCK HOLDERS - WAWONAISSA/WAURIKA
Mike Aspelin 1604 Eagle Lane 472-4860
John Eccles 5112 Woodland Road 472-3267
Leah Weycker 1586 Bluebird Lane 472-4187
NON-ABUTTING RESIDENTS WITHOUT DOCKS
Rodney Hein 1605 Eagle Lane 472-2123
Cathy Bailey 1554 Bluebird Lane 472-4011
Paul Erickson 1564 Bluebird Lane 472-3845
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SIX PLAINTIFFS
Jack Korlath 1579 Bluebird Lane
Jeff.Bishop 1549 Bluebird Lane
Denny Flack 1609 Bluebird Lane
472-3657
472-5456
472-7243
ABUTTING WAURIKA COMMONS DOCK HOLDERS
Danie Watson 1559 Eagle Lane 472-6477
Chuck Champine. 1550 Canary Lane 472-4795
Dave Kurtz 1546 Bluebird Lane 472-1806
CITY OF MOUND REPRESENTATIVES
Ed Shukle 5341 Maywood Road
Gordy Tulberg 1711 Finch Lane
Mark Goldberg 4853 Island View Drive
472-0609
472-7963
472-4624
APPENDIX B
Mediation Issues - by Interest Group
0
APPENDIX C
Mediation Issues - by Category
t~7
2/15/96
WOODLAND POINT SUBDIVISION MEDIATION ISSUES - CATEGORIZED
Use of Commons
Non-abutters
- access points
- parking
- docks
- non-motorized use
- motorized use
- overnight use
- picnicking'
- unorganized games
- fishing
Abutters
- building new shoreline structures
- improvements to property
- privacy concerns
Roles and Responsibilities (who does what)
- maintenance of existing structures w/o regulation/interference by city
- over-regulation by city
- cities inadequate response to problems
- LMCD rules (fees?)
- fairness in applying rules
- noise, litter, privacy, parking, general maintenance and upkeep
- control of encroachment
- policing powers
- preserve/improve existing Canary Beach swimming area
- maintain existing lake views
- buffer zones
Docking
- overcrowding
- docking priorities
- docking fees
- multiple docking options
- preserve existing rights for spaces
- options for non-abutters
- maintaining existing number of slips
Taxes
- impact of court decision on property taxes of abutters and non-abutters
-- over-
Define Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons Boundaries
- how~who??
Miscellaneous - Accident insurance - liability
- Affect on water main
- Process for resolving future disputes
Maintain Neighborhood Peace and Harmony/Avoid Anarchy
Mediation Agreement
- not to change court decision
- lasting/binding
- impact on similarly dedicated commons
I tqq
APPENDIX D
Letter from Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Attorney
Al. SOP
~ B~TTERSON
RONALD H. BATTY
JOHN B. DEAN
DANIEL J. GR£K~SWEIG
D,v~ j. K~s~v
C~ARL~ ~
JO~ M.
~OBERT J.
~OnERT C.
JA~ M. STROM~N
CORRI~ ~ THO~ON
KENNEDY & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 337.9300
Facsimile (612) 337.9310
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
(612) 337-9215
March 5, 1996
Greg Nybeck
Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District
900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160
Wayzata, MN 55391-1836
JAMES J. THOMSON
LARRY M. WKRTHEIM
BONN1E L. WILKIN$
JOE Y. YANG
DAVID L. GRAVL~ (1929-1991)
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT C. CARLSON
ROBERT L. DAV1D$ON
WELLINGTON H. LAW
FLOYD B. OLSO~
CURTIS A. PEARSON
T. JAY SALMEN
RE: Mound Commons
Dear Greg:
You have asked for my comments on how the LMCD Code would deal with dockage on the
Mound Commons in light of the order of the court in the case of Flack. et al. v. City of Mound
,et al..
Under the LMCD Code, dockage rights are recognized for "sites" on Lake Minnetonka. Sites
are defined in LMCD Code Section 1.02, subdivision 51 as '... any shoreline lot, parcel or other
piece of property legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder". As this
term is del'reed, none of the lots of the litigants in the Flack case are "sites" because they are not
lakeshore lots. Under the LMCD Code, the common area would be a single site. As such, if
one or more docks for the storage of more than a total of four restricted watercraft (del'reed in
section 1.02, subdivisions 41 and 55a, generally watercraft which are 16 feet or more in length
or having motors of more than 10 HP) are cons~ucted on the Commons, a multiple dock license
is required under LMCD Code section 2.03. The total watercraft storage density for the
commons may not exceed one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of shoreline as provided in
LMCD Code section 2.02.
In most cases where multiple owners have an interest in one "site" on Lake Minnetonka, all
owners join together in an application for a single multiple dock license which provides storage
of not more than a total of one restricted watercraft for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline.
Therefore, one option would be for all owners having an interest in the Commons area to form
some sort of association for the purpose of applying for a dock license from the LMCD.
In the past, the LMCD has recognized the transfer of exclusive dockage rights from one party
to another by deed, easement or license. For example, when one landowner transfers exclusive
dockage rights on 100 feet of lakeshore to the owner of adjacent property, the LMCD has
recognized that 100 feet of shoreline as being part of the transferee's property for licensing
C'LLI~I2~0
LKiI$-4
Greg Nybeck
March 5, 1996
Page 2
purposes. Therefore, if the owners having an interest in the Commons area consent to continuing
control by the city of Mound over all dockage rights for all or a portion of the Commons area,
the LMCD could treat the affected lakeshore as a part of the Iakeshore of the city of Mound.
Since the LMCD Code allows a municipality to combine all of its lakeshore, whether contiguous
or not, for purposes of the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule, that lakeshore could continue
to be a part of the city's multiple dock license application, and the city could continue to license
dockage as they have in the past.
Therefore, if all of the owners with an interest in the Commons area agree to a single unified
multiple dock license application for the entire Commons area, it could apply to the LMCD for
a license which could be granted subject to the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule. Likewise,
all owners could agree to allow the city of Mound to continue to be the agency applying for this
license under the city's license application to the LMCD. If all parties agree that some, but not
all of the Commons area should continue to be a pan of the city of Mound license, that part of
the lakeshore could be considered to be a part of the city's lakeshore for LMCD licensing
purposes.
If there are parts of the Commons area which are not a part of a unified application, either by
a homeowners group or by the city of Mound, those parts of the lakeshore would be subject to
the LMCD Code as separate parcels. As to the six owners who were parties to the lawsuit
referred to above, the court has ordered that the city has no right to regulate their construction
of docks. However, the court did not resolve dockage rights among the owners of all lots having
an interest in the Commons area, and did not provide any special rights for owners of lots
immediately adjacent to the Commons.
The LMCD has no power to adjudicate riparian rights (including the right to construct docks in
the lake) between owners having conflicting claims. Therefore, I would recommend that in the
case of all pans of the Commons area which are not subject to an agreement for a single
application, either by the city or by a homeowners group, the LMCD simply treat this lakeshore
as separate sites subject to the licensing requirement and the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline
rule. If the parties cannot agree, and no license is secured from the LMCD, and if docks are
constructed on such parts of the Commons which are not covered by an overall agreement, the
LMCD would commence prosecution against all parties with docks on such shoreline for erection
of multiple docks without a license.
If you have any other questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:cmm
CDLlOi280
LKi1C-4
(
APPENDIX E
Docking Options
WOODLAND POINT SUBDMSION DOCKING OPTIONS
Discussion from March 13th
OPTION 1:
Move Wawonaissa non-abutting docks to multiple docks at the end of Bluebird/Canary
- Dock size would accommodate 3-6 boats
- A stairway may be required
Comments: - similar to Options 2 and 3
OPTION 2:
Multiple dock program for all dock owners
- with 7 multiple docks, size would be about 8 slips per dock to maintain existing site
count
- multiple dock sites to be evenly distributed along lake shore and at street endings
- all dock owners would participate
Comments:
- public parking
- access at Bluebird, Eagle, Dove
- ownership of docks
. maintenance/policing/control
- freeze number of sites (no increase over current number)
- security
- cost
- inconvenient
- will remove options for public fishing
- administration of program - by whom?
- creates imposition on abutters
- number of boats per dock
- already spent money on own dock
- not practical
OPTION 3:
Move all non-abutters to multiple docks at street endings.
- Abutting owners have dock in front of house
all dock owners pay same fee to spread cost of multiple dock over all dock owners
non-abutting owners get dock site without responsibility for maintenance.
- responsibility for installation, removal, maintenance would be handled by third party
- city would require some assurance of control if they were asked to implement
Comments: - provides some balance between abutters who maintain area and have own
docks with non-abaters who don't maintain area and have multiple docks
- need to have a lift for boat
- possible to accommodate non-abutter's needs by locating multiple docks
for 4-5 boats at ends of six streets.
- cost of multiple dock?
- access down slopes?
- parkin$
- control]maintenance
- want families of non-abutters to have same dock rights as abutters
- seems to limit non-abutters to one boat
- may affect ability of adjacent abutters to have docks on their property due
to required setbacks
- eliminates docks for fishing
- limit size, and number of boats
- option clusters non-abutters to open up space for abutters
- consider a fishing dock
- what would a multiple dock look like - boat size, lilts??
- policy for site maintenance as abutters
- program administration
OPTION 4:
Spread out existing docks by exploring possibility to expand into currently non-accessible
areas
Comments: - cost
- DNR permits
OPTION 5:
Encourage all dock owners to share docks
Comments:
- rewrite city rules to recognize and encourage shared docks and not punish
someone for not putting out their own dock one year by not granting a permit
the next year
- cap the total number of slip-holders
OPTION 6:
Create clusters of docks at ends of streets
Comments:
- utilizes current investment in dock
- serves all needs: gives abutters privacy/non-abutters have their own docks.
- lessens need to traverse commons.
- lower cost than Option 3
APPENDIX F
Attachment to Dock Location Map
CITY OF MOUND
ATTACHMENT TO DOCK LOCATION MAP
Rev. 2/5/96
REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Hame
1 00010 D
2 00030 D
3 0O050 D
4 00070 0
5 00115 D
6 00125 D
7 00145 O
8 00155 D
9 00195 D
10 00215 D
11 002.35 0
12 00255 D
13 00275 D
14 00295 0
15 00315 D
16 00335 0
17 00355 0
18 00385 0
19 00490 0
20 00550 D
21 00580 D
22 00610 D
23 00640 D
24 00670 D
25 00700 0
26 00730 D
27 00760 D
28 00790 O
29 00820 O
30 00850 D
31 00880 O
32 00910 D
33 00940 0
34 00970 O
35 01000 D
36 O103O D
37 O106O C
38 01090 C
39 O112O C
40 01150 C
41 01170 C
42 01200 C
43 01530 C
44 01560 C
45 01600 C
~6 01650 C
47 01880 O
48 01900 O
49 01920 D
50 01940 D
51 01960 D
52 01980 D
53 02000 D
54 02O2O D
55 02040 D
56 02060 D
57 02080 0
58 02100 o
Avocet Lane
Avocet Lane
Avocet Lane
Avocet Lane
Btuebird Lane
Btuebird Lane
Canary Lane
Canary Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Dove Lane
Oove Lane
Wawonaissa Corrmon
Wawona~ssa Co~on
Wawonaissa Cormmn
Wawonaissa Corrmon
Wawona]ssa Com'non
WawonaJssa
Wawonaissa CoOl,on
Wawcnalssa Co~on
Wawona~ssa Co.on
~awona~ssa Co.on
Wa~ona~ssa Co.on
Wawonaissa Co~n
Wawona[ssa Co~n
Wa~onaissa Co.on
Wawona~ssa Co~n
Wawonaissa Co~n
Wauona~ssa Co~on
Wawona~ssa Co~n
Wa~ona~ssa Co~n
~mur{ka
Waur~ka Co~n
Wmurika
Waurika Co~n
Waurika Co~n
Waur~ka ~n
Waur~ka
Waur~ka
Waur{ka Co~n
Waur~ka
Waur~ka
Waur~ka
Waur[ka C~on
Waurika Co.on
Waur~ka
Waurika Co~n
Waur~ka Co~n
Waurika Co~n
Waurika
Waur~ka Co~n
Waur~ka
REC# Site_~ Shore_Type Land_Hame
59 02180
60 02200
61 02220
62 02250
63 02280
6A 02310
65 02340
66 0970
67 02400
68 02430
69 02460
70 02490
71 02520
72 02550
73 02605
74 02635
75 02565
76 02695
7'7 02720
78 02750
7~ 02780
80 02810
81 02840
82 02870
~ 02900
84 02930
85 04070
86 04110
87 10020
88 10050
89 10070
90 10090
91 10220
92 10250
93 10280
94 10310
95 10340
96 10370
97 10400
98 10430
99 10460
100 10490
101 10520
102 10550
103 10580
104 10610
105 10640
106 10670
107 1O700
108 12430
109 12460
110 12490
111 12520
112 12550
113 12580
114 12610
115 126~0
116 12670
O Waurfka C~on
D Waurika Conmon
D Waurika
D Waurika Coomon
O ~eurika Con3m3n
D Waurika
D Uaurika
0 Waurika Common
D Waurika
D Waurika
D Waurika ~o~n
D Waur{ka
D Waurika
D Waur{ka
D Pebble Beach
D Pebble ~each
D Pebble 3each
D PeEDLe ~each
D PebOLe Beach
0 PebbLe 3each
D Pe~[e ~each
D Three ~ts,
D Three Pts, g~vd.
D Three Pts. BLvd.
D Three P:s. BLvd.
D Three Pts.
D Beachside (North)
D Beachs{de (North)
D Shore~aed Lane
D Beachsi~e (South)
D Beachside {South)
D Beachside (South)
O Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
D ~rescen~ Park
D Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
D Crescent Park
O Crescent Park
D Crescen~ Park
D Crescen~ Park
D Crescen~ Park
D WPen Road
D Wfo~a C~on
D Wio~a C~n
D ~io~a
D Wio~a
O Wiota Co~n
D Wiota ~n
O giota ~n
D ~iota
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION
OF A VARIANCE ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION//95-46
FOR 2605 TYRONE LANE
LOTS 1, 2, & 3, BLOCK 17, SETON, PID 19-117-23 23 0158
P&Z CASE//95-14
WHEREAS, the owners, Jeff & Elizabeth Bjerksett, have requested a one year extension
of the variance granted by Resolution//95-46 on April 25, 1995, and;
WHEREAS, Resolution g95-46 approved a variance recognizing the existing
nonconforming front yard setback to the dwelling of 9.3 feet to allow construction of a 20' x
24' detached garage with an 11 foot front yard setback, and conforming decks, subject to the
applicant removing or relocating the shed to a conforming elevation, and;
WHEREAS, the applicants have not yet completed the garage portion of the variance,
and requested an extension in order to proceed with this portion in the Spring, and;
WHEREAS, the shed is in the process of being raised to be conforming to the floodplain
elevation requirements, and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 350:530, Subd. 2. E. states that a variance shall become
null and void if the use as permitted by the variance has not been completed within one year
after granting the variance, unless a petition for extension is submitted, and;
WHEREAS, all variances are limited to one extension, and;
WHEREAS, a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance
has been provided, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request for the extension and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED~ by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, to hereby approve of a one (1) year extension of the variance originally granted by
Resolution//95-46 on April 25, 1995. This variance will expire on April 25, 1997.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember ~' Y' and
seconded by Councilmember ~teg~
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
IZOd'
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRII., 8, 1996
CASE 95-14: ,VARIANCE EXTENSION - ,JEFF & ELIZABETH BJERKSETT, 2605
TYRONE LANE, LOTS 1, 2, & 3, BLOCK 17, SETON, PID 19-117-23 23 0158,
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, explained that the applicant has not yet completed the garage
portion of the variance approved by Resolution g95-46, and is seeldng an extension in order to
proceed with this portion in the Spring. Staff recommended approval of a one year extension.
Motion made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval
as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 3, 1996
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Extension for Jeffrey Bjerksett, 2605 Tyrone Lane, Lots 1, 2, & 3,
Block 17, Seton, PID 1%117-23 23 0158
The applicant has not yet completed the garage portion of the variance approved by Resolution
/t95-46, and is seeking an extension in order to proceed with this portion in the Spring. Staff
recommends approval of a one year extension.
[2,10
prmted on recycled paper
MOUND CITY CODE
SECTION 350:530, SUBD. 2. E.
Whenever within one year after granting a
variance or appeal, the use as permitted by the
variance or appeal shall not have been completed
or utilized, then such variance or appeal shall
become null and void unless a petition for
extension of time in which to complete or to
utilize the use has been granted by the City
Council. Such extension shall be requested in
writing and filed with the Building Official at
least thirty (30) days before the expiration of
the original variance or appeal. There shall be
no charge for the filing of such petition. The
request for extension shall state facts showing
a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the
use permitted in the variance or appeal. Such
petition shall be presented to the Planning
commission for a recommendation to the City
Council for a decision. All variances are
limited to one extension. Further requests for
extension shall be considered a new application
subject to the provisions of Section 350:530,
Subd. 2.
Section 350:600. DISTRICT PROVISIONS
Section 350:605. Zoninq Districts. For the purpose of this
Section, the City is hereby divided into the following use
districts:
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-iA Single Family Residential
R-2
R-3
B-1
B-2
B-3
Two Family Residential
Multiple Family Residential
Central Business
General Business
Neighborhood Business
I-1 Light Industrial
47
3/15/93
ti
-JEFFREY C. BJERKSETT · 2605 TYRONE'L~NE ' MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
J0n Sutherland
City of Mound
.5341 Maywcfod ~oa&'
RE~ Varionce extens[°n
~Dear Jon: '
March 19, 1996
This is a request for a one-year extension tO the variance at' 2605 Tyrone. Lan~. .'
'Please ~ontact me to ~onfirm the_ ex~ensiorL My day number is 672.0771. Thank you.
o
Sincerely;
· · : Jeffi'ey (2. Bjerkset~ ' ~
JC]~/tbs '
· 7
April 25,
RF-,SOLUTIO~
RESOLLV~ON TO AP?ROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AND DECK AT
2605 TYRONE LANE, LOTS 1, 2, & 3, BLOCK 17, SETON,
PIX) #19-117-23 23 0155, P&Z CASE//95-12
WHEREAS, the owners, Jeff and E1/zabeth Bjerksett, have applied for a variance to
recogn~e the existing nonconforming 9.3 foot front yard setback to the dwelling, and a variance
t~ allow construction of a 20' x 24' detached garage with an 11 foot front yard setback, and to
allow construction of a conforming deck, and;
WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-2 Zoning District, which requires a
minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback to both Tyrone Lane and Carrick
Road of 20 feet, a rear yard setback of 15 feet to the south, and a 6 foot side yard setback to
the west, and;
WHEREAS, the pond noted on the survey is not subject to the 50 foot lake setback.
The pond is connected to the wetlands and then to the lake by a very narrow channel. The
outlet of the connecting channel is above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OI-iV~, and therefore,
it is not considered as the main body of the lake, and;
WI:FE~AS, the existing shed is conforming to setbacks, however, it appears to be
located in the floodplain and it must be raised and a building permit must be obtained, and;
WlqF,~AS, e~sting and proposed hardcover is conforming, and;
WI:~REAS, the=,,araoe= location is somewhat Limited due to topography. The lot slopes
quickly down towards the west, and the garage will requLre some retaining walls at the rear side,
and;
WHEJ1.EAS, there is one (1) foot of boulevard between the curb and the property line,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended
approval of the variance request as proposed due to the limiting topography, floodplain, and the
difficulty of locating a garage on a comer lot under these circumstances. This approval is
subject to the applicant obtaining a building permit for the shed and raising or relocating the
shed to a conforming elevation (minimum 933).
NOW, TFtER.EFORE, BE IT RE3OLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming front yard
setback to the dwelling of 9.3 feet to allow construction of a detached garage with an 11
foot front yard setback, and a conforming deck, subject to the applicant obtaining a
building permit for the shed and raising or relocating the shed to a conforming elevation
(minimum 933).
1!4
1995
Re. solu~n /I95..~ April 2.~, 1995
Page 2
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:`*20,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 350:`*20.
It is determined that the Iivability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
A 20' x 24' detached garage with a nonconforming
front yard setback of 11 f~t.
An upper deck (16' x 16') and a lower deck (12' x
`.5.5') onto the dwelling. The decks are fully
conforming.
This variance is gTanted for the following legally described property:
Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 17, Seton.
This va.Fiance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Regis~.r of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section ,*62.36, 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 shalI not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember lensen, and seconded by
Councilmember Jessen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Ahrens, lensen, and
Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none.
At'test: C~ ty Manaq'"e-r~x
Mayor
115
FRANK R. CARDARELLE
(612) 941-3031
I
I 11,
Land Surveyor
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Survey For
C rtificate of Survey
Jeff Bjerksett Book Y*5 Page
2605 Tyrone Lane
Mound, ~ ¢~.~...
File.
C,
1
I
Lots 1-2-3 Block 17 Seton
~,~.~ ~y m. ~ ~o 22 ~.y~ October
Scale: 1"= 20'
'
Frank R. Oar~are"~fe
State Reg. No. 6508
/~
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 10, 1995
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank
Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Lisa Crum, and Becky Glister, City Council
Representative Mark Hanus, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy
James. Commissioner Ed Surko was absent.
The following people were also in attendance: Jeff and Elizabeth Bjerksett, Steve
Bedell, and Jim Bedell.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 1995 were presented for approval.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Glister, to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of March 27, 1995 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chair Michael suggested that Case #95-12 be heard first. There were no objections.
CASE #95-12: JEFF & ELIZABETH BJERKSETT, 2605 TYRONE LANE, LOTS 1,
2, & 3, BLOCK 17, SETON, PID #19-117-23 23 0158. VARIANCE TO ALLOW
DETACHED GARAGE AND DECK.
Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This property is located
in the R-2 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a
front yard setback to both Tyrone Lane and Carrick Road of 20 feet, a rear yard
setback of 15 feet to the south, and a 6 foot side yard setback to the west.
The pond noted on the survey is not subject to the 50 foot lake setback. The pond
is connected to the wetlands and then to the lake by a very narrow channel. The
outlet of the connecting channel is above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHW), and
therefore, it is not considered as the main body of the lake.
According to the survey submitted by the applicant, the existing dwelling is
nonconforming to the front, Tyrone Lane, with a 9.3 foot setback. The applicant is
seeking variance approval for the following:
To construct a new 20' x 24' detached garage with a nonconforming front yard
setback of 11 feet. There is 1 foot between the front lot line and the curb.
Planning Commission Minutes
A£rill~ 1995
To construct an upper deck (16' x 16') and a lower deck (12' x 45.5') onto the
dwelling. The decks are fully conforming.
The existing shed is conforming to setbacks, however, it appears to be located in the
floodplain and it must be raised and a building permit must be obtained. The existing
and proposed hardcover is conforming.
The garage location is somewhat limited due to topography. The lot slopes quickly
down towards the west, and the garage will require some retaining walls at the rear
side.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance
request as proposed due to the limiting topography, floodplain, and the difficulty of
locating a garage on a corner lot under these circumstances. This approval is subject
to the applicant obtaining a building permit for the shed and raising or relocating the
shed to a conforming elevation (minimum 933).
The Building Official referred to a similar case on Essex Lane which received a front
yard setback variance for a detached garage due to topography. The Commission also
recalled a case on Wexford Lane which involved an attached garage which received
a front yard setback variance.
Mueller expressed a concern about the site line when backing out of the garage. He
would prefer to see the doors face the side. The applicant emphasized that facing the
doors to the side would not work due to topography.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Crum, to recommend approval of
the variance as recommended by staff, and including the findings as
listed in the staff's report.
The findings in the report were reviewed. Hanus commented that an additional finding
could be the 1 foot of boulevard between the curb and the property line.
MOTION carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Crum,
Weiland, Michael, Voss, Glister, and Hanus. Mueller was opposed.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 25, 1995.
2
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FILE? YE NO
ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
I ZONE: ] REQ. LOT,AREA:
c
-~,--.- , LOT OF RECORD? YES /NO / ?
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/VVIDTH: ~ r. /
EXISTING LOT WIDTH:
REQUIRED SETBACKS
EXISTING LOT DEPTH: ~ ~, / ~
IEXIST. LOT AREA:
._oTc'+/-s°
FT
.PRINCIPAL, BUILDING/ HOUSF
FRONTV~N_.. S,..E~ W _ ~d%CC "~ ~. ~1
SIDE: N '
SIDE: N ~ E W
R_.;,,. ~= /S E ., 15' ~
LAKESHOR~ ~ ~ ~0~,(measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSDRY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT:~, N, S .E. W _~' '
FRONT: '-N S/E 'W '~.:--~{~, '
SIDE: N S X~l~ W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N /$., E W ,, 4'. o~r 6'
REAR: N/S E W (4' '
LAKESHOR£? ~)' (measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
.PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE
FRONT: N~.S ..E.. W '~ '
FRONT.'~N S E W C~
SIDE: N S'E ~) ~
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N,S E W ~
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S/E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: ~-~ S E W
SIDE: N ..S, E W
REAR: I~'S E W
LAKESHOI~E:' "~ -'~ ' ~ '
TOP OF BLUFF:
HARDCOVER CONFORMING? 'YES /'NO / ? ISTHIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES/'NO
BY: '~-'~ ~
DATE: ...._~ ~
This General Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
~9 .~491 49 ' /40 i 40j40/
' '"'
GAL',','A Y RD
RD ~
X
RESOLUTION/D6-~__~
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR 4452/4458 DENBIGH ROAD,
LOTS 2, 3 AND THE EAST 10 FEET OF 4, BLOCK 1, AVALON
PID'S 19-117-23 24 0002 & 0003
P&Z CASE ~96-07
WHEREAS, Jack Cook, owner of 4452 Denbigh Road, and Bruce Johnson, who has
Power of Attorney for Loie Elnor King, owner of 4458 Denbigh Road, have submitted a request
for a Minor Subdivision to relocate a lot line in the manner required by Mound City Code
Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly
conducted thereunder, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet,
a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard
setback to the commons (Stratford Lane), and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and;
WHEREAS, after subdivision, the Cook parcel will have a long area of approximately
6,159 square feet, and the Johnson parcel will have a lot area of approximately 9,608 square
feet. Both of these lots conform to the R-lA minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, and both
lots also conform to hardcover requirements, and;
WHEREAS, In order to approve the subdivision, recognition of the following variances
is necessary:
Cook Parcel:
12 foot front yard setback variance
1 foot side yard setback variance (east)
Johnson Parcel:
5.5 foot side yard setback variance
35 foot +/- lakeshore setback variance
WHEREAS, the house on the Cook parcel encroaches on the neighboring parcel.
Approval of the minor subdivision will remove the encroachment and create a conforming side
yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the proposal has no impact on the existing variances, it is in compliance
with the Code, and both property owner have joined in this application, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
Proposed Resolution
April 23, 1996
Cook Subdivision
Page Two
o
o
The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels A, B, and C
from the following legally described properties:
Cook Parcel, 4452 Denbigh Road: Lot 2, Block 1, Avalon, according to the
recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and that part
of vacated Stratford Lane adjoining said Lot 2, as per Doc. No. 1171217.
Johnson Parcel, 4458 Denbigh Road: Lot 3 & the East 10.0 feet of Lot 4, Block
1, Avalon, and that part of vacated Stratford Road lying between the northerly
extension of the east and west line of said Lot 3.
The minor subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal
descriptions, and according to the attached "Exhibit A."
Parcel B & C (Cook), 4452 Denbigh Road: LOt 2, Block 1, Avalon, according
to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and that
part of vacated Stratford Lane adjoining said Lot 2, as per Doc. No. 1171217.
Also, That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Avalon, according to the recorded plat thereof,
described as follows: Commencing at the southeast comer of said Lot 3; thence
North, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 3 a distance of 43.50 feet
to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence West 2.00 feet;
thence North 60.57 feet; thence West 3.00 feet; thence North 04 degrees 11
minutes 28 seconds East 50.35 feet; thence East 1.32 feet to the east line of said
Lot 3; thence South along said east line to the point of beginning.
Parcel A (Johnson), 4458 Denbigh Road: Lot 3 & the East 10.0 feet of Lot 4,
Block 1, Avalon, and that part of vacated Stratford Road lying between the
northerly extension of the east and west line of said Lot 3. EXCEPT that part
of said Lot 3 described as follows: Commencing at the southeast comer of said
Lot 3; thence North, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 3 a distance
of 43.50 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence West
2.00 feet; thence North 60.57 feet; thence West 3.00 feet; thence North 04 degree
11 minutes 28 seconds East 50.35 feet; thence East 1.32 feet to the east line of
said Lot 3; thence South along said east line to the point of beginning.
Approval of the minor subdivision is subject to the following conditions:
ao
Prior to release of this Resolution, the applicant shall have an updated survey
prepared by a registered land surveyor and furthermore, said surveyor shall
calculate and provide the sizes of Parcels A, B and C as well as impervious cover
calculations for Parcel A (without Parcel B) and Parcel C including Parcel B).
Additionally, the owner shall have the responsibility of having a land surveyor set
the property irons in conformance with the locations shown on the survey.
Proposed Resolution
April 23, 1996
Cook Subdivision
Page Three
Prior to release of this Resolution, a private easement agreement shall be executed
between the property owners over Parcel B allow utility access'' to the existing
home on Parcel A. A copy of the agreement shall be filed with the City of
Mound for information purposes only.
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable
community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties.
The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant
upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the
responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the
Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision
regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs
associated with such recording.
This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of
this resolution.
COOK/JOHNSON SUBDIVISION
PARCEL A
PARCEL B
Survey by: Demars-Gabriel, Rev. 12-13-95
RESOLUTION 1961
"EXHIBIT A"
MllNI_TrES OF A MEE'rlNG OF TI-IF.
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCIt 11, 1996
CASE 96-07: JACK COOK, 4452 & 4458 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 2 & 3, BLOCK 1, PID
19-117-23 24 0002 & 0003, AVALON. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Building Official, Ion Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's report. The applicant is seeking
approval of a minor subdivision in order to relocate a lot line. After subdivision, the Cook
parcel will have a long area of approximately 6,159 square feet, and the Johnson parcel will
have a lot area of approximately 9,608 square feet. Both of these lots conform to the R-IA
minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, and both lots also conform to hardcover requirements.
The house on the Cook parcel encroaches on the neighboring parcel. Approval of the minor
subdivision will remove the encroachment and create a conforming side yard setback. In order
to approve the subdivision, recognition of the following variances is necessary:
Cook Parcel:
12 foot front yard setback variance
1 foot side yard setback variance (east)
Johnson Parcel:
5.5 foot side yard setback variance
35 foot +/- lakeshore setback variance
The proposed minor subdivision meets the ordinance requirements pertaining to lot area and hard
cover. The current proposal has no impact on the existing variances. Because it is in
compliance with the Code and since both property owner have joined in this application, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the minor subdivision
including recognition of the variances note herein subject to the following conditions:
Prior to the time that this item goes to the City Council, the applicant shall have an
updated survey prepared by a registered land surveyor and furthermore, said surveyor
shall calculate and provide the sizes of Parcels A, B and C as well as impervious cover
calculations for Parcel A (without Parcel B) and Parcel C including Parcel B).
Additionally, the owner shall have the responsibility of having a land surveyor set the
property irons in conformance with the locations shown on the survey.
J
A private easement agreement shall be executed between the property owners over Parcel
B allow utility access to the existing home on Parcel A. A copy of the agreement shall
be ~ed with the City of Mound for information purposes only.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 11, 1996.
Sutherland related the City Planner's comments. Although approval was recommended, it was
done so because the resulting lot pattern complies with the ordinance requirements. The existing
home on Parcel A is nonconforming due to its proximity to the side lot line and to the ordinary
high water line. At some point in the future, this home may eventually need to be replaced, and
to do so, it would be required to be located in a conforming location on the lot. Narrowing the
lot width through the approval of this subdivision limits the flexibility of constructing a new
home in a conforming setback location. It also limits the amount of future hardcover that can
be placed on the site. Although it clearly meets the lot area requirements of the ordinance, one
has to question if restricting the future development potential of Parcel A as a result of this
subdivision is the best way to solve a retaining wall and deck encroachment.
Weiland questioned what changed from the previous subdivision request which the Council
denied. Sutherland noted that the previous adjacent owner was not in favor of the subdivision,
whereas the new owner is in agreement.
Mr. Cook clarified that there are three people listed on the title of the Johnson property,
including Bruce Johnson, his wife, and his mother-in-law, Loie King. Cook confirmed that the
house is not inhabited right now, but that they use it during the summer.
Mueller referred to Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 2, which states, "Lots created
after January 1993 must meet lot width standards at both the building setback line and at the
ordinary high water level." Mueller also asked for clarification from staff if this subdivision
changes the lot-of-record status for this property. Sutherland confirmed that these lots would
no longer be considered lots of record, and therefore, the side yard setback requirements would
then be 10 feet. Cook's lot would still have nonconforming side yard setbacks, and if a new
house were to be constructed on the Johnson property, only a 20 foot wide building envelope
would remain.
Cook stated that it was recommended by the previous Building Official and City Council that
this property be divided in order to alleviate the encroachments.
Mueller suggested that the proposed dividing line be adjusted to allow for a lot width of at least
45 feet for the Johnson property.
Cook stated that he does not want to create problems for future development on the Johnson
property, he just wants to clear-up any future hassles for both properties due to the
encroachments.
MOTION by Mueller to recommend that the current lot line proposal be the
same from the north edge of Stratford Road to the edge of the deck as you
would view it; drawing a line from north to south then the balance of the line
to a point creating a 45 foot lot width at street for the Johnson property.
Michael seconded the motion.
/2..2~
Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 1996'
Cook expressed a concern that this would not leave enough room at the side of his house to put
up a ladder to paint or maintain his house, and if the adjacent owner put up a fence, he would
not have enough room to park a vehicle at the side of his house. Cook noted that one of the
reasons he and 1ohnson agreed to this lot line proposal is that it would allow for enough mom
at the side of his lot to park a vehicle.
Voss suggested that they table the request so the applicant can take this back to the neighbors
to discuss. Cook agreed that the change in the lot-of-record status should be clarified and made
aware of for the applicants. Sutherland confirmed that this subdivision does change the lot-of-
record status.
Mueller withdrew his motion.
Motion by Voss, seconded by Mueller to table this request. Motion carried
unanimously.
Sutherland suggested that Mr. Cook discuss with Mr. Johnson how the change in lot-of-record
status affects the side yard setbacks, and review Mueller's suggested change in the lot line
configuration. Cook requested a copy of the statutes regarding the change in setbacks and lot-of-
record status.
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: March 6, !996
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
APPLICANT: Jack Cook
CASE NUMBER: 96-07
HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5a
LOCATION: 4452 Denbeigh Road
EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-lA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision in order to relocate a
lot line. As shown on the attached survey, Parcel B will be split off of Parcel A and attached to
Parcel C which is the lot currently owned by Mr. Cook. After completion of the subdivision, Parcel
A will have a lot area of approximately 6,159 square feet and Parcel C will have a total lot area of
approximately 9,608 square feet. Both of these lots conform to the R-lA minimum lot size of 6,000
square feet. In the new configuration, both lots also conform to hardcover requirements.
The existing Cook residence on Parcel C encroaches on the neighboring parcel. Approval of the
minor subdivision will remove the encroachment and create a conforming side yard setback. In order
to approve the minor subdivision, recognition of the following variances will be necessary. All of
these variances reflect existing conditions and are not the result of new construction.
Cook Parcel (C):
12 foot front yard setback variance
1 foot side yard setback variance (East)
Johnson Parcel (A):
5.5 foot side yard setback variance
35 foot lakeshore setback variance (estimated)
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
/za7
Cook Minor Subdivision Report
March 6, 1996
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: The proposed minor subdivision meets the ordinance requirements
pertaining to lot area and hard cover. The current proposal has no impact on the existing variances.
Because it is in compliance with the Code and since both property owners have joined in this
application, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the minor
subdivision including recognition of the variances noted herein subject to the following conditions:
... Prior to the time that this item goes to the City Council, the applicant shall have an updated
survey prepared by a registered land surveyor and furthermore, said surveyor shall calculate and
provide the sizes of Parcels A.. B and C as well as imr~erviou~, ., cover calculations for Parcel A
(without Parcel B) and Parcel C (including Parcel B). Additionally, the owner shall have the
responsibility of having a land surveyor set the property irons in conformance with the locations
shown on the survey.
A private easement agreement shall be executed between the property owners over Parcel B
allowing utility access to the existing home on Parcel A. A copy of the agreement shall be filed
with the City of Mound for information purposes only.
COMMENT: Although staffhas recommended approval of the subject subdivision, it was done so
because the resulting lot pattern complies with the ordinance requirements. The existing home on
Parcel A is nonconforming due to its proximity to the side lot l/ne and to the ordinary high water line.
At some point in the future, this home may eventually need to be replaced and to do so, it would be
required to be located in a conforming location on the lot. Narrowing the lot width through the
approval of this subdivision limits the flexibility of constructing a new home in a conforming setback
location. It also limits the amount of future hardcover that can be placed on the site. Although it
clearly meets the lot area requirements of the ordinance, one has to question if restricting the future
development potential of Parcel A as a result of this subdivision is the best way to solve a retaining
wall and deck encroachments.
,.,, i ,a I, ,t Il,
Form K:0S GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
(With Durable Provision)
TO ALL PERSONS. be it known, that I, ,L.~'t ~ E'//,2o~ /c/,;~.~;
. th~ un~ign~
Gr~tor, do hereby m~e ~d gr~t a gene~ po~er of attorney to /~/, c( ~-~ ~c~ ~'z ~ ~ '",
~d do thereupon c0nstimte ~d appoint s~d individu~ ~ my att0mey-in-faet.
My attorney-in-fact sh~l have Mil powers md authority to do ~d unde~e ~1 acts on my beh~f that I
could do ~rson~ly, with full power of substitution md revocation, including but not limited by said authority the
right to sell, deed, buy, trade, lease, mongage, assign, rent or dispose of ~y of my present or furore real or
personal prope~y; the right to execute, accept, unde~e ~d perfo~ any ~d MI contracts in my name; the right
to deposit, endorse, or withdraw funds to or from ~y of my b~ accounts, depositories or safe deposit box; the
right to bo~ow, lend, invest or reinvest funds on ~y terms; the right to initiate, defend, commence or settle leg~
actions on my behalf; the fight to vote (in person or by proxy) ~y shares or benefici~ interest in any entity, ~d
the right to retain ~y accountant, attorney or other advisor deemed necess~ to protect my interests gener~ly or
relative to ~y foregoing unlimited power.
IVly attorney-in-fact hereby accepts this appointment subject to its terms and agrees to act and perform in
said fiduciary capacity consistent with my best interests as he in his best discretion deems advisable, and I affirm
and ratify all acts so undertaken.
Special durable provisions:
This power of attorney shall not be affected by disability of the Grantor. This power of attorney may be
revoked by the Grantor giving notice of revocation to the attorney-in-fact, provided that any party relying in
good faith upon this power of attorney shall be protected unless and until said party has either a) actual or
constructive notice of revocation, or b) upon recording of said revocation in the public records where the Grantor
resides.
Other terms:
Signed under seal this
Signed in the presence of:
Witness Grantor
Witness Attorney-in-Fact
Note: Delete powers that do not apply
State of }
County of <'~C,L~'~"
~rson~ly known to me (or proved to me on the b~is of satisfacto~ evidence) to ~ th~ person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within inst~ment and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
hi~er/their authorized capacity(les), ~d that by hisSer/their signature(s)~~~a
entity upon ~half of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. $ ~ RENE E M~ILL
WI~ESS my h,~d ~d officiM seal. $/'~ ~:~ NOTA~ PUBLIC-M NN SO
Signature ~~ ~.~L ~:(~.',:.:.:':::,~,~ ~,,O~COUN~
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 1996
~ MINOR SUBDI~ISION-,IACK COOK, 4452/4458 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS
2 & 3, BLOCK 1, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 24 0002 & 0003.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, gave a verbal report and explained that this case was previously
reviewed and tabled by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1996. Concern was expressed
that the Subdivision will restrict future redevelopment of Parcel A due to the lot width. There
is also a question if the lot of record status will change as a result of the subdivision, thereby
changing the side yard setbacks from 6 feet to 10 feet. Koegler explained that they will receive
confirmation from Curt Pearson, City Attorney prior to the City Council meeting that the
opinion from John Dehn that the subdivision will not affect the lot of record status is correct.
Voss questioned why this issue was brought back to the Planning Commission before ali the
information was available.
Applicant, Jack Cook confirmed that both property owners are still in agreement with the
proposal.
Koegler stated that the lot of record status will affect the side yard setback requirements, it will
change the setbacks from 10 feet to 6 feet. He suggested that the Planning Commission could
forward their recommendation to the City Council, and depending on the City Attorney's
answer, they could look into the details of how the setbacks will be affected.
Hanus emphasized that by approving this subdivision they are making the situation better by
removing encroachments, and that nonconformity is better than encroachments.
Cook requested the Planning Commission not delay any further and forward the proposal onto
the City Council. Cook confirmed that Mr. Johnson will be present at the City Council meeting.
Motion by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend approval of the
subdivision as recommended by staff.
Koegler confirmed that he is comfortable moving the request forward as it is consistent with the
original staff report.
Burma emphasized that the two parties are in agreement to make this change to their properties,
it is in their best interest, it is not a problem to the city, and if the lot of record status can be
resolved before City Council, then the Commission has done its job.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
. lanning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
~o~ City Planner
~ I Public Works
~ ~ City Engineer
Application for
MTNOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Other
Application F~ee: $50.
EscrowDeposit: $1,000
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Tazes? ~
VARIANCE REQUIRED? ~/~
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY
INFORMATION
EXISTING
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
ZONING
DISTRICT
APPLICANT
OWNER
{if other than
applicant)
SURVEYOR/
ENGINEER
Subject Address
Lot
Circle: R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
The applicant is: //~_owner other:
(M)
/
5
./
Has an app!!cation ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property:? { ) yes,/l~no.
If
yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Thin, ppi/cation mus~e s/~ed by oil owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
~ner's Signature Date
- ...-7 ..-'"~ /
~e;'.s ~tu;e ' Date
PARCEL A
PARCEL B
'~ ~ ' )
· PARCEL C
\
PARCEL A
/:
PARCEL B
PARCEL C
Proposed Legal Description
Parcel A
~te
That part of Lot 3, Block 1, AVALON, according to the recorded plat
thereof, which lies westerly of a line drawn southerly from the
intersection of the northerly extension of the easterly fine of said Lot
3 and the northerly line of vacated Stratford Road, to a point on the
southerly line of said Lot 3, distant 10.00 feet westerly of the southeast
corner of said Lot 3 as measured along said southerly line.
Proposed Legal Description
Parcel B
.00
~ce
Lot 2, Block ~, AVALON, according to the recorded plat thereof, and
that part of Lot 3, said Block 1, which'lies easterly of a line drawn
southerly from the intersection of the northerly extension of the
easterly line of said Lot 3 and the northerly line of vacated Stratford
Road, to a point on the southerly line of said Lot 3, distant '10.00 feet
westerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 3 as measured along said
southerly line.
~et
)
le
~te
.d
O0
ice
~st
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
IIPROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME: -~~ ', ~~
LOT AREA ~'lL{ ~, ~ .% SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA ~. (, {. ~' SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .... · ..
LOT AREA "~.' .(, I. ~ SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. I .I
· Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE ~ (¢. (¥ X ~ O, ~- = '? __~), ~
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HOUSE
x /~.[ = ~/, ~,
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK
X =
TOTAL OTHER
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I? L.~/. ~ I
UNDER / OVERlindicate difference) ............................... I ._,-~, ! .'~,.~, '~ I
PREPARED BY . DATE 13 ,/-~ ~-~,~,
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
IIPROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME: ~'-' (~
~OT AREA ?I ~'0~, ,_~ SQ. ~r. x 30%
~o~',,~, ~ ~ e~,. ~_ so. ~'. x ,~o%
= (for all lots) .............. I I
= (for Lots of Record*) ....... I
= (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE ~ ~ ' X ~'-5' = ~ ~-~'
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
,.C x Z'- =
2~ x ,~'7 = ~ '7
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC. ~'~ ~--4~
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with e
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (i~.a? difference) ...............................
k ./I
,mm,
- '
.?
,,.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0000, Fax: 472-0~20
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESCo
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
City Planner
City Engineer
Public WorKs
Lot '~) _
Address
Phone (H)
DNR
Block
(M)
Nan'le
Address
Phone (It).
(w) .(M)
Has an application ever been....mad~ for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? f~ Y~,J( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copie~ oTresolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
(Rev. 1218195)
Variance Application, P. 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
.SETBACKS:
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
(N~EW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
: (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
REQUIRED
(or existiug)
VARIANCE
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sq ft sq ft sq ft
,sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located'?. Yes~J[~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~ existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please de,scribe:
(Rev. 12/8/95) /Z.,C/'
Variance Application, P. 3 Case NO.
e
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a mad? 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?
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.
Date
VARIANCE APPIJCATION
CITY OF MOUND
$341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $5364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
(FOR OFIqCE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
Case No.
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
OWNER)
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
Address
Lot
Subdivision 7~ ~J % \ o ,,,%'-
3
DNR
Block
Plat
Phone(H) '~"3c/ -(~7_~ & (W)
Name
Phone Ca)
Has an application ever been ~'x for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ~y]~l ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of~esolutions.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
(Rev. 1218195)
Variance Application, P. 2 Ca~ 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 reaso~
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
REQmRED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
(NSEW)
(NSEW_)
(N s
(, SEW)
· EW)
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage (~4 existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
(Rev. 12/8/95)
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No (). If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature fn Date
Applicant's Signature Date.~
147
September 12, 1989
The applicant was present and agreed with the proposed resolu-
tion.
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #89-106 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL
MODIFICATIONS FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 1, MOUND
TERRACE, PID #14-117-24 32 0004 (6224
RED OAK ROAD), P & Z CASE #89-839
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE ~89-809:
JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 2, BLOCK 1,
AVALON, PID ~19-117-23 24 0002, MINOR SUBDIVISION/
VARIANCE
The City Manager explained that the applicant Jack Cook' is now
complying with the requirements in Resolution #87-191, and is
removing his deck. He also stated that he has received a letter
from Sandra Konnad the owner of the adjacent property that Mr.
Cook wanted to purchase and add to his property, stating that she
does not want any subdivision of her land approved.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to deny the minor
subdivision/variance request of Jack Cook, 4452 Denbigh
Road, Lot 2, Block 1, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 24 0002, sub-
division was to include part of Lot 3, Block 1, Avalon, PID
#19-117-23 24 0003, belonging to Sandra Konnad. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REPORT FROM LMCD REPRESENTATIVE, TOM REESE AND DAVID ARNDORFER OF
ARNDORFER & ASSOCIATES
Mr. Reese elaborated on his report that was in the Council Packet
of information. Mr. Arndorfer reviewed what has been done and
will be done on the Comprehensive Lake Management Plan. He in-
vited the Council to attend a Meeting on November 18th at the
Lafayette Club which will explain the technical topics such as
lake use, shoreline matters, lake access,, etc.
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL IN
DUTCH LAKE - DICK WAGNER, CHAIRMAN CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR DUTCa
LAKE
Mr. Scott' Wright was present and explained that the DNR has now
confirmed that there is Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake. It
is a small amount and needs to be controlled or eliminated as
soon as possible. Mr. Wright stated that the DNR is willing to
share 50% of the cost for a herbicide treatment. He is therefore
asking that the City of Mound and the city of Minnetrista also
participate in the cost and suggested 25% from each. The total
cost would be $2500 to $3500 for the 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 acres af-
fected.
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission and Staff
Mark Koegler, City Planner
April 4, 1989
SUBJECT: Deck Setback Variance
APPLICANT: Jack Cook
LOCATION: 4452 Denbigh Road
CASE NUMBER: 89-809
VHS FILE NUNBER: 89-310-A11-ZO
EXISTING ZONING: R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: In August of 1986, Mr. Cook received a variance to
allow construction of an attached garage to his residence at 4452
Denbigh Road. In the summer of 1987, the Building Official issued
a stop order because the work that was being done included items
not covered in the original variance. One of the items involved
a deck that was partially constructed on the west side of the home
without variance approval or building permit approval. Mr. Cook
then filed for a variance to add a second story to the existing
dwelling and sought approval for the deck which had been partially
completed.
The result of the review was the approval of Resolution 87-191
which allowed a modified version of the deck providing that an
existing one foot encroachment on the property to the west was
removed. The modification involved reducing the deck elevation to
within 30 inches from the existing ground level with a stairway
from the patio door on the west side of the home down to the lower
deck. The deck was to proceed at ground level to the lake side
where a stairway 3.7 feet inside the property line was to connect
to the elevated deck on the north side of the home. Resolution 87-
191 was unanimously supported by both the Planning Commission and
City Council.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
The applicants current request is to leave the deck on one plane
rather than descending to an at-grade deck and then reascending to
an elevated deck portion. This is the same request that was
reviewed in 1987.
In the applicants supporting documentation, he references "new
ideas" pertaining to this application. In reviewing the material,
the only new ideas that staff finds is a statement that Mr. Cook
and his neighbor on the west side have "come to agreement on our
differences". While it is always desirable that abutting property
owners agree on property use issues, it is not a germane argument
in support of the criteria for granting variances found in Section
23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code.
RECOHHENDATION: In reviewing the application, staff does not find
that any new material has been presented in support of overturning
the previous unanimous decisions by both the Planning Commission
and City Council. Denial of the variance request is recommended.
If denied, the applicant will be required to comply with the
findings outlined in Resolution 87-191.
335
December 13, 1988
RESOLUTION NO. 88-184
RESOLUTION EXTENDING RESOLUTION #87-191 ENTITLED
"RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE ON LOT 2 INCLUDING ADJACENT
VACATED STREET, BLOCK 1, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 24 0002,
(4452 DENBIGH ROAD), P & Z CASE #87-673wt, FOR 60 DAYS,
UNTIL FEBRUARY 13, 1989
WHEREAS, on October 13, 1987, the City Council approved
Resolution #87-191; and
and
WHEREAS, this resolution expired on October 13, 1988;
WHEREAS, the applicant has now requested an extension
of Resolution #87-191 so that he can. complete the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant an extension of
60 days from the date of adoption of this resolution for Resolu-
tion %87-191 entitled "Resolution to Concur with the' Planning
Ccmmission Recommendation to Approve a Variance for a Nonconform-
ing Structure on Lot 2 Including Adjacent Vacated Street, Block
1, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 24 0002 (4452 Denbigh Road) P & Z Case
#87-673... ,
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Abel and seconded by Councilmember Johnson.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Abel, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
~ttest: City Clerk
~a~or
275
October 73, 1987'
RESOLUTION 87- 191
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
KECO~V~NDATION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR
A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE ON LOT 2 INCLUDING
ADJACENT VACATED sTREET, BLOCK 1, AVALON;
PID ~ 19=117-23-24 0002 (4452 Denbtgh Road) .~&~ Case No. 87-673
WHEREAS, the applicant is reques:in§ a variance to allow an attached deck
with a walkway within zero feet to t~a. stde property line at the west, add a
second floor.on the existing dwelling within 3.7 feet of the side lot line
and 20 feet to :he front property line; and
WREkEAS, the R-2 single family zoning district requires 6 foot side
yards,20 foot front yard, and 50 foot lakeside setback to the Ordinary High
Wa:er Elevation of.929.5 N.G.V..D.; and
WHEREAS, SECTION 23.404 Subd. (8) provides that alterations may be made to
a building containing a lawful nonconforming ,residential unit when the alteration
will improve the ltvability thereof but the alteration may not increase the
number of dwelling units.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,'MN.,
as follows:
1. That the City does hereby authorize the existing nonconforming princSple
'Structure setback ia: 4452 Denbigb Road; PID #19-117-23 24 0002.
2. The City COuncil authorizes the existing structural setback violation
and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404,
Subd. (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as
a lawful, nonconforming use, subject :o all of the provisions and re-
strictions of Section 23.404.
It is determined that the livability of the residential.unit will
be improved by authorizing the following alterations to the nonconforming
property: ..
A second story (floor) is to be added to the existing dwelling within
317 feet of the west property line, a'minimum of 6 feet to the east
property line, 50 feet to the 0.H.W. elevation of 929.5 N.G.V.D. to lakeside,
and 20 feet to the street front property line.
Reduce the deck elevation to within 30 inches from existing ground level
with a staiz-way from the patio door down to the lower deck, proceeding
at ground level to the lakeside, and then a stairway to the elevated
deck beginning at the 3.7 foot building setback line.
Upon. the further condition that the existing dwelling must meet State
Building Code, the existing basement entry at zero feet to the property
line be relocated into the new construction and then to be removed to
ground level, provisions be made to divert water run off away from the
adjoining'property.
Variance approval is valid for one year from the date of this resolution.
28O
October 13, 1987
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jansen and
seconded by Mayor Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Abel, Jansen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The followlng Councilmembers voted in :he negative:
none,
~ayor ~
Atiest: City-'Clerk -
164
August 26, 1986
RESOLUTION NO. 86- 104
~ESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
APPROVE A 3 FOOT SIDE. YARD SETBACK AND'12.5 FOOT STREET
FRONT SETBACK FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, AVALON, P1D # 1~-117-23
24 0002 P & Z Case'No. 86-538 (4452 Denbigh Road)
WHEREAS, Jack Cook, owner of the parcel described ~s Lot 2, Block 1,
Avalon, PID # 1~-117-23 24 0002~ has appl.ied for a side yard and front yard
setback to allow the constructTon of an attached garage of 20 by 24 foot within
12 to.13 feet of the front propert~ line and zero feet to the side property; and
WHEREAS, City Code requires a 6 foot Side yard Setback and a 20. foot
front yard setback to'the principal building in the R-2 Single Family Resldentlal
District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed-the request and does recom-
mend a variance with.some modification to the appticant"s request to afford the
property owner reasonable use of his land.
NOW, 'THEREFORE', .BE IT RESOLVED 'th~'the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a 3 foot side yard setback and a 1.2.5 foot
front yard setback to allow the construction of a attached garage with no en-
closure'of the existing 'basement Stairway due to the narrowness and topography
of the property for Lot 2, Block 1,AYalon (4452 Denbigh Road) PID # )~-117-2)
24 0002.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and
seconded by Councilmember Peterson.
The following Councilmembers vo~ed in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith;
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
//
,, ? '3 -W'O
LAND ~URVEYORS, INC'. ' / ~, ,..s 2-2 /d,v of SEPT. ;. ,e8~. Boo~- v,~
F;ym~u:~ MN ~44~ Scaie
ADDRESS:
I
ZONE: I REQ. LOT AREA:
LOT OF RECORD7 ~7
IEXIST. LOT AREA:
· ..~ ....~ ~./SQ FT
REQU,REO STREET /'-t'O /
REQUIRED SETBACKS
EXISTING LOT DEPTH:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/ HOUSE
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W ~O f
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W 15'
LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
50' (measured from O.H.W.)
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PJ;~NGIEAL BUILDING/HOUSE
LAKESHORE: ~
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
nork..C
his C.¢~er~ Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zon
Jrdinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
(55.
EXISTING LOT WIDTH: ~ EXISTING LO~ --
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HQJ.[SE
FRONT: N S E W ',~//__.j /
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W ~
SIDE: N S E W ~
REAR: N S E W 15'
LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.}
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W ~.~.~(~ /
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E,,~
SIDE: N S~{
SIDE: N S W
REAR: N SE W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W /.~_~-' +/-
FRONT: N S E.,W-.
SIDE: N S~ '7, ~'~ '
SIDE: N S(.~W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: '7
BY: ~ ~ ~ DATE'
'his G'~r~ Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zonin
~rdinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Depa~ment at 472-0600.
'' -'0; ~ ~' ' ~ ~'
O
O -
(55-! ~ o
I'-
O
RESOLUTION ~6-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR 4932 NORTHERN ROAD / 2131 SANDY LANE
LOTS 33 & 34, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD
PID 13-117-24 44 0061 & 0062
P&Z CASE//96-11
WHEREAS, the owner, A1 McDaniels, has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision
in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter
462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings
a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks
for non-lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels,
both of which will have adequate lot area. The southerly parcel has a total area of 8,173 square
feet and the northerly parcel which contains an existing structure has a total of 9,001 square feet,
and;
WHEREAS, access to the northerly parcel will be off of Sandy Lane. Access for the
new southerly parcel will be off of Northern Road. The proposed plan shows that a conforming
home can be built on the southerly parcel, and;
WHEREAS, the dwelling on the northerly parcel is currently nonconforming due to an
existing detached garage which is in poor condition. The applicant has agreed to remove this
garage, and construct a new conforming detached garage, and;
WHEREAS, a rear yard setback variance of 8.2 feet will need to be recognized for the
dwelling which is setback 6.8 feet to the required 15 foot setback. A conforming addition is
proposed for this dwelling, and;
WHEREAS, the subdivision request complies with all other zoning criteria, including
lot frontage and impervious cover, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision does not directly impact the existing
nonconforming condition on the property. The subdivision will create two conforming lots (lot
area) and there is room on the northerly parcel for conforming building additions and there is
adequate space on the southerly lot for the construction of a new conforming single family home,
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended
approval, with conditions as recommended by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
Proposed Resolution
MeDaniels Subdivision
April 23, 1996
Page Two
The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels A and B from
Lots 33 and 34, Skaxp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, as shown on the attached "Exhibit
A", subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot. Said
park fee shall be paid prior to release of the final resolution.
A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and
approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all
new lot lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front
and rear lot lines.
The following utilities shall either be installed or a financial guarantee shall be
provided in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable
to the City Engineer to ensure installation of said service:
1)
Northerly Parcel: Provide a new sanitary sewer service from the Sandy
Lane sewer main and reconnect the existing water service to the existing
service stub in Sandy Lane.
2)
Southerly Parcel: Provide a new water service from the Sandy Lane
watermain.
The garage on the northerly parcel shall be removed prior to the issuance of any
building permit for construction or improvements on either the northerly or
southerly parcels.
The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal
descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A:
Northerly Parcel, 2131 Sandy Lane:
The North 90 feet of Lots 33 and 34, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood.
Southerly Parcel, 4932 Northern Road:
Lot 33 and 34, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Except the North 90 feet thereof.
An 8.2 foot rear yard setback variance is hereby approved for the northerly parcel to
allow construction of a conforming addition to the dwelling and construction of a
conforming 20' x 20' detached garage to be located 6 feet from the north side property
line and 20 feet from the front property line.
Proposed Resolution
McDaniels Subdivision
April 23, 1996
Page Ti:tree
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable
community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties.
The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant
upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the
responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the
Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision
regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs
associated with such recording.
This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of
this resolution.
McDANIELS SUBDIVISION RE$OLg-TIOI~ J96-
"EXHIBIT A"
: - ',~ VERYOLD WIRE FENCE~ I :~<,~,~,~ · ~_ =o.~ / --J
~' ~0~ ~ ~ .~~ ,i ' c '~ :~"., . ·
~,,
, , ,'/:z"~ / ~ ~" ~
' I ~ I ~ .~
~ . ~ ~'~J~ ' I -~ )2- ~'~- ~ ,, ~ o
, / /I/ ' ' ' ,'" ' ' ' ~"
/OWELLI~,~:~,~, ~q~"o~ ~ , ~
i, L.~L%".~.'~ / ~ ~&J / · ,
BI' OU$ RO,~ ~ y
~NMA~H _~~ ~ VeT S~-,r~R~
NOLE
,,,.,o NORTHERN ROAD
~4~
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COM2VEISSION
APRIL 8, 1996
CASE 96-11: MINOR SUBDIVISION- AL McDANIF~I.S, 4932 NORTHERN ROAD / 2131
SANDY LANE, LOTS 33 & 34, SCARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-117-24
4~ 0061 & 0062.
Commissioner Glister stepped down due to a personal affiliation with the applicant.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is proposing to
subdivide an existing lot into two parcels, both of which will have adequate lot area. The
southerly parcel has a total area of 8,173 square feet and the northerly parcel which contains an
existing structure has a total of 9,001 square feet. Access to the northerly parcel will be off of
Sandy Lane. Access for the new southerly parcel will be off of Northern Road. The proposed
plan shows that a conforming home can be built on the southerly parcel.
The dwelling on the northerly parcel is currently nonconforming due to an existing detached
garage which is in poor condition. The applicant has agreed to remove this,,,araee., . A rear yard
setback variance of 8.2 feet will need to be recognized for the dwelling which is setback 6.8 feet
to the required 15 foot setback. A conforming addition is proposed for this dwelling. The
subdivision request complies with all other zoning criteria, including lot frontage and impervious
cover.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 1996
The proposed subdivision does not directly impact the existing nonconforming condition on the
property. The suDdivision will create two conforming lots (lot arm) and there is room on the
northerly parcel for conforming building additions and there is adequate space on the southerly
lot for the construction of a new conforming single family home. As a result, staff
recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed subdivision
subject to the following conditions.
1. The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot. Said park fee
shall be paid prior to release of the final resolution.
2. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved
by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
3. The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot
lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front and rear lot lines.
4. The following utilities shall either be installed or a financial guarantee shall be provided
in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable to the City
Engineer to ensure installation of said service:
a. Northerly Parcel: Provide a new sanitary sewer service from the Sandy Lane
sewer main and reconnect the existing water service to the existing service stub
in Sandy Lane.
b. Southerly Parcel: Provide a new water service from the Sandy Lane watermain.
5. The garage on the northerly parcel shall be removed prior to the issuance of any building
permit for construction or improvements on either the northerly or southerly parcels.
Koegler confirmed that the northerly parcel will now front on Sandy Lane which changes the
rear yard to the west creating the need for a rear yard setback variance due to the location of
the existing dwelling.
Weiland confirmed that this property will need to change its address from Northern Road to
Sandy Lane. The secretary explained the process for requesting a change of address and
indicated that a request from the owner must be received in writing to initiate an address change.
We[land questioned how the furnace is vented and if it meets code because the exhaust pipe is
under the front step. The Building Official stated that it does meet code.
Voss confirmed with Koegler that they are creating two new lots, and when you create a new
lot it must be conforming. Koegler confirmed that the rear yard setback variance is being
processed as part of the subdivision. Koegler confirmed that there is 50 feet of frontage on
Sandy Lane for the northerly parcel.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 1996.
Reifschneider expressed a concern that the new house on the southerly parcel will block the view
to the house on the northerly parcel and create a stacking appearance. He is also concerned
about drainage and how this will affect new construction on the southerly parcel.
Motion made by Voss to recommend approval of the subdivision as
recommended by staff. Motion seconded by Michael for purposes of
discussion.
Clapsaddle commented that he is not in favor of creating a new nonconforming lot.
Reifschneider stated that he is not in favor of the look that will be created and he is concerned
about drainage. Michael expressed a concern that they are creating another nonconforming lot.
Motion to approve failed 3 to 4. Those in favor were: Voss, Hanus and
Burma. Those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Reifschneider, Michael, and
Weiland.
Hanus suggested that the Planning Commission forward a passing motion to the City Council.
Clapsaddle recommend denial of the proposed subdivision.
Koegler suggested the Planning Commission include findings if they are recommending denial.
Suggested findings included concerns about the look and the creation of a nonconforming lot.
Koegler emphasized that the lot is currently nonconforming due to the garage which the
applicant has agreed to remove as part of the subdivision. The southerly parcel would be totally
conforming. A drainage plan and erosion control plan will be required. Regarding the concern
with the stacking of homes, Koegler agreed that this will occur, but there are no restrictions to
building a 2-1/2 story house. The proposed lot sizes and lot width are conforming. Clapsaddle
stated that he misunderstood that the lot sizes were to be nonconforming. It was clarified that
the rear yard setback variance is created due to the switching of street fronts, and that the
existing setback would not change.
Hanus emphasized that they would be creating one conforming lot and one nonconforming lot
out of one existing nonconforming lot.
Clapsaddle withdrew the previous motion.
Clapsaddle moved to recommend approval of the subdivision, as
recommended by staff, with the addition that the address be changed for the
northerly parcel. Motion seconded by Hanus. Motion carried 5 to 2. Those
in favor were: Clapsaddle, Michael, Hanus, Burma, and Weiland.
Reffschneider and Voss were opposed.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
II't[
k-tH
PLANNING
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: April 1, 1996
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variance
APPLICANT: A1 McDaniels
CASE NUMBER: 96-11
HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5c
LOCATION: 4932 Northern Road
EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels, both of
which will have adequate lot area. The southerly parcel has a total area of 8,173 square feet and the
northerly parcel which contains an existing structure has a total of 9,001 square feet. Access to the
northerly parcel is currently off of Sandy Lane. Access for the new southerly parcel will be off of
Northern Road. The proposed plan shows that a conforming home can be built on the southerly
parcel.
The dwelling on the northerly parcel is currently non-conforming and will continue to be non-
conforming if the subdivision is approved. The existing detached garage is in poor condition and the
applicant has agreed that it will be removed. In order to approve the subdivision, the following
existing variance needs to be recognized:
· Principal Structure Rear Setback - 15 feet required, 6.8 feet existing - 8.2 foot variance
This variance is the result of existing conditions. A proposed new addition to the existing structure
is in a conforming location on the lot. The subdivision request complies with all other zoning criteria
including lot frontage and impervious cover.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Planning Report - McDaniels Minor Subdivision
April 1, 1996
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: The proposed subdivision does not directly impact the existing non-
conforming condition on the property. The subdivision will create two conforming lots (lot area) and
there is room on the northerly parcel for conforming building additions and there is adequate space
on the southerly lot for the construction of a new conforming single family home. As a result, staff
recornmends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed subdivision subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot. Said park fee shall
be paid prior to release of the final resolution.
2. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by
the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
3. The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines,
5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front and rear lot lines.
The following utilities shall either be installed or a financial guarantee shall be provided in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer to
ensure installation of said service:
A. Northerly Parcel: Provide a new sanitary sewer service from the Sandy Lane sewer main
and reconnect the existing water service to the existing service stub in Sandy Lane.
B. Southerly Parcel: Provide a new water service from the Sandy Lane watermain.
5. The garage on the northerly parcel shall be removed prior to the issuance of any building
permit for construction or improvements on either the northerly or southerly parcels.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2, 1996
TO:
City of Mound Planning Commission and
City Staff
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Minor Subdivision - Lots 33 & 34, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood
Case No. 96-11
MFRA #11306
The survey submitted with the application shows only tentative house location and elevations; therefore,
a final grading and drainage plan should be included when application is made for a building permit.
The existing home on lot 34 is served with City water by a long service which crosses private property
north to the City watermain in Edgewater Drive. The existing sewer service is connected to the City's
sanitary sewer main in Northern Road. The applicant has suggested that this existing sewer service be
abandoned and the existing residence be reconnected to the sewer main in Sandy Lane and the proposed
home on the new southerly parcel could use an existing service on Lot 33. We would agree with this
proposal for the sewer services. The proposed water connection does not meet with our approval. We
would recommend that the present water service to the existing house be abandoned and the residence be
reconnected to the existing water service on Sandy Lane at the same time the new sewer service is
installed. Then a new water service would need to be installed from the main in Sandy Lane to serve the
newly created southerly parcel. There is no City watermain located in Northern Road which requires the
connection to the Sandy Lane watermain. We would also recommend a more direct, thus shorter route
for the new water service to the southerly parcel across the tip of the City owned property adjacent to
subject parcels.
These lots are in one of the older plats which typically did not provide drainage easements along lot
lines.
An Equal Opportunity Employer (.,~,Z~' '
Planning Commission and City Staff
April 2, 1996
Page 2
Recommendations
Approval of the proposed minor subdivision is recommended subject to the following conditions:
1. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan is approved by the City Engineer
at the time of building permit application.
Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet wide on all side and
rear lot lines and 10 feet in width along the street sides.
The following utility work, either be installed or some type of financial guarantee be
provided, such as a cash escrow or performance bond.
(A) Northerly Parcel: Provide new sewer service from Sandy Lane sewer main and
reconnect existing water service to existing service stub in Sandy lane.
(B) Southerly Parcel: Provide new water service from Sandy Lane watermain.
e:main: 11306/jc,4-2
tZt 9'
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Comm'ssion Date: "24--"-~' ' q O'
City Council Date:
Distribution:
2-5 City Planner ~' DNR
', Public Works Other
', City Engineer
i~q~5
" .... 'ti
Case No. ~2
Application Fee:
$50.00
Escrow Deposit: $1,000
Deficient Unit Charges? (~I~Y'~~'-I'
Delinquent Taxes?
......................................................................................................... v~a~c~. ~Qun~D: q 75
type or print the following in/'omafiom ........................................................
PROPERTY Subject Address
INFORMATION
~GAL
ZONI~
~PLIO~T Tho ~pplieant i~: ~ownor
othor:
OWNER Name
(if other than
applicant} Address
Phone {H) {W} {M)
SURV~OR/
Phone(H)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, veriance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,*Nl~/no. If
yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
/,
Th/s app/icat/on must be s/~ned~/ a// owners of the sub/ect property, or an exp/anat/on g/ven why th/s /s not the case.
,vner's Signature Date /
Owner's Signature
Date
9(0'7..3
VERY OLD W~RE FF_..NC.F'
1,tEAR PRoPF_R~Y LiNE
Jo
~J
-- 100.00
'Z0.8
SI=' RU CE
0 ?'\'J
45.7
I
o
TOP =9 =~--/
.I
3PL IT
DWEL
VEF D WIRE
· SEWER
iNN BITU 205 RO~ ~,~;cs
~EAR" L __ C ~'~v~
' SANITARy ~EWER '~
.~o NORTHERN ~OAD
TOTAL ARE
90051 13/117/24 MARTIN. STEVE
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
:'3t)t} S }ix',,. No IOI Mmnc o ka. MN 55,345 Phone ((,12) 474 7964 Fax (61~) 474 8267
STEVE MARTIN
S_~U_RNd_E_YE___D_ March 4, 19gL, [)RAFT_.E_D~ March 8. 1996 REVLS. ED__~ March 21, 1906
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PARCEL.
Lots 33 and 34. Skarp and Lindqoist's Ravenswood. Ilennepin County, Minnesola
I.EGAI. )ESCRIPT ON OF NORTIIERI. Y PARCEL
Tile North O0 feet of Lois 33 and 34. Skarp ami l.indquist's Ravenswood, Itennepin Counly, Minnesola
LEGA ~ DESCRIPTION OF SOUTIIERLY PARCEl.
Lots 33 and 34. Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood Itennepin County Minnesota EXCEPT the North 90
feet thereof ' ' ,
N 0'1'___~1 .~S__~
tlccJM HIs Ic~;Irdjn,~ IhJ~ ~ropcrlx - -
:',L.\I I t )',,I IX('It I Ltl .\1 :,; 20 I.'I.:I.:T
N I,\NI)\Rl) ~'~ :,,IIIt)l h~ & (.t]",\'l.X I tt )NS:
"-' I)cnmv,, I 2" Il) i'~H',c ',\ilh pla:-,lic lqug I,c;uing 'q;,c
I icc.sc Nm.bur u2x': ~cl. il ",F' i~ lillcd in. then dcm,les
Rill I( All()\
hcrcb} ~c;ril~ Ihal Ihi~ ~lll\C\ \tH~ I~]CJ';ucd h} mc ,u tm,klcr m) ditccl supcTx,sion ;1lid Ihal J ;1111 il m'mlbs~i..aJ
~)escription Length Width , Area~
Existing Home 14.3 4.5 64
22.2 22.2 493
Proposed Addihon 25 22 2 555
Garage 14.3 22.2 317
Wood Steps 4 8 32
Cellar Door 4 6 24
Patio and walk 21.7 21.7 471
'Total Hardcover Area 1957
Total Area of Lot 9001
H~ard Cover Percenta,ge 21.70A
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, _MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
~.R ~5
Application Fee:
$50.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
~ -~ City Planner ,, DNR
· ' City Engineer Other
,, Public Works
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLIC.MNT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Name Lq t,,-,'/l,,,' e_ ,/<.._
Address
Phone (H). (W) (M)
(¢ z//o
B-3
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.):
~o~,~./~/;~,, ~.~ ,~. ; .z_.~ ~' zz" L,'~,-..~-~
/ d
12..-qO
(Rev. 12/8/95)
Variance Application, P. 2
III
Case No.
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: (NSEW) ft.
Side Yard: E ) ft.
Rear Yard: E ) I ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft.
· (NSEW)
ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft.
Lot Size: sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
sq ft
sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~x,l, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~ existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
(Rev. 12/8/95) I ~.""~ I '
Variance Application, P. 3 Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No ~[. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Date
Applicant's Signature
2~'7 ~' (Rev. 12/8/95)
Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
OWNER'S NAME:
= (for all lots) .............. [ _._~/~) [
= (for Lots of Record*) ....... ] ]
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with e
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
~,,~. x ~,~ :
,~5-x ~,~ : 5~
TOTAL HOUSE
x ~2, 2, :
=
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
~/,-7x 2, I.'--7 : -47!
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
4 x £ :
4 x
TOTALDECK
TOTAL HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER , OVER (indicate difference, ...............................
CITY OF MOUND _
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
OWNER'S NAME:
SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I 2 .~-0
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
,, ~..z_x ;~, -z- =
pr~p,~ ~, 25x 22. ~=
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
I'-J.3 x =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
TOTAL OTHER .........................
'--/71
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
tiNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
/Z~4--
/ 2~77
IZONE: I REQ. LOT AREA: I EXIST. LOT AREA:
LOTOF RECORD? YES / NO / ?
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH:
EXISTING LOT WIDTH:
EXISTING LOT DEPTH: I '7 '~ '~ ~/-
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL /~B,~ILDING/ HOUSE
FRONT: N//S)~ W -~' /
FRONT: N "~"(/~W
SIDE: N S"E"W j'~ /
SIDE: N S E W /(.~"
REAR: N S E W 15'
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
50' (measured from O,H.W.)
ACCESSORY BUILDINGJGARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S{E"W ¢L?~,
FRONT:/,.~S~-~ W ~,
SIDE: [ N/S E W /4"or 6'
SIDE: "-N S E W ~4~or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: ~/~( i'~' '/'"' '"
.z~ ACCESSORY .13~1~ LD I N G I~A RAG ETS HS HS HSd.
PRINCIPAL BUI~DINGIHOUSE ~
FRONT: N~ W ~" ~' ~
[ ~ FRONT: ,.~ S E
FRONT:~ E ~ ~ '
SIDE: ~(~. .%q / I j + SIDE: (~ S E
SIDE: N ~ ~,~' ~ /~/_ SIDE: ~ S E
b"r ¢ REAR: N S E
LAKES~RE: LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: TOP OF BLUFF:
....... DAT~:.~ ............................
Zoning Information Sheet only summanzes a port~on of the requirements outl ¥
Ordinance. For further information, contact the 6ity of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
RESOLUTION #96-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT
4949 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOT 3, BLOCK 23, DEVON
PID 25-117-24 12 0002, P&Z CASE//96-13
WHEREAS, the owners, John Tucker and Debra Susan Peterson, have applied for a
side yard setback variance in order to construct a garage addition. The required side yard
setback is 6 feet, the applicant is proposing a 4.65 foot setback, resulting in a variance of 1.35
feet. The garage addition will follow the line of the dwelling on the west side which currently
has a nonconforming setback of 4.8 feet, and;
WHEREAS, the lakeside deck is setback zero feet to the rear lot line and 39 feet +/-
to the lakeshore and is therefore nonconforming to the required 10 foot rear yard setback and
the 50 foot lake setback, resulting in recognition of 10 foot rear yard setback variance and 12
foot lake setback variance, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet,
a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard
setback to the commons, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and;
WHEREAS, the existing impervious surface coverage is over by 833 feet+/- for lots
of record with an approved drainage plan. The proposal includes some improvement to the
excess impervious surface coverage as a portion of the driveway area is to be restored to grass.
In addition, the adjacent commons area helps ease the excess impervious surface coverage, and;
WHEREAS, the street side entry is accessed by 2 flights of stairs that are outside and
exposed to the weather. This stairway is to be removed and a new wider stairway is to be
constructed inside the garage. This reconfiguration will help to create a more practical and safe
entry and is one of the reasons the applicant is proposing a 26 foot wide garage, and;
WHEREAS, moving the garage over would require removal or relocation of the
overhead door and this cannot be accomplished without losing needed garage space or major
renovation of the basement floor plan. In addition, the minimal lawn area on the east side would
also be reduced, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended
approval as this proposal enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal
encroachment, and the encroachment is reasonable due to practical difficulties.
Proposed Resolution
Tucker/Peterson
April 23, 1996
Page Two
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant the following variances to allow construction of a garage
addition at 4949 Island View Drive:
Existing/
Required Proposed Variance
House/Garage Addition
SW Side Setback 6' 4.65' 1.35
Deck, S Rear 10' 0' 10'
Deck, S Lake 50' 39'+/- 11'+/-
2. Variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
ao
The applicant shall providing a drainage plan consistent with Zoning Code Section
350:1225, Subd. 6.B. prior to building permit issuance.
Grass or sod shall be installed where existing hardcover is to be removed, as
shown on the attached Exhibit A.
o
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 350:420.
o
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 22' x 26' garage addition with second floor.
5. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 3, Block 23, Devon
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant tc 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.
gD
4
TAYLDR LAND SURVEYORS
M~ICELLO . MINNESOTA
( 612 ) 295-3388
LAKE
M i NNETONKA
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 1996
CASE 96-13: VARIANCE - JOHN TUCKER AND DEBRA PETERSON, 4949 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE, LOT 3, BLOCK 23, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 12 0002.
The applicant is seeking a side yard setback variance in order to construct a garage addition. The
required side yard setback is 6 feet, the applicant is proposing a 4.65 foot setback, resulting in
a variance of 1.35 feet. The garage addition will follow the line of the dwelling on the west side
which currently has a nonconforming setback of 4.8 feet.
The lakeside deck is setback zero feet to the rear lot line and 39 feet +/- to the lakeshore and
is therefore nonconforming to the required 10 foot rear yard setback and the 50 foot lake
setback, resulting in recognition of 10 foot rear yard setback variance and 12 foot lake setback
variance.
The existing impervious surface coverage is over by 833 feet+/- for lots of record with an
approved drainage plan. The proposal includes some improvement to the excess impervious
surface coverage as a portion of the driveway area is to be restored to grass. In addition, the
adjacent commons area helps ease the excess impervious surface coverage.
The street side entry is accessed by 2 flights of stairs that are outside and exposed to the
weather. This stairway is to be removed and a new wider stairway is to be constructed inside
the garage. This reconfiguration will help to create a more practical and safe entry and is one
of the reasons the applicant is proposing a 26 foot wide garage.
At first glance it appears the garage could be moved towards the east and be located with a
conforming setback. Moving the garage over however would require relocation of the overhead
door and this cannot be accomplished without major renovation of the basement floor plan. The
minimal lawn area on the east side would also be reduced.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request
subject to the applicant providing a drainage plan consistent with Zoning Code Section 350: 1225,
Subd. 6.B. This proposal enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal
encroachment, and the encroachment is reasonable due to practical difficulties.
The Building Official confirmed that a condition should be added that sod or green space would
replace the hardcover which is to be removed.
Weiland questioned if the deck on the lake side could be downsized. The owner, John Tucker
stated that the deck was there when he bought the house, and emphasized that the neighbors
house encroaches into the commons.
Motion by Reifschneider to recommend approval of the variance as
recommended by staff, subject to grass or sod being installed where existing
hardcover is to be removed. Harms seconded the motion for the purpose of
discussion.
Sutherland agreed that the condition relating to grass/sod installation should be included in the
motion.
MOTION carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Reifschneider,
Voss, Michael, Hanus, Glister, and Burma. Weiland was opposed.
Weiland commented that he is opposed because he would like to see some of the deck
encroachment eliminated.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of April 9, 1996
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
John Tucker/Debra Susan Peterson
96-13
4949 Island View Drive, Lot 3, Block 23, Devon, PID 25-117-24 12 0002
R-IA Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming
dwelling in order to construct an attached garage that will be nonconforming to the side yard.
The required side yard setback is 6 feet, the applicant is proposing a 4.65 foot setback, resulting
in a new variance of 1.35 feet. As shown on the attached survey, the proposed garage follows
the line of the dwelling on the west side. This side of the dwelling is currently setback 4.8 feet,
as the garage follows this line there is slightly more encroachment into the side yard.
The lakeside deck is setback zero feet to the rear lot line and 39 feet +/- to the lakeshore and
is therefore nonconforming to the required 15 foot rear yard setback and the 50 foot lake
setback, resulting in recognition of 15 foot rear yard setback variance and 12 foot lake setback
variance.
The existing impervious surface coverage is over by 833 feet+- for lots of record with an
approved drainage plan. The proposed plan includes some improvement to the excess
impervious surface coverage as a portion of the driveway area is to be restored to grass (note
the existing/proposed site plans). In addition, the adjacent commons area helps ease the excess
impervious surface coverage.
prmted on recycled paper
Staff Report
Tucker
Page Two
COMMENTS: The street side entry is accessed by 2 flights of stairs that are outside and
exposed to the weather. This stairway is to be removed and a new wider stairway is to be
constructed inside the garage. This re, configuration will help to create a more practical and safe
entry and is one of the reasons the applicant is proposing a 26 foot wide garage.
At f'n'st glance it appears the garage could be moved towards the east and be located with a
conforming setback. Moving the garage over however would require relocation of the overhead
door and this cannot be accomplished without major renovation of the basement floor plan. The
minimal lawn area on the east side would also be reduced.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request subject to the applicant providing a drainage plan consistent
with Zoning Code Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B. This proposal enhances the use and function
of the property with a minimal encroachment, and the encroachment is reasonable due to
practical difficulties as noted above.
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 23,
1996.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
ii, ,~ i !
............ :[i~
A~plica~on Fee: SSO.O0
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
Case No. ~- / D
ti DNR
Other
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
OWNER)
Address
Lot 3
Subdivision
Address L{
Phone ~). q~
Name
Address
Block
Plat#
R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
Phone (H) ,(W) .(M).
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reasor
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
Front Yard: (~S ,~ W ) ~_0' f. fl~.
Side Yard: ( N S ~,) & ' ff. / ~. ~ /
/a.
Side Y~d: ( N~E~ ~. ft. q.~5'E R.
R~ Y~d: ( ~E W ) to'-~N A. o- ~ ~ ff.
~eside: ( ~ W ) ~ ft. ~~a~'v"~e ff.
: (NSEW) ff. ff.
S~t Frontage: ff.
~t Size:
~~dcover:. 2~ ~ ~ 7-
VARIANCE
,~/<' ft.
~K ft.
t. ~'5 ft.
~" s,9~o' ft.
fl.
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
(Rev. 12/8/95)
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~9, No (). If yes, explain:
7. 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?
-"F-rl~/-'tou3'-~r- ~oW~,qS. 4:\S '5ao~o.,O c? O-r~pt~ Su~uc,"-'7"~-- ~,.~/~=~O
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are tree and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Signature
Applicant's Signature
(.Rev. I2/8/9.5)
i
2
5
4
TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS
MONTI~ . MINNESOTA
612 ) 295-~
LAKE
M i NNETONK~
0
iL ,iL
CITY OF MOUND ~' 'J' '(--~'~r'~
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: L~'C~L{C~,~L~.~/~O,~ ~.
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA "~/ ~)-r/_ SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
.q,q,-7 x z. : '7-7o:
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
~A x =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
x :
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
-'j._O X t O = 2-.-O 0
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL H~COVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER (O~./(~ndicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY DATE
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATli3N$
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME: ...)-~ -'~,&
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA ~ SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
.'{?,7 x. '7?o
X
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
x =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
Ol~ening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
"7"70
.3 /
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
'tiNDER / OVER (indicate difference)
PREPARED BY
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: i~I~0 ·
EXISTING LOT DEPTH: ~OO ·
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/ HOUSE
FRONT: ~ S E W ~ ·
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S ,,IF W ~ ·
SIDE: N S E ~/ _~f_~
REAR: N S E W
I'5'
LAKESHORE: ~' ~5~' J~measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: . _
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W .~..~]/
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
50' {measured from O.H.W.)
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRiNCiPAl,
FRONT: [~1'
FRONT:~
SIDE: N
SIDE: N
REAR: N
LAKESHOR~
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
'REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
TOP OF BLUFF: ~
HARDCOVER CONFORMING?~'ES N~O~?~.~J~' ~.D ,,.~ IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7
BY:
~is General Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a ~or
~rdinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
' ' ' NANOVER RD ~
YES~? ~
DATE:
ion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zo.,
78 - 301
DRUk4UOND
:
~" ~ -- 0
I
RESOLUTION//96-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR 2156 SANDY LANE
LOTS 51 & 52, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32 RAVENSWOOD
PID 13-117-24 44 0090
P&Z CASE//96-14
WHEREAS, the owner, Paul Larson, has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision
in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter
462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings
a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks
for non-lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing lot to create two new
lots. Parcel A will have 14,292 square feet and Parcel B will have 10,014 square feet, and;
WHEREAS, Parcel B contains an existing single-family residence and it conforms to
all zoning criteria.
WHEREAS, construction of a duplex was proposed on Parcel A. According to the
Zoning Code, duplex lots are required to have a total area of 14,000 square feet and have 80
feet of frontage on an improved public street. Proposed Parcel A has adequate lot area but only
has 55 feet of frontage. Parcel A does abut an alley on the north side, however, the alley does
not constitute an improved public street as defined by City Code, and;
WHEREAS, the City has generally held to a policy of approving subdivisions with
variances only when no other options for alleviating the variance are present. The provision of
the Zoning Code allows single family homes in the R-2 district and abutting properties contain
single family homes. Construction of a single family home on Parcel A without the issuance
of a variance is a viable alternative, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval, with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels A and B from
Lots 51 & 52, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, as shown
on the attached "Exhibit A", subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said
fee being paid prior to release of the final resolution.
Proposed Resolution
Larson Subdivision, 96-14
April 23, 1996
Page Two
ge
A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and
approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all
new lot lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front
and rear lot lines.
Water service for Parcel A shall either be installed or a financial guarantee shall
be provided in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount
acceptable to the City Engineer to ensure installation of said service.
The applicant shall file a variance application for the proposed lot width variance
prior to the time that this case is scheduled for City Council review.
fo
The shed on Parcel B shall be removed prior to the issuance of any permits for
construction or improvements on either Parcels A or B.
The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal
descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A:
Parcel A: That part of Lot 51 which lies westerly of the following described line
and its extensions; said line being drawn from the most southerly comer of said
Lot 51 to a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 51 distant 19.00 feet
northwesterly from the northeast comer of said Lot 51, Subdivision of Lots 1 and
32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood.
Parcel B: LOt 52 and that part of Lot 51, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp &
Lindquist's Ravenswood which lies easterly of the following described line and its
extensions; said line being drawn from the most southerly comer of said Lot 51 to a
point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 51 distant 19.00 feet northwesterly from the
northeast comer of said LOt 51.
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable
community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties.
The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant
upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the
responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the
Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision
regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs
associated with such recording.
This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of
this resolution.
It, I , Ik~, I ,~[
IN THE SI
· "EXHIBIT A"
RESOLUTION {96-'
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
PAUL LARSON
I1~ OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD LOTS 51 & 52
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ....
t~ o/¥
LEGAL DESCE:PTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
Lots 51 & 5~, SubUJv~sion of LOts 1 & 32, Skdrp
& LJndqulst's Ravens~ooO
o: d~otesiron me.er ~t
· :de~to~s iron marker found
Bearings shown are b~seO on afl assumed datum.
~h]s suFve~ [~[end$ ~o S~O~ [h~ boundaries of [he
apove Oesr~zed properties and the location of the
exlst]ng hc.se there)ri. It does not purport to
shown any other impravements or encroachments.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 1996
CASE 96-14: MINOR SUBDIVISION - PAUL LARSON, 2156 SANDY LANE, LOTS 51
& $2, SUBD. OF LOTS I & 32 RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-117-24 44 0090.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the staff reports. The applicant is proposing to subdivide
one existing lot to create two new lots labeled on the survey as Parcels A and B. Parcel B
contains an existing single-family residence and it conforms to all zoning criteria. Construction
of a duplex is proposed on Parcel A. According to the Zoning Code, duplex lots are required
to have a total area of 14,000 square feet and have 80 feet of frontage on an improved public
street. Proposed Parcel A has adequate lot area but only has 55 feet of frontage. Parcel A does
abut an alley on the north side, however, the alley does not constitute an improved public street
as defined by City Code.
The City has generally held to a policy of approving subdivisions with variances only when no
other options for alleviating the variance are present. In this case, the provision of the Zoning
Code allows single family homes in this district and abutting properties contain single family
homes, construction of a single family home on the lot without the issuance of a variance is a
viable alternative. Therefore, staff does not support use of this property for a two family
dwelling because of inadequate lot width.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested subdivision
without granting a variance for lot width on Parcel A. With the lot width variance for Parcel
A, only a single family home can be built on the Parcel. The staff recommendation for approval
is conditioned upon the following:
The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee
being paid prior to release of the final resolution.
A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved
by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot
lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front and rear lot lines.
Water service for Parcel A shall either be installed or a financial guarantee shall be
provided in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable to the
City Engineer to ensure installation of said service.
The applicant shall file a variance application for the proposed lot width variance prior
to the time that this case is scheduled for City Council review.
The shed on Parcel B shall be removed prior to the issuance of any permits for
construction or improvements on either Parcels A or B.
Hanus asked the applicant, Mr. Larson, if he would still pursue the subdivision if the lot width
variance is not approved to allow for a duplex. Mr. Larson stated yes.
Motion by Michael, seconded by Reifschneider to reconunend approval of the
subdivision as reconunended by staff. Motion carried unanhnously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: April 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variance
APPLICANT: Paul Larson
CASE NUMBER: 96-14
HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5d
LOCATION: 2156 Sandy Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing lot to create two new lots
labeled on the survey as Parcels A and B. Parcel B contains an existing single-family residence and
it conforms to all zoning criteria. Construction of a duplex is proposed on Parcel A. According to
the Zoning Code, duplex lots are required to have a total area of 14,000 square feet and have 80 feet
of fi:ontage on an improved public street. Proposed Parcel A has adequate lot area but only has 55
feet of frontage. Parcel A does abut an alley on the north side, however, the alley does not constitute
and improved public street as defined by City Code.
The City has generally held to a policy of approving subdivisions with variances only when no other
options for alleviating the variance are present. In this case, the provisions of the Zoning Code allow
single-family homes in this district and if fact, abutting properties contain single family homes.
Construction of a single family home on the lot without the issuance of a variance is a viable
alternative. Therefore, staff does not support use of this property for a two family dwelling because
of inadequate lot width.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the requested subdivision without granting a variance for lot width on Parcel A. Without the lot
7300 Metxo Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Larson Subdivision and Variance
April 2, 1996
Page 2
width variance for Parcel A, only a single family home can be built on the Parcel. The staff
recommended approval is conditioned upon the following:
1. The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee being paid
prior to release of the final resolution.
2. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the
City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
3. The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet
wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front and rear lot lines.
Water service for Parcel A shall either be installed or a financial guarantee shall be provided in
a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer to
ensure installation of said service.
5. The applicant shall file a variance application for the proposed lot width variance prior to the time
that this case is scheduled for City Council review.
6. The shed on Parcel B shall be removed prior to the issuance of any building permits for
construction or improvements on either Parcels A or B.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City of Mound Planning Commission and City Staff
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
DATE: April 1, 1996
SUBJECT:
Minor Subdivision - Lots 51 & 52,
Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp & Lindquist's
Ravenswood
CASE NO.: 95-14
FILE NO.: MFRA #11304
COMMENTS
The survey submitted with the application shows only tentative house location and elevations;
therefore, a final grading and drainage plan should be included when application is made for a
building permit. The City's records do not indicate that there is an existing water service
available for Parcel A; therefore, one will need to be installed at the applicant's expense. Again,
since this is one of the older plats that does not contain drainage easements along the lot lines,
they will need to be provided.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approval of the proposed minor subdivision is recommended subject to the following conditions:
1. A complete grading, drainage, and erosion control plan is approved by the City
Engineer at the time of building permit application.
2. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet wide on side lot
lines and 10 feet in width along front and rear lot lines. The revised survey provided
at building permit application to show said easements.
3. Water service for Parcel A, either be installed or some type of financial guarantee be
provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond.
cc: Mark Koegler, City Planner
e:\main\l 1304\jrc3-28
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
of
5341
City Mound, Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date: '~J -~ CT]/''~'' ~1~--I~ Case No
City Council Date: '-7- ~.-' --~7 Applicat~Sfi-..ee:
Distribution: Escrow
~,. City Planner Il DNR Deficient Unit Charges?
h Public Works Other
v~ City Engineer Delinquent Taxes?
VARIANCE REQUIRED?
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject Address
INFORMATION ~'~
reSTING Lot ~/
Block Plat
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION Subdivision
ZONING
DISTRIOT Circle: R-1 R-lA' - /. 8-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
APPLICANT The applicant is: ~ownor other:
Phone ,.) ~/-- ~/2 ~ (W) *171- z z / g (., 72
OWNER Name
{if other than
applicant} Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
$URV~OR/
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( } yes, { I no. If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
This application rnu~t be signed by ail owners of the subject property,
Owner's Signature
or an explanation given why this is not the case.
Date
Owner's Signature
Date
i" IN I'HE Si
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
PAUL LARSON
I1[ OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUlST'S RAVENSWOOD LOTS 51 & 52
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LEGAL DESCriPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED:
~o~s 51 ~ 5S. Subdi¥:s~on o~ LOSS I & 32, Skarp
& Lindqu:s~'s Ravenswood
o: d~esirom morker ~t
· :d~c:=s :ton marker found
~earlngs shc.n are ~sed on an assumed datum.
~hls survey intends so snow ~he boundaries of the
aPove desr:sed properties and the location of the
exls%In~ ~c.se there~n. It does not purport to
hureh~' certit!,' that th~. ~,urv,.,~ wa~ prc'parc,d b~,' my ur under m)' direct ~,u~.',.,r-
and that I am ,~ dui)' rc~tered Civil Engin~'vr and Land 5urvey~r under
la~ ,,~ thy 5talc ~r ~linne~ta
~_ /_. ~-~
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATI*ONS
· (IMPERVIOUS .SURFACE COVERAGE)
oPR~PER~ ADDRESS:
NER,'S NAME:
LO'r ~,RE, A /0/~'/~ SQ. FT. X 30% :
LO; ~,REA SQ. FT. X 40% =
(for all lots) .............. I ~.. 00.~'
(for Lots of Record*) .......
,LC? -~REA SQ. FT. X 15%, = (for detached buildings only)
*Ex ting Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outl ned in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
x = 7Yz-
DETACHED BLDGS
SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
x = 574
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X '
open ;~ between boards) with a
pervi Js surface under are
not c :unted as hardcover
OTF :R
TOTALDECK
TOTAL OTHER ...; .....................
TOTAL~ HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
'~N~VER (indica'te difference) ...............................
..... . .PRE ARED BY , DATE
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVE. R CALCULATfONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
P ROPERTY ADDRESS:
'~WNER;s NAM'E: .,
LeT AR~A ./% Z CZ SO. FT. X 30~
LOT ,REA SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT ~,REA SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............I ~'//Z 2f7,~ I
= (for Lots of Record*) '
= (for detached buildings only) ..
*Ex ;ting Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outl ted in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and :pproved by the Building Official.
HOLE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
50 x '/'-X.~ = 2, z/6'
X =
DE7 SHED BLDGS
(GA AGE/SHED)
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRI' ;WAY, PARKING //
'ARE ~'S, SIDEWALKS, X = ~ ~O
ETC /'~/~'C X =
DEC S Open decks (1/4" min.
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETS .... . ..............
X =
oper ; between boards) with a X
pe~ s surface under are X
ncr: rated as hardcover TOTAL DECK ..................... ; ....
OT~ R X =
TO 'AL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
O~OVER (indicate difference) ......................... , .....
PRE ~RED BY DATE
DUPLEX
PLAN NO. 2180-D
EACH UNIT 1068 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 2136 SQ. FT.
STOOPS 30 SQ. FT.
NOTE: FURNISHED WITH CRAWL SPACE. IF
SLAB FLOOR IS DESIRED, INDICATE ON
ORDER FORM.
BED ROOM
11'-8'x11'-6'
DINING
AREA
!'-4'x 10'-4'
BED ROOM
1 1'-8'x 11'-6'
DINING
AREA
12'-4'x
UNIT A UNIT B
44'-4"
FLOOR PLAN
~~.D. 1~~i:~, F.A..I.I~.D.
~[~.~ >1 =a :m~ ~.. P.O. Box 450025, Atlanta, Georgie 31145 - Phone (404) 934-7380
::~..'t
I
2007 Montreal Rd., Tucker (Atlanta), Georgie 30084
~ll Established 1961
¢OLU#I!
ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA:
~: i~,~ SQFT
SURVEY ON FILE7 ~E?/NO LOT OF RECORD7 YES / NO / 7 N~ ~F~ OrVIFi0~
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE~~
EXISTING LOTWlDTH: ~ ~' ~C /.+ EXISTING LOTDEPTH: ~C~~ ~
" .~1 PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE , ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
1.j"~ ~1 FRONT: N['S~E W ,.~'",' ~-~(Jt~,~'t,,J' ~/'.((~r~?. FRONT: U S E W
~_.) ,'~] FRONT',~)"~E_W ~'~'" ~-I~--~",J - FRONT: N S E W
~ ~'1 SIDE: ~ S(f~"~/,. I('~ / '' - ' SIDE: U S E W 4' or 6'
x ~i SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
Il ~,] SIDE: N S"-E ~ ~)
,t.~[ REAR: N S E ~V 15 __ __ REAR: N S E W 4'
',~ ~ [ LAKESHORE: -~asur~ O.H.W.} LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.)
L~ ' ,~..I TOP OF BLUFF: ~". ~' TOP OF BLUFF:
~ ~ EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PfllNCIPAL~ILDIN~/HOUSE A = ~, AOCESS~ BUILDIN~/~AflA~E/SHED
FRONT: N~'E W ~[~' +/- I , W/_ FRONT:~ E W
FRONT:~S~ W ~/C~'~/- ~O /~/- FRONT:NS E ~,
SIDE: N S~'~ lO/ ~q,~2" SIDE: N S~"
SIDE: N S E~ }~/ I~/t/- SIDE: N ~W
REAR: ~'~S E W ~~ REAR: N S E W
LAKESH~E: /~ LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: ~ x TOP OF BLUFF:
HARDCOVER CONFORMING7 ~yE~No / 7 IS THIS PROPERTY
BY: ~ ~ DATE: ~, ~~
ti t
a onmg n ormat~on ~'"l:i'~'~._._y_ summarizes a port~on ~ requirements out me ~nt e ~ty o oun on~ng
l~Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. ~
RESOLUTION//96-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR 3051 INVERNESS LANE
LOTS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 9, PEMBROKE
PID 19-117-23 33 0071
P&Z CASE//96-15
WHEREAS, the owner, Paul Larson, has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision
in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter
462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum lot area of 10,000 square
feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback,
and;
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels.
Proposed Parcel A has a lot area of 10,128 square feet, and the proposed Parcel B has a lot area
of 11,390 square feet, and;
WHEREAS, Parcel A contains an existing home with a nonconforming front yard
setback (20.8 feet vs. required 30 feet). All other aspects of Parcel A conform to the Zoning
Code, and;
II
/~~,EAs, Parcel B contains an existing garage which the applicant i~o-r~m,~e,
WHEREAS, a variance from the front yard s~etback requirement off of Paisley Road was
also requested by the applicant on Parcel B. Paisley Road is an unimproved right-of-way and
it is unlikely that it will ever contain a street because of steep grades. It may in the future,
however, contain utilities such as storm sewer. Construction of a home in a conforming position
on the lot would allow for the installation of a driveway without impacting the location of the
curb box, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval, with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels A and B from
Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 9, Pembroke and that part of the adjoining south half of vacated
Hampton Road lying between the northerly extensions of the easterly and westerly lines
of said Lot 1, as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said
fee being paid prior to release of the final resolution.
Proposed Resolution
Larson Subdivision, 96-1S
April 23, 1996
Page Two
A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and
approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
Co
The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all
new lot lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front
and rear lot lines.
d. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,768.45 shall be paid prior to
release of the final resolution for recording.
e. ") Th, gaffe on earcg~Ll.~all be ~..pfio~ to the issuance~p~of any building
, ..//"~rmits (fi:zr~con~Cfion 6r2mproven~n~s on ei~amets~A 6r ~ .....
The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal
descriptions and according to attached "Exhibit A":
Parcel A: Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2 lying north of the South 33 feet of said
Lot 2, Block 9, Pembroke, and that part of vacated Hampton Road lying between
the northerly extensions of the easterly and westerly lines of said Lot 1.
Parcel B: Lot 3 and the South 33 feet of Lot 2, BlOck 9, Pembroke.
The City does hereby approve recognition of an existing nonconforming front yard
setback of 20.8 feet on Parcel A, and denies the front yard setback variance for Parcel
B to Paisley Road.
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable
community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties.
The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant
upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the
responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the
Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision
regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs
associated with such recording.
This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of
this resolution.
"EXHIBIT A"
CERTIFICATE OF SpRVEY FOR:
PAUL LARSON
1N BLOCK 9 PEMBROKE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
HAMPTO ROAD
(VACAT£O~
LOT
LOT
LOT 3
PAISLEY ROAD
Existing Legal Description
Lots ],2 and 3, Block 9, PEMBROKE, and that part
of the adjoining south half of vacated Hampton
Road lying between the northerly extensions of
tho easterly and westerly lines of said Lot 1.
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
A. Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2 lying north of the South 33 feet
PEMBROKE, and that part of vacated Hampton Road lying between
sions of the easterly and westerly lines of said Lot
B. Lot 3 and the South 3] feet of Lot 2, Block. 9, PEMBROKE.
e: denotes iron marker found
o: denotes iron marker set
(,,~,.,) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
Bearings shown are Dased upon an assumed datum.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the
above described property, the iocation of the
existing house and garage, and existing spot
elevations thereon. It does not purport to show
any other improvements or encroachments.
I hereby o:rlify thai ti;b, survey ',¥a'~ prepared b) my .~
vision, and that Iarn a duly registered Civil Enginevr .~ ,
Mark $. Gronberg Minnesola License Num[~,,r 127~:,
. RESOLUTION #96-
said l,ot 2, Block
northerly exten-
my direct supS, r:
Surveyor tmdt, r
JOB NO.
1VIIN-UTF. S OF A M~EETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMM~SSION
APRIL $~ 1~
CASE 96-15: MINOR SUBDIVISION - PAUL LARSON, 3051 INVERNESS LANE, LOTS
1, 2, 3, BLOCK 9, PEMBROKE, PID 19-117-23 33 0071.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the staff reports. The applicant is proposing to subdivide
an existing lot into two Parcels labeled on the survey as Parcels A and B. Both parcels exceed
the minimum lot size requirements for the R-1 zone. Parcel A contains an existing home with
a nonconforming front yard setback (20.8 feet vs. required 30 feet). All other aspects of Parcel
A conform to the Zoning Code.
Parcel B contains an existing garage which the applicant intends to remove. Plans for Parcel
B also call for a variance from the front yard setback requirement off of Paisley Road. Paisley
Road is an unimproved right-of-way and it is unlikely that it will ever contain a street because
of steep grades. It may in the future, however, contain utilities such as storm sewer. Part of
the rationale behind the requested front yard variance off of Paisley Road is the location of the
water stub at the property line along Inverness Lane. The applicant has stated that he can not
install a driveway over the watermain curb box. In the review of this case by the City Engineer,
however, he has determined that the watermain and sanitary sewer stubs are actually
approximately 10 feet further to the south than what is shown on the survey. Therefore,
constructing a home in a conforming position on the lot would allow for the installation of a
driveway without impacting the location of the curb box.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested minor
subdivision including the variance for Parcel A but denying all setback variances for Parcel B
subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee
being paid prior to release of the final resolution.
o
A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved
by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot
lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front and rear lot lines.
One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,768.45 shall be paid prior to release
of the final resolution for recording.
The garage on Parcel B shall be removed prior to the issuance of any building permits
for construction or improvements on either Parcels A or B.
Planning Commission Minutes Apr//$, 1996
Applicant, Paul Larson, stated that he is agreeable to the 30 foot setback from Paisley, however,
thinks the development would look better if a 20 foot setback was allowed. Having a 20 foot
setback from Paisley will provide a more spacious feeling for the property to the north, and it
would give the appearance that the houses are more centered on the lots. He does not
understand why there is a 30 foot setback requirement off an unimproved road that will never
go in. Larson also emphasized that the property directly to the north is zoned R-iA which
allows for a 20 foot front setback.
Larson also objected to the unit charge. Staff indicated that this issue would have to be
addressed by the City Council with the assistance of the City Engineer. Hanus requested that
if the City Engineer is not going to be present at that Council meeting, that they receive written
clarification on this issue for the Council meeting.
Larson confirmed that he plans on making improvements to the existing dwelling.
Motion by Michael, seconded by Burma to recommend approval of the minor
subdivision, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
Vince Forstyke was present and requested the opportunity to speak on this issue. Mr. Forstyke
expressed a concern regarding drainage and water problems in the neighborhood, and he
suggested that Paisley Road be vacated and the Planning Commission can work on developing
a plan to correct the drainage problems in the neighborhood. Chair Michael explained that this
is a separate issue from what is on their agenda, and that it could possibly be addressed at a
workshop meeting or at a council meeting. The Building Official stated that in order to forward
this issue onto the Planning Commission, staff would need to first receive a sketch plan for
review.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
[I]1
k-'4H
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: April 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variances
APPLICANT: Paul Larson
CASE NUMBER: 96-15
HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5e
LOCATION: 3051 Inverness Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- 1)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two Parcels labeled
on the survey as Parcels A and B. Both parcels exceed the minimum lot size requirements for the R- 1
zone. Parcel A contains an existing home with a non-conforming front yard setback (20.8 feet vs.
required 30 feet). All other aspects of Parcel A conform to the Zoning Code.
Parcel B contains an existing garage which the applicant intends to remove. Plans for Parcel B also
call for a variance from the front yard setback requirement off of Paisley Road. Paisley Road is an
unimproved right-of-way and it is unlikely that it will ever contain a street because of steep grades.
It may in the future, however, contain utilities such as storm sewer. Part of the rationale behind the
requested fi:om yard variance off of Paisley Road is the location of the water stub at the property line
along Inverness Lane. The applicant has stated that he can not install a driveway over the watermain
curb box. In the review of this case by the City Engineer, however, he has determined that the
watermain and sanitary sewer stubs are actually approximately 10 feet further to the south that what
is shown on the survey. Therefore, constructing a home in a conforming position on the lot would
allow for the installation of a driveway without impacting the location of the curb box.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Planning Report - Larson Subdivision and Variance
April 2, 1996
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the requested minor subdivision including the variance for Parcel A but denying all setback variances
for Parcel B subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee being paid
prior to release of the final resolution.
2. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the
City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
3. The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet
wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front and rear lot lines.
4. One deficient street unit charge in the mount of $1,768.45 shall be paid prior to release of the
final resolution for recording.
5. The garage on Parcel B shall be removed prior to the issuance of any building permits for
construction or improvements on either Parcels A or B.
NlcCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739
Telephone Engineers
612/476-6010 Planners
612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City of Mound Planning Commission and City Staff
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
DATE: April 1, 1996
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision - Lots 1-3, Block 9, Pembroke
CASE NO.: 96-15
FILE NO.: MFRA #11305
COMMENTS
The survey submitted with the application shows only tentative house location and elevations;
therefore, final grading and drainage plans should be included when application is made for a
building permit. The City's record utility plans verify that both water and sewer services are in-
place for the two parcels, although they are approximately 10 feet south as shown on the survey.
This is one of the older plats in the City which typically did not provide drainage easements
along the lot lines.
The combination of these three (3) lots were only assessed one unit charge when the streets were
reconstructed in 1979. With this proposed subdivision creating an additional buildable parcel,
one deficient unit charge of $1,768.45 should be collected.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approval of the proposed minor subdivision including the two (2) variances, is recommended
subject to the following conditions:
An Equal Oppor~ni,y Employer
City of Mound Planning Commission and City Staff
April 1, 1996
1. A complete grading, drainage, and erosion control plan is approved by the City Engineer
at the time of building permit application.
2. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot liens, 5 feet wide on the side lot
line and 10 feet in width along street side and rear lot line. The revised survey provided at
building permit application to show said easements.
3. On deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,768.45 to be paid prior to release of
resolution for recording.
cc: Mark Koegler, City Planner
eSmain\l 1305\jrc3-28
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
C°mm~ ssJ°~ Date:/4-- F --q~"
Council Date: ~-'~/~ ,-'-, ~
Distribution:
,"~-.~__.~3 ~'~'~" City Planner Il DNR
~, Public Works Other
. City Engineer
Case No.
Application Fee.F' "X $50.00
escrow Deposm / $1,000
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Taxes?
Please type or print the following information:
I~O~IlO~
LEGAL
~ES~.IPTION Subdivision P~ ~~ PID, Iq //7
DISTRICT Circle: R-1A R-2 R-3 g-1 B-2 B-3
APPLICANT The applicant is: ~wner other:
Phone(H,Y7A q/Z e7t-zz/ ,., 7ZY-/ o
OWNER Name
(if other than
applicant} Address
Phone {H) {W) (M)
SURV~OR/
ENGINEER Address ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~(
Phone {H) (W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property.'? ( ) yes, { } no. If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Th/s az~ /caty m~/~ st~ed by a// owner$ of the subject property, or an explanat/on given why th/s /s not the case.
O'w~ e r'~ ~Signature Date
Owner's Signature
Date
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR:.
PAUL LARSON
IN BLOCK 9 PEMBROKE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
;/4' LOT
/
LOT ;~ '"' --~
PAISLEY ROAD
i,ots ,2 and ~, }{lock 9, ?EMRROKE, and that part
~f th. ld]ol:tnq south hr, lf of vacated Ham?ton
,oad ., l~g b,~twe.-n t~e nc t'therl~' t~xtensions
'ne e~sterly and wes:erl: lines of said Lot 1.
ROP~ F~ ~ LEG~L Z'~<SCRIPTI, NS
Lot I and rna' part of L~t 2 lying north of the South 33 feet of said Lot 2, Block q,
PEMBROKE, ~nd that part of vacated Hampton Road lying between the northerly extcn-
sic;ns of rte .asterly and westerly lines of said Lot 1.
Lc~ J and %ne South 3 feet of Lot 2, Block 9, PEMBROKE.
®: GeneSes lror, marker ~0und
o: denotes iron marker set
'(.-,.,): oenotes exls~ing spo; ~levatlon, mean sea ]eve] datum'
3earln;s shown are ~ased upon an assumed datum.
'his survey :ntends to s~ow the boundaries of the
~bove described ~roper%y. the location of
exis%:ng house =:,d garage, and existing spot
~]evaL;~ns t~ere~. J% cots not purport %0 show
~ny tLr,er lmkro~ement$ e, encroachments.
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER (~ALCULATI~)NS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
'~ERTY ADDRESS:
N_ER'S NAME:
~o~ ,~ ~ s~. ~. x ~o% =
LOT ~REASQ. FT. X 40% =
(for all lots) ..............
(for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT -~REA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . .
,Exist ng Lots of RecOrd may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning OrdiRance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE :~.~ x E~= /.3
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
olSening between'boards') with ·
pervious surface under ere
not counted as herdcover.
OTHER
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ...........................
X =
TOTAL OTHER ...; .....................
TOTAL HARDCOVER'/IMPERVIOUS'SURFACE"
OVER (indicate difference)
PREPARED BY DATE
city of MouND
HARDCOVER CALCULA'FI'QN$
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
I I I
· or ~,~./O,/~7 s~. ~. x ~o%
~o~ ~.E~ s~. ~. x ~o%
= (for all lots) I
= (for Lots of Record*) ....... I
~o3~ I
I
LOT AREA ,SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see bac'k). A plan must be submitted '
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE
x z?.~ = 7~
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS,' SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
IZ x ~o = ~'0
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ....". .............
X =
X =
pervious surface under are
not dounted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTALDECK
TOTAL OTHER '. ............... .... :.. ;.
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~VER (indicate difference)
PREPARED BY DATE
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date: ]~-'~ ~ (,~ Case No. (Q/~ -] ._~
City Council Date: ~_~._~)_C~
Dis~bufion: ~~ City Planer D~
~: ~' ~~ " Ci~ Engin~r
~ LL ~ ~, Pubhc Wor~
S~CT Address ~.~X &/ I~ ~t~fn~ /-~- ~.~1
PROPERTY Lot ,3 g b, 35' CF ~ Block
LEG~ Subdivision ~ ~ ~ ~
DESC. PID~ J~-]l~ ~ D~ ~W [ Pla~
PROPERTY Nme ff~JL
APPLIC~ Nme
~ O~E~ Address
TH~
Phone ~) ~) (M).
O~ER)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, q 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.)'
(Rev. 12/8195)
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reasor
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
o
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N~ W ) ~ ft. "~C ft. /'~' ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the pres,en/t use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~., No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
[ '(~. 12/8/95)
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of an~..o~e having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)'?. Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain:
W~ 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 ~ar/dship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes pqb No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
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.
Date
Applicant's Signature
Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound,-MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
DNR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Address ~-~5 / [ A,' U',~,A/~'fS' {../q/v.~__
Lot ~
Subdivision
PID#
ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1
Name ,;/9/6th'/-- L'~: 'eP'~'fi-/
Address /,f- f~C,'~ U,'~ ,/2~ ~,~/A;'(
Nallle
Address
Phone (H) (W). .(M).
Block c.~
Plat #
B-2 B-3
.(M). -TZ 3 -/~,&O
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.):
(Rev. 12/8195)
Variance Application, P. 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
(N S(~W)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
: (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
ff. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ff. ff. ff.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ff. ft.
ft. ft. ff.
sq ff sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes'~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming
use:
5,
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage '¢~ existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
(Rev. 12/8/95)
Variance Application, P. 3 Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No .~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No~<j. ff yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No {7~ If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Date
Applicant's Signature
(Rev. 12/8/95)
Date
ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA:
SURVEY ON FILE? ~NO LOT OF RECORD7 YES / NO / ? riOT ~F~ ~/~P
EXISTING LOTWIDTH: ~: ~,~ "~;~, ~ / EXISTING LOTDEPTH: ]~-- )~ / ~"
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL BUI, J~DING/ HOUSE / _ -~-
FRONT: N /,S-~.~ W ~ il') t,'~'f r~" ~ ~
FRONT: N~ W ~ / '~L~. ~'~ ~
SIDE: N-~ lC ~ I
SIDE: N S E~' i(n /
REAR: N S E W 15'
LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: ~ /
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE~o, ~ / ~..A ~ ACCESSORYFRoNT: N S BUILDING/GARAGE/SHEDE W
FRONT: N ~E W ~;'
FRONT:~'E W -~C' ?[o~ FRONT: N S E W
S DE: LN' E W I% j /5'*/- S DE: N S E W
SIDE: N~E W ~¢/- ~ SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W iDC' '~/- ~'-0' ~'/~ REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE: LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: -z ~ TOP OF BLUFF:
HARDCOVER CONFORMING? ~E~J NO / ? IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES
ral Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a port requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
, 5b~
~,7.4 / t 4 ;
(93,'
. ;b5.9
,c~. 73
t 3 3"1 'x
RESOLUTION/P)6-
RESOLUTIQ~ APPROVE A VARIANCE
coc. mI C. o - XIST C.
CONS~UCTION OF A CO~~G STOOGE B~~G
AT ~432 B~EZY RO~
~TS 6, 7, 40 ~ 41, B~CK 1,
LA~E P~, A.L. CROCKER'S 1ST DWISION
P~ P&Z CASE ~17
WHEREAS, the owner, Mike McCarville, has applied for variance to recognize the
existing nonconforming front yard setback of 20 feet +/- to the dwelling in order to construct
a 12' x 16' detached storage building that will be in a conforming location, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum lot area of 10,000 square
feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 8 feet and 10 feet for lots of record, and
a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and;
WHEREAS, the lowest floor of the dwelling is located at 930.7 which is below the
minimum required elevation of 933 for properties riparian to Lake Minnetonka, and;
WHEREAS, the dwelling is in good condition and it is unlikely it can be brought into
conformance at this time, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended
approval as the request enhances the use and function of the property, it provides for the needed
accessory storage area, there is no further encroachments, and it is unlikely the nonconformities
can be eliminated at this time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming front yard
setback to the dwelling of 20 feet +/- to allow construction of a conforming storage
building.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 350:420.
Proposed Resolution
McCarville
April 23, 1996
Page Two
o
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a 12' x 16' detached storage building.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 6, 7, 40 and 41, Block 1, Lakeside Park, A.L. Crocker's 1st
Division, also part of vacated Peabody Avenue adjoining Lots 6
and 7.
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.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of April 22, 1996
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
Mike McCarville
96-17
5432 Breezy Road, Lots 6, 7, 40 and 41, Block 1, A.L. Crockers
1st Division, PID 13-117-24 23 0012
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing
nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a 12' x 16' storage building that will be
in a conforming location. The existing nonconforming dwelling is setback 20 feet +/-
to the front, a 30 foot setback is required, resulting in recognition of a 10 foot +/-
setback variance.
In addition to the nonconforming setback, the lowest floor of the dwelling is located
below the minimum required elevation of 933 for properties riparian to Lake
Minnetonka. As noted on the attached survey, the lowest floor is located at 930.7.
The dwelling is in good condition and it is unlikely it can be brought into conformance
at this time. All other issues with this site are conforming.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property,
and provides for the needed accessory storage area. In addition, there is no further
encroachment, and it is unlikely the nonconformities can be eliminated at this time.
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council
on April 23, 1996.
printed on recycled paper
APR I~
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, IVIN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee:
$50.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date: /~4 "~--~' q(vo Case No. ~ ~/z5 ~' J '"'~
Ci~ Council Date: ~q
Dis~bufion: ~ ' J ~ City Planer ~-J~ D~
~ City Engin~r
Public Wor~
~Ct Address ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
PROPERTY Lot 6 7 ff 0 A ~ d ~ / Block
LEG~ Subdivision '~. t. C ~ 0 L ~ e ~ ~ I ~ 0; ~' ,' ~'; ~
DESC. PIDg Plat g
ZONING DIST~CT R-1 R-IA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
PROPERTY N~e[~ i~ E H c C ~ t~ v' ,' Il ~
IJ ~hon~m) ~72- ilSq ~) ~72-C321
APPLIC~ Name ~'i~ ~ 3 q
(IF O~ER Address
TH~
Phone ~) ~) (M)
O~ER)
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.):
o. i 'x lg' '--bo
(Rev. 12/8/95)
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No'~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reaso~
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
.,
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
FrontYard: (N~)EW) 3 0 ft. '2~ ft. 4 ft.
Side Yard: ( N S(~_W ) '~ ft. lC) ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S ~)) ] 0 ft. ~'2. ft. ft.
R~Y~d: (NSEW) ~ ft. ~ ~ ft. R.
~eside: ( N S E W ) ~ ft. ~ ~ ft. R.
~c((,xS~g~ g~: ( N S E W ) 5 ~3 ft. ~ 2 ft. R.
S~t Frontage: ~0 g. ~ ~ ft. ft.
~t Size: i o, ~ c sq ft I ~, e C c; sq ft sq ft
H~dcover: ~: ~ 0 S sq ft ~i 7 ~ Z sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? YeseS4, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow
( ) too small
( ) too shallow
( ) topography
( ) drainage
( ) shape
( ) soil
( ) existing situation
( ) other: specify
(Rev. 1218/95)
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain:
o
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
No (). If yes, explain:
Yes,t ,
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?
Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Date
Applicant's Signature
Date
CERTIFICATE
OF SLTR ~'EY
'\
SCHOBORG
INC.
Ft?. 1, BO~
O[t~.~O. MI~, 55320,
I hereby certify that this ;lan, survey or
report ~as prepared by me or 'Jnder my direct
supervision and that I am a dJly Registered
Land Surveyor under the laws >f tl~e State or'
Hinnesota.
JOB ~t
Book -
Scale
"40'
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULA'(IONE
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERA~E)
LOT AREA I g, ~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) '"
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lo,s of Record*) .......
LOT AREASQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . J .j
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
X =
X
TOTAL HOUSE
x =_.
X
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS
'2(" x 27
X
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC
TOTAL DECK
TOTAL OTHER
-prz
X
X =
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
OVER (indicate difference)
PREPARED BY
1_:2, 73Z ~'-I
............................... I_. I~ 1~'7~--l:~t~1
DATE
G '1'o Ass sr You WrrH Yo
EZ
lx6 Standard Pine
Fascia Trim
GENERAL
Window Not Included,
Id as an Option.
Prior to beginning construction, the area selected for the shed location
must be leveled and cleared of obstructions.
(2. INVENTORY )
Separate all lumber, hardware, etc. into individual stacks of like items.
(3. FRAME PREPARATION )
Unfold each frame, setting aside
two frames to be used as end
walls. From l"x4" Pine boards, cut
Gusset plates 6" long
· 24 pieces for al2' building
· 32 pieces for a 16' building
* 40 pieces for a 20' building
Apply gusset plates on each side
of the top and bottom fold
locations. Frames to be used as
end walls require only one gusset
plate top and bottom on the side
opposite of the metal plate, and to
the inside of the building. Use
four 8d naris on each plate. See
Figure 1.
PLEASE NOTE: This shed construction aid is inlended
soley to provide general knowledge ~s lo one of the ways
a shed may be constructed using materiais available from
MENDARDS. We suggest you check with your local
building officia s regarding site location, permit
procedures, safety regulations and specifications of
materials used to construct your new storage shed.
Builders who utilize this aid must proceed at their own
risk and are soley responsible for complying with all
building codes which pertain in their community.
MENARDS hereby disclaims ali liabiity for any damages
whether consequential, incidental, special or otherwise,
which may r~ult from following this do-it yourself aid.
Figure 1.
2'x4" Upper
and Lower
Roof Frame
Member
Nominal Sizes
1
long gusset
plate at top
fold location
~oof
Overhang
IV-O"
Side Wall
Frame Member
Treated 2"x4"
Bottom Frame
Member
l"x4"x6"
long gusset plate
at bottom fold
location
12'-0"
EZ BUILD BARN FRAME
1-1/2"
ADDRESS'
~ O ,,.,,, :~ ST. LOT AREA.
REQUIRED STRE~ FRONTAGE~IDTH.
REQUIRED S~BACKS
PRINCIPAL BJJILDING/ HOUSF
FRONT: NN~E W ~-;~ '
FRONT: W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W 15'
LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W.
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' measured from O.H.W.
TOP OF BLUFF:
,PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSF
FRONT: N S E W _~ ) "J'"/'~
FRONT: N S E W -
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W ,~ !
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
----,--..-_ TOP OF BLUFF: J
HARDC___OVER CONFORMING? ES/ O/? _ ~TY CONFORMING? YES
)rdinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600
· ".~/~'~'/I/7~/~' , ·
":, '
?,(3g) --~
..~ .30.77
McCornbs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
April 16, 1996
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
1996 Seal Coat Program
MFRA #6173
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids reviewed on Thursday, April 11, 1996, for the 1996 Seal
Coat Project. Bids ranged from a low of $26,321.25, submitted b~ell Asphalt Co,, Inc. of
Hawick, Minnesota to a high of $38,667.60. The Engineer's Estimate for this project was
$31,410.00.
The low bidder, Caldwell Asphalt Co., Inc. has not previously done any seal coating for the City
of Mound. We have checked their references and find that they have performed acceptably for a
number of cities over the past few years. They did all the seal coating for the City of Minnetonka
in '93, '94 and '95, and the City was very satisfied with their work.
Based on their past work history and experience, we are recommending that Caldwell Asphalt
Co., Inc. Be awarded a contract in the amount of $26,321.25.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:jb
Enclosure
e :\main :\6173\awardltr
~.~ ;:~ ~ An Equal Opportunity Employer
CASE 96-17: VARIANCE FOR SI-IED, MIKE McCARVILLE, 5432 BREEZY ROAD, LOTS 7,
7, 40 AND 41, BLOCK 1, A.L. CROCKERS 1ST DIVISION, PID 13-117-24 23 0012
The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct
a 12' x 16' storage building that will be in a conforming location. The existing nonconforming dwelling
is setback 20'+/- to the front, a 30' setback is required, resulting in recognition of a 10' +/- setback
variance.
MINUTES OF a MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSI C)lrl/ I 'efl
APRIL 22, 1996
The lowest floor of the dwelling is located at 930.7 which is below the minimum required elevation of
933 for properties riparian to Lake Minnetonka. The dwelling is in good condition and it is unlikely it
can be brought into conformance at this time.
fA revised survey was received from the applicant, Mike McCarville, that shows the existing grade
~elevations of 931 and 931.4 where the shed is proposed to be located. The Building Official explained
that any alterations to land located at or below the elevation of 931.5 requires a permit from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The Building Official stated that the lowest floor of the
shed must be located at or above the elevation of 933 according to Mound City Code. The Building
Official suggested that the applicant could find a location on his lot which is above the 931.5 elevation
for the shed.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to allow
construction of a shed with conforming setbacks and conforming elevations, subject to other agency
approvals, as required. The shed enhances the use and function of the property, and provides for the
needed accessory storage area. There is no further encroachment, and it is unlikely the nonconformities
can be eliminated at this time.
Weiland expressed a concern that the deck is not shown on the survey and the deck has rock under it.
The applicant confirmed that the deck was included in the hardcover calculations.
The applicant stated that he has lived at this property for 7 years, he knows where flooding takes place,
and it is not a problem where the shed is planned to be located. Sutherland confirmed that any fill,
including rock, placed in the floodplain requires a permit from the MCWD.
MOTION made by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance as
recommended by staff to allow construction of a shed with conforming setbacks
subject to the lowest floor being at or above the elevation of 933, and that no fill be
added to raise the floor elevation, but that the shed be constructed in a way which
would not require a permit from the MCWD. Motion seconded by Voss.
The applicant questioned why the lowest floor has to be at 933. The applicant stated that his intention
was to use the shed for snowmobiles.
The elevation requirements and the MCWD requirements were reviewed. Sutherland noted that no
permits have been issued for new structures in the floodplain. It was discussed that if the applicant could
find a location on his lot that is above 931.5, he could then place fill to raise the floor of the shed to 933.
Mueller clarified his motion that if the applicant wishes to build his shed at a location below 931.5 and
use posts to elevate the floor to 933, this is okay as long as the MCWD approves of this.
Motion carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATE OF SUR ;EY
/
TOP o~- / ~
/ \ \
O~t. AHO, M~'. $$320,
I hereby certify that this ;lan, survey or
report was prepared by me or 'snder my direct
supervision and ~hat I am a dJly Registered
Land Surveyor under the laws )f tl~e State of
~~~~..~~- .. I ,,,-, '
88 °
88 ~
O0
Cl
~8 o
0')0
~. q
tOO
888o°'
oo
II ~,[
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
April 19, 1996
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
LABOR CONTRACT - CITY OF MOUND vs. TEAMSTERS LOCAL//320 -
POLICE OFFICER/INVESTIGATOR DETECTIVE AND JUVENILE OFFICER
I have been negotiating with Teamsters Local//320 for a new labor contract for the years 1996
and 1997. The current contract expired December 31, 1995.
Negotiations involved the discussion of many issues presented by the Union and the City. The
tentative agreement however, can be summarized as follows:
1. 1996 Wages - 3% increase; 1997 Wages - 3% increase.
Health Insurance - 1996 remain the same as 1995 (family coverage contribution
$375 per month); 1997 (family coverage contribution $380 per month).
Increase Uniform Allowance to $465 per year for both 1996 and 1997. Currently
it is $455 per year.
Extension of the Physical Fitness program, which is a voluntary program already
in place.
Change Article 18.2, of the Contract relating to long term disability insurance.
18.2 is to be amended as follows: "The qualifying for the LTD shall be 90 days.
Employees shall not earn more while on LTD than they would receive in base
pay if they were in a work status."
pnnted on recycled paper
I believe that the tentative agreement is reasonable. The union has approved it and it is now
subject to your approval. I am recommending that you approve the Labor Agreement as
summarized with the above changes. All other provisions within the 1-1-94 through 12-31-95
Agreement are to remain in effect.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact me.
ES:ls
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL//320,
POLICE OFFICER INVESTIGATOR/DETECTIVE AND JUVENILE OFFICER
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1996 THROUGH THE DECEMBER 31, 1997.
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a Labor Agreement with Teamsters Local
//320 for Police Officer, Investigator/Detective and Juvenile Officer, and;
WHEREAS, the current agreement is for the years 1994 and 1995, and;
WHEREAS, the current agreement expired December 31, 1995, and;
WHEREAS, the City has conducted labor negotiations with Teamsters Local//320
and has reached a tentative agreement for a new contract beginning January 1, 1996 through
December 31, 1997, and;
WHEREAS, the City Manager is recommending approval of the labor agreement,
which is essentially the same agreement in effect with five changes as follows:
1. 1996 Wages - 3% increase; 1997 Wages - 3% increase.
Health Insurance - 1996 remain the same as 1995 (family coverage contribution
$375 per month); 1997 (family coverage contribution $380 per month).
Increase Uniform Allowance to $465 per year for both 1996 and 1997. Currently
it is $455 per year.
Extension of the Physical Fitness program, which is a voluntary program already
in place.
Change Article 18.2, of the Contract relating to long term disability insurance.
18.2 is to be amended as follows: "The qualifying for the LTD shall be 90 days.
Employees shall not earn more while on LTD than they would receive in base
pay if they were in a work status."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, that the City Council hereby approves the labor agreement between the City
of Mound and Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union ~ #320
for Police Officer, Investigator/Detective and Juvenile Officer, effective January 1, 1996 through
December 31, 1997.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Manager
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
April 19, 1996
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
LABOR CONTRACT - CITY OF MOUND vs. LAW ENFORCEMENT
LABOR SERVICES (LELS) - SUPERVISOR/STAFF SERGEANT AND
SUPERVISOR/SERGEANT OF PATROL
I have been negotiating with LELS for a new labor contract for the years 1996 and 1997. The
current contract expired December 31, 1995.
Negotiations involved the discussion of many issues presented by the Union and the City. The
tentative agreement however, can be summarized as follows:
1. 1996 Wages - 3 % increase; 1997 Wages - 3 % increase.
Health Insurance - 1996 remain the same as 1995 (family coverage contribution
$375 per month); 1997 (family coverage contribution $380 per month).
Amend Article 25.2 to add the following language: "The qualifying for long term
disability (LTD) insurance shall be 90 days. Employees shall not earn more
while on LTD than they would receive in base pay if they were in a work status."
I believe that the tentative agreement is reasonable. The Union has approved it and it is now
subject to your approval. I am recommending that you approve the labor agreement as
summarized with the above changes. All other provisions within the 1-1-94 through 12-31-95
agreement are to remain in effect.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact me.
ES:ls
printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION//96-
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MOUND AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
(LELS) LOCAL//35, SUPERVISOR/STAFF SERGEANT AND
SUPERVISOR/SERGEANT OF PATROL FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1, 1996 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1997.
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a labor agreement with LELS for
Supervisor/Staff Sergeant and Supervisor/Sergeant of Patrol, and;
WHEREAS, the current agreement is for the years 1994 and 1995, and;
WHEREAS, the current agreement expired December 31, 1995, and;
WHEREAS, the City has conducted labor negotiations with LELS and has
reached a tentative new agreement beginning January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997, and;
WHEREAS, the City Manager is recommending approval of the labor agreement,
which is essentially the same agreement currently in effect with three changes as follows:
1. 1996 Wages - 3% increase; 1997 Wages - 3% increase.
o
Health Insurance - 1996 remain the same as 1995 (family coverage contribution
$375 per month); 1997 (family coverage contribution $380 per month).
Amend Article 25.2 to add the following language: "The qualifying for long term
disability (LTD) insurance shall be 90 days. Employees shall not earn more
while on LTD than they would receive in base pay if they were in a work status."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, that the City Council hereby approves the labor agreement between the City
of Mound and LELS Local//35 for Supervisor/Staff Sergeant and Supervisor/Sergeant of Patrol,
effective January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Manager
Mayor
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
April 8, 1996
Ms. Joyce Nelson
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
M°Und, MN 55364
Dear Ms. Nelson:
Enclosed are two copies of the Municipal Recycling Grant Agreement for 1996 between
Hennepin County and the City of Mound. Please have both copies signed by the
appropriate City officials and returned to me as soon as possible. We will forward an
executed copy to you for your records when all signatures are obtained.
Your first payment will be sent when the contracts are signed by all parties. If you have
any questions, please call me at 348-3837.
Sincerely,
J. Skalbeck
Recycling Unit
Environmental Management Division
Enclosure
Department of Public Works
417 North Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401- 1309
(612)348-6846 FAX:(612)348-8532
RecyclM Paper
Contract No. A02236
AA Code
Vendor No. *000048B93
MUNICIPAL RECYCLING Gl:CANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA,
hereinafter referred to as the "County", through its Environmental Management
Division, 417 North Fifth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, and the CITY OF
MOUND, hereinafter referred to as the "City", 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota
55364.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County Board, by Resolution No. 96-3-186, on the 26th day of
March, 1996, authorized funding for Municipal Recycling Programs from January 1,
1996, through December 31, 1996, and
WHEREAS, said Recycling Program is consistent with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 115A.02 and 115A.03, as amended by the Laws of Minnesota 1992, Chapter
685, and Minnesota Statutes 473.8011; the Office of Environmental Assistance
Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan; Hennepin County's Solid
Waste Master Plan; and Hennepin County's Residential Recycling Funding Policy.
NOW THEREFORE, the County and the City agree as follows:
I. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
The City will operate its recycling program as more fully described in the
Grant Application, Attachment A, which is incorporated and made part of this
Agreement.
2. In addition to the services as referred to above, the City agrees:
ao
The City must recycle 18 percent of its residential waste stream. If
the City fails to achieve this percentage goal, it will be required to
submit a plan for County approval to increase abatement within 90 days
of the submittal of the municipal year-end report.
b. At a minimum, the City shall collect the following materials at
curbside:
1. Newspaper and advertising supplements;
2. Corrugated cardboard;
3. Clear, brown, and green glass food and beverage containers;
4. Metal food and beverage cans;
5. All plastic bottles with a neck except bottles that previously
contained hazardous materials or motor oil; and
6. Magazines and catalogs.
Ce
de
ee
ge
he
jo
The City shall submit on forms provided by the County, a Semi-Annual
Report and a Final Report which summarizes the major outcomes of its
recycling program. The Semi-Annual Report will cover the first six
months of the calendar year and shall be submitted by July 31, 1996.
The Final Report covers the entire year and shall be submitted by
February 15, 1997.
All SCORE funds accepted from the County shall be used for waste
reduction and recycling capital and operating expenses in the year
granted; the City shall'not retain any SCORE funds in excess of actual
program expenses; and any unused funds shall be returned to the County.
The City may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees
or any other method for that portion of the costs of its recycling
program which is funded by County SCORE funds.
The City shall establish a separate accounting mechanism, such as a
project number, activity number, cost center or fund that will separate
recycling revenues and expenditures from all other municipal activities,
including solid waste and yard waste activities.
All recycling and waste reduction activities, revenues and expenditures
are subject to audit by the County.
The City must measure the set-out participation rate of its residents
in curbside recycling during the month of October. The method used for
measuring participation must be as submitted on the Grant Application.
If the City does not contract for curbside services, the City will
receive SCORE funds provided that at least 90% of the SCORE funds are
credited back to residents and the City meet all minimum program
requirements. The additional 10% of SCORE funds may be used for City
administrative and promotional expenses.
The City's municipal solid waste programs must be consistent with
Minnesota Statutes, the County's Solid Waste Management Master Plan and
all County ordinances.
II. TERH OF THIS AGREEHENT
This Agreement shall commence on January 1, 1996, and terminate on December 31,
1996.
III. HETHOD OF COHPENSATION
The County will distribute SCORE funds to the Cities only to the extent the
County has received such funds from the State of Minnesota. The City will
receive SCORE funds per the formula below:
2
# of Households
Served Curbside
by City
Total # of Households
Served Curbside
in County
Total SCORE Revenue
Received by County
from State of
Minnesota
SCORE Funds
Distributed
to City
The County shall pay the City an annual amount not-to-exceed $30,g49. This
amount is based upon previous SCORE fund amounts received by the County.
Under no circumstances will the County's obligation of SCORE monies
distribution exceed the City's proportion of SCORE revenues received by the
County.
The County receives SCORE funds twice a year from the State of Minnesota.
The County intends to distribute to the City its share of SCORE funds twice
a year. The first distribution of SCORE funds will be made to the City
following the receipt and approval of the City's Final Report for 1995. The
second distribution will be made following the receipt and approval of the
City's Semi-Annual Report for 1996.
Payment to the City will be made in the manner prescribed by Minnesota
Statute, Section 471.425 governing the County's payments of claims and/or
invoices.
IV. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
Consistent with the specific limits, exclusions, and conditions expressed in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, the City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the COUNTY, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and
employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages,
losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, resulting
directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the City, its subcontractors,
anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts
and/or omissions they may be liable in the performance of the services required
by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of the City to
perform fully, in any respect, all obligations under this contract.
V. INSURANCE
In order to protect the City and those listed above under the
indemnification provisions, the City agrees at all times during the term of
this Agreement and beyond such term when so required, to have and keep in
force insurance, either under a self-insurance program or insurance policies
as follows:
a. Commercial General Liability with the following coverages. Contractual
Liability coverage must be included.
General Aggregate
Products-Completed Operations Aggregate
Personal and Advertising Injury
Each Occurrence - Combined Bodily Injury and
Property Damage
Fire Damage - Any One Fire
Limits
$6OO,OOO
600,000
600,000
600,000
100,000
Automobile Liability covering owned, non-owned,
and hired automobiles or "Any Auto":
Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage -
Each Occurrence
600,000
c. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability
1) Workers' Compensation.
2) Employers' Liability.
Bodily Injury by:
Statutory
Accident - Each Accident
Disease - Policy Limit
Disease - Each Employee
100,000
500,000
100,000
An umbrella or excess policy over primary liability coverages is' an
acceptable method to provide the required insurance limits.
The above establishes minimum insurance requirements. It is the sole
responsibility of the City to determine the need for and to procure
additional coverage which may be needed in connection with this Agreement.
If the City does not have a self-insurance program, the City shall not
commence work until the City has obtained the required insurance and filed
with the County an acceptable certificate of insurance. The certificate
shall:
Name Hennepin County as certificate holder and as an additional insured
for all liability coverages (except Workers' Compensation and Employers'
Liability).
· List any exceptions to the insurance requirements.
Be amended to (1) show that Hennepin County will receive 30 days written
notice in the event of cancellation, non-renewal, or material change in
any described policies, and (2) delete the wording: "endeavor to" and "but
failure to provide such written notice shall impose no obligation or
liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives".
4
The City shall require that each of its subcontractors, while performing
services in the operation of the city' recycling program, have and keep in
force insurance as follows:
a. Commercial General Liability to include the following coverage and
limits of insurance. Contractual Liability coverage must be included.
General Aggregate
Products-Completed Operations Aggregate
Personal and Advertising Injury
Each Occurrence - Combined Bodily Injury and
Property Damage
Fire Damage - Any One Fire
Limits
$1,000,OO0
1,000,000
1,000,OO0
1,000,000
100,O00
Automobile Liability covering owned,
non-owned, and hired automobiles or "Any Auto":
Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage -
Each Occurrence
1,000,000
c. Workers' Compensation including Employers' Liability.
1)
Workers' Compensation.
If the Contractor is based outside the State
of Minnesota, coverage must apply to Minnesota
laws.
Statutory
2} Employers' Liability. Bodily Injury by:
Accident - Each Accident
Disease - Policy Limit
Disease - Each Employee
100,OO0
500,000
100,000
An umbrella or excess policy over primary liability coverages is an
acceptable method to provide the required insurance limits.
A certificate of insurance naming the City as certificate holder and
as an additional insured shall be filed with the City prior to
commencement of operations.
VI. NON-ASSIGNRENT OF SERVICES
It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended, or should be construed
in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between
the parties hereto, or as constituting the City as the agent, representative, or
employee of the County for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. The parties are
to be and shall remain independent with respect to all services performed under
this Agreement. The City represents that it has, or will secure at its own
expense, all personnel required for performing services under this Agreement.
Any and all personnel of the City, or other persons, while engaged in the
performance of any work or services required by the City, under this Agreement,
5
shall have no contractual relationship with the County, and shall not be
considered employees of the County, and any and all claims that may or might
arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of
said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims
whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment
or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination
against the City, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees, shall in no
way be the responsibility of the County; and the City shall defend, indemnify,
and hold the County, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees
harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any
pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other
persons shall not require, nor be entitled to any compensation rights, or
benefits o£ any kind whatsoever from the County, including, without limitation,
tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers'
Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay, and PERA.
VII. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The City agrees to comply with all applicable state and federal statutes,
regulations, and ordinances pertaining to solid waste management and recycling
including, but not limited to, the applicable provisions in Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 115A and 473.801 et.al.
VIII. AFFI~ATIVE ACTION
The City and its contractors shall follow the City's Affirmative Action policy
against discrimination.
Hennepin County
discrimination.
shall follow its Affirmative Action policy against
IX. DATA PRIVACY
The City agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules and
regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same
may be amended. The City agrees to defend and hold the County, its officers,
agents and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the City's unlawful
disclosure and/or use of such protected data.
X. RECORD AVAIl.ABILITY
The City agrees that the County, the State Auditor or any of their
duly-authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours and as
often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right
to examine, audit, excerpt and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records,
etc., which are pertinent and involve transactions relating to this Agreement.
Such material must be retained for five (5} years by the City. The City's
accounting practices and procedures relevant to this Agreement shall also be
subject to examination by any or all of the aforesaid persons as often as and
during such times as aforesaid.
XI. M£RGER AND MODIFICATION
It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is
contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items
referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be
~m~,~.
part of this Agreement. Any material alteration or modification of this
· ...Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this
Agreement and signed by both parties.
XII. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN
The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions'and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal
relations between the herein parties and performance under it. The appropriate
venue and jurisdiction for any litigation hereunder will be those courts located
within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the~
federal courts involving the herein parties will be in the appropriate federal
court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this Agreement is held
invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected.
XIII. TERMINATION
This Agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice to the other
party at least thirty (30) days prior to the specified effective date of
termination. In addition, the County shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement on ten (10) days' written notice if the City's performance is not
timely or is substantially unsatisfactory or if the City has violated any of the
covenants, agreements, or stipulations in this Agreement. Notwithstanding the
above, the City shall not be relieved of liability to the County for damages
sustained by the County by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by the City.
The County may withhold any payment to the City for the purposes set forth until
such time as the exact amount of damages due the County from the City is
determined. In the event the County does not receive any SCORE funds, this
Agreement will be terminated upon written notice by the County.
XIV. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
In order to coordinate the service of the City with the activities of the
Environmental Management Division so as to accomplish the purposes of this
contract, Bob Thomas, Problem Materials & Recycling Program Manager, will manage
this contract on behalf of the County and will serve as liaison between the
County and the City.
XV. CONTINUATION OF OBLIGATION
The obligations and/or warranties of the City and the County shall survive the
performance and cancellation or termination of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed
by their duly authorized representatives as to this ~ day of , 1996.
Approved as to form:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
By:
Peter McLaughlin
Chair of Its County Board-
Approved as to execution:
And:
James M. Bourey
Associate/County Administrator
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
CITY OF MOUND
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Approved as to execution:
City Attorney
Date:
By:
Title:
And:
Title:
And:
MAYOR
CITY MANAGER
(Title)
CHECK ONE: Charter
Option A
Option B ~.
8
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
QUASI PUB[]'C FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGh!
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 FAX.' 472-0620
Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a
governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten
(10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed
on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved
by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is
exempt from all fees.
PHONE
ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION ~ ~'~C,~'2.~,/.....~..~,.-- ~'4?--
(If more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper)
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
NUMBER OF SIGNS:
TYPE OF SIGN:
banner
. i temporary
SIZE OF SIGN:
feet high x
DATES OF USE: FROMO~ /! 7 /.. ~ ~
DESCRIBE REASON/PURPOSEFORREQUEST:
wall mount
permanent
~ feet wide =
TO..OS'/ / ~ /.9 ~
.. free standing
square feet
DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.
Applicant' s Signature
Date
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1657
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
April 18, 1996
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL
LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK
BASS CONTEST WEIGH-IN
The 17th annual Minnetonka Bass Classic will be held on Saturday, June 8, 1996 from 2:30
through 3:30 pm. The Club is requesting use of Mound Bay Park that day from 12:30 until
4:30 pm. This is for a weigh in only, no other activity will happen. They have used the park
in the past. A motion for approval is requested.
15
~ prtnted on recycled paper
BILLS-
April 23, 1996
Batch 6042
Total Bills
$143,264.92
$143,264.92
,_Il
C, G
0
n~-U
Iz
!
!
LZ
ol
iV.,
g
.-J .-J i-.J
Z
Z
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
March 1996
25.00%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non -Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Transfers
from Other Funds
Charges to Other
Departments
March 1996 Y'rD
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE
1,280,640 0 0
5,800 175 1,010
77,1 O0 11,690 23,048
890,740 28,269 34,519
48,250 840 2,113
60,000 4,938 9,936
35,200 125 971
43,500 0 0
10,000 841 2,878
PERCENT
VARIANCE RECEIVED
(1,280,640) 0.00%
(4,790) 17.41%
(54,052) 29.89%
(856,221) 3.88%
(46,137) 4.38%
(50,064) 16.56%
(34,229) 2.76%
(43,500) 0.00%
(7,122) 28.78%
TOTAL REVENUE
2,451,230 46.878
74,475 (2.376.755) 3.04%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FU ND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
307,570 15,544
108,320 4,993
1,430,000 106,171
410,000 25,779
766,500 63,516
5,1 O0 650
70,800 12,616
85,338 (222,232) 27.75%
14,987 (93,333) 13.84%
303,130 (1,126,870) 21.20%
91,574 (318,426) 22.34%
195,339 (571,161) 25.48%
1,650 (3,450) 32.35%
67,726 (3,074) 95.66%
04/12/96
rev95
G.B.
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Sum mer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
Area Fire
Service Fund
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Cemetery Fund
Docks Fund
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
March 1996
25.00%
March 1996 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
68,730 5,942 20,704 48,026 30.12%
4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00%
600 0 75 525 12.50%
185,030 12,620 35,487 1 49,543 19.18%
11,300 3 1,668 9,632 14.76%
54,450 279 420 54,030 0.77%
163,600 12,847 37,176 126,424 22.72%
22,000 2,072 8,321 13,679 37.82%
106,440 3,310 15,050 91,390 14.14%
804,640 62,520 195,588 609,052 24.31%
3,780 193 817 2,963 21.61%
167,320 13,078 33,523 1 33,797 20.04%
398,840 36,387 113,260 285,580 28.40%
92,790 5,315 17,1 O0 75,690 18.43%
135,300 8,729 24,216 111,084 17.90%
29,700 0 0 29,700 0.00%
40,000 958 1,151 38,849 2.88%
1 55,310 11,782 35,347 119,963 22.76%
2,443~830 176 035 539~903 1~903~927
22.09%
307,570 26,260 65,992 241,578 21.46%
122,420 12,357 32,952 89,468 26.92%
205,930 20,831 58,458 147,472 28.39%
413,410 34,448 103,003 310,407 24.92%
963,180 95,997 299,053 664,127 31.05%
5,570 0 34 5,536 0.61%
37,470 1,132 3,575 33,895 9.54%
exp95
04/12/96
G.B.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 1996
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orvin Burma, City Council Representative
Mark Hanus, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy
James. Commissioner Michael Mueller was absent and excused.
The following people were also in attendance: Vince Forstyke, John Tucker, Jack Cook, A1
McDaniels, Sally Custer, Tedd Hauser, Dan Grady, Beverly Barkley, Wayne Ehlebracht, Paul
Larson, and Ken Custer.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of March 25, 1996 were presented for approval.
MOTION made by Burma, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the
Planning Commission Minutes of March 25, 1996 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE 95-14: VARIANCE EXTENSION - JEFF & ELIZABETH BJERKSETT, 2605
TYRONE LANE, LOTS 1, 2, & 3, BLOCK 17, SETON, PID 19-117-23 23 0158.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, explained that the applicant has not yet completed the garage
portion of the variance approved by Resolution//95-46, and is seeking an extension in order to
proceed with this portion in the Spring. Staff recommended approval of a one year extension.
Motion made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval
as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE 96-07: MINOR SUBDIVISION-,IACK COOK, 4452/4458 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS
2 & 3, BLOCK 1, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 24 0002 & 0003.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, gave a verbal report and explained that this case was previously
reviewed and tabled by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1996. Concern was expressed
that the Subdivision will restrict future redevelopment of Parcel A due to the lot width. There
is also a question if the lot of record status will change as a result of the subdivision, thereby
changing the side yard setbacks from 6 feet to 10 feet. Koegler explained that they will receive
confirmation from Curt Pearson, City Attorney prior to the City Council meeting that the
opinion from John Dehn that the subdivision will not affect the lot of record status is correct.
Voss questioned why this issue was brought back to the Planning Commission before ail the
information was available.
Applicant, Jack Cook confirmed that both property owners are still in agreement with the
proposal.
Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996
Koegler stated that the lot of record status will affect the side yard setback requirements, it will
change the setbacks from 10 feet to 6 feet. He suggested that the Planning Commission could
forward their recommendation to the City Council, and depending on the City Attorney's
answer, they could look into the details of how the setbacks will be affected.
Hanus emphasized that by approving this subdivision they are making the situation better by
removing encroachments, and that nonconformity is better than encroachments.
Cook requested the Planning Commission not delay any further and forward the proposal onto
the City Council. Cook confirmed that Mr. Johnson will be present at the City Council meeting.
Motion by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend approval of the
subdivision as recommended by staff.
Koegler confirmed that he is comfortable moving the request forward as it is consistent with the
original staff report.
Burma emphasized that the two parties are in agreement to make this change to their properties,
it is in their best interest, it is not a problem to the city, and if the lot of record status can be
resolved before City Council, then the Commission has done its job.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
CASE 96-11: MINOR SUBDIVISION - AL McDANIELS, 4932 NORTHERN ROAD / 2131
SANDY LANE, LOTS 33 & 34, SCARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-117-24
44 0061 & 0062.
Commissioner Glister stepped down due to a personal affiliation with the applicant.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is proposing to
subdivide an existing lot into two parcels, both of which will have adequate lot area. The
southerly parcel has a total area of 8,173 square feet and the northerly parcel which contains an
existing structure has a total of 9,001 square feet. Access to the northerly parcel will be off of
Sandy Lane. Access for the new southerly parcel will be off of Northern Road. The proposed
plan shows that a conforming home can be built on the southerly parcel.
The dwelling on the northerly parcel is currently nonconforming due to an existing detached
garage which is in poor condition. The applicant has agreed to remove this garage. A rear yard
setback variance of 8.2 feet will need to be recognized for the dwelling which is setback 6.8 feet
to the required 15 foot setback. A conforming addition is proposed for this dwelling. The
subdivision request complies with all other zoning criteria, including lot frontage and impervious
cover.
Planning Commission Minutes
April ~, 1996
The proposed subdivision does not directly impact the existing nonconforming condition on the
property. The subdivision will create two conforming lots (lot area) and there is room on the
northerly parcel for conforming building additions and there is adequate space on the southerly
lot for the construction of a new conforming single family home. As a result, staff
recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approva/of the proposed subdivision
subject to the following conditions.
The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot. Said park fee
shall be paid prior to release of the final resolution.
A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved
by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
o
The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot
lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front and rear lot lines.
The following utilities shall either be installed or a financial guarantee shall be provided
in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable to the City
Engineer to ensure installation of said service:
Northerly Parcel: Provide a new sanitary sewer service from the Sandy Lane
sewer main and reconnect the existing water service to the existing service stub
in Sandy Lane.
b. Southerly Parcel: Provide a new water service from the Sandy Lane watermain.
The garage on the northerly parcel shall be removed prior to the issuance of any building
permit for construction or improvements on either the northerly or southerly parcels.
Koegler confirmed that the northerly parcel will now front on Sandy Lane which changes the
rear yard to the west creating the need for a rear yard setback variance due to the location of
the existing dwelling.
Wetland confirmed that this property will need to change its address from Northern Road to
Sandy Lane. The secretary explained the process for requesting a change of address and
indicated that a request from the owner must be received in writing to initiate an address change.
Weiland questioned how the furnace is vented and if it meets code because the exhaust pipe is
under the front step. The Building Official stated that it does meet code.
Voss confirmed with Koegler that they are creating two new lots, and when you create a new
lot it must be conforming. Koegler confirmed that the rear yard setback variance is being
processed as part of the subdivision. Koegler confirmed that there is 50 feet of frontage on
Sandy Lane for the northerly parcel.
Planning Commission Minutes April $, 1996
Reifschneider expressed a concern that the new house on the southerly parcel will block the view
to the house on the northerly parcel and create a stacking appearance. He is also concerned
about drainage and how this will affect new construction on the southerly parcel.
Motion made by Voss
recommended by staff.
discussion.
to recommend approval of the subdivision as
Motion seconded by Michael for purposes of
Clapsaddle commented that he is not in favor of creating a new nonconforming lot.
Reifschneider stated that he is not in favor of the look that will be created and he is concerned
about drainage. Michael expressed a concern that they are creating another nonconforming lot.
Motion to approve failed 3 to 4.
Burma. Those opposed were:
Weiland.
Those in favor were: Voss, Hanus and
Clapsaddle, Reifschneider, Michael, and
Hanus suggested that the Planning Commission forward a passing motion to the City Council.
Clapsaddle recommend denial of the proposed subdivision.
Koegler suggested the Planning Commission include findings if they are recommending denial.
Suggested findings included concerns about the look and the creation of a nonconforming lot.
Koegler emphasized that the lot is currently nonconforming due to the garage which the
applicant has agreed to remove as part of the subdivision. The southerly parcel would be totally
conforming. A drainage plan and erosion control plan will be required. Regarding the concern
with the stacking of homes, Koegler agreed that this will occur, but there are no restrictions to
building a 2-1/2 story house. The proposed lot sizes and lot width are conforming. Clapsaddle
stated that he misunderstood that the lot sizes were to be nonconforming. It was clarified that
the rear yard setback variance is created due to the switching of street fronts, and that the
existing setback would not change.
Hanus emphasized that they would be creating one conforming lot and one nonconforming lot
out of one existing nonconforming lot.
Clapsaddle withdrew the previous motion.
Clapsaddle moved to recommend approval of the subdivision, as
recommended by staff, with the addition that the address be changed for the
northerly parcel. Motion seconded by Hanus. Motion carried 5 to 2. Those
in favor were: Clapsaddie, Michael, Hanus, Burma, and Weiland.
Reifschneider and Voss were opposed.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8. 1996
CASE 96-12: STREET VACATION- PUBLIC HEARING- WAYNE EHLEBRACHT (4873
SHORELINE DRIVE), VACATE ALI.EY PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CONCORD BLV'I3
.LOCATED IN BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HH~I~$ UNIT A, BETWEEN LOTS 12-17 AND 1-5
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Engineer's Memorandum. Staff
recommended approval of the proposed street vacation since this platted alley does not appear
to serve any public purpose.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair
Michael closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Reifschneider, seconded by Glister to recommend approval of
the street vacation, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This request will be heard by the City Council on May 14, 1996.
CASE 96-13: VARIANCE - JOHN TUCKER AND DEBRA PETERSON, 4949 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE, LOT 3, BLOCK 23, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 12 0002.
The applicant is seeking a side yard setback variance in order to construct a garage addition. The
required side yard setback is 6 feet, the applicant is proposing a 4.65 foot setback, resulting in
a variance of 1.35 feet. The garage addition will follow the line of the dwelling on the west side
which currently has a nonconforming setback of 4.8 feet.
The lakeside deck is setback zero feet to the rear lot line and 39 feet +/- to the lakeshore and
is therefore nonconforming to the required 10 foot rear yard setback and the 50 foot lake
setback, resulting in recognition of 10 foot rear yard setback variance and 12 foot lake setback
variance.
The existing impervious surface coverage is over by 833 feet+/- for lots of record with an
approved drainage plan. The proposal includes some improvement to the excess impervious
surface coverage as a portion of the driveway area is to be restored to grass. In addition, the
adjacent commons area helps ease the excess impervious surface coverage.
The street side entry is accessed by 2 flights of stairs that are outside and exposed to the
weather. This stairway is to be removed and a new wider stairway is to be constructed inside
the garage. This reconfiguration will help to create a more practical and safe entry and is one
of the reasons the applicant is proposing a 26 foot wide garage.
At first glance it appears the garage could be moved towards the east and be located with a
conforming setback. Moving the garage over however would require relocation of the overhead
door and this cannot be accomplished without major renovation of the basement floor plan. The
minimal lawn area on the east side would also be reduced.
Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request
subject to the applicant providing a drainage plan consistent with Zoning Code Section 350:1225,
Subd. 6.B. This proposal enhances the use and function of the property with a minimal
encroachment, and the encroachment is reasonable due to practical difficulties.
The Building Official confirmed that a condition should be added that sod or green space would
replace the hardcover which is to be removed.
Weiland questioned if the deck on the lake side could be downsized. The owner, John Tucker
stated that the deck was there when he bought the house, and emphasized that the neighbors
house encroaches into the commons.
Motion by Reifschneider to recommend approval of the variance as
recommended by staff, subject to grass or sod being installed where existing
hardcover is to be removed. Hanus seconded the motion for the purpose of
discussion.
Sutherland agreed that the condition relating to grass/sod installation should be included in the
motion.
MOTION carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Reifschneider,
Voss, Michael, Hanus, Glister, and Burma. Weiland was opposed.
Weiland commented that he is opposed because he would like to see some of the deck
encroachment eliminated.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
CASE 96-14~: MINOR SUBDIVISION - PAUL LARSON, 2156 SANDY LANE, LOTS 51
& 52, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32 RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-117-24 44 0090.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the staff reports. The applicant is proposing to subdivide
one existing lot to create two new lots labeled on the survey as Parcels A and B. Parcel B
contains an existing single-family residence and it conforms to all zoning criteria. Construction
of a duplex is proposed on Parcel A. According to the Zoning Code, duplex lots are required
to have a total area of 14,000 square feet and have 80 feet of frontage on an improved public
street. Proposed Parcel A has adequate lot area but only has 55 feet of frontage. Parcel A does
abut an alley on the north side, however, the alley does not constitute an improved public street
as defined by City Code.
The City has generally held to a policy of approving subdivisions with variances only when no
other options for alleviating the variance are present. In this case, the provision of the Zoning
Code allows single family homes in this district and abutting properties contain single family
homes, construction of a single family home on the lot without the issuance of a variance is a
viable alternative. Therefore, staff does not support use of this property for a two family
dwelling because of inadequate lot width.
6
Planning Commission Minutes
Apr# 8, 1996
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested subdivision
without granting a variance for lot width on Parcel A. With the lot width variance for Parcel
A, only a single family home can be built on the Parcel. The staff recommendation for approval
is conditioned upon the following:
The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee
being paid prior to release of the final resolution.
A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved
by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot
lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front and rear lot lines.
Water service for Parcel A shall either be installed or a financial guarantee shall be
provided in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable to the
City Engineer to ensure installation of said service.
The applicant shall file a variance application for the proposed lot width variance prior
to the time that this case is scheduled for City Council review.
The shed on Parcel B shall be removed prior to the issuance of any permits for
construction or improvements on either Parcels A or B.
Hanus asked the applicant, Mr. Larson, if he would still pursue the subdivision if the lot width
variance is not approved to allow for a duplex. Mr. Larson stated yes.
Motion by Michael, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of the
subdivision as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
CASE 96-15: MINOR SUBDIVISION - PAUL LARSON, 3051 INVERNESS LANE, LOTS
1, 2, 3, BLOCK 9, PEMBROKE, PID 19-117-23 33 0071
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the staff reports. The applicant is proposing to subdivide
an existing lot into two Parcels labeled on the survey as Parcels A and B. Both parcels exceed
the minimum lot size requirements for the R-1 zone. Parcel A contains an existing home with
a nonconforming front yard setback (20.8 feet vs. required 30 feet). All other aspects of Parcel
A conform to the Zoning Code.
Parcel B contains an existing garage which the applicant intends to remove. Plans for Parcel
B also call for a variance from the front yard setback requirement off of Paisley Road. Paisley
Road is an unimproved right-of-way and it is unlikely that it will ever contain a street because
of steep grades. It may in the future, however, contain utilities such as storm sewer. Part of
the rationale behind the requested front yard variance off of Paisley Road is the location of the
7
Planning Commission Minutes April $, 1996
water stub at the property line along Inverness Lane. The applicant has stated that he can not
install a driveway over the watermain curb box. In the review of this case by the City Engineer,
however, he has determined that the watermain and sanitary sewer stubs are actually
approximately 10 feet further to the south than what is shown on the survey. Therefore,
constructing a home in a conforming position on the lot would allow for the installation of a
driveway without impacting the location of the curb box.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested minor
subdivision including the variance for Parcel A but denying all setback variances for Parcel B
subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee for the newly created lot with said fee
being paid prior to release of the final resolution.
A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved
by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
The survey shall be revised to provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot
lines, 5 feet wide on the side lot lines and 10 feet wide along the front and rear lot lines.
One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,768.45 shall be paid prior to release
of the final resolution for recording.
The garage on Parcel B shall be removed prior to the issuance of any building permits
for construction or improvements on either Parcels A or B.
Applicant, Paul Larson, stated that he is agreeable to the 30 foot setback from Paisley, however,
thinks the development would look better if a 20 foot setback was allowed. Having a 20 foot
setback from Paisley will provide a more spacious feeling for the property to the north, and it
would give the appearance that the houses are more centered on the lots. He does not
understand why there is a 30 foot setback requirement off an unimproved road that will never
go in. Larson also emphasized that the property directly to the north is zoned R-lA which
allows for a 20 foot front setback.
Larson also objected to the unit charge. Staff indicated that this issue would have to be
addressed by the City Council with the assistance of the City Engineer. Hanus requested that
if the City Engineer is not going to be present at that Council meeting, that they receive written
clarification on this issue for the Council meeting.
Larson confirmed that he plans on making improvements to the existing dwelling.
Motion by Michael, seconded by Burma to recommend approval of the minor
subdivision, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
Vince Forstyke was present and requested the opportunity to speak on this issue. Mr. Forstyke
expressed a concern regarding drainage and water problems in the neighborhood, and he
suggested that Paisley Road be vacated and the Planning Commission can work on developing
8
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8. 1996
a plan to correct the drainage problems in the neighborhood. Chair Michael explained that this
is a separate issue from what is on their agenda, and that it could possibly be addressed at a
workshop meeting or at a council meeting. The Building Official stated that in order to forward
this issue onto the Planning Commission, staff would need to first receive a sketch plan for
review.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on April 23, 1996.
.CASE 96--16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING - GLASS PLUS FOR
MINOR AUTO REPAIR AT 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOT 5 & WLY 50' OF LOT 6
AUD. SUBD.//170. ~
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. In April of 1995, the City of
Mound approved a conditional use permit for Glass Plus to operate at 5533 Shoreline Drive.
Since that time, Glass Plus has operated in the building along with Arco Auto and Marine, Inc.
In accordance with plans that were presented in 1995, Arco recently vacated their portion of the
premises and Glass Plus will occupy the remainder of the building. The resolution that was
approved in 1995 (/?95-38) granted a one year conditional use permit and required reapplication
and review.
In their current reapplication, Glass Plus is requesting that the entire building be used for glass
repair and replacement. They have also requested that condition B from Resolution P95-38 be
modified. The applicant is now requesting that all activities previously allowed on the Arco site
be reinstated for the entire property, specifically:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Auto Body Repair
Boat Repair
Boat Trailer Building
Welding
Sale of Used Autos, Boats and Boat Trailers
The exclusion of the uses formerly allowed would be consistent with the resolution approved in
1995. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a conditional
use permit for Glass Plus to allow the following uses at 5533 Shoreline Drive:
Vehicle glass repair and replacement.
Glass products and services showroom.
Aluminum fabrication that is incidental to the glass and window replacement business.
Approval of the aforementioned uses is contingent on the following conditions:
All signage for Glass Plus shall conform to the Mound Sign Ordinance, taking into
consideration that there are two street frontages for this building.
9
Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996
o
o
Prior to initiating any future improvements to the property, the Glass Plus owners shall
prepare a detailed site improvement plan identifying removal of fencing and other items
and clearly denoting all improvements. The site improvement plan shall be approved by
City Staff prior to implementation.
All proposed interior and exterior building improvements shall comply with applicable
building, health and fire codes.
The Glass Plus owner shall keep the building official apprised as to the status of site
contamination and required monitory and clean-up efforts.
Overnight parking for company vehicles shall be within the building or fenced areas.
All service work performed shall occur within the building or within screened arms.
Outside storage shall be expressly prohibited, unless properly screened. All trash and
recycling containers shall be in conformance with City Ordinance requirements.
Chair Michael announced that since nobody other than the applicant, Ken Custer was present,
they would forego the public hearing.
For the benefit of the new commission members, the history of this property was reviewed. It
was noted that the previously approved uses had a negative affect on the downtown.
Michael asked the applicant why it is important to maintain these uses? Mr. Custer explained
that his attorney said the more uses available for the property, such as past uses, makes the
property more valuable to future purchasers. He was advised to retain the property uses, and
that it would devalue the property to remove conditional use permits from the rifle, so they
would loose property value by losing uses. Custer confirmed that they do not plan on doing auto
body work.
Clapsaddle asked if they need to make a point that uses from the previous permit are now being
omitted. Koegler confirmed that new language will be in the resolution implying that the
balance of the original resolution will be void.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of
the conditional use permit as recommended by staff. Motion carried
unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 14, 1996.
VARIANCE STREAMLINING
Reifschneider referred to the annual report for the Planning & Inspections Department which
indicated that 90 percent of the variances were approved in 1995 with a total of 42 variance
cases. The secretary explained that the variance study did not include all the cases from 1995,
lo
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8. 1996
so it was not a full year. Reifschneider confirmed that the approval rating of 96.5 % as indicated
in the variance study is not accurate.
Hanus recalled that the Planning Commission was concerned that the proposed streamlining
methods did not make a large enough impact, only about 17%, but he feels it is a significant
impact and that it is better than nothing.
Burma asked for clarification of the reasons to streamline variances. Hanus reviewed the
reasons why he pushed for the streamlining variances. The primary reason is to reduce citizen
frustration, especially for those cases that are rubber stamped, and secondarily to reduce time
spent by staff and the council.
Weiland questioned who is complaining? Hanus emphasized that there are numerous cases that
come before the Planning Commission that receive a rubber stamp, he is not suggesting that it
is the majority, but many people are being put through the mill for nothing.
Hanus reminded the Commission that the Council has asked for their help to perform this
function.
Michael suggested that streamlining is something they should try, and if there are problems with
the system then it can be brought back for further review.
Voss expressed a concern that if streamlining criteria is added, it will add research time for staff
in order to verify if a request complies with the criteria. Voss asked if it would not be too
cumbersome for staff. Sutherland agreed that it would increase staff time, especially if
percentages of setbacks would have to be calculated. He would prefer a clean approach, such
allowing all proposed uses that are conforming. Sutherland emphasized that virtually 100% of
the variances that had a conforming proposal received approval.
Voss is concerned about additional staff time and the extra workload. He believes that variances
belong in the public forum and that people need to understand if their property is
nonconforming, and realtors need to understand. He understands that Hanus would like to
appease the public, but would vote against streamlining.
Clapsaddle stated that he has a concern with the zoning laws in that they should encourage long
term solutions for the city, specifically relating to drainage and erosion problems. Sutherland
commented that proper surveys showing elevations could help eliminate the creation of poor
drainage situations, however surveys with elevations are expensive, but we could toughen-up our
regulations.
Michael asked staff if they feel streamlining is a good idea. Koegler agrees that option #1 is a
good idea, however, feels option #2 needs to be tested to find out if it will have an impact.
Clapsaddle suggested that they forward these streamlining methods to council and recommend
a one year test and that a committee be formed to review the cases that were streamlined and
determine if it was worth while, fair, and effective. A review procedure will need to be
established. Michael asked if this would be a big deal for staff. Koegler noted that staff will
ll
t%~'3
Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1996
need to keep additional records on the cases that were streamlined.
Hanus confirmed that if both streamlining methods were applied, the figures from the survey
implied that about 17% of the variances could be eliminated.
MOTION by Clapsaddle to recommend to the City Council that Streamlining
Methods #1 and #2 be implemented, and after one year, a review committee
made up of Staff, Planning Commi.qsion members, and City Council members
report on the effectiveness of these methods. Glister seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Michael, Glister,
Hanus, and Burma. Those opposed were Reffschneider, Voss, and Weiland.
Koegler noted that this issue will be reviewed at the April 16, 1996 Committee of the Whole
Meeting.
Voss commented that he is opposed to any streamlining, they should leave the variance process
as is. Reifschneider feels the zoning codes are very lenient right now and would not want them
any more lenient. Weiland agreed and commented that in 26 years he has not gotten a complaint
yet and he does not feel the code is that bad.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
There were no questions raised for Councilmember Hanus.
1995 ANNUAL PLANNING & INSPECTIONS REPORT
No comments.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider, to adjourn the meeting
at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Ge, off Michael
Attest:
3.2
§uNcjAy, May 19, 2:00 p.M.
Grandviexv Guys and Gals and a Kite flying demonstration
Thursday, June 13, 7:00 P.M.
Rockin' Hollyxvoods
Thursday, June 27, 7:00 P.M.
Karaoke Night
Thursday, July 11, 7:00 P.M.
Contemporary Church Choir
Classical Piano & Violin with Eric Anderson & Jessica Meyer
YouTh dance perfo~nce
Thursday, July 25, 7:00 P.M.
The Flyers (singable songs, humor, movement, colorful props)
sTory Book li-mEATER (senior acting company)
and the Farmers Market
Thursday, August 8, 7:00 P.M.
Minneapolis Police Band, and Ice cream social
and the Farmers Market
Thursday, August 22, 7:00 P.M.
Loon County (old time string band) and the Farmers Market
Sponsored by Westonka Community Education & Services and Mound Park & Open Space Commission.
Partially funded by the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council. Call 491-8040 for more information.
C
REC, EIVEEI APR 1 l t,,q6 -
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Phone: (612)281-1200 - (800)925-1122
Fax: (612) 281-1299 · TDD (612) 281-1290
April 15, 1996
TO: Members of the League of Minnesota Cities
(Please distribute to other interested city officials)
FROM: Karen Anderson, LMC President ~ ~ '~ ~,, ~c~.,,.-~o
RE: LMC POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Although the 1996 legislature has just adjourned, it is time to begin preparing for the 1997 legislative
session. The League's policy development process begins with the formation of the League's three policy
committees. Now is your opportunity to help the League establish its legislative policies and direct its
legislative program for the coming two-year period.
As a member of a League policy committee, you will be volunteering to participate in three or four meetings
during July, August and September. These meetings will be held at the League offices. In addition, we
encourage policy committee members to attend the League's annual Policy Adoption Conference on
November 20, 1996, where the full membership will ratify the policy committee recommendations.
The three intergovernmental relations policy committees, which will deal with both state and federal issues
are:
IMPROVING LOCAL ECONOMIES
Growth Management and Land Use
Boundary Adjustment
Housing
Transportation
Economic Development and
Redevelopment
Telecommunications and Information
Systems
IMPROVING CITY SERVICE DELIVERY
Environmental Mandates
Elections
Ethics
Open Meetings and Data Privacy
Government Innovation and Cooperation
Personnel
Pensions
IMPROVING THE FISCAL FUTURE
OF CITIES
Financing City Government
Financial Management of Cities
Property Tax
State Aid Programs
-- OVER --
I would like to serve a two-year term on:
Note: Please rank your preference from 1 (first choice) to 3 (last choice)
IMPROVING LOCAL ECONOMIES
IMPROVING CITY SERVICE DELIVERY
IMPROVING THE FISCAL FUTURE OF CITIES
A fourth committee, IMPROVING COMMUNITY LIFE, which began as a policy committee has
evolved into an ongoing committee to identify community livability issues and make
recommendations to the League policy committees. If you are not already a member of the
Community Life Committee, you may join now. If your time permits, you may serve on a policy
committee as well as the Community Life Committee. The issues the committee will likely consider
are:
Cultural Diversity
Youth and Senior Services
Libraries
IMPROVING COMMUNITY LIFE
Protective Services
Parks and Recreation
Name:
Title:
Address:
City/Zip:
Home Phone:
FAX:
Work Phone:
Please return this form as soon as
possible, but no later than MAY 17
tO:
Mary Diedrich
Intergovernmental Relations Dept.
League of Minnesota Cities
143 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55103
FAX: 612/281-1299
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT OF MINNESOTA
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATION
12TH FLOOR COURTS TOWER
HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0421
FAX (612) 348-2131
April 12, 1996
Dear Community Leader:
On behalf of Chief Judge Kevin S. Burke and the Hennepin County Drug Court
Planning Committee, please accept our invitation to attend a Community Forum
scheduled for Monday, April 29, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Plymouth Fire
Station #3, 3300 Dunkirk Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota.
We hope you will be able to attend the Community Forum. Should you have any
questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Denms Miller
Drug Court Planning Coordinator
Telephone: 348-3874
DM\sab
Enclosure
Community Forum
.. ennepln County Drug Cou
Monday, April 29, 1996
7 p.m.
Plymouth Fire Station #3
3300 Dunkirk Lane, Plymouth
see map off reverse side
Who should attend?
The general public, community leaders, police chiefs and
residents interested in substance abuse issues.
What will be discussed?
Hennepin County is planning a drug court
to effectiveiy treat and supervise drug offenders.
Who's speaking?
Speakers include representatives from the court, county attorney,
public defender, corrections and chemical health. Members
of the audience also will be asked for their input and ideas.
For more information about the forum, contact Dennis Miller,
Hennepin County Drug Court Planning Coordinator, at 348-3874.
C~
~uJ
t~
COUNTY OF HENNE.PIN
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
300 SOUTH 6TH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487
This Information Sheet gives a general overview of the planned Drug Court in Hennepin County. The
program~plan is not finaL The Drug Court Planning Committee seeks to involve the community in the planning
process to help design a p~ogram that responds to the strengths and needs of our community.
1. WHAT IS A DRUG COURT?
· Drug Courts have become a major focus for criminal justice reform in the U.S.
· It is estimated that there are 50 Drug Courts operating in the U.S.
· A Drug Court responds to defendants who are charged with drug related offenses
and who are eligible for court ordered treatment through collaboration among
court personnel, criminal justice agencies, treatment providers and community
organizations.
· Applying a direct, immediate and personal approach to the drug offender, a single
judge handles all drug cases in a jurisdiction from start to finish.
· Defendants are placed quickly in appropriate treatment programs where services
include group and individual counseling, acupuncture, drug testing and relapse
prevention services.
· Court procedures are adapted to reflect the realities of the offenders substance
abuse. Graduated sanctions and incentives are applied to promote program
compliance, chemical health and recovery.
· Specifically designed supervision strategies are used that consider both drug
involvement and public safety risk.
· Integrated information management that links the court with case management
and treatment providers.
2. WHY CREATE A DRUG COURT IN HENNEPIN COUNTY?
Over the years, the courts have experienced an ever-increasing workload and have moved
toward a segmented case management approach. No one has or is expected to take a
larger view of the offender or the system. The offenders learn how to "operate" within this
framework and act accordingly. The Drug Court attempts to take a more holistic approach,
linking the offender with timely and appropriate services such as treatment, housing, jobs
and education, coupled with effective case management and supervision services.
· In 1995 approximately 1,200 felony drug offenses were filed in Hennepin County
District Court which represents approximately 25% of the felony filings.
· According to a recent American Bar Association report, imprisonment of di'ug
offenders nationwide increased by 327% between 1986 and 1991.
· In Minnesota, the number of offenders cornmitted to the Department of
Corrections in 1985 for drug related offenses was 45. In 1995, the number rose
to 410.
· Relapse rate for substance abusers leaving prison is over 65% one year later.
· Relapse of clients exposed to drug abuse treatment is as Iow as 30% one year
post treatment.
· Cocaine/crack users have the highest rate of relapse at over 60%.
· The proposed Hennepin County Drug Court would be an integral part of a
coordinated approach aimed at enhancing public safety by reducing substance
abuse and related criminal activity.
· The Drug Court is being planned in direct response to the increased volume of
non-violent, drug abusing offenders charged in Hennepin County.
3. MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the proposed Hennepin County Drug Court is to enhance public safety
through a reduction in substance abuse related criminal activity. The Drug Court would
provide early intervention, appropriate community based treatment, and effective case
management and supervision services.
4. PROGRAM STRUCTURE
The proposed Hennepin County Drug Court will manage cases through three tracks:
I. Diversion programming where first time felony offenders are offered treatment
or education and supervision; an opportunity to avoid a criminal record;
II. Felony drug offenders who are convicted, placed on probation or committed to
the Department of Corrections;
III. Woman with children who are felony drug offenders or property offenders
motivated by substance abuse.
· All drug cases will be heard in one courtroom by one judge.
· There will be a consistent team of professionals who make a commitment to
serve the Drug CouP.
· Emphasis will be placed on decreasing delays and providing early assessment
and delivery of appropriate treatment services.
· 'Graduated sanctions and incentives will be used to gain program compliance.
· Coordinated case management linking probation supervision, treatment, relapse
prevention, housing, employment, training/education services.
The proposed Hennepin County Drug Court is not a "soft on crime approach". It is a
common sense effort aimed at reducing the number of substance abusers who repeatedly
appear in the criminal justice system at great expense to the community.
For further information about the Drug Court Initiative contact Dennis Miller, Drug Court
Planning Coordinator, at 348-3874.
SA TURDA Y APRIL 27 1996 - 8 AM to 5 PM
NO BRUSH WILL BE ACCEPTED ON THIS DAy.Il
AT THE LOST LAKE AREA ON COUNTY ROAD 15
BETWEEN SUPERAMERICA AND THE POST OFFICE
CITY OF MOUND
SPECIAL DAY
Oo/~e
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE ACCEPTED:
GOODWILL:
CLOTHING, SMALL WORKING APPLIANCES, GAMES, DOMESTIC ITEMS (PANS, DISHES, ETC.) HARDWARE
TOOLS, LAMPS...** THERE IS NO CHARGE **
MATTRESS:
THERE IS A CHARGE BY SIZE FOR EACH MATTRESS & BOX SPRING: CRIB $5, SINGLE $7, DOUBLE $8,
QUEEN $9, KING $10
FURNITURE: CHAIRS & RECLINERS $5 EA, LOVESEAT COUCH $6, SOFA $10, HIDE-A-BED SOFA $20
CARPET:
50 CENTS PER SQUARE YARD {JUTE, RUBBER, FOAM PADDING )
TIRES:
CAR $1, PICK UP SIZE $2, LARGE TRUCK $5, TRACTOR $15 EACH
APPLIANCES:
$10 EACH this includes washers, dryers, stoves, furnaces, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, water softeners,
humidifiers, dehumidifiers, trash compactors, garbage disposals, water heaters, microwaves .....
$15 for AIR CONDITIONERS
SCRAP METAL: SWING SETS, LAWN FURNITURE, GRILLS, BICYCLES (with tires $1}, AUTO PARTS, SPRINGS, PIPE, METAL
WINDOW FRAMES (no glass}, AUTO BATTERIES, ETC. ** NO CHARGE **
ELECTRONICS:
PHONE BOOKS:
$5 EACH TELEVISIONS, STEREOS, VCRS, VACUUM CLEANERS, COMPUTERS;
No charge for: Telephones, Radios, Camcorders, Tape Players, This includes rechar.qeable and cordless appliances
A CONTAINER WILL BE PROVIDED AT NO CHARGE
BATTERIES: HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES ** FREE
NEW BINS:
IF YOU BRING IN YOUR BROKEN RECYCLING BIN, WE WILL REPLACE IT OR YOU MAY PURCHASE A NEW ONE
FOR $7
FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS: 4 FT. $.25 , B FT. $.50 EACH
CONCRETE: 50 cents per construction size block
MISC. ITEMS: HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC, PLASTIC TOYS, STYROFOAM, FOAM RUBBER WILL BE CHARGED AT $3 A CUBIC YD.
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED:
Insulation, window glass, hazardous waste (paint, oil, thinners, etc.) cans, glass, newspaper,
cardboard, garbage, leaves, construction waste.
ANY QUESTIONS, CALL CITY HALL AT 472-0603
ABSOLUTELY NO WOOD, :BRUSH,
CITY OF MOUND
LEA VES
- BRUSH - S CRA P WO OD
DROP OFF SITE
THE CITY OF MOUND HAS OPENED A LEAF AND BRUSH
DROP OFF SI~ AT THE CITY PROPERTY
LOCATED ON COUNTY RO~ 15
NEXT TO SUPERAMERICA
~ HOLrRS.
10 AM TO 4 PM'~' ::. . I
I
* * LEA VES MUST BE DEBA GGED * *
- FREE TO MOUND RESIDENTS -
.50 PER LEAF BAG FOR NON-RESIDENTS
BRUSH ITEMS ACCEPTED:
BRUSH, TREE LIMBS UP TO 12" IN DIAMETER, DISCARDED
LUMBER AND PALLETS
THE COST:
$3 PER CUBIC YARD
$1 MINIMUM CHARGE
THIS MATERIAL WILL BE CHIPPED UP AND AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC FREE OF CHARGE AT A LATER TIME
THIS SITE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND
IS SUPERVISED - NO DUMPING ALLOWED
QUESTIONS - CALL 472-0603
RESOLUTION//96-32
RESOLUTION CONTIRMI~G ABUTTING STATUS
OF PROPERTY OF LOT I, BLOCK 31, SETON
4700 WII_SHIILE BLVD.
WHEREAS, the City of Mound licenses and regulates the number and location
of docks situated on public commons within the City; and
WHY. RY. AS, the ordnance code of the City allocates certain priorities to individuals
requesting dock locations on public commons; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a request from the owner of Lot l, Block 31, Seton,
for a determination by the City regarding to what priority, if any, the said lot would be entitled;
and
WHEREAS, the request was duly referred to this City Council for review and decision;
and
WHEREAS, this City Council has now reviewed the request of the owner, reviewed the
materials and recommendations provided by the City Staff and is fully informed regarding the
matters at issue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council as follows:
I. Findings -
1. Richard Jacobson is the owner of several lots located within Block 31, Seton;
among them is Lot 1, Block 31, Seton.
2. The Plat of Seton contains a dedication at Excelsior Road to the public.
3. The lake shore portions of Excelsior Road have been treated as public commons
for the purpose of inclusion within the scope of the City's dock regulations. The south line of
the Excelsior Road Commons is also the North line of the vacated Excelsior Road as shown on
Exhibit A; and is designated as point 32370 on the City's dock location map.
4. In 1984 a portion of Excelsior Road was vacated by official action of the City
Council. The vacated portion of Excelsior Road ceased to be part of the public commons upon
vacation. The vacated and unvacated portions of Excelsior Road, the location of Lot 1, Block
31, Seton and the assumed location of the Shoreline are all depicted on the attached Exhibit A.
5. Sex:don 437.05, Subd. 7 (a) provides:
a. First Priority. An abutting owner has tn:st priority for a City designated
location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in
accordance with the dock location map.
45
R~solutlon #96-32 Page 2
Il. Conclusions -
1. Lot 1, Block 31, Seton abuts upon the Excelsior Road Commons at the
northeasterly comer of said Lot 1. Under the circumstances presented here, abutment at that
point is sufficient to qualifying the owner of Lot 1, Block 3 as an abutting owner as the t~rm
is used in the above cited ordinance.
2. A line of shoreline is contained between the easterly extensions of the north and
south lot lines of said Lot 1. That area is depicted on the attached Exhibit A. It is along that
line of shoreline that the owner of Lot 1, Block 31, Seton shall have priority for a designated
dock location.
3. It appears that the entire designated dock location may be within the 15 foot
setback required by the regulations of the LMCD. If this is the case, this council directs that
efforts be made to provide the owner of Lot 1 with a dock location in immediate proximity.
o
factors:
The foregoing conclusion is based in part on the presence of the following five
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Lot 1, Block 31, Seton abuts a common
The extended property lines contain a shoreline
At lea.st part of the contained shoreline is not in private ownership
No privately owned property lies between the abutting property and the public
shoreline
There are no conflicting claims for priority status to the designated location which
are of equal merit.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by
Councilmember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus and Jensen. Polston and Iessen were absent and excused.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
MayoT'
Resolution approved: March 26, 1996
46
k
46A
M~nutas - Mound City Council
March 26, 1996
1.3
RESOLI. YrION CON'FI~'~rh-NG ABUTTING STATUS OF PROPERTY LOT 1,
BLOCK 31, SETON.
City Attorney, John Dean, stated he had learned the property south of the Excelsior vacation line
is in private ownership, a setback requirement of the LMCD Idcks in which requires a 15'
setback from private property. This means, that the owner of Lot I does have a 10' dock use
area, but the LMCD regulations do not allow for a dock in the 10' dock use area as it is too
close to the private property to the south. He stated the resolution changes as follows: under
Findings #3, "The south line of the Excelsior Road Commons is also the North line of the
vacated Excelsior Road as shown on Exhibit A; and is designated as point 32370 on the City's
dock location map." He went on to say he added to the resolution under Conclusions #3, "It
apl:e, ars that the entire designated dock location may be within the 15 fc~t setback required by
the regulations of the LMCD. If this is the case, this council directs that efforts be made to
provide the owner of Lot 1 with a dock location in close proximity when one becomes vacant
and available." This is suggesting that perhaps Council might consider granting special
consideration to a dock location when one becomes available in the immediate vicinity. T~e
Council agreed to not require current dock holders to be rearranged or bumped. The Conclusion
#3 now reads, "..If this is the case, this council directs that efforts be made to provide the owner
of Lot 1 with a dock location in immediate proximity. ~
Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following revised and
amended resolution:
RESOLUTION//96-32
RESOLUTION CONFI2:LM2L-NG ABUTTENG STATUS
OF PROPERTY OF LOT 1, BLOCK 31, SETON, 4700
WILSHIRE BLVD.
The vote was unanimously in favor, 3-0. Resolution passed.
B, ,mL I,~j~
REVISED 4-23-96 ADD-ON TO ITEM #7
RESOLUTION//96-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR 4452/4458 DENBIGH ROAD,
LOTS 2, 3 AND THE EAST 10 FEET OF 4, BLOCK 1, AVALON
PID'S 19-11%23 24 0002 & 0003
P&Z CASE//96-07
WHEREAS, Jack Cook, owner of 4452 Denbigh Road, and Bruce Johnson, who has
Power of Attorney for Loie Elnor King, owner of 4458 Denbigh Road, have submitted a request
for a Minor Subdivision to relocate a lot line in the manner required by Mound City Code
Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly
conducted thereunder, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet,
a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard
setback to the commons (Stratford Lane), and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and;
WHEREAS, both of these parcels will retain their lot of record status after subdivision,
and;
WHEREAS, after subdivision, the Cook parcel will have a long area of approximately
6,159 square feet, and the Johnson parcel will have a lot area of approximately 9,608 square
feet. Both of these lots conform to the R-iA minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, and both
lots also conform to hardcover requirements, and;
WHEREAS, In order to approve the subdivision, recognition of the following variances
is necessary:
Parcel A, Johnson: 5.5 foot side yard setback variance
35 foot +/- lakeshore setback variance
Parcel B, Cook:
12 foot front yard setback variance
1 foot side yard setback variance (east)
WHEREAS, the house on the Cook Parcel encroaches on the neighboring parcel.
Approval of the minor subdivision will remove the encroachment and create a conforming side
yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the proposal has no impact on the existing variances, it is in compliance
with the Code, and both property owner have joined in this application, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
Proposed Resolution, Rev. 4-23-96
April 23, 1996
Cook Subdivision, Page Two
o
o
o
The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision establishing Parcels A, B, and C
from the following legally described properties:
Johnson Parcel, 4458 Denbigh Road: Lot 3 & the East 10.0 feet of Lot 4, Block
1, Avalon, and that part of vacated Stratford Road lying between the northerly
extension of the east and west line of said Lot 3.
Cook Parcel, 4452 Denbigh Road: Lot 2, Block 1, Avalon, according to the
recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and that part
of vacated Stratford Lane adjoining said Lot 2, as per Doc. No. 1171217.
The minor subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal
descriptions, and according to the attached "Exhibit A."
Parcel A (Johnson), 4458 Denbigh Road: That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Avalon,
according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies westerly of a line drawn
southerly from the intersection of the northerly extension of the easterly line of
said Lot 3 and the northerly line of vacated Stratford Road, to a point on the
southerly line of said Lot 3, distant 10.00 feet westerly of the southeast comer
of said LOt 3 as measured along said southerly line.
Parcel B (Cook), 4452 Denbigh Road: Lot 2, Block 1, Avalon, according to the
recorded plat thereof, and that part of Lot 3, said Block 1, which lies easterly of
a line drawn southerly from the intersection of the northerly extension of the
easterly line of said Lot 3 and the northerly line of vacated Stratford Road, to a
point on the southerly line of said Lot 3, distant 10.00 feet westerly of the
southeast comer of said LOt 3 as measured along said southerly line.
Approval of the minor subdivision is subject to the following conditions:
ao
be
Prior to release of this Resolution the owner shall have the responsibility of
having a land surveyor set the property irons in conformance with the locations
shown on the survey.
Prior to release of this Resolution, a private easement agreement shall be executed
between the property owners over Parcel B allow utility access to the existing
home on Parcel A. A copy of the agreement shall be filed with the City of
Mound for information purposes only.
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable
community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties.
Proposed Resolution, Rev. 4-23-96
April 23, 1996
Cook Subdivision, Page Three
The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant
upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the
responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the
Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision
regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs
associated with such recording.
This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of
this resolution.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, M1N 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
g~3~'~~-~ 4-~_~--q_~ Application Fee: $50.00
Planning Commission Date: ~ Case No.
Ci~ Council Date: ~-~~ ~
Dis~bu~on: ~-ZT,, Ci~ Planer D~
. City Engin~r
~' Public Wor~
~cx ~a&~s~ 3o~ ~
~sc. ~ /~//V 73 23~7/
PROPERTY N~e
APPLIC~ Nme
(IF OTHER Address
Phone ~) ~) (M)
O~ER)
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.):
(Rev. 12/8/95)
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
o
SETBACKS:
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
( N S~,N )
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
: (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
REQUIRED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sq ft sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
/
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~>4.existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
(Rev. 1218/95)
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No.
e
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)7 Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No 1~ If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be '
submitted herewith are tree and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Date
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. 12/8/95)
..,r/
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATION~
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: '--~ C~ S/ I AY c/~F~,~j~.~..~_,.~ ~,~',,(x'.~__
OWNER'S NAME: /o~/~/_
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6.8.1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
X =
X =
TOTAL HOUSE
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted ss hardcover
OTHER
'~/~ x ~.'~__ =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ,
/,5- x
/ x
/~ x
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTALDECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTALOTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY /~///~_.¢/~-~_ DATE
CASE 96-17: VARIANCE FOR SHED, MIKE McCARVILLE, 5432 BREEZY ROAD, LOTS 7,
7, 40 AND 41, BLOCK 1, A.L. CROCKERS 1ST DIVISION, PID 13-117-24 23 0012
The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct
a 12' x I6' storage building that will be in a conforming location. The existing nonconforming dwelling
is setback 20'+/- to the front, a 30' setback is required, resulting in recognition of a 10' +/- setback
variance.
The lowest floor of the dwelling is located at 930.7 which is below the minimum required elevation of
933 for properties riparian to Lake Minnetonka. The dwelling is in good condition and it is unlikely it
can be brought into conformance at this time.
A revised survey was received from the applicant, Mike McCarville, that shows the existing grade
elevations of 931 and 931.4 where the shed is proposed to be located. The Building Official explained
that any alterations to land located at or below the elevation of 931.5 requires a permit from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The Building Official stated that the lowest floor of the
shed must be located at or above the elevation of 933 according to Mound City Code. The Building
Official suggested that the applicant could find a location on his lot which is above the 931.5 elevation
for the shed.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to allow
construction of a shed with conforming setbacks and conforming elevations, subject to other agency
approvals, as required. The shed enhances the use and function of the property, and provides for the
needed accessory storage area. There is no further encroachment, and it is unlikely the nonconformities
can be eliminated at this time.
Weiland expressed a concern that the deck is not shown on the survey and the deck has rock under it.
The applicant confirmed that the deck was included in the hardcover calculations.
The applicant stated that he has lived at this property for 7 years, he knows where flooding takes place,
and it is not a problem where the shed is planned to be located. Sutherland confirmed that any fill,
including rock, placed in the floodplain requires a permit from the MCWD.
MOTION made by Mueiler, to recommend approval of the variance as
recommended by staff to allow construction of a shed with conforming setbacks
subject to the lowest floor being at or above the elevation of 933, and that no fill be
added to raise the floor elevation, but that the shed be constructed in a way which
would not require a permit from the MCWD. Motion seconded by Voss.
The applicant questioned why the lowest floor has to be at 933. The applicant stated that his intention
was to use the shed for snowmobiles.
The elevation requirements and the MCWD requirements were reviewed. Sutherland noted that no
permits have been issued for new structures in the floodplain. It was discussed that if the applicant could
find a location on his lot that is above 931.5, he could then place fill to raise the floor of the shed to 933.
Mueller clarified his motion that if the applicant wishes to build his shed at a location below 931.5 and
use posts to elevate the floor to 933, this is okay as long as the MCWD approves of this.
Motion carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATE
~d
SCHOBORG
N D
i~-~ NG
I hereby certify that this ;lan, survey or
report was prepared by me or 'Jnder my direct
supervision and that I a,n a dJly Registered
Land Surveyor under the laws ~f tl~e State or'
O~.~e:_~3..C~'-./¢, /~9 . Re~.tst~{ion ~o. 14700
ANNUAL BOARD OF REVIEW
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1996
7:00 PM - MOUND CITY HALL
Presentation of 1996 Assessment - Keith Rennerfeldt,
Hennepin County Assessor's Office
2. Residents Opportunity to Address the Board of Review
3. City Council Direction to Assessor
4. Continuation of Board of Review to Tuesday, May 14, 1996, 7 PM
5. Adjournment
Form No. A. F. 4 -- Notice to Clerk of Meeting of Board of Review -- *Equalization.
REC'D
4 Il
24
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR
TO THE CLERK OF THE
City OF Mound
Hennepin
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the Twent.y-Thi rd
at Seven o'clock. P.
*Equalization--in your C i ty
COUNTY, MINNESOTA:
dayof Apri 1
M., has been fixed as the date for the meeting of the Board of Review--
{Strike out One)
for said year. This meeting should be held in your office as provided by law.
Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 274.03, you are required to give notice of said meeting
by publication and posting, not later than ten days prior to the date of said meeting.
January ,19
County Assessor
96.
Given under my hand this Twents-Sec0nd day of
County, Minnesota
Hennepin
~Applies only to Cities whose charter provides for a Board of Equalization inste~,~ of a Board of Review.
Clerk's Notice to Post and Publish -- HC 1163
ASSESSMENT NOTICE
. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That thc Board of Review oi thc CITY of
MOUND in HENNEP I N County, ~[inn.,
will meet at thc office of thc CITY Clerk, in said MEETING, 4-23-96 ,
ar 7 _o'clock P M., on
TUESDAY , .day of ,19
for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of said C I T Y
for thc y~ 1997.. ALI persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or who
wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too low, are hereby notified to
appear at said meeting and show cause for having such assessment corrected.
No complalnt that another person is assessed too low will be acted upon until the
person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of such complaint.
ACTING Clerk oft he CITY nf MOUND
April 21, 1996
I:tECEIVEO I?R 2 2 l§!ttl
Daniel and Kim Burnes
2130 Noble Lane
Mound, MN 55364
472-5928
City of Mound
City Council
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Attention: Local Board of Review
Valuation of Property ID 13-117-24 31 0003
We feel the true market value of our residence is not reflected by the county assessors
valuation. This is based upon the following facts:
1) Recent appraisal for home mortgage refinancing estimated value at $187,500.00
2) Surrounding neighborhood detracts from value (vacant lots with debris, high
percentage of rental property poorly maintained, unoccupied house where lawn and
landscaping is allowed to go wild, large number of common docks and public beach
with boat landing-both lead to numerous noise and privacy issues that have been
brought to police departments attention numerous times, etc.).
3) Water quality of Harrison Bay, particularly our location:
a) Clarity (murky), quality (waterfowl feces leads to swimmers itch), and
weeds (milfoil) do not allow for swimming off of our own dock.
4) So called dining room is a porch that was converted in the '60's with single pane
glass panels the full height of the room.. Ice builds up to a thickness of 1/8th
of an inch in the winter. This room is too cold to be used during half the year.
5) Assessor has furnace noted as "high efficiency" while in reality it is only an 80%
efficient unit according to the manufacturer. High efficiency furnaces are plus 90%
efficient.
6) Structure has only a one car garage with an undersized door opening limiting the
size of vehicle that can be parked in it. It is a tuck under garage which is below both
bedrooms. The exterior walls are not insulated nor are the connecting walls or the
ceiling insulated or sheetrocked. This results in the bedrooms being extremely cold
during the winter months.
7) Home was valued at $185,000.00 for 1995 taxes, now $221,800.00 for 1996!
8) County refers to comparable sales. Comparable to what? Where?
Local Board of Review Letter
Page Two
Unfortunately we are unable to attend the meeting on April 23 as our jobs require us to travel.
Please consider these issues seriously and respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Daniel and Klm Burnes
COl
Steve Smith-State Representative
Gen Olson-State Senator
Donald F. Monk-County Assessor
Keith M. Rennerfeldt-Principal Appraiser
2640 Lakewood Lane
Mound Mn. 55364
April 20, 1996
County Assess~
Local Board of Review
Mound, Mn. 55364
re: 24-117-24 24 0029
To the Board. of Local Review;
I am unable to attend the Board of Review
meeting April 23, due to a prior co~mit-
merit. I will be out of town at that tlme.
I would like to keep my options open and
review the comments of the two assessors
that looked at my property yesterday. I
will be in. touch when I return in May.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Ruth D. Gray
!
BOARD OF REVIEW
04-23-96
NAME'&:.:ADDRESS
DAYTIME. PHONE
NAME:& ADDRESS
DAYTIME iPHONE
DAYTIME PHONE
· NAME &:.ADDRESS
PAGE
BOARD OF REVIEW
04-23-96
3
N'AME & ADDRESS
DAYTIME PHONE
i¢~4
ADDRESs
:DAYTIME PHONE
DAYTIME PHONE
PAGE /
BOARD OF REVIEW
04-23-96
q
DAYTIME pHONE
PAGE
BOARD OF REVIEW
04-23-96
13
DAYT~ PHONE
NAME & ADDRESS
ti"7- D~- t5
DAYTIME PHONE
NAME & ADDRESS
DAYTIME PHONE
:NAME & ADDRESS
PID #
DAYTIME PHONE
I$
:NAME & ADDRESS
PID #
DAYTIME PHONE
PAGE~
BOARD OF REVIEW
04-23-96
!ilNAME' & ADDRESS
{'/
DAYTIME PHONE
ADDRESS :,"
DAYTIME PHONE
i'NAME & ADDRESS
PI]) #
DAYTIME PHONE,
NAME& ADDRESS
DAYTIME PHONE
NAME& ADDRESS
DAYTIME PHONI~.
NAME & ADDRESS
DAYTIME PHONE
PAGE
BOARD OF REVIEW
04-23-96
NAME & ADDRESS..
DAYTIME PHONE
,pm #
· DAYTIME PHONE
NAME & ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONE.
PID #
'NAME & ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONE
I NAME'& ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONI~.
NAME & ADDRESS. DAYTIME PHON~.
PAGE~
BOARD OF REVIEW 04"23'96
PAGE
April 21, 1996
APR 2 2
Danieland Kim Burnes
2130Noble Lane
Mound, MN 55364
472-5928
City of Mound
CRy Council
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Attention: Local Board of Review
Valuation of Property ID 13-117-24 31 0003
We feel the true market value of our residence is not reflected by the county assessors
valuation. This is based upon the following facts:
1) Recent appraisal for home mortgage refinancing estimated value at $187,500.00
2) Surrounding neighborhood detracts from value (vacant lots with debris, high
percentage of rental property poorly maintained, unoccupied house where lawn and
landscaping is allowed to go wild, large number of common docks and public beach
with boat landing-both lead to numerous noise and privacy issues that have been
brought to police departments attention numerous times, etc.).
3) Water quality of Harrison Bay, particularly our location:
a) Clarity (murky), quality (waterfowl feces leads to swimmers itch), and
weeds (milfoil) do not allow for swimming off of our own dock.
4) So called dining room is a porch that was converted in the '60's with single pane
glass panels the full height of the room.. Ice builds up to a thickness of 1/8th
of an inch in the winter. This room is too cold to be used during half the year.
5) Assessor has furnace noted as "high efficiency" while in reality it is only an 80%
efficient unit according to the manufacturer. High efficiency furnaces are plus 90%
efficient.
6) Structure has only a one car garage with an undersized door opening limiting the
size of vehicle that can be parked in it. It is a tuck under garage which is below both
bedrooms. The exterior walls are not insulated nor are the connecting walls or the
ceiling insulated or sheetrocked. This results in the bedrooms being extremely cold
during the winter months.
7) Home was valued at $185,000.00 for 1995 taxes, now $221,800.00 for 1996!
8) County refers to comparable sales. Comparable to what? Where?
Local Board of Review Letter
Page Two
Unfortunately we are unable to attend the meeting on April 23 as our jobs require us to travel.
Please consider these issues seriously and respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Daniel and Kim Bumes
CCi
Steve Smith-State Representative
Gen Olson-State Senator
Donald F. Monk-County Assessor
Keith M. Rennerfeldt-Principal Appraiser
2640 Lakewood Lane
Moun . Mn. 55364
April 20, 1996
County Assess~
Local Board of Rewiew
Mound, Mn. 55364
re= 24-117-24 24 0029
To the Board of Local Rewiew;
I am unable to attend the Board of Rewiew
m~eting April 23, due to a prior commit-
ment. I will be out of town at that time.
I would li~e to keep my options open and
rewlew the comme~.ts of the two assessors
that looked at my property yesterday. I
will be in touch when I return i~ May.
Thank you for your conslSeration.
Yours truly,
Ruth D. Gray
_,-~r~'o $o1~ 22 '96
_ 16' 21 ==================================
/ - ~ '149 900 S-$ ~,
~ ZON: ~ . O~' 10/15/95
~ MT : ' '
.~ T~ $ 2,855/94/:N ~.. 4C-75
'ZIP 55364 ~A $..~"' .~0' ' U ~~O~
~ 381 S~ 3 DIV 3 :. k~0N R SINGLE ~ 1140384
A~ .00 DEV FINSH
~AAKE 200 DIK ~0 TO ~~ T03 ~~~ DR
LFT 110
RIT 85
PER 138
DES
IMP PS
~ 000
TOP LEVEL
ROD CITY
WOD .00
SDN 277
OVER 200' OF ABSOLUTELY LE~'EL SANDY
BEACH WITH 180 LAKE VIEWS. LOCATED
ON CUL-DE-SAC ON ENCHANTED ISLAND. GREAT
SPOT FOIl SUMMEIl GETAWAY- CHOICE LOT!!
LGI LOT 2 BLOC!( 2 ENCHAIqTED GARDENS
: PID 3011723230002
O00O
INC SIYK
OSU TRM CSH
ELE,GAS,WAT,TEL I1TT 000%
AVU MTG '
SDP 491-8007 ELE,GAS,WAT,TEL PIN $ EXF CLIl ASM N
BII~T REALTY, INC 5168 BC 4.5 SA 0 NA
ER N Pt{N 612-476-0400
CHUCK DOWNEY 471-7540
INFO. DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED APT 476-0400
29-FEB-1996 16:22
LISTING $ 1140384 -- SOLD
TYP: LA A!~ : 381
LDIl: 08/24/95 MT : 7
LD : 08/24/95 FIN: 9
0MD: 10/15/95 LO : 5168
SO : 5148
BCD:' M
ZON: R SINGLE
DEV: FINSH
TOP: LEVEL
0SU: ELE,GAS,WAT,TEL
DES:
DEV: F!NSH
~OD: cITY
AVU: ELE,GAS,WAT,TEL
LA_K: LAKEFRONT
4300 ENC.qANTED Dil
OLP: 149,900
LP : 149,900
SP : !29,000
LAG: 2658
SAG:
IMP: PS
INC: SlIK
RST: NONE
TRM: CSH
EXF: CLR
ASM: N
LTY: ER
MAJOII AIlEA: 381
SECOND AREA:
~' 29-FEB-1996 15:18
#6
LOTS AND ACREAGE - PROPERTY TYPE 7 LA
<<< L-$ 69,900 S-$ PEND >>,
ZON: R SINGLE DEV: FINSX TRM: CS~
MT': 87 OMI}: 01/29/96 FIN:
2331 DRIFTWOOD LA_NE
MLrN-MOUND~~r-' ZIP 55364
AR 38! SlIB 1 DIV 3
ACR 00
LFT 213
RIT 287
RER 57
DES CULDESA
IMP OT
MLN-L 0
TOP SLOPED
ROD CITY
WOD .00
SDN 277
SDP 491-8007
BURAIET REALTY INC. 3192 BC 2.7
PAl/L KIRSCI{NER 435-4218 ER
INFO. DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED
TWA $ ..1,26ff' LAKEFRONT*
COl/ HE1N-N .ASBj $.-' '0 ~SP N MIlqlN-ETO~
DEV FINSH EON R SINGLE ~ 1146027
DIR SXORELINE DR TO B~RTLETT BLVD TO DRIFTWOOD
LAKE FRONTAGE ON MINNETONKA
BETWEEN HA. RR!SONS BAY & COOKS BAY ON
SETON LAKE. GOOD BUILDABLE LOT W/CLEAR
LAKE SXORE CALL LISTING AGENT W/QUESTIONS
LGI TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 281
0 -°ID 1311724440011
INC NMP, SD-R, ST.A, PLA, EAS, T0R
OSU TRM CSX
ELE, GAS, WAT, SEW
AVU MTG
ELE, GAS, WAT, SEW, STO* PIN $
SA 0
N
INT .000%
EXF CLR ASM N
NA 0
PXN 612-435-3030
APT 612-435-4257
29-FEB-!996 16:17
~2
LISTING ~ 1146027 -- PENID
%f"fP: L~t A3t : 381
LDR: 09/22/95 MT : 87
LD : 09/21/95 FIN:
0MD: 01/29/96 LO : 3192
]~ : SO : 5141
BCD: D
DEV: FINSX
ZON: R SINGLE
TOP: SLOPED
0SU: ELE,GAS,WAT, SEW
DES: CULDESA
DEV: FINSH
~OD: CITY
.%VII: ELE,GAS,WAT, SEW, STO,TEL,CTV
i~tK: LAKEFRONT, LAKE VIEW
2331 DRIFTWOOD LANE
0LP: 69,900
LP : 69,900
SP :
LAG: 71208
SAG:
MAJOR A.REA: 381
SECOND AREA:
IMP: 0T
INC: NMP, SIIR, STA, pr_~%, ~-JIS, TOR
RST: EASEMENTS
TRM: CSX
EXF: CLR
ASM: N
LTY: ER
COUNTY ASSESSOR
A2103 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487
1 CLASS MAIL
ZIP + 4 BAR CODE
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
MPLS, MN.
PERMIT NO. 3273
RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD
ESTIMATED M~,~ 274,900,i' ~
.IMITED MARKET VALUE 267 · 300
DUALIFYING VALUE FOR
IMPROVEMENTS
MARKET VALUE FOR 267~ 300
TAXATION
~/ALUE FOR NEW IMPROVEMENTS
PROPERTYID 2.3-117-24 34 0003
TO AP P FJCL
First, read the back of this notice~
Step 1: To discuss your Valuation Notice with an Assessor, call the number
listed below within the ne~ five (5) days.
348-3046
Step 2: Local Board of Review: You may appeal by appearing in person or
sending a le~er or representative to the board. Call your assessor,
appointment may be necessa~.
APE 23~ 1996 AT 7:00 PM
AT MOUND CITY HALL
Step 3: The County Board of Equalization:
You must appeal to the Local Board of Review to be eligible to appeal to the
County Board of Equalization. Information on Hennepin Coun¥s Board of
Equalization is on the back of this notice,
JOHN W TIMBERG
6049 RIDGEWOOD RD
MOUND MN 55364-8565
hhh,hl,,,Ih,li.,i,,Ih,h,hh,lh,,hh,h,lhi,,il,,,I
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
April 1, 1996
John Timberg
6049 Ridgewood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Timberg:
Re: PID #23-117-24-34-0003
As you requested, we have reviewed the assessment on your
real property located in the City of Mound.
A review of the 1996 Estimated Market Value of the above
mentioned parcel has resulted in the following determination:
Previous Estimated Market Value - $274,900
Estimated Market Value Reduced To - $262,000
Our records are being adjusted accordingly.
Very truly yours,
DONALD F. MONK
Hennepin County Assessor
Keith MT Renne~feldt; SAMA
Principal Appraiser
DFM:KMR:jb
Hennepin County General Services
County Assessor Division
A-2103 Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213
Recycled Paper
FOR 1991 FOR 1992 FOR 1993 FOR 1994 FOR 1995 FOR 1996 FOR 1997
1672 EAGLE LANE I MARKET VALUE I $25,500.00 $27,400.00 I $25,000.00 I $26,000.00 I $27,000.00 I $29,000.00 I $31,900.00
PURCHASE PRICE $ 25,000 I AMOUNT OF CHANGI + $1,900.00 I' $2,400.00 I+ $1,000.00 I+ $1,000.00 I+ $2,000.00 I+ $2,900.00
{ % OF CHANGE I + 07.450 % I ' 09.600 % I + 04.000 % I + 03.846 % I + 07.407 % I + 10.00 %
I PROPERTY TAX I $647.46 $892.22 I $765.98 I $795.74 I $828.88 I $894.98 I
FOR 1991 FOR 1992 FOR 1993 FOR 1994 FOR 1995 FOR 1996 FOR 1997
4831 DALE RD. I MARKET VALUE I I $40,300.00 I $39,600.00{ $40,000.001 $42,000.00{ $41,000.00 I $44,000.00
PURCI~ASE PRICE $ 28,255 I~OUNT OF C~{MIGEI I I - $700.00 I + $400.00 I+ $2,000.00 l- $1,000.00 I+ $3,000.00
1%OFC~iANGE I I { - 01.768 % I +01.010% I + 05.000 % I - 02.439 % I + 07.317 %
I PROPERTYTAX { I $2,032.021 $1,213.30{ $1,224.221 $1,289.36 I $1,256.681
,11 I, ,l II
April 21, 1996
gI CEIVED APR
Danieland Kim Burnes
2130Noble Lane
Mound, MN 55364
472-5928
City ofMound
City Council
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Attention: Local Board of Review
Valuation of Property ID 13-117-24 31 0003
We feel the true market value of our residence is not reflected by the county assessors
valuation. This is based upon the following facts:
1) Recent appraisal for home mortgage refinancing estimated value at $187,500.00
2) Surrounding neighborhood detracts from value (vacant lots with debris, high
percentage of rental property poorly maintained, unoccupied house where lawn and
landscaping is allowed to go wild, large number of common docks and public beach
with boat landing-both lead to numerous noise and privacy issues that have been
brought to police departments attention numerous times, etc.).
3) Water quality of Harrison Bay, particularly our location:
a) Clarity (murky), quality (waterfowl feces leads to swimmers itch), and
weeds (milfoil) do not allow for swimming off of our own dock.
4) So called dining room is a porch that was converted in the '60's with single pane
glass panels the full height of the room.. Ice builds up to a thickness of 1/Sth
of an inch in the winter. This room is too cold to be used during half the year.
5) Assessor has furnace noted as "high efficiency" while in reality it is only an 80%
efficient unit according to the manufacturer. High efficiency furnaces are plus 90%
efficient.
6) Structure has only a one car garage with an undersized door opening limiting the
size of vehicle that can be parked in it. It is a tuck under garage which is below both
bedrooms. The exterior walls are not insulated nor are the connecting walls or the
ceiling insulated or sheetrocked. This results in the bedrooms being extremely cold
during the winter months.
7) Home was valued at $185,000.00 for 1995 taxes, now $221,800.00 for 1996!
8) County refers to comparable sales. Comparable to what9. Where9.
Local Board of Revie~v Letter
Page Two
Unfortunately we are unable to attend the meeting on April 23 as our jobs require us to travel.
Please consider these issues seriously and respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Daniel and Kim Burnes
CCi
Steve Smith-State Representative
Gen Olson-State Senator
Donald F. Monk-County Assessor
Keith M. Rennerfeldt-Principal Appraiser
2640 Lakewood Lane
Mound. Mn. 55364
April 20, 1996
County Assess~
Local Board of Rewiew
Mound, Mn. 55364 re: 24-117-24 2~ 0029
To the Board of Local Rewlew;
I am unable to attend the Board of Rewiew
m~etlng April 23, due to a prior commit-
ment. I will be out of town at that time.
I would like to keep my options open and
rewlew the comme~.ts of the two assessors
that looked at my property yesterday. I
will be in touch when I return in May.
Thamk you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Doug Berdie
5028 Enchanted Road
Mound, MN 55364
PID #24-117-24 44 0215
Paul Kaster
2600 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
Frank Ahrens
4673 Island View Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Darrel Monteith
5420 Three Points Blvd. #214
Mound, MN 55364
PID #13-117-24 12 0023
Paul Kaster
2600 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
J. & C. Turnacliff
2560 Avon Drive
Mound, MN 55364
PID #13-117-24 31 0031
Robert J. Putnam
4722 42nd Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Roy Dworakoski
6241 Birch Lane
Mound, MN 55364
John & Sheryl Menge
1822 Commerce Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
John Timberg
6049 Ridgewood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Richard McCurdy
5330 Three Points Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
R.K. & E.M. (Robert) Anderson
3001 Brighton Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
Glenda J. Sime
2390 Avon Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Patrick Furlong
5044 Edgewater Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Bartolo Efigenio Cruz
5135 Drummond Road
Mound, MN 55364
Thomas Johnson
5163 Emerald Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Vincent Forystek
3131 Inverness Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Michael Fitzgerald
5321 Baywood Shores Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Craig Johnson
5849 Grandview Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
Scott Holter
2241 Southview Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Mrs. James Anderson
2039 Arbor Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Robert & Judith Hutchins
3054 Brighton Commons
Mound, MN 55364
Ned Dow
4994 Manchester Road
Mound, MN 55364
Ray Demont
1936 Shorewood Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Vera Bee
4333 Wilshire Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
Daniel and Kim Burnes
2130 Noble Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Ruth Gray
2640 Lakewood Lane
Mound, MN 55364
John Tombers
1736 Baywood Shores Drive
Mound, MN 55364
HENNEPIN CTY ASSESSOR ~48 8751 P.01/06
Hennep i . nty
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: .
THESE DOCUIvIENTS ARE:
( ) CONFIDElVl'IAL
( ) UROEm
~ I~OUTINE
RESPONSE NEEDED: ( ) YES (SJ NO
TO:
FACSIMILE NUMBER
AGENCY NAME
ATTENTION
FROM:
NAME
DEPARTMENT
DA'II/
Hennepin County Assessor
SUBJECT:
· APR-24-1996 11:14
HENNEPI N CTY ASSESSOR
612 348 8751 P.02/86
i_~d !il..000
i¥&5o0
~moc _
~,.,"~ cI I O l i ODO
-'r-~d
· ~iricr /,//Jo o
~/6~0
7~0o0
' APR-24-1996 11:14
HENNEP I N CTY ASSESSOR
,.,6;~q wooo _.
L.~d
"T-¢,~_i I C~"I , OO O
'~oocJ 4~ooo
Lc.,,,d
' '"F'ot~ ,zq&ooO
'~a /06000
~a. of ~ooo_
'Td~ 170, ooo
Lo.,.,-,4 bqooo
! ,IL
612 348 8951 P.03/06
//~, ¢'0o
/Pg2..r:.,o ..
i:P./, qo o
~'-70o0
z,-.//,
lg'g qoo
._ p.z/oo_ _
00500
llPOO0
/P-~/,.TO0 _
HENNEPI N CTY ASSESSOR
l, ~ l,l
$1~ ~48 8751 P,04/06
actq, o
6o00
0
mL
~ RPR-~4-1996 ll: 15
HENNEPIN CTY ASSESSOR
Ii, ,i i,i
612 348 @751 P,05/06
/.~.,d /£o,20
//,5'(z::~
/¢-//7. zq- ~-coa5
~ 5zsoo
/~z, qoo
*7O/00
/1¢7/oo
500
I
· APR-24-1996 11:15
i I Ill
HENNEPI N CTY ASSESSOR
I ,Il
I, I II
612 _%48 8751 P.O6x06
'~O~-L
~md
~E
15-00
~u~
.2~o ~d I~.
Lccct /~o-o0
8ic~ ___~oo.o_
/qo,. ooo
I qqOooD
/0o0
46~0o
TOTAL P.06
April 21, 1996
Ri=C.,p..iyED APR 2 2. 1[t[S
Danieland KimBurnes
2130 Noble Lane
Mound, MN 55364
472-5928
City ofMound
City Council
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Attention: Local Board of Review
Valuation of Property ID 13-117-24 31 0003
We feel the true market value of our residence is not reflected by the county assessors
valuation. This is based upon the following facts:
1) Recent appraisal for home mortgage refinancing estimated value at $187,500.00
2) Surrounding neighborhood detracts from value (vacant lots with debris, high
percentage of rental property poorly maintained, unoccupied house where lawn and
landscaping is allowed to go wild, large number of common docks and public beach
with boat landing-both lead to numerous noise and privacy issues that have been
brought to police departments attention numerous times, etc.).
3) Water quality of Harrison Bay, particularly our location:
a) Clarity (murky), quality (waterfowl feces leads to swimmers itch), and
weeds (milfoil) do not allow for swimming off of our own dock.
4) So called dining room is a porch that was converted in the '60's with single pane
glass panels the full height of the room.. Ice builds up to a thickness of 1/8th
of an inch in the winter. This room is too cold to be used during half the year.
5) Assessor has furnace noted as "high efficiency" while in reality it is only an 80%
efficient unit according to the manufacturer. High efficiency furnaces are plus 90%
efficient.
6) Structure has only a one car garage with an undersized door opening limiting the
size of vehicle that can be parked in it. It is a tuck under garage which is below both
bedrooms. The exterior walls are not insulated nor are the connecting walls or the
ceiling insulated or sheetrocked. This results in the bedrooms being extremely cold
during the winter months.
7) Home was valued at $185,000.00 for 1995 taxes, now $221,800.00 for 1996!
8) County refers to comparable sales. Comparable to what? Where?
Local Board of Review Letter
Page Two
Unfortunately we are unable to attend the meeting on April 23 as our jobs require us to travel.
Please consider these issues seriously and respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Daniel and Klm Burnes
Steve Smith-State Representative
Gen Olson-State Senator
Donald F. Monk-County Assessor
Keith M. Rennerfeldt-Principal Appraiser
I ,~1 Il, ,l II
2640 Lakewood Lane
Moun~ Mn. 55364
April 20, 1996
County Assess~
Local Board of Rewiew
Mound, Mn. 55364
re: 24-117-24 24 0029
To the Board of Local Rewiew;
I am unable to attend the Board of Rewiew
meeting April 23, due to a prior commit-
ment. I will be out of town at that time.
I would like to keep my options open and
rewiew the comments of the two assessors
that looked at my property yesterday. I
will be in touch when I return in May.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Ruth D. Gray
Report No. DKPT01A Hennepln County - Tax Ex~ension Rate Oompadson 17-Feb-96
~----* Pa~a_h!e 1995 *--~ Tax Rate
Sch Sew Mkt Value Rate Mkt Value Rate Increase
MC Municipality Name Dst W/S Dst Tax Rate SchoolI Cit~ Tax Rate $c.h_no_!I City (Decrease)'
01 Minneapoila 001 0 146.170 147.746 1.576 1.08
001 3 148.441 149.243 0.802 0.5~
14 Chanhaseen 272 4 136.877 139.900 3.023 2.2'
276 3 147.351 146.551 -0.800 -0.54
15 Woodland 276 3 129.414 128.854 -0.560 -0.43
17 Spring Park 277 3 138.599 137.154 0.10707 -1.445 -1.04
19 Greenwood 276 3 137.627 136.943 -0.684 -0.50
20 Bloomington 271 0 126.925 123.132 0.01102 -3.793 -2.99
271 1 127.419 123.726 0.01102 -3.693 -2.90
271 2 127.266 123.452 0.01102 -3.814 -3.00
271 4 127.687 123.996 0.01102 -3.691 -2.89
272 I 135.354 136.910 1.556 1.15
273 I 126.094 0.12527 128.820 0.11729 2.726 2.16
22 Brooklyn Center 011 0 136.304 138.901 0.04~.89 2.597 1.91
279 0 145.044 141.669 0.13642 -3.37.= -2.33
281 0 142.099 139.276 -2.823 -1.99
286 0 151.763 133.196 0.11994 -18.567 -12.23
24 Edina 270 I 134.958 132.277 0.00-~R -2.681 -1.99
270 3 136.796 133.216 0.00523 -3.580 -2.62
271 1 119.182 118.269 0.01102 -0.913 -0.77
272 I 127.117 131.453 4.336 3.4'
273 I 117.857 0.12527 123.363 0.11729 5.506 4.67
273 3 119.695 0.12527 124.302 0.11729 4.607 3.85
280 1 127.209 130.171 2.962 2.33
280 3 129.047 131.110 2.06-_ $ 1.60
283 3 132.932 136.351 3.419 2.57
26 ~ Shorewood 276 3 140.243 138.964 -1.279 -0.91
276 4 138.673 138.295 - 0.378 - 0.27
276 4 02 154.026 152.251 - 1.775 - 1.15
277 3 130.545 124.935 0.10707 -5.610 -4.30
28 GolclenValley 270 0 144.569 142.751 0.00523 -1.818 -1.26
270 0 01 144.569 142.751 0.00523 -1.818: -1.26
270 3 146.901 144.284 0.00523 -2.617 -1.78
281 0 136.690 136.331 -0.359 -0.26
281 0 01 136.690 136.331 -0.359 -0.26
30 Hopkins 270 1 146.572 144.488 0.00523 -2.084 -1.42
270 3 148.410 145.427 0.00523 -2.983 -2.01
273 3 131.309 0.12527 136.513 0.11729 5.204 3.96
Page No. I
RepOrt No. DKPTO1A Hennepin County - Tax Extension Rate Comparison 17-Feb-96
*~'~'~ Payable 1995 **** ~-.~_----..~,-~-~-..-.- Tax Rate
Sch Sew I Mkt Value Rate Mkt Value Rate Increase
MC Municipality Name Dst WIS Dst Tax Ratel Schooll City Tax Rate SchoolI City (Decrease) %
30 Hopkins 283 3 144.546 148.562 4.016 2.78
34 Minnetonka 270 0 01 138.299 134.726 0.00523 -3.573 -2.58
270 I 138.671 135.194 0.00523 -3.477 -2.51
270 3 140.509 136.133 0.00523 -4.376 -3.11
270 4 138.939 135.464 0.00523 -3.475 -2.50
276 I 139.734 140.352 0.618 0.44
276 3 141.572 141.291 -0.281 -0.20
276 4 140.002 140.622 o. 620 o. 44
283 3 136.645 139.268 2.623 1.92
264 0 01 123.637 123.655 0.19211 0.018 0.01
284 3 125.647 125.062 0.19211 -0.785 -0.62
36 Mlnnetrista 110 3 143.250 138.740 -4.510 -3.15
111 0 137.346 129.995 -7.351 -5.35
111 3 139.678 131.528 -8.150 -5.83
277 0 127.507 123.929 0.10707 -3.578 -2.81
277 3 129.839 125.462 0.10707 -4.377 -3.37
879 0 124.287 0.05316 125.004 0.06005 0.717 0.58
38 Orono 276 3 137.886 136.786 -1.100 -0.80
277 3 128.188 122.757 0.10707 -5.431 -4.24
278 3 127.470 123.303 -4.167 -3.27
264 3 122.161 120.557 0.19211 -1.604 -1.31
40 Plymouth 270 0 01 133.978 129.524 0.00523 -4.454 -3.32
279 0 03 129.044 125.497 0.13642 -3.547 -2.75
279 0 04 129.044 125.497 0.13642 -3.547 -2.75
281 0 01 126.099 123.104 -2.995 -2.38
281 0 04 126.099 123.104 -2.995 -2.38
264 0 01 119.316 118.453 0.19211 -0.863 -0.72
264 0 03 119.316 118.453 0.19211 -0.863 -0.72
284 0 04 119.316 118.453 0.19211 -0.863 -0.72
264 3 01 121.648 119.986 0.19211 -1.662 -1.37
284 3 02 121.648 119.986 0.19211 -1.662 -1.37
41 Fort Snelling 280 0 111.138 113.246 2.108 1.90
42 Richfield 280 0 138.337 140.113 1.776 1.28
280 1 138.831 140.707 1.876 1.35
280 3 140.669 141.646 O. 977 O. 69
43 Met Airport 000 0 43.811 44.170 0.359 0.82
44 Robbinsdale 281 0 132.497 0.04636 130.703 0.04601 -1.794 -1.35
46 St Louis Park 270 0 137.885 135.447 0.00523 -2.438 -1.77
Page No. 2
Repdff No. DKPTO1A Hennepin County - Tax Extension Rate Comparison 17-Feb-96
Sch Sew IMkt Value Rate Mkt Value Rate Increase
MC Municipality Name Dst W/S Dst Tax P_n~!aISchooll City Tax Rata SchoolI CRy (Decrease) %
46 St Louis Park 270 3 140,217 136.980 0.00523 -3,237 -2,31
273 3 123,116 0,12527 128,066 0.11729 4.950 4.02~
283 0 134,021 138,582 4.561 3.40
283 3 136..~r, .-4 140.115 3.762 2.76
48 Brooklyn Park 011 0 134.476 139.978 0.04289 5.502 4.09
279 0 143.216 142.746 0.13642 -0.470 -0.33
281 0 140.271 140.353 0.082 0.06
50 Champlin 011 0 128.595 127.072 0.04289 -1.523 -1.18
52 Corcoran ~79 0 130.665 127.048 0.13642 -3.617 -2.77
264 0 120.937 120.004 0.19211 -0.933 -0.77
877 0 129.819 124.833 0.04134 -4.986 -3.64
879 0 123.744 0.05316 123.279 0.08005 -0.465 -0.38
883 0 116.328 0.05117 121.968 0.05346 5.640 4.85
54 Crystal 281 0 137.870 135.851 -2.019 -1.46
56 Dayton 011 0 132.710 134.733 0.04289 2.023 1.52
279 0 141.450 137.501 0.13642 -3.949 -2.79
728 0 127.819 0.05050 124.876 0.05256 -2.943 -2.30
59 Dsephaven 276 3 135.835 134.287 -1.548 -1.14
276 4 134.265 133.618 -0.647 -0.46
61 Eden Prairie 270 I 143.433 0.01443 139.755 0.00523 0.01393~ -3.678 -2.56
270 4 143.701 0.01443 140.025 0.00523 0.01393 -3.676 -2.56
272 I 135.592 0.01443 138.931 0.01393 3.339 2.46
272 2 135.439 0.01443 138.657 0.01393 3.218 2.38
272 4 135.860 0.01443 139.201 0.01393 3.341 2.46
276 4 144.764 0.01443 145.183 0.01393 0.419 0.29
63 Excelsior 276 3 145.491 145.268 -0.223 -0.15
65 Greenfield 877 0 134.736 129.209 0.04134 -5.527 -4.10
879 0 128.661 0.05316 127.655 0.06005 -1.006 -0,78
883 0 121.245 0.05117 126.344 0.05346 5.099 4.21
67 Hanover 877 0 128.025 123.135 0.04134 -4.890 -3.82
68 H~_s-s~_n 279 0 128.240 125.567 0.13642 -2.673 -2.08
728 0 114.609 0.05050 112.942 0.05256 -1.667 -1.45
877 0 127.394 123.352 0.04134 -4.042 -3.17
70 independence 277 0 141.413 133.642 0.10707 -7.771 -5.50
277 3 143.745 135.175 0,10707 -8.570 -5.96
278 0 140.695 134.188 -6.507 -4.62
278 3 143.027 135.721 -7.306 -5.11
879 0 138.193 0.05316 134.717 0.06005 -3.476 -2.52
Page No. 3
Repel1 No. DKPTO1A
~denc, e
Lake
Grove
Plain
ine Lake
Medina
~linnetonka Beach
New Hope
3sseo
Rockford
St Anthony
Bonifaclus
Tonka Bay
Hennepin County - Tax Extension Rate Comparison
17-Feb-96
kt Value Rate
Tax Tax
130.777 0.05117 133.406 0.05346
142.157 136.6,53
128.130 0.05316 124.694 0.06005
138.240
128.512
N/A
1 38.695
141.027
129.088
120.779
123.111
115.470
117.802
118.277 0.05316
110.861 0.05117
130.932
133.476
134.485
134.421
134.937
147.291
138.313 0.05117
121.162 0.05050
135.632
136.108
161.465
136.965
132.618
127.309
134.988 0.13642 0.02039
127.944 0.19211 0.02039
129.908 0.05346 0.02039
131.535
Tax Rate
Increase
2.629
-5.564
-3.436
-3.252
-0.568
-7.160
-7.959
128.096 0.19211
117.936
119.469
115.190 0.19211
116.723 0.19211
118.465 0.08005
117.154 0.05346
127.170
128.716 0.10707
-0.972
-2.843
-3.642
-0.280
- 1.079
0.188
6.293
132.821
132.766
132.326 0.13642
143.764 0.13642
140.633 0.05346
118.118 0.05256
149.107
149.555
151.997
136.251
129.642
126.796 0.19211
-3.762
-4.760
- 1.664
- 1.655
-2.611
-3.527
2.320
-3.044
13.475
13.447
-9.468
-0.714
-3.076
-0.513
Page No. 4
Tax Rate Breakdown
Property Pa able 1996
property Taxes Y
T oPERATIONS
oo · o ka Beach, Mouno, ke Shorewood
· onka, M~nnet n W~ zeta wood, Lon La ,
inner - '-~,,d~~
!- ----~ c~ Maole pta~n, nn ...... -
;nam ~,,, _ ,J~,~ic.' e LaK~. Loret~u, w,=~,.- -
~rcoran, Dayton, ~re~
sTORM sEWF-R TAXING DISTRICTS
LoPMENT AuTHORITY
AND REDEVE .... rr AUTHORITY
LOPMlC-m ' . . tax strut
(included under M. unic. ip. ality on tax statement; applicable
couNTY cOLLECTED FEES
fincluded as a se?arate item on ~
MisCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN sPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS
Total
MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL .TAXING. DISTRICTS
Total
EXAMPLE
ilunicipality
~ch Distrm 273
Metro Transit
Watershed ~1
HRA
Miscellaneous
Market Value R;
Municipality
et~
Sch District 273
County Collected Fee
Total Market vmue
37,27O%1
21 255%
62.268°/°
4.033%
1.030%
o.594% /
o.533%/
te
0.11729% /
...\fratebrk.wk3
HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
TAXPAYER 8~RV/CE$ DIVlalON
Property Tax
Properly Taxes Rate Breakdown
Payable 1996
~UTY
~ter
Park
Corcoran
Crystal
Dayton
rie
Edina
Excelsior
Fort Snelling
Golden Valley
Greenfield
Greenwood
Hanover
Hassan
Hopkins
Independence
Long Lake
Lomtto
Maple Grove
Maple Plain
Medicine Lake
Medina
29.764%
31.~00,X,
18.227%
25.018%
19.391%
26,286%
29.844%
12.754%
23.809% 0.013930/0
16.331%
23.735%
27.399%
23,767%
15.410%
19.088%
17.910%
28.542%
30.829%
28.603%
20.806%
24.093% 0.02039=/0
28.176%
24.580%
14,577%
~ee Separate Compoeite Rate
Minnetonka Beach 19.248%
Minnetrista
Mound
MSP International Airport
Hope
Osseo
Plymouth
Richfield
Robbinsdale
Rockford
Rogers
Shorewood
Spring Park
St Bonifacius
St. Anthony
St, Louis Park
ka Bay
ayzata
dtand
18.610%
21.116%
20.475%
23.698%
14.743%
21.766%
14.394%
26.336%
21.771% 0.04601%
See Separate Compos/te Rate
23.986%
17.431%
29,140%
34.373%
28.244%
20.095%
14.973%
19.976%
7.576%
...\fratebrk.wk3
1
110
111
270
271 0.00523%
272 57.174% 0.01102%
273 70.358%
276 62.268% 0.11729%
277 76.340%
62.311% O. 10707%
278 62.857%
279
280 67.155% o. 13642%
69.076%
281
282 64.762%
283 76.43O%
284 74.317%
286 60.111% 0.19211%
728 58.682% 0.11994%
877 54.530% 0.05256%
879 64.940% 0.04134%
883 63.386% 0.06005%
SEPARATE COMPOSITE RATES
Minneapolis and Rockford receive Dispaffty Reduction
Aid. Minneap°/is d°es not pay for the County Library
and County Parks.
Report No. DKPT01B Hennepin Co. Payable 1996 Rates 17-Feb-96
i r ~j,=' '- .- - * Fiscal State Paid
Sch Sew [ Mkt Value Rate Disparity Aid
MC Municipality Name Dst W/S Dst Tax Rate/ SchoolI City % Rate
01 Minneapolis 001 0 147.746 21.5973 90.082
001 3 149.243 21.5973 90.100
14 Chanhassen 272 4 139.900 34.1707 32.356
276 3 146.551 34.1707 37.280
15 Woodland 276 3 128.854 20.3000 37.280
17 Spring Park 277 3 137.154 0.10707 26.7940 35.178
19 Greenwood 276 3 136.943 28.1564 37.280
20 Bloomington 271 0 123.132 0.01102 29.3164 13.461
271 1 123.726 0.01102 29.3164 13.461
271 2 123.452 0.01102 29.3164 13.461
271 4 123.996 0.01102 29.3164 13.461
272 1 136.910 29.3164 32.356
273 1 128.820 O. 11729 29.3164 3.323
22 Brooklyn Center 011 0 138.901 0.04289 30.5352 170.655
279 0 141.669 0.13642 30.5352 127.519
281 0 139.276 30.5352 72.639
286 0 133.196 0.11994 30.5352 73.553 ~
24 Edina 270 1 132.277 0.00523 26.9859 5.235
270 3 133.216 0.00523 26.9859 5.235
271 I 118.269 0.01102 26.9859 13.461
272 1 131.453 26.9859 32.356
273 I 123.363 0.11729 26.9859 3.323
273 3 124.302 0.11729 26.9859 3.323
280 I 130.171 26.9859 28.275
280 3 131.110 26.9859 28.275
283 3 136.351 26.9859 14.837
26 Shorewood 276 3 138.964 29.6218 37.280
276 4 138.295 29.621 8 37.280
276 4 02 152.251 29.6218 37.280
277 3 124.935 0.10707 29.6218 34.267
Page No. 1 Solid Waste Management Fee -- .01865 * County Fiscal Disparity Rate = 141.441
I
Report No. DKPT01B Hennepin Co. Payable 1996 Rates 17-Feb-96
~ ...... .. _ ' ~ * Fiscal State Paid
Sch Sew Mkt Value Rate Disparity Aid
MC Municipality Name Dst W/S Dst Tax Rate SchoolI City % Rate
28 Golden Valley 270 0 142.751 0.00523 24.4475 5.317 ~
270 0 01 142.751 0.00523 24.4475 5.317
270 3 144.284 0.00523 24.4475 5.317
281 0 136.331 24.4475 62.185
281 0 01 136.331 24.4475 62.185
30 Hopkins 270 I 144.488 0.00523 23.6610 11.474
270 3 145.427 0.00523 23.6610 11.474
273 3 136.513 0.11729 23.6610 9.562
283 3 148.562 23.6610 21.076
34 Minnetonka 270 0 01 134.726 0.00523 34.8933 5.235
270 1 135.194 0.00523 34.8933 5.235
270 3 136.133 0.00523 34.8933 5.235
270 4 135.464 0.00523 34.8933 5.235
276 I 140.352 34.8933 37.280
276 3 141.291 34.8933 37.280
276 4 140.622 34.8933 37.280
283 3 139.268 34.8933 14.837
284 0 01 123.655 0.19211 34.8933 16.374
284 3 125.062 0.19211 34.8933 16.374
36 Minnetrista 110 3 138.740 29.9630' 77.673
111 0 129.995 29.9630 133.102
111 3 131.528 29.9630 133.102
277 0 123.929 O. 10707 29.9630 34.267
277 3 125.462 0.10707 29.9630 34.267
879 0 125.004 0.06005 29.9630 93.389
38 Orono 276 3 136.786 28.2066 37.280
277 3 122.757 0.10707 28.2066 34.267
278 3 123.303 28.2066 15.635
284 3 120.557 0.19211 28.2066 16.374
Page No. 2 Solid Waste Management Fee = .01865 * County Fiscal Disparity Rate = 141.441
Report No. DKPTO1B
L, Ja I~L
Hennepin Co. Payable 1996 Rates
17-Feb-96
~~ * Fiscal State Paid
Sch Sew Mkt Value Rate Disparity Aid
MC Municipality Name Dst W/S Dst Tax Rate Schoolt City % Rate
'40 Plymouth 270 0 01 129.524 0.00523 34.4726 5.235
279 0 03 125.497 0.13642 34.4726 116.983
279 0 04 125.497 0.13642 34.4726 116.983
281 0 01 123.104 34.4726 62.103
281 0 04 123.104 34.4726 62.103
284 0 01 118.453 0.19211 34.4726 16.374
284 0 03 118.453 0.19211 34.4726 16.374
284 0 04 118.453 0.19211 34.4726 16.374
284 3 01 119.986 0.19211 34.4726 16.374
284 3 02 119.986 0.19211 34.4726 16.374
41 =ort Snelling 280 0 113.246 40.0018 28.275
42 Richfield 280 0 140.113 15.8922 46.497
280 I 140.707 15.8922 46.497
280 3 141.646 15.8922 46.497
43 Met Airport 000 0 44.170
44 Robbinsdale 281 0 130.703 0.04601 16.9499 88.961
46 St Louis Park 270 0 135.447 0.00523 23.6336 10.098
46 1 St Louis Park 270 3 136.980 0.00523 23.6336 10.098
273 3 128.066 0.11729 23.6336 8.186
283 0 138.582 23.6336 19.700
283 3 140.115 23.6336 19.700
48 Brooklyn Park 011 0 139.978 0.04289 33.1006 165.614,
279 0 142.746 0.13642 33.1006 1 22.478
281 0 140.353 33.1006~ 67.598
50 Champlin 011 0 127.072 0.04289 26.1807 166.036
52 Corcoran 279 0 127.048 0.13642 35.8348 118.061
284 0 120.004 0.19211 35.8348 17.452
877 0 124.833 0.04134 35.8348 131.078
879 0 123.279 0.06005 35.8348 94.467
883 0 121.968 0.05346 35.8348 161.852
Page No. 3 Solid Waste Management Fee = .01865 * County Fiscal Disparity Rate = 141.441
Report No. DKPTO1B
Hennepin Co. Payable 1996 Rates
17-Feb-96
_~[~t-~,,~nt~m~[r~~ * Fiscal State Paid
Sch Sew Mkt Value Rate Disparity Aid
MC Municipality Name Dst W/S Dst Tax Rate SchoolI City % Rate
54 Crystal 281 0 135.851 25.4553 80.528
66 Dayton 011 0 134.733 0.04289 35.2069 160.668
279 0 137.501 0.13642 35.2069 117.532
728 0 124.876 0.05256 35.2069 132.192
59 D=¢phaven 276 3 134.287 29.8616 37.280
276 4 133.618 29.8616 37.280
61 Eden Prairie 270 1 139.755 0.00523 0.01393 35.7971 5.235
270 4 140.025 0.00523 0.01393 35.7971 5.235
272 I 138.931 0.01393 35.7971 32.356
272 2 138.657 0.01393 35.7971 32.356
272 4 139.201 0.01393 35.7971 32.356~
276 4 145.183 0.01393 35.7971 37.280
63 Excelsior 276 3 145.268 24.8571 43.929
65 Greenfield 877 0 129.209 0.04134 34.2113 130.707
879 0 127.655 0.06005 34.2113 94.096
883 0 126.344 0.05346 34.2113 161.481
67 Hanover 877 0 123.135 0.04134 34.1653 132.874
68 Hassan 279 0 125.567 0.13642 36.6771 117.097
728 0 112.942 0.05256 36.6771 131.757
877 0 123.352 0.04134 36.6771 130.114
70 i lndependence 277 0 133.642 0.10707 33.5485 34.267
277 3 135.175 0.10707 33.5485 34.267
278 0 134.188 33.5485 15.635
278 3 135.721 33.5485 15.635
879 0 134.717 0.06005 33.5485 93.389
883 0 133.406 0.05346 33.5485 160.774
72 Long Lake 278 3 136.653 33.4584 19.450
74 Loretto 879 0 124.694 0.06005 34.1655 98.399
Page No. 4 Solid Waste Management Fee -- .01865 * County Fiscal Disparity Rate = 141.441
Report No. DKPT01B
Hennepin Co. Payable 1996 Rates
17-Feb-96
.~~=~~~ * Fiscal State Paid
Sch Sew Mkt Value Rate Disparity Aid
MC Municipality Name Dst W/S Dst Tax Rate SchoolI City % Rate
76 1 Maple Grove 279 0 134.988 0.13642 0.02039 34.9424 116.983
284 0 127.944 0.19211 0.02039 34.9424 16.374
883 0 129.908 0.05346 0.02039 34.9424 160.774
77 Maple Plain 278 0 131.535 27.2348 19.331
278 3 133.068 27.2348 19.331
79 Medicine Lake 284 0 128.096 0.19211 17.4693 16.374
80 Medina 278 0 117.936 35.5459 15.635
278 3 119.469 35.5459 15.635
284 0 115.190 0.19211 35.5459 16.374
284 3 116.723 0.19211 35.5459, 16.374
879 0 118.465 0.06005 35.5459 93.389
883 0 117.154 0.05346 35.5459 160.774
82 Minnetonka Beach 278 3 127.170 25.2265 15.635
85 Mound 277 3 128.716 0.10707 25.5488 39.672
86 New Hope 281 0 01 132.821 30.5639 69.633'
281 0 02 132.766 30.5639 69.633
88 Osseo 279 0 132.326 0.13642 27.2466 120.484
279 0 01 143.764 0.13642 27.2466 120.484
90 :lockford 883 0 140.633 0.05346 34.5184 193.872
92 Rogers 728 0 118.118 0.05256 34.3443 131.701
94 St Anthony 282 0 149.107 19.1224 27.397:
~R~) 5 149.555 19.1224 27.397
95 St Bonifacius 110 3. 151.997 34.3075= 80.068
97 Tonka Bay 276 3 136.251 22.9967 37.280
99 Wayzata 278 3 129.542 28.2863 15.635
284 3 126.796 0.19211 28.2863 16.374
Page No. 5 Solid Waste Management Fee = .01865 * County Fiscal Disparity Rate = 141.441
s'o.-., o~ .-,- ,:, ~ -., =. ~ -, -, = ..,., =
.~':~. : n,, = ,.., ,~ ~ ,~' -. ~ · ¢'
0
~::::::::: ~::::::::: ~ ~- '-4 ~ '~1 C~ ~ ~ ,~ I~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ I'0
..4:~::: :):i:: ~:~::.i:.i:
..4:::
~.::: ~:E:~:~: ~::::::::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - m 0
~: ~::f:f; ~::;:;::f: ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 9 ~
¢:::::: ===================== ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ o -.
======================= ,~ ~ . . ~ . . . __
~::~:: ~::::::::tl~ ....... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~
Z
o
(~,
o
o
Z
0
o
Memo
DATE:
December 5, 1995
TO:
Francene C. Clark-Leisinger, Mound City Clerk
FROM:
Donald F. Monk, Hennepin County Assessor
SUBJECT: 1996Local Board of Review Dates
Tuesday , April 23, 1996
Day of the Week Date
lX, fmnesota Law requires that I, as County Assessor, set the date for your Local Board of Review Meeting.
After reviewing previous meeting days and your suggestions of last year, the above date was selected. I
sincerely hope that it is agreeable with your council
As there must be a quorum, I would suggest that an informal review of your rnemberS' with a request that
they mark their calendars would be appropriate
Please conlkm the date set out or call Tom May at 348-3046 with your alternative date by December 29,
so that our printing order can be completed on time. We suggest starting times of 6:30, 7:00, or 7:30 p.m.,
but will discuss it with you if you wish a different time.
Your early completion and return of the attached tear off strip will be appreciated and we will send your
official notice for posting as required by law.
Please return to JoDee Nelson, A-2103 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487
Municipality:
Date:
Time:
Place:
'
CONFIRMATION
!
Confirmed by
For selecting meeting dates in future years, the following information will be helpful
ANNUAL BOARD OF REVIEW
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1996
7:00 PM - MOUND CITY HALL
Presentation of 1996 Assessment - Keith Rennerfeldt,
Hennepin County Assessor's Office
2. Residents Opportunity to Address the Board of Review
City Council Direction to Assessor
Continuation of Board of Review to Tuesday, May 14, 1996, 7 PM
Adjournment
April 21, 1996
RECEIVEO APR 2 2. 1§I]6
Danieland Kim Burnes
2130 Noble Lane
Mound, MN 55364
472-5928
City of Mound
City Council
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Attention: Local Board of Review
Valuation of Property ID 13-117-24 31 0003
We feel the true market value of our residence is not reflected by the county assessors
valuation. This is based upon the following facts:
1) Recent appraisal for home mortgage refinancing estimated value at $187,500.00
2) Surrounding neighborhood detracts from value (vacant lots with debris, high
percentage of rental property poorly maintained, unoccupied house where lawn and
landscaping is allowed to go wild, large number of common docks and public beach
with boat landing-both lead to numerous noise and privacy issues that have been
brought to police departments attention numerous times, etc.).
3) Water quality of Harrison Bay, particularly our location:
a) Clarity (murky), quality (waterfowl feces leads to swimmers itch), and
weeds (milfoil) do not allow for swimming off'of our own dock.
4) So called dining room is a porch that was converted in the '60's with single pane
glass panels the full height of the room.. Ice builds up to a thickness of 1/8th
of an inch in the winter. This room is too cold to be used during half the year.
5) Assessor has furnace noted as "high efficiency" while in reality it is only an 80%
efficient unit according to the manufacturer. High efficiency furnaces are plus 90%
efficient.
6) Structure has only a one car garage with an undersized door opening limiting the
size of vehicle that can be parked in it. It is a tuck under garage which is below both
bedrooms. The exterior walls are not insulated nor are the connecting walls or the
ceiling insulated or sheetrocked. This results in the bedrooms being extremely cold
during the winter months.
7) Home was valued at $185,000.00 for 1995 taxes, now $221,800.00 for 1996!
8) County refers to comparable sales. Comparable to what? Where?
Local Board of Review Letter
Page Two
Unfortunately we are unable to attend the meeting on April 23 as our jobs require us to travel.
Please consider these issues seriously and respond accordingly.
Sincerely,
Daniel and Kim Burnes
CCi
Steve Smith-State Representative
Gen Olson-State Senator
Donald F. Monk-County Assessor
Keith M. Rennerfeldt-Principal Appraiser
2640 Lakewood. Lane
Mound. Mn. 55364
April 20, 1996
County Assess~
Local Board of Review
Mound, Mn, 55364
re: 24-117-24 22 0029
To the Board of Local Review;
I am unable to attend the Board of Review
m~eting April 23, due to a prior commit-
ment. I will be out of town at that time.
I would like to keep my options open and
review the comments of the two assessors
that looked at my property yesterday. I
will be in touch when I return in May.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Ruth D. Gray