1997-05-27 t
........ · .,.,,..,.,., ...... ,, ...... :.:.?.., ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1997, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council
and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered in normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA:
*A.
Co
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 13, 1997 REGULAR MEETING ........... 1809-1824
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 1997 COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE MEETING ................................................................................ 1825-1827
CASE 97-18: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, BRUCE TUTTLE,
4920 CRESTVIEW ROAD, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT,
13-117-241100087 ................................................................................... 1828-1838
CASE 97-19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION, RANDY
MORIARTY, 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, 7, 9 & SWLY 1/2
OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 .............................. 1839-1847
CASE 96-24: REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE, KEVIN
DONAHOE, 1801 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6, SHADY-
WOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0005 ......................................................... 1848-1851
SET PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT, LOST LAKE CANAL PROJECT. SUGGESTED DATE:
JUNE 10, 1997
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT RE:
MINNESOTA TRAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ............................................. 1852
1807
H. PAYMENT OF BILLS ............................................................................. 1853-1863
CASE 97-20: FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION
MODIFICATION, CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND
ROAD, TEAL POINTE, LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PID #25-117-24 12 0233 .................... 1864-1882
J. LICENSE RENEWALS: CLUB ON-SALE; SUNDAY SALES; ON-SALE
WINE; ON-SALE BEER; AND OFF-SALE BEER..6c.~xv./~,o~ ~C~--~_.'......~. r~ .~ ........ h,,.... 1883
K. SET BID OPENING FOR SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS.
SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 18, 1997, 11 A.M ............................................... 1884
L. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION- TEMPORARY LAND ALTERATION
4829 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE/DEVON COMMONS .......................................... 1885-1892
CASE 96-64: RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL RE: REVISED PRELIMINARY
PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES FOR SETON BLUFF, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
LOTS 15-32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54 ..................................... 1893-1963
DISCUSSION: PROPOSED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MOUND AND THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
(MCWD) RE: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, JOE ZYLMAN, MAPLE MANORS ............. 1964-2055
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR APRIL 1997 AS PREPARED BY GINO
BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ........................................................... 2056-2057
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 15,
1997 ...................................................................................................... 2058-2059
C. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12TH & 19TH, 1997 ...................... 2060-2067
REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED MONDAY, MAY 26,1997
IN OBSERVANCE OF MEMORIAL DAY
JOINT COMMITTEE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF MINNETRISTA
AND CITY OF MOUND WILL BE MEETING AT 7:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY,
MAY 28, 1997 AT MINNETRISTA CITY HALL
1808
III, L
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 13, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hermepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, May 13, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said
City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City
Attorney John Dean, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director
Gino Businaro, City Auditor Steve McDonald, Abdo, Abdo & Eick, Police Chief Len Harrell,
City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: State Representative Steve Smith,
Harold Meeker, Nancy Clough, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, Hennepin County
Cormnissioner Penny Steele, Georgette Peterson, Gerry & Sharon Eklund, Jeff & Darlene Chiles,
Millie & Chuck Larson, Eva Hasch, Karol & Bruce Charon, Pauline Payne, Jewell & Bunny
Lyngaas, Bill & Kristi Holm, Jeff Sanders, Glen Zeller, Sm Eckstrand, Ed &'Linda Bloomgren,
Mary Ann Lundberg, Carol Schmidt, Jeffrey Andersen, Julie Kittleson, Don & Janet Anfenson,
Clara Paz, Mary Flynn, Mary Kay Connolly, Larry Olson, Patrick & Diane Johnson, Muriel
Nunre, Win Hagen, Dell Rudolph, Eldan & JoAnn Freese, Carol Lindgren, Gary Nachreiner,
Steve Grand, Tim Wilkinson, Norm Berglund, Steve Behnke,
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance
was recited. The Mayor recognized the various dignitaries in the audience.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from
the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
1.0 PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 18, 1997 AS HAROLD MEEKER DAY IN
STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE CITY OF MOUND
Mr. Meeker was asked to come forward.
Representative Steve Smith presented Mr. Meeker with a Proclamation from the Governor of the
State of Minnesota proclaiming, Sunday, May 18, 1997, as Harold Meeker Day in the State of
Minnesota.
Mayor Bob Polston presented Mr. Meeker with a Certificate of Recognition from the City of
Mound.
Mr. Meeker thanked everyone.
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that
are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda
and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
Councilmember Weycker asked to have Item A.- Minutes of the April 22, 1997, Regular Meeting
removed from the Consent Agenda.
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
Councilmember Hanus asked to have Item F, Approval of an Ordinance Amending Section
235:27, Subd. 1 of the City Code Relating to Recreational Fires removed from the Consent
Agenda.
The City Manager stated that he has 3 ADD-on ITEMS to the Regular Agenda, as follows:
Discussion re: Legal Opinion from the City Attorney on the city's legal authority
to regulate the placement of docks on Wawonaissa Common at the end of
Woodland Road.
2. Discussion re: Possible litigation for tree cutting on Wiota Common.
Discussion re: Reapplication of G Will Liquors for a Off-Sale Liquor License in
the City of Spring Park.
*1.1
'1.2
*CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Agenda content,
adding 3 items and the Consent Agenda deleting Items A & F, as amended above. A
roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 6, 1997 BOARD OF REVIEW AND
MAY 6, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING
MOTION
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) RE: ALLOCATION OF FLrNDS
FROM WESTONKA INTERVENTION TO SOJOURNER LOCATED IN THE CITY
OF MINNETONKA
*1.3
RESOLUTION//97-41
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) RE: ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FROM
WESTONKA INTERVENTION TO SOJOURNER
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF MINNETONKA
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE 1997 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION//97-42
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 1997
MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
2
J I tl ,J, iii,
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
· 1.4 APPROVAL OF VARIOUS PERMITS
The following permits are being requested. Please waive the fee on them as indicated. Approv al
contingent upon all required forms, insurance etc. being turned in. All fees may be waived except
the Beer Permit.
1.
Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. requests the following permits for the June 7, 1997, Fish
Fry.
Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit
Public Dance Permit
Set-Up Permit
2. Mound City Days - June 13, 14 & 15, 1997.
Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit - Mound Bay Park
Carnival
Concessions
Craft Show
Entertainment
Fireworks
Merchant Sales
Public Dance Permit
Public Gathering
Set-Up Permit
American Legion/VFW
Parade Permit - May 26, 1997 - 10:45 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. - Memorial Day Parade
VFW AUXILIARY - June 7, 1997 - Anmml_ Pillow Puff
MOTION
Hanus, Ahrens, unanimously.
'1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS
A short break was taken from the meeting.
1.6 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 1997 BOARD OF REVIEW AND
THE APRIL 22, 1997 REGULAR MEETING
Councilmember Weycker asked that the following be added to the April 22, 1997, Minutes under
Item 1.11 Multiple Slip Dock Systems, right before the Motion:
~gl~
1.7
Minutes - Mound City Council - May 13, 1997
"City Attorney, John Dean, felt that the resolution did not authorize what the intent was
and therefore the City Council needed only to state that intent and approve it that way."
MOTION made by Jensen seconded by Weycker to amend the Minutes of the April
22, 1997, Regular Council Meeting as amended above. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 235:27, SUBD. 1 OF
THE CITY CODE RELATING TO RECREATIONAL FIRES
Councilmember Hanus stated that he remembers addressing this about a year ago and what is
being presented tonight is basically the same as then. He then asked why it is back?
The City Manager explained that the Council did not taken action on this item before. This item
has been reviewed by the Fire Dept. and the Police Dept. and now that Spring is here, they are
saying we need to do something about this ordinance because there are all kinds of people lighting
fires that are not in compliance with either the existing ordinance or one that they would like to
see in place of it. What is being suggested and proposed are changes that were made before but
some things were added, i.e. the total area of 3 feet or less in diameter and 3 feet or less in height;
the time recreational fires would be allowed; and the distance from any building was originally
20 feet and what is being proposed is 25 feet. This would give more teeth to the Fire Chief and
Police Dept. and regulate people's ability to light recreational fires.
They are getting a lot of calls about these fires.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he was against this last year and is still against this. He has a
problem with some of the language in the Exception part of the proposed amendment, i.e.
diameter and height restrictions and how that could be a prosecution problem; the time that
recreational fires would be allowed.
The Council then extensively discussed the proposed ordinance amendment as it relates to the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
what people are burning;
the size of the fires;
the time limitation for when people can burn; and
the distance from any building that a person could have a recreational fire.
The City Manager reported that this proposed ordinance amendment was based on other cities in
the metro area and how they deal with recreational fires. This amendment has been reviewed by
the Police Chief, Fire Chief and Fire Inspector and they all gather their approval or made the
changes they felt were necessary.
The City Attorney suggested that the wording, "Recreational fires shall be at least 25' from any
building and shall be supervised at all times.", could be changed to read as follows: "Recreational
fires shall be at least 25' from any building which is intended for human occupancy and shall be
supervised at all times."
The City Manager explained that the only intent of this ordinance amendment is to regulate
recreational fires, open burning is still not going to be allowed.
4
May 13. 1997
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Councilmember Hanus asked that the "not" in the first sentence of the Exception be deleted
because he felt it says that a fire place, incinerator or barbecue pit are not a recreational fire, but
they are open burning, therefore they do not meet the criteria under either the exception or the
open burning which prohibited.
The City Attorney stated that he also feels the "not" in the Exception should be deleted.
MOTION made by Polston to delete the word "not" from the Exception and the time
frames in the proposed amendment. This motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION made by Jensen to delete the work "not" from the Exception and revising
the following sentence "Recreational fires shah be at least 25' from any building and
shall be supervised at all times" to read as follows: "Recreational fires shall be at
least 25' from any building intended for human occupancy and shah be supervised at
all times." This motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Polston to leave the existing ordinance as is
with the deletion of approved (His reason was that there is no criteria for approved
fire rings.) and the addition of one sentence, as follows:
Section 235:27, Subd. 1 of the City Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 235:27. Burning Restrictions - Burning Permit Required.
Subd. 1. Open Burning Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to start
or allow to burn any open fire on any property within the City of Mound without a
permit, except for supervised recreational or cooking fires contained within approved
fire rings, pits or barbecue grills. Only charcoal, coal, or clean, dry wood may be
used for burning (no refuse, grass, leaves, yard waste or other combustibles).
No permit shah be required for any official fire set by any public o ~cial as provided
in Section 490:20.
The Council discussed this motion.
MOTION made by Polston, sec~to table this item. The vote was
3 in favor Jensen voting nay al~n~s abst~)Motion carried.
~T
/ he Mayor asked that this item be sent back to Staff to come back with a report o n
( why we are looking at this proposed ordinance amendment and what it is we are
x-.~ryi_ng to accomplish and is it based on one complaint or a hundred complaints
This item will be brought back at/he Junl~ 10, 1997 meeting.
1.8 PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF MAY 1997 AS WESTONKA
SENIOR CENTER MONTH
Weycker moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution.
5
May 13, 1997
RESOLUTION//97-43
The vote was unanimously in favor.
1.9 PUBLIC HEARING:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MAY 1997
WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER MONTH
Motion carried.
CASE //96-64 - REVISED PRELIMINARY
PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES SETON BLUFF, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
LOTS 15-32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54
The City Planner reviewed his report dated April 9, 1997. He reported that a comprehensive
review was done by the Planning Commission in February when the plan had 8 units. The
Planning Commission, at that time, voted 7 to 1 recommending denial. Based on the action of
the Planning Commission, the applicant took the comments and suggestions that the Commission
offered and revised the plan and went back to the Planning Commission with the new plan which
is what is before the Council tonight. The Planning Commission has now voted 7 to 2 for
approval of the new plan with 7 units. There are a number of conditions that Staff suggested be
included if this is approved on pages 1583-2585 and the Planning Commission further modified
the suggested conditions that were offered by the City Engineer on pages 1575 - 1576.
The Council asked about stormwater management and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
The City Engineer stated that the Watershed District will not hear this until the City has given
preliminary approval. The City Engineer stated they have to meet Rule B.
Councilmember Hanus asked about the turning radius of the road. The City Engineer stated that
what is on the plan right now is without obtaining an additional easement on the coruer that allow s
for a 9 foot radius. He further stated that when all these streets were constructed where we have
30 foot right-of-ways back in 1978 through 1980, the intersections were all put in with a 5 foot
radius and that is what is right across to the east. In new con struction, most communities require
a 15 to 20 foot radius. This would require an easement from the property owner.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
NORM BERGLUND - stated he has been involved with this parcel of property since the
late 1960's. At that time it was zoned for multiple and a number of problems came up and
we couldn't build multiple. They then went to townhouses and again problems arose. The
property has been dormant for years now. He stated that he feels the project as proposed
by Brenshell Homes (Fine Line Design Group), is the best for the area and would like to
see it approved.
PETE BUCKNER, 2626 KILDARE LANE -spoke in favor of the project because the
applicant built his home and a neighbors home and did a quality job. He felt this
development will add value to the area and community.
The following persons spoke against this project:
Steve Grand, 2620 Kerry Lane
Tim Wilkinson, 4628 Carlow Road
Vicki Hockert, Kerry Lane
6
,,,,~ t ~,, ,I, J,n,, ,11.., I , ~ l,, ,i]~
May 13, 1997
PROPOSED ORDIN..qNCE.4MENDMENT
STEVE GRAND, 2620 KERRY LANE - stated he is against this proposal. Reasons: the corner
turning radius; he will have to look at 14 foot retaining wall across from his home and worry
about his children climbing and falling from that wall; the 23 variances that will be approved if
this is approved; and will diminish property values in the area.
TIM WILKINSON, 4628 CARLOW ROAD - concerned about drainage onto his corner
lot which is on the corner of Carlow and Kerry and currently gets about 40 % of sites the
water; he was also concerned about child safety and the 14' wall. He was against the
project.
The Developer stated that with the private drive capturing the water and a new slope
system only 8 % of the water will be directed to the coner.
VICKI HOCKERT, KERRY LANE - concerned about additional sand that will be
washing down in the winter; this could cause parking problems.
REASONS:
o
The corner turning radius.
Will have to look at 14 foot retaining wall and worry about children climbing and
falling from that wall.
The 23 variances that will be approved if this is approved.
This will diminish property values in the area.
Concern about drainage onto the corner lot which is on the corner of Carlow and
Kerry and currently gets about 40 % of sites the water.
The Developer stated that with the private drive capturing the water and a new slope
system only 8 % of the water will be directed to the corner.
Concern about additional sand that will be washing down in the winter.
This could cause parking problems.
The Mayor closed the public Hearing.
Councilmember Hanus asked about parking and if this meets the code requirements for parking.
The Planner stated that the project does meet the parking code requirements. The code requires
2. He further assured the residents and the Council that there would be no parking on the
extended Kildare Lane. Guest parking would be in the private driveway portion of the project.
The developer stated they are providing 4 parking spots per house (2 inside, 2 outside, plus 5
guest parking spots).
Councilmember Jensen asked about the retaining wall height and if a fence would be required on
top of it. The developer stated that they have broken the wall up into 3 tiers with planting
between and they are planning heavy planting at the top which could take the place of a fence if
that meets the approval of the Building Official. He further stated they are planning a keystone
type wall with ivy so the effect will be softened.
The Council discussed Rule B and the fact that the City has not yet entered into a cooperative
agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The City Engineer stated that there is
May 13, 1997 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
more to Rule B than just the cooperative agreement. The problem is that the water cannot be
contained on the site. The Developer stated that the MWCD is willing to look at their
management system, evaluate it, and assess it out to make up the difference. The City Engineer
stated he is fairly sure that the Watershed District will require a monetary contribution for part
of it.
The City Engineer explained that the City Attorney has revised some verbiage in the agreement
that has been sent to the watershed district that would give the City more control in this type of
project. The City Attorney stated that we are trying to address this as a preclusion from being
required to store water on locations outside the City and giving the City the say in additional
storage of water from locations within the City beyond those contemplated at the time the
agreement is entered into. The City Attorney suggested that the Council think about adding a
condition to the preliminary approval resolution as follows: "The approval would not be
construed as creating an obligation on the part of the City to expend funds to provide a location
for off-site water storage." The Council thought this was a good idea.
The Mayor stated that he will have to vote against this item because of concerns about the
watershed, drainage plan, and the number of variances (23) for new construction.
Councilmember Hanus asked the City Planner how many of the variances would not be required
if these were lots of record? The Planner stated that the variances that pertain to the street
construction would be there regardless of whether it is this proposal or one home, if it's proposed
to be served by a cul-de-sac street of this nature. If it was considered a lot of record the bluff
setback is 10' instead of 30' so they would be compliant with that. The sideyard setbacks, they
would be compliant with as well. He stated the only thing that would be an issue would be the
front yard setback on two of the lots and what they've reduced was originally about 7 5[ overage
in impervious coverage, is down to 2.8 %. Those would still be there regardless of the lot of
record situation. He stated the lot of record status would alleviate most of the variances that are
outside of the street construction. The Planner stated that all the lots exceed the minimum 6,000
square foot requirement.
The City Engineer stated that the width of the street and the size of the cul-de-sac is consistent
with Teal Pointe, the cul-de-sacs in Pelican Point and Maple Manors.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen directing staff to prepare a resolution
of approval for the preliminary plat/PDA/variances, using all the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, City Planner and City Engineer and
adding the condition suggested by the City Attorney this evening. The vote was 4 in
favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried. This approval resolution to
be brought back to the Council on May 27, 1997.
1.10 PRESENTATION OF 1996 AUDIT - GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR &
STEVE MC DONALD, ABDO, ABDO AND EICK
The 1996 Audit was presented by Steve McDonald of Abdo, Abdo & Eick and Finance Director,
Gino Businaro.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
8
May 13, 1997
RESOLUTION//97-44
PROPOSED ORDIN. qNCE AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE
AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1996
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11
.CASE 97-16: GARY NACHREINER, 6056 CHERRYWOOD ROAD, LOTS 6 & 7_,
BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS, PID#23-117-24 34 0088, VARIANCE FOR GARAG I~;
ADDITION
The City Manager stated this was before the Council at the last meeting and was referred back to
the Planning Commission who heard it last night. The Planning Commission recommended denial
of the 26 or 28 foot garage and the proposed resolution was handed out this evening. The
Planning Commission again recommended approval of a 24 foot garage and that proposed
resolution is in the packet. The Planner stated that the Commission felt that giving a variance for
a 24 foot garage is a reasonable minimum in order to alleviate the hardship.
The Planner stated there are two resolutions in the packet, one denying the request for either a
26'or 28' garage and one approving a 24 foot garage.
The applicant was present and was still asking for at least a 26 foot garage. He showed more
pictures of his site.
MOTION by Hanus seconded by Ahrens to approve the proposed approval resolution
allowing a 24 foot garage
The City Attorney advised the Council that if they are not going to allow a 26' or
28' garage, which is what was applied for, they need to adopt the denial resolution.
Then, if they are going to allow the 24' garage they could waive the normal
procedures and fees and adopt the proposed approval resolution if the applicant
would be satisfied with the 24 foot garage.
Councilmembers Hanus and Ahrens withdrew their motion.
The City Attorney suggest that the second to the last WHEREAS in the denial resolution be
modified to read as follows:
"WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of a 4 foot
variance in order to allow construction of a 24 foot deep garage addition, with the findings
that although a 24 foot deep garage addition is more representative of a minimal situation
and would afford the owner reasonable use of the property and the modified proposal of
.a 26' deep garage does not represent the minimal situation in order to alleviate the
hardship."
The City Attorney also suggested deleting entirely the last Whereas in the proposed denial
resolution.
The Council agreed to modify the proposed denial resolution as suggested by the City Attorney.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
9
May I& 1997
RESOLUTION g97-45
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION TO DENY A FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
GARAGE ADDITION AT 6056 CHERRYWOOD
ROAD, PART OF LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 9, THE
HIGHLANDS, PID $23-117-24 34 0088, P & Z CASE
g97-16
The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
The Council discussed what would be a minimal variance.
The Council asked if the applicant would like the Council to adopt the proposed approval
resolution for the 24 foot deep garage. The applicant stated that he would agree to the 24 foot
deep garage.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-46
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 6056 CHERRYWOOD
ROAD, PART OF LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 9, THE
HIGHLANDS, PID $23-117-24 34 0088, P & Z CASE
//97-16
The City Attorney suggested adding a WHEREAS to this resolution that reads as foil ows:
"WHEREAS,the City Council is, at the request of the applicant, waiving any of
the procedures and formalities that might ordinarily accompany a variance application, in light of
the fact that this variance has been considered and acted upon tonight."
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - JOE ZYLMAN, MAPLE MANORS
The City Manager reported that the applicant has asked that this item be tabled until the
May 27, 1997, City Council Meeting. The Council agreed.
1.13 APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE DOCK SLIPS - AMI-HJRST LANE ACCESS (DEVON
COMMON} & FAIRVIEW LANE ACCESS
The City Manager explained that since the last Council meeting the DCAC (Dock & Commons
Advisory Commission) has met with the residents of these two areas, and the consensus indicated
that the multiple docks could be installed and that this should be done as soon as possible. /There
would be cooperation between the abutting and non-abutting site holders to allow temporary
dockage of boats at dock sites not in the location of the site for installation of the multiple slip
boat dock. The Park Director is working to obtain cost, installation time, and dock design. The
people wanted to get it in before Memorial Day. Up to $22,500 has been budgeted in the 1997
Budget for this project. The proposed resolution for approval was handed out this evening. Also
handed out were the Minutes from the DCAC Meetings of April 3, April 17 and May 8 and the
~gig
10
MW/3, 1~7
PRO?OSED ORDIN,,4NC£ AMENDMENT
PO$C (Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of May 6, ]997).
The Cit7 Clerk reviewed the revisions that have been made to the proposed resolution of approval
for these multiple dock systems.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-47
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK
SYSTEMS AT THE AMHURST ACCESS ON DEVON
COMMON, THE DEVON LANE ACCESS ON DEVON
COMMON, AND AT THE FAIRVIEW LANE ACCESS
ON LAKE BLVD.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that the third Whereas in the proposed resolution,
which has been deleted came about because that was the only direction the Counci 1
had given the DCAC at that point. The Council agreed that it should be deleted.
Councilmember Weycker stated that she has several concerns:
1. The 6th Whereas which reads as follows: "WHEREAS, the multiple-slip
docks are intended to be a small neighborhood dock system for individuals
within walking distance of their homes."
She stated that from what she read in the minutes, the intent in this is tot ally being
changed and the people who currently drive to the docks now are being asked to
f'md a dock elsewhere. She felt that the intent of having small neighborhood dock s
and keeping them within walking distance, was so that the City was not pulling
people away from where they already walked, not restricting people from driving
to their dock. There are a lot of areas in Mound that are not within walking
distance of a Commons. So if the Council starts restricting people with having to
live in the neighborhood to use these multiple docks, it's wrong.
Councilmember Hanus stated that his understanding was that wherever
possible, we were going to keep docks within walking distance of people homes.
He did not feel this was to restrict people from driving. It was to benefit them by
trying to keep the sites in their neighborhood. Councilmember Weycker does not
feel that the DCAC Minutes reflect that.
2. Councilmember Weycker stated that another concern is the total number of
boats participating in the Commons, was another objective. She felt that was also
being skewed because they are restricting the boats to one boat, per person at these
multiple dock slips.
Councilmember Hanus reminded the Council that everyone participating in
the multiple boat dock slip is doing so voluntarily and the single boat issue is the
tradeoff for getting a City dock you don't have to put in, take out or maintain.
Councilmember Weycker stated that the Pembroke people in the pilot
multiple boat dock slip were never restricted to one boat.
11
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
May 13, 1~7
Councilmember Hanus stated that was true only for the first year.
Mayor Polston stated that after this year, it has been written into the criteria
that in order to participate in this program you can only have one slip or you have
to move to another area.
Councilmember Weycker stated that it was her understanding at the meeting
with the Pembroke people and they were told that they were grandfathered in and
that would not be the case for them. She expressed concern that people are not
getting the correct information. At that meeting one person questioned why the
abutters were not bound by the same rules and the response from the Commission
was that the abutters have riparian rights.
Councilmember Ahrens stated that there was another response that came
later on after that. "An abutter can participate just as well in the multiple program
but they have to restrict themselves to one boat. They have to follow the same
rules as the non abutters if they are going to participate in the multiple.
Councilmember Weycker commented that right now it's all non-abutters at
the multiples.
The Mayor stated that it was his understanding that once a person with two
boats gives up that one slip at the Pembroke multiple dock, then he will be
restricted to one boat.
Councilmember Weycker stated that all her concerns have come when
reading the minutes from the DCAC. She quoted a paragraph from the April 17,
1997 DCAC Minutes as follows: "Non-abutter dockholders within the multiple
slip dock system should be within walking distance of their homes. Dock site
holders outside the immediate neighborhood should be moved to another Commons
for the 1998 boating season." Councilmember Jensen expressed concern about this
also.
Councilmember Jensen asked for clarification on the following: "If
someone moves to one of the new multiple docks this year, they acknowledge that
they are limited to one boat? The Mayor stated that was correct. Do they then
have the option next year to go to a non-multiple dock location?" Counc ilmember
Hanus stated that they can always apply into the system to get back into a privately
installed dock, like anyone else can. He stated that because they are already in the
system, they would have priority like anyone else who is currently on the system.
Mayor Polston quoted the following from the DCAC Minutes of April 17,
1997: "Non-abutting dock holders with more than one boat will be assigned an
additional dock slip (A or J) for their second boat for the 1997 boating season.
The Commission's goal is to reduce the number of boat slips to one boat slip per
dock site holder. Therefore, as dock site holders reduce the number of boats of
record on their dock application to one boat, they may not increase that number
after that point. Current dock site holders with only one boat may not increase the
number of boats registered in the city dock program."
12
May 13, 1997
PROPOSED ORDIN,4NCE AMENDMENT
Councilmember Jensen felt that is a contradiction to what was just said.
Mayor Polston quoted the following from the DCA C Minutes of April 17,
1997: "Non-abutter dock holders within the multiple-slip dock system should be
within walking distance of their homes. Dock site holders outside of the immediate
neighborhood should be moved to another commons for the 1998 boating season."
Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels the confusion is in the last
sentence of the first quote which should read: "Current multiple slip dock site
holders with only one boat may not increase the number of boats registered in the
city dock program." He understands this to mean, that if a person decides to leave
their multiple slip and apply for a private dock again, or course they can go back
to the same rules that apply to a privately held dock.
Councilmember Weycker commented that in the meantime there may be no
docks within walking distance of their homes.
Councilmember Ahrens commented that is chance you take when you
volunteer to be at a multiple.
Councilmember Weycker stated that at the meetings with the residents on
the multiple dock slips, she still feels that the people were not convinced that this
was a good idea, and after reading the DCAC Minutes, they were not told all of
this information. She did not think they had adequate information to make a
decision.
Mayor Polston disagreed and felt that the Commission was very careful and
it was written into the minutes, what was intended and what was happening with
the multiple system. He felt the Commission was very concerned, that both
abutters and non-abutters, be given the correct information and that the program
is voluntary.
Councilmember Weycker asked the City Attorney if an abutter has riparian
rights to the commons in front of their house, anymore than anyone has riparian
rights to public land?
The City Attorney stated. "No one can answer that question because that's
one of the issues which need to be resolved in litigation. In other words, What is
the nature of the abutting property owner's interest in the Commons area? What's
the nature of the non-abutting property owner's interest in the Commons area? If,
in fact, the non-abutting property owner's right in the Commons is nothing more
than the use of the Commons for the purpose of passage, moving from one point
to another, then it may well be the case that th e abutting property owners do have
something akin to riparian rights, if the interest of the non-abutting property
owners in the Commons would include the right to use the shore, to fish, to do
things that typically are only of interest to an abutting property owner or a riparian
property owner. Then the abutting property owner doesn't have riparian rights to
the exclusion of anyone else. It is one of those issues that needs to be resolved.
They may have them. They may not have them, but to assert at this point that the y
May 13, 1997
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
do, in fact, have them, I think is incorrect and I believe that was, arguably at least,
that may have been corrected at.the time. He hopes they don't believe that they,
to the exclusion of anyone else, have the rights of riparian owners at the moment
because the Commons lies between their property and the lake."
Councilmember Weycker, encouraged everyone to read the minutes of the
DCAC meetings that were handed out this evening because she feels there are
things in them that were never intended, by the Council, like maintaining the total
number of boats. She felt we need to maintain the total number of participants, not
boats.
Councilmember Ahrens asked for the question to be called on the resolution. The vote on calling
the question was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
The vote in the resolution was 3 in favor with Jensen and Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.14 DISCUSSION: MEMBERSHIP IN THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY (SRA)
The City Manager reported that the City of Mound was asked to voluntarily participate in the
Suburban Rate Authority for the last nine months, at no charge. That membership expires at the
end of June. Councilmember Hanus has been Mound's delegate to this group.
The Manager stated that they provide information about what is going on in the utility industry
as it relates to municipalities and put out a lot of information. They are a force at the Public
Utilities Commission as well as the Legislature on utility rate matters. They are asking if we
would like to continue as a member and if so, adopt a resolution to that effect. The dues are
$800.00 a year but if we agree to continue though 1997 they will only charge us $400.00.
Councilmember Jensen withdrew herself from this discussion because of a conflict of interest with
her employer; she cannot participate in this.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he does feel the City does get some benefits from this
association. He also stated that he would still be the designated representative if the Council
wished. The Council agreed.
Polston moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g97-48
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN
THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY; AND
DESIGNATING MARK HANUS AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY AS ITS MEMBER
ON THE BOARD OF THE SUBURBAN RATE
AUTHORITY AND ED SHUKLE AS THE
ALTERNATE DELEGATE
/gzz,
14
The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen abstaining.
ADD-ONS
Motion carried.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
1.15 DISCUSSION RE: LEGAL OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THE
CITY'S LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE PLACEMENT OF DOCKS
ON WAWONAISSA COMMON AT THE END OF WOODLAND ROAD.
The City Attorney reviewed his legal opinion dated May 13, 1997, relating to the City authority
to regulate the placement of docks on Wawonaissa Common at the end of Woodland Road. The
conclusion is that the City's interest in the street does not create any special interest in the city
over the portion of the common lying at the end of the street. This is also not to say that the
abutting property owners have any special rights with respect either to that area or with respect
to the Commons in front of their properties, but whatever rights they may have by virtue of the
fact that they are fee owners abutting are rights that we do not have by virtue of the fact that we
have a street abutting. There was no formal action on this item.
1.16 DISCUSSION RE: REAPPLICATION OF G WILL LIQUORS FOR A OFF-SALE
LIQUOR LICENSE IN THE CITY OF SPRING PARK.
The City Manager reported that the City of Spring Park has notified the City that G Will Liquors
has submitted another application for an Off-Sale Liquor License in the City of Spring Park.
Spring Park will reconsider this on May 19, 1997. He and the Liquor Store Manager will be in
attendance. He asked if the Council wants a letter written objecting to issuance of this license.
The Council said yes.
1.17 POSSIBLE LITIGATION FOR TREE CUTTING ON WIOTA COMMONS
The City Attorney suggested that the Council go into Executive Session to discuss this possible
litigation. The Council agreed and went into Executive Session at 10:55 P.M.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Department Head monthly reports for April, 1997.
LMCD Representative's monthly report for April, 1997
Letter from Gene Peterson, 6017 Ridgewood Road
Letter from Patricia Mikulski, 3015 Drury Lane
Letter from Perry Hanson, 2459 Lost Lake Road
Letter from Dorene Hanson, 2459 Lost Lake Road
Memorandum with Attachments from Jim Strommen, Kennedy & Graven and Suburban
Rate Authority Re: 612 Area Code Proposed Changes
May 13, 1997 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
H. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, May 20, 1997, 7:30 P.M.
REMINDER: City Offices will be closed on Monday, May 26, 1997 in Observance of
Memorial Day.
Jo
REMINDER: HRA Meeting, 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 13, 1997, City Hall prior to
Regular City Council Meeting.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 11:30 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
16
MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-MAY 20, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Pro-Tem Andrea
Ahrens and Councilmembers Jensen, Hanus and Weycker. Absent and excused: Mayor
Bob Polston. Also Present: John Dean, City Attorney; Corrine Thomson, Kennedy and
Graven; Gerald Reifschneder, Planning Commission; Gordy Tulberg, Dock and Commons
Advisory Commission; Bill and Dorothy Netka; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development
Coordinator; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; and Ed Shukle, City Manager.
Open Meeting Law
Introductions were made and then City Manager Ed Shukle introduced John Dean and Corrine
Thomson who presented the basics on the Open Meeting Law in Minnesota. Dean and Thomson
reviewed the statute in general and then distributed a list of "Situations" where the Council could
determine whether these situations constituted a meeting or not and whether they were considered
to be open meetings.
Central Business District (CBD) Parking Program
Ed Shukle explained some background regarding this subject. He then introduced Bruce
Chamberlain who explained that his firm had been asked to analyze the City's CBD parking program
and to come up with some possible modifications or other suggestions that would resolve the
ongoing concerns of the CBD parking program participants. Chamberlain reviewed a letter he had
sent to the City in March 1997 regarding the program and the options that the City faced. Basically,
the options were to abandon the program, have it "limp along" for the next 2-3 years and while the
program is limping along, to come up with a long-term solution on how to handle the parking needs
of downtown Mound.
Chamberlain was asked to bring back some recommendations to the next Committee of the Whole
meeting in June.
Lost Lake Improvement Project Update
Bruce Chamberlain and Ed Shukle reported on the status of the project. They discussed some
obstacles that have come about recently regarding the project but are still optimistic that the project
will proceed later this summer or fall. Also discussed were the proposed locations for the dredge
spoils and the possibility of signing an exclusive fights agreement with a developer on a hotel at the
Lost Lake site. The Council hsked if the developers interested in this phase of the project could be
present at the next Committee of the Whole meeting for interviews with the Council. The City
Manager will try to arrange this for the June COW meeting.
Committee of the Whole Minutes
May 20, 1997
Page 2
Auditor's Road Improvement Project Update
Ed Shukle reviewed the status, schedule, relocation of the post office and where to go with the
developers who have expressed an interest in redeveloping the area along the new Auditor's Road.
More information on the developers issue will be discussed at the next COW meeting.
Also discussed was the possibility of demolishing the properties along the new Auditor's Road as
soon as possible. City Manager explained that he thought it was the intention of the City Engineer
to incorporate the plans for demolition into the overall plans for the street improvement. Shukle
stated he would check with John Cameron, City Engineer regarding this issue.
Proposed Improvements to Veteran's Park
Ed Shukle displayed the drawings from the Bruce Chamberlains firm regarding the development of
Veteran's Park. The Council asked that more input be given on this by the Park and Open Space
Commission and brought back at a later date.
Kevin Sorbo Event/Proposed Improvements to Kevin Sorbo (Langdon) Park
Ed Shukle explained that the event will take place August 22-24 when Mr. Sorbo is in Mound for
his high school class reunion. A plan was reviewed regarding proposed improvements to the park.
Also discussed is what type of ceremony could be held to honor Mr. Sorbo and his donation for the
improvements to the park. The Council directed that this matter be sent back to the Park and Open
Space Commission for more input.
Annual Meeting of City_ Council and Advisory_ Commissions
Councilmember Hanus asked that this be placed on the agenda. Mr. Hanus indicated that this topic
came up at a recent Planning Commission meeting. The idea would be to hold a joint session of the
Council and the various advisory commissions annually or semiannually to discuss issues before the
City and to be brought up-to-date on what is going on in the City. It would be an opportunity for
the Council and the advisory commissions to discuss issues of concern. It was suggested that the
Park and Open Space Commission and the Economic Development Commission be asked about
their interest in having such a meeting and to bring back their suggestions to the next COW meeting.
Other Business
The Council asked for a report on the work of the joint committee of the school district, city of
Mound and city of Minnetrista regarding the existing community center. The City Manager reported
on the status and indicated that a target date of June 30 is still realistic to complete the study and
report the findings to the various entities involved in the project.
Committee of the Whole Minutes
May 20, 1997
Page 3
It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee of the Whole is scheduled for June 17, 1997,
7:30 p.m.
Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned
at 11:30 p.m.
~~tted,
~Ed ~ukle
City Manager
/TZ 7
Proposed Resoltuion
Turtle Garage
May 2Z 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DWELLING
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING
DETACHED GARAGE AT 4920 CRESTVIEW ROAD,
LOT 3 & 4, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT
PID//13-117-24 11 0087, P & Z CASE//97-18
WHEREAS, the owners, Bruce and Jeannie Turtle, have applied for a variance
to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to build a conforming 24' x 26
detached garage, and
WHEREAS, the existing nonconforming home is setback 18.4 feet from the from
property line abutting Crestview Road and the required setback is 30 feet, resulting in a variance
of 11.6 feet, and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-1 zoning district where the minimum
lot area is 10,000 square feet and this lot area is 12,500 square feet, and
WHEREAS, the proposed detached garage meets all required setbacks, and
WHEREAS, all other issues are conforming in this case, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has requested and received a complete grading
plan from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, staff and Planning Commission unanimously recommend approval
of this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, to recognize an 11.6 from yard setback on an existing nonconforming
dwelling and to approve the construction of a 24' x 26' conforming detached garage.
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 the property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin Coumy
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.
Ig'Zg
Minutes of Plant2ing Comm,ssion Meeting
Ma)' 12, 1997
CASE #97-18: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE,
BRUCE TUTTLE, 4920 CRESTVIEW ROAD
LOT 3 & 4, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT
13-117-24 11 00087
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the applicant is seeking a variance to the existing
nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a conforming garage. The existing
dwelling is setback 18.4 feet from the front property line abutting Crestview Road. A 30 foot
setback is required resulting in the recognition of a variance of 11.6 feet. 'AI1 other issues are
conforming in this case. The City Engineer has commented that the applicant may need to
provide a more complete grading plan to insure the elevations will work.
The staff recommends to the Planning Commission approval of the request, as the proposal is
conforming to the ordinance, and is a reasonable use of the property with the condition that the
applicant provides a more complete grading plan that shall be subject to the City Engineer.
The Building Official stated to the Commission that Mr. Tuttle had been in the office that day
and provided a more complete grading/water runoff plan. At the time he was in, the City
Engineer was also present, and he had approved the grading plan.
The Commission discussed this property having two front yards. They asked if the property
would ever be subdivided. The applicant stated no, but due to the slope of the property, this
is where the garage needs to be located. The Building Official confirmed the parcels have been
combined and cannot be subdivided without City approval.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider, to approve the variance
request of 11.6 front yard setback, to allow the construction of a detached
garage at 4920 Crestview Road. Motion carried unanimously.
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 May 12, 1997
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
Bruce N. Tuttle
97-18
4920 CrestviewRoad
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming
dwelling in order to allow construction of a conforming garage. The existing dweling is
setback 18.4 feet from the front property line abutting Crestview Road. A 30 foot setback
is required resulting in the recognition of a variance of 11.6 feet. All other issues are
conforming in this case. The city engineer has commented that we may need a more
complete grading plan to insure the elevations will work.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the request, as the proposal is conforming to the ordinance, and is a reasonable
use of the property with the following condition:
1)
The applicant provide a more complete grading plan that shall be subject to the
City Engineer.
The abutting ne/ghbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 27, 1997.
I i,$O
~ pr#lied on recycled paper
J, t iL ,L iii, .IlL ,Ii . L
PAID
R 2 5 1997
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee:
$100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) ( t~O,~.
Planning Commission Date: ~ - ~/~- ~ ~ i ~"- /)'
City Council Date: ~ ~ ~4 ~/~
Distribution: City Pla~er DNR
City Engineer
Public Works
SU~ECT Address C~q ~ C~~ ~ ~
PROPERTY Lot 3 ~ ~ Block
,u v ,ion
DESC. PIDg [~- t IW- 0~' ~ [/-~7 Plat
OWNER Address ~ ¢¢ ~T~ 1~
Phone (.)q TZ~ IG% (w) 55q
APPLICANT Name ~~ ~5
(IF OTHER Address
THAN
Phone (H) (W) (M)
OWNER)
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~,<)Q 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:
( w)
EW)
( N S E(~)
(NSEW)
· (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
REQUIRED
._BO
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
fl. 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:
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~'<r)~xisting situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
describe: ~'-~(--D{--'~S& ~'-~"'i-- (_Op-D~),~/~ ]p~)~--- C)/~ ,.~'lC'~C__
(Rev. 1/14/97)
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 (), NoW2'%, 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' ~ /Y'~] (:~(,_L
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature ~~-~
Applicant' s Signa~ture~~-Q-.~ ~
(Rev. ]114/97)
Date H / ~_~ /C~'~
Date q/~.-~/~ 7
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNEr'S NA~E: ~.~
SQ. FT. X 30%
SQ. FT. X 40%
SQ. FT. X 15%
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
= (for all lots) .............. I_~1
= (for Lots of Record*) ....... I ,~OO(~ I
= (for detached buildings only) . . I~1
*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.
DETACHED BLDGS
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
LENGT~ WIDT~ SQ FT
.~o- x Z-~' =
'~C~ x %¼ =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS /
x ....
x ~ = ~~
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ~C ..................
DECKS Open decks (1/4" m=n.~='~ X
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are ~
not counted as hardcover TOT~~CK .........................
OTHER ~ ~ = -
TOTAL OTHER .........................
'7_..$G0 "~ ...,
~o~^~.~.~cov~. ~ ~.~.wous su.~c~
~VER (indicate difference) ......
ADDRESS:
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
SURVEY ON FILE?(Y~/ NO
LOT OF RECORD? ~/ NO
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZ~WIDTH:
R1 10~~ B1 7,500/0
~--' B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
a' l
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
YARD J DIRECTION J
HOUSE .........
FRONT N S /'E W
FRONT
N_ E W
N S E W
SIDE
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E(W~
N S E W
REQUIRED
VARIANCE
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAGE, SiiED .....
FRONT
FRONT
DETACHED BUILDINGS
N S (.~! W
N~.~E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
HARDCOVER
CONFORMING? YES / NO
N S E W
N S E~
N S E W
15'
50'
10' OR 30'
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
50'
10' OR 30'
[7 24',
This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of thc requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For f~rther inforrt~tion, contact the City of Mound
. Planning Deparu'nent at 472-0600.
2--
¢ ERT/F/C4/' OF
Existing
[,; House,
'" :" '"' "" "" 59..1
/
..... 0 Denotes iron monument
X O00.ODenotee existing elev. '
~', (000.0) Denotes proposed elev.
· Denotes surface droinage '
L~GA(. DESCRIPTION
LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 24, :
SHADYWOOD POINT
Proposed goroge floor gev.= 964.00
Proposed lowest fiqor ~lev.~,
Proposed top of foundotion
BENCHMARK:
I hereby certify thor this is o true ond correct repreeentotien of o survey of
the boundorles of the obove described Iond ond of the Iocotion of oll buildings,
if ony, thereon, ond oil visible encroochments, if ony, from o~ on sold lend.
~ Dovid E: Crook Minn, Reg. No. 22414
F"#e No.
9495
57/5
Scole
i
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
STR£~r
CITY, STATE ~ ZiP CODE
IDATE OF PLANS
Page No. of Pages
JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION
Concrete & Landscaping
Lee Johnson
4074 - 43rd St. SE Delano, MN 55328
Office 473-5291 - Hours 8:00 - 5:00
Office 972-2745 After 5:00 P.M.
State Llc. ~1247 Bonded · Insured
JOB LOCATION
7
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for.
._~.._;.., ~,,.~_ ~x_~..:.~ _,_~/~:~~~._.-,-~_./ _ .~_/~.~_
~ ~'~ ~ ~'"i
hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specif~ions, for the sum of:
~o,~,~T ~ ! ~ ,.
All matenaJ i~ ~ranteed to be as 1~3ec~ed. Al ~ to be c~ed in a wo~.manlike
Signature
Note: Thi~
man,er as~=c~:ling tO a~anda~ ~ Any alteca/Jon ~' ¢lev~bon from above sc~ctf~ations
mvoNing extra costs will be ~xecuted
r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W~'s ~~ I~.
and cond~s am satisfac~ and am hereby acceDted. ~u am a~orized
[to do ~e ~rk as speckled. Pa~ent ~11 be made as o~ined a~.
Date of ~n~:
withdrawn by us if not accepted within
Signature
Signature
.d
RESOLUTION//97-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION
AND MODIFICATION TO
RESOLUTION//96-116, RELATING TO
THE MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES
OF 4536 & 45552 DENBIGH ROAD
PID'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048
P&Z CASE//97-19
WHEREAS, the applicant Randy Moriarty requested and received from the City
Council a minor subdivision and related variances for lots 5, 6, 7, 8 & Swly 1'/2 of Lot 4,
Block 2, Avalon, address 4536 and 4552 Denbigh Road by Resolution//96-116, dated November
12, 1996, and
WHEREAS, Resolution #96-116 allows for the subdivision of three tracts known
as A, B and C, and tracts B and C contain existing homes and the home on Tract C is in very
poor condition and will be removed, and
WHEREAS, the Resolution further states the home on Tract C will be removed
prior to release of resolution for filing at the County, and
WHEREAS, the granting of a lot subdivision must be recorded at Hennepin
County within 180 days following the adoption of the resolution, and
WHEREAS, by letter dated April 11, 1997, Mr. Moriarty, has requested a six
month extension and a modification of Resolution//96-116, item If, to allow the house on
Tract C to be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new house on Tract A,
or maintain the requirement that the house be removed prior to the filing of the resolution and
extend the time limit to one year, and;
WHEREAS, item if, of Resolution //96-116 states, "The house and garage
located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for filing
(note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days). A demolition permit is required.", and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the above statement to be amended to
state "the house on Tract C will be removed before a building permit be issued for the house
on Tract A, if the extension is only granted for six months, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its May 12, 1997 meeting voted by a
6-1, with Hanus voting nay, to recommend denial of the extension and modification. This
recommendation was consistent with their original recommendation to deny the development in
1996.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Planning Commission
recommendations and determined, through careful consideration of the positive effects of the
proposal and its relationship to the neighboring properties, and therefore approved the applicant's
request to extend and modify item l f, with conditions.
/ 8}3?
Proposed Moriarty Resolution
May 27, 1997
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Planning Commission
recommendations and determined, through careful consideration of the positive effects of the
proposal and its relationship to the neighboring properties, and therefore approved the applicant's
request to extend and modify item If, with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a 12 month extension on Resolution #96-116 and maintain the
requirement that the house be removed prior to the filing of the resolution.
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 sto show compliance with
the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the
responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember,
Councilmember.
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
MINL'TES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLAN~'NING COMMISSION
MAY 12, 1997
CASE #9%19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION
tL&NDY MORiARTY, 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD.
LOT 5,6,7,8 & SWLY 1/2 OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON
13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048.
Building Official Jon Sutherland summarized this case. He stated that in November of 1996,
the City Council had approved a minor subdivision involving three lots on property owned by
Randy Moriarty at 4536 and 4552 Denbigh Road. The subdivision created 3 tracts known as
A, B and C. Tracts B and C contained existing homes, one of which (Tract C) is in very poor
condition and will be removed as a condition of approval of the subdivision.
This case was difficult because of the bluff variances involved and because it created a new lot.
During the final review of the request, the discussion focused on the removal of the home on
Tract C which was touted as a benefit of approving the minor subdivision. The Planning
Commission Minutes of September 9, 1996 reflect that there is a problem with the bluff zone,
but Mr. Moriarry considers that as a hardship. Jack Cook emphasized that a benefit to this
proposal is that the house on Tract C that is in poor condition, will be removed.
At this time, the applicant is requesting an extension of the minor subdivision approval for either
6 or 12 months, depending on the City's willingness to modify, the approval resolution condition
that required the removal of the home on Tract C. The resolution states, "1. f. The house and
garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for
filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days, see #7) A demolition permit is
required.' If the City is not willing to modify this provision, the applicant would like the
approval time to be extended for 1 year.
The staff recommends the Planning Commission hold to the original approval of the resolution
#96-116.
Todd Hovren, a representative for Mr. MORIARTY was present, and stated that the owners
were out of state for the summer work/ng and could not be here to demolish this summer.
Commissioner Mueller mentioned that only one extension is allowable for subdivisions. The
applicant would need to reapply after the extension expired.
MOTION by Mueller to deny the application for ex'tension based on the fact
that the impact to the bluff has not changed and allowing another structure
on DENBIGH Road that is congested is not a good idea, all of which were
included in the original minutes on this resolution. Nothing has changed.
Mueller does not recommend yet another structure to be built on Denbigh
Road that cannot meet the setback requirements of our zoning code. Motion
seconded by Reifschneider.
Chair Michael asked for discussion.
Hanus confirmed that this was a motion to deny the extension.
Mueller confirmed he made the motion for denial due to all of the reasons that were mentioned
before.
MOTION carried 6-1, Hanus voting nay.
NOTE: There was additional discussion on the consensus of the Planning Commission that
variance extension requests could go directly to the City Council. This item will go to the City
Council on May 27, 1997.
/ga//
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: May 6, 1997
SUBJECT: Subdivision Extension - Resolution Modification
APPLICANT: Randy Moriarty
CASE NUMBER: 97-19
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5i
LOCATION: 4536 and 4552 Denbigh Road
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family (R-lA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: In November of 1996, the City Council approved a minor subdivision involving
three lots on property owned by Randy Moriarty at 4536 and 4552 Denbigh Road. The subdivision
created 3 tracts known as A, B and C. Tracts B and C contained existing homes, one of which (Tract
C) is in very poor condition and will eventually be removed.
This case was difficult because of the bluff variances involved and because it created a new lot.
During the final review of the request, the discussion focused on the removal of the home on Tract
C which was touted as a benefit of approving the minor subdivision. The Planning Commission
minutes of September 9, 1997 state, "Jack Cook who is representing Mr. Moriarty, stated that there
is a problem with the bluff zone, but Mr. Moriarty considers that as a hardship. Cook emphasized
that a benefit to this proposal is that the house on Tract C will be removed, and he emphasized the
poor condition of this dwelling."
The minutes continue, "Hanus asked if they would be willing to remove the house prior to the filing
of the subdivision resolution. Mr. Cook confirmed that they would be willing to remove the
dwelling on Tract C in conjunction with the approval."
At this time, the applicant is requesting an extension of the minor subdivision approval for either 6
or 12 months, depending on the City's willingness to modify the approval resolution condition that
required the removal of the home on Tract C. The resolution provision states, "l.f. The house and
garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for filing
(note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days, see #7). A demolition permit is required." If
the City is not willing to modify this provision, the applicant would like the approval time to be
extended for 1 year.
I o° Z.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Moriarty Planning Report
May 6, 1997
Page 2
COMMENTS: Since removal of the deteriorated home on Tract C is an important element of the
original approval, any additional action by the City should not compromise the timely removal of
the structure. The applicant has requested one of two options: 1) extend the approval resolution for
6 months and require removal of the home on Tract C prior to the issuance of a building permit for
Tract A, or 2) maintain the requirement that the house be removed prior to the filing of the resolution
and extend the time limit to one year.
Of the two alternatives, staff is opposed to the first option because it may not result in the timely
removal of the home on Tract C in the near future. Once the subdivision has been filed, it would be
possible for the owner to sell Tract A an not have the new owner build on it for a number of years.
Therefore, option 2 is likely to achieve the desired home removal within one year which is consistent
with the original approval action.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council extend the approval time for the minor subdivision for another 12 months and that resolution
provision 1.f. remain as currently worded.
APR-11-1997 11:46 FROM ALTERNATIUE MORTGAGE
TO
November 12, 1996
RESOLUTION ~6-116
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES
FOR LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, & SWLY 1/2 OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON
4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD
PID'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048
P&Z CASE tD6-31
WI-IEREAS, the owners of the subject property, as listed below, have 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:
Lot 5 & Swly 1/2 of Lot 4 - Randy Moriarty, 4536 Denbigh Road
Lots 6, 7, & 8 - Robert Baumgarten, 4552 Denbigh Road
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, 10
foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback, a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and a 10 foot
setback from the top of a bluff, and;
WHEREAS, the subdivision establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain
existing homes. The home on Tract C will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence, and;
WHEREAS, all three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for
non-lots of record, and;
WHEREAS, the following variances are involved with this request:
A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot.
A front yard setback for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet.
WHEREAS, all three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended denial with 7 in
favor and 1 opposed, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined a practical difficulty exists and the proposal is in
substantial compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, it is desirable to have the house on Tract C removed, and the
minor subdivision and proposed new dwellings are consistent with the development in the surrounding neighborhood,
and;
WHEREAS,
bluff.
the majority of the properties on Denbigh are similarly situated as far as impacting the
P.~
fOJ.JOWS:
1.
o
NOW, Tlq'k"KEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as
The City does hereby approve the minor sul0division ne shown on the attached Exhibit 'A', and subject to
the following conditions:
lt.
A park dedication fee of $500.00 for the one new parcel being created shall be paid prior to
release of this resolution for filing.
The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer
services is located ia an unu~ble location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a
new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A shall either be installed or some
type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond, prior to release
of this resolution for filing.
A grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be submitted as part of the building permit
application for review and approval by the City Engineer.
The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet ia width along all
sides lot lines, 15 feet ia width along rear lot lines, 10 feet ia width along the front of Tracts A
and C, and 4.5 feet ia width along the front of Tract B. The easement descriptions and easement
documents must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and then must be filed ia
conjunction with this resolution at the County. Proof of filing the easements must be provided
to the City of Mound prior to building permit issuance.
One deficient street unit charge ia the amotmt of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of this
resolution for recording.
The house and garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this
resolution for filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days, see #7). A demolition
permit is required.
The City does hereby approve the following variances ia conjunction with the minor subdivision:
a. A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot.
b. A front yard setback variance for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet.
The existing legal description is: Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, Avalon, and Lot 5 and the Southwesterly half
of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon.
The proposed legal descriptions are as follows:
Tract A:
The Northeasterly 15.00 feet of Lot 7 and the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of LOt 6, Block
2, Avalon.
Tract B:
The Southwesterly Half of Lot 4, all of Lot 5 and LOt 6, except the Southwesterly 35.50
feet of said Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon.
Tract C:
Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except the Northeasterly 15.00 feet of said Lot 7.
It is determined that the foregoing subdivisionwill constitute a desirable and stable community development
and it is in harmony with adjacent properties.
Resolution t~96-116
Moriarty
Page 3
The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon eomplianc~
with all conditions contalnext her~im The al~lica~ .~hnll have ~he rtgs'pomsibility of fili~g this revolution ha
the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepia County t~ show compliance with
the subdivision regulations of the City TI~ applicant shall also have the respons~ility to pay all costs
associated with such recording.
7. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded withl. 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution.
The foregoing re~lufion was moved by Couneilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember
The following Cotmcilmembers vota~d ha the affmmfive: Ah.ren~% Hanus and Polston
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Sensen, Jessen
AtteSt: Acting City Clerk
Resolution adopted: November 12, 1996
Kevin
L. Donahoe
1801 Shorewood Lane
Mound, Minnesota 55364
(612) 472-1072
Fax:
May 20,1997
City Of Mound
5341Maywood Rd.
Mound, Mn 55364
RE: Request for Variance Extension
Dear Council Members:
Please consider my request for an extension on my variance that was adopted on
May 28th 1996.
Last summer, after taking a closer look at my finances, I decided to hold off on my plans
to build the garage until I felt I was in a better position to afford the payments for such a project.
Since then, I've taken several steps to continue on with the project and my finances are such that
it will be feasible for me to move forward with the plans. Soon, I will be meeting with Minnetonka
Design Inc. to go over some of my preliminary plans & ideas and hopefully will be applying for a
building permit in the near future.
I'm requesting a 120 day extension beyond the May 28th deadline to on or about
September 28th 1997.
Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated and I look forward to applying for a building
permit very soon.
Respectfully,
Kevin L. Donahoe
P&Z case no.: 96-24
PID no.: 13-117-24 14
Lots 1&2, block 6, shadywood point
97
RESOLUTION #96-$7
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE DWELLING TO
FEB 0 1997
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFOP~MING DETACHED GARAGE
AT 150! SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0005
P&Z CASE #96-24
WHEREAS, the owner, Kevin Donahoe, has applied for variance to recognize
the nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a conforming detached garage, 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 to both Shorewood Lane and Quail, 6 foot
side yard setback to the south and a 15 foot rear yard setback to the west, and;
WHEREAS, the e,'dsting setback of 12.5 feet to Wildhurst results in the
recognition of a 7.5 foot front yard setback variance, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant is planning to remove the existing dwelling at some
time in the future and construct a new dwelling in a conforming location. All other
issues w/th this site are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval as the proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property and
will enhance the use and function of the property, without any further encroachment, or
increase in the nonconforming status.
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 of 12.5 feet to -"
a,ow construction of a conforming detached
garage.
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.
98
Resolution #96-5? May ~, 1996
Page 2
o
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
propert3~ to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a 32' x 28' detached garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 1 & 2, Block 6, Shadywood Point.
This variance shall be recorded with the County. Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36,
Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may
be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility, of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed
with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus
seconded by Councilmember Jessen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jenson, Jessen and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
and
Attest: Acting City Clerk
Resolution adopted: May 28, 1996
Mayor
I II
~-£LP
BE :E~ ~65IIS~1~0
EO 3g~d
9~3EN0~9 ~ NI~OO
MINNESOTA TRAIL ASSISTANCE PROG~
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, on the 28th day of October ,1996, the State of Minnesota,
acting by and through the Commissioner of Natural Resources, and The City of Mound entered
into a Grant Agreement relating to the established trail known as the Southwest Trails for
$17,850.00, and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 1997 grant for the above mentioned trail has been expended
for increased grooming due to the heavy snowfall this past season, leaving no funds to prepare for
the upcoming season, and
WHEREAS, the City will need funds for pre-season trail maintenance, and said
maintenance is necessary for the safety of trail users, so
THEREFORE, the October 28 , 1996, Grant Agreement is amended by grant from
$17,850.00 to $19,785.00 an increase orS 1,935.00
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Supplemental Agreement is executed by the parties this
day of ,1997 imending to be bound thereby.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT
By By
Title Title
Date Date
Approved as to Form and Execution
By
By Title
Date Date
BILLS
-May 27, 1997
BATCH 7052
Total Bills
$196,489.20
$196,489.20
ZO
I 0
Z~
m
.¢:
Z
.~ ~?
O0
0
n
g
I.Z Z
1....~.
ZZ
CZ,CZ
..-I *.=t
I
7."
0
-~.
'"&' u'~
0
C~
z
0
C~
z
r-
'D
~?
ZZED
r-' rrl C:
I
Z
Z
m
z
0
Z
?
",4
.-~t~
0
c:r~
z
;2:
I--mO
lc;r>
Proposed Resolution
5100 Drummond
May 27, 1997
RESOLUTION//97-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING
AT 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD
AND TO MODIFY RESOLUTION//95-13
ITEM 16 FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCELS
LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE,
P&Z CASE//97-20
WHEREAS, Fred Johnson/Caliper Builders has applied for a 10 foot from yard setback
variance in order to allow construction of a new dwelling 10 feet from the south from property
line, and also a modification of one of the conditions of the approval resolution for the Teal
Poime subdivision, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires for non-lots of record a minimum lot area
of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard
setback, and a 50 foot setback to the lake, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is lot 3, Block 1 of Teal Poime, and froms on both
unimproved Drummond Road and the Outlot A (a short private street) which are both subject
to from yard setbacks of 20 feet because it is a corner lot, and;
WHEREAS, the home is proposed to be located 10 feet from the Drummond Road
right-of-way which would be a normal side yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, when the preliminary plat for Teal Poime was submitted the developer had
originally proposed the vacation of Drummond Road. After public hearings, the Council denied
the vacation request. The general conclusion was that Drummond Road would probably never
be improved for street purposes, and;
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat that was filed for Teal Poime incorrectly idemified a
10 foot setback requirement from the Drummond Road right-of-way. The plat was drawn
assuming setbacks with the right-of-way being vacated, and;
WHEREAS, locating a home within 10 feet of the line does not compromise future use
of Drummond Road as either a formally marked or informally used public trail. Even if utilities
Proposed Resolution
5100 Drummond
May 27, 1997
were needed in the future, they could be placed within the right-of-way without being hampered
by the location of the proposed home, and;
WHEREAS, the fact that Drummond Road is likely to be held by the public as
perpetual open space and the fact that the new home does not compromise the future use of the
public right-of-way are grounds for a f'mding that this case satisfies the existence of practical
difficulty, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and impervious surface coverage are
conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the idea of caisson and cantilevered homes was offered by the original
developer as a means to lessen the impact on the steep slope areas. The current owner of lots
1-3 is seeking to modify this clause in the resolution to allow the construction of traditional
single family homes.
WHEREAS, staff is not opposed to traditional homes on the three subject lots providing
the impact to the site is no more severe than it would be with the original design, and:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and voted 4 to 3 to
recommend approval of the request as recommended by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 10 foot front yard setback variance in order to allow
construction of a new dwelling 10 feet from the right-of-way of Drummond Road.
The City does hereby amend Resolution 95-13 item 16 by removing the requirement for
caisson and cantilevered structures, the remainder of the condition shall be amended to
read: "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall submit
3 sets of plans prepared by registered engineers and landscape architects for review by
the city. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger that
1"--1' identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree
inventory, an erosion control plan and a detailed landscape plan. Additionally, the
grading plan shall note all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate
details shall be provided."
Complete plans for the proposed construction on lots 1, 2 and 3, consistent with the
above requirement shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and
2
Proposed Resolution
5100 Drummond
May 27, 1997
o
o
o
City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a
deck or patio shall be limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed
home.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the above items in order to afford the owners reasonable use of their
land:
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Teal Pointe.
PID #25-117-24 12 0231, 0232, 0233
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember,
Councilmember.
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1997, 6 PM
CASE //97-20: FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION
MODIFICATION.
CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD, TEAL POINTE
LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PID//25-117-24 12 0233.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planners report. The applicant is seeking
approval of a front yard setback variance and modification of one of the conditions of the
approval resolution for the Teal Pointe subdivision in order to construct a new home. The
parcel in question is Lot 3, Block 1 of Teal Pointe which fronts on both a short street (Outlot
A) and an unimproved portion of Drummond Road. Because of the location of the lot, it is
required to observe a 20 foot setback off of Drummond Road. A 10 foot setback is being
proposed, hence the variance of 10 feet.
When the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was reviewed and subsequently approved, the
developer proposed vacation of parts of Drummond Road. In the course of the review of the
preliminary plat, the right-of-way was not vacated and the plat continued to identify an incorrect
10 foot setback from the Drummond Road right-of-way. Presumably, the plat was drawn
assuming setbacks with the right-of-way having been vacated. As a result, Caliber Homes is
seeking a 10 foot setback variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the lot line. This
case is similar to Bradley Whyte, 5090 Windsor, which was approved by the City Council.
Variances can be granted on a basis of findings that either a hardship or practical difficulty
exists. In this case, the requested variance is reasonable as a practical difficulty since the
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
Drummond Road right-of-way is likely to exist as perpetual open space in the future because of
the steep terrain. The fact that the new home does not compromise the future use of the public
right-of-way are grounds for a finding by the Planning Commission that this case satisfies the
existence of practical difficulty.
The second aspect of the applicant's requests relates to the type of new home construction that
can occur on this lot as well as Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1. Lots 1, 2, and 3 all intrude into a bluff
area as defined by the Shoreland Ordinance. Because of the timing of this development relative
to the adoption of Mound's shoreland standards, the approval resolution granted "A variance
from Section 330:1225. Subd. 4 (B) to allow minimal fill for home construction on these lots
(1-3) within the bluff impact zone and/or bluff area."
The resolution also stated the homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and/or cantilevered
structures. Prior to issuing building permits, the developer shall submit a set of plans prepared
by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City.
The idea of the caisson and cantilevered homes on Lots 1-3 was offered by the developer as a
means to lessen the impact on the steep slope. At this time, the developer is seeking to modify
this clause in the resolution to allow the construction of traditional single family homes, with full
basements. Staff does not oppose traditional homes on Lots 1-3, providing the impact on the
site is no more sever that it would have been with the caisson and cantilevered homes. The
grading plans previously submitted are not definitive nor is it in total compliance with the plan
submittal requirements identified in the resolution. The City Engineer and Planner are
comfortable in taking action on the request, but require the missing information to be submitted
for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.
The rear elevation of the home plans by Caliber Builders show a sliding door at the basement
level that will access into the back yard. It is assumed that the Builder will want to place some
form of deck or patio in this area to allow limited use of the rear portion of the home. Only a
minimal encroachment for a deck or patio should be allowed in this area consistent with the
intent of the original approval and the conservation easement that protects most of the rear of
this lot.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
requested 10 foot front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-way
of Drummond Road. The facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty.
Staff further recommends that item 16 of Resolution 95-13 be modified to remove the
requirement for caisson and cantilevered structures. The remainder of the condition should be
amended to read: "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3, the developer shall
submit a set of plans prepared by registered engineers and landscape architects for review by the
City. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10'
identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory, an
2
IlL L ,~ ,L JIl,, ,111,, Jl . i,
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. Additionally, the grading plan shall note
all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate details shall be provided.
Also, complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 consistent with the mentioned
requirements shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner
prior to issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be
limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
The applicant' Fred Johnson was present along with Harry Nasset.
Chair Michael opened discussion.
Weiland mentioned his concern of what would happen to lots 7 & 8 later on. Would all of these
lots be requesting variances? The idea of cantilever homes was good at the beginning, why not
now? He listed several conditions in the original resolution that were now being changed. He
stated he was against changing the style of the home on Lot 3, and also 1 & 2.
Chair Michael clarified that there was two requests. One for a 10 foot setback and the other to
change the style of house from cantilever to traditional foundation.
Weiland wondered how the street vacation on Drummond did not happen and the vacation
remained on the plans.
Hanus stated the lot line goes through Drummond, but that portion of Drummond was never
vacated.
The front yard was discussed. The property has two street frontages and a 20' front yard
setback is required to both streets.
Voss was concerned with how this plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Sutherland
stated it fits the residential zoning district and the development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and complies with the zoning ordinance. There is the practical difficulty
with the area being steep.
Reifschneider questioned how the slope would be maintained with a conventional house?
Sutherland stated there would be several retaining walls erected to support the slope. Plans must
be developed by a landscape architect and an engineer. These plans will be then reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and City Planner who is a certified landscape architect.
Voss commented there 17 variances granted for this PDA.
Sutherland stated there had been a considerable amount of discussion regarding this development
and the developer had made the plans to appease the Commission's requests.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
Hanus stated there had been concern with erosion of the slope and the developer designed the
area to suit this concern.
Mr. Nasset stated that several cassions would be needed to support slope and home and that a
full basement would be better.
Sutherland stated the change to the resolution does allow conventional construction on Lots 1,
2 and 3, and the city planner and engineer.are comfortable with the conditions.
Weiland stated he would like to see the plans for the retaining walls now that the foundation has
changed and that this variance would affect lots 1 and 2 also.
Chair Michael asked for a motion.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider, to approve the requested 10
foot front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-
of-way of Drummond road and to modify item//16 of Resolution 95-13 to
remove the requirement for cassion and cantilevered structures. To amend
the condition to say "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3,
the developer shah submit a set of plans prepared by registered engineers and
landscape architects for review by the City. The plans shall contain a
detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10' identifying
existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory,
an erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. The grading plan
shall note aH site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate
details shall be provided." Complete plans for the proposed construction on
Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement shall be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to issuance of a
building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be
limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Burma stated the resolution was passed by the Planning Commission earlier with the intention
that that portion of Drummond Road would be vacated. He was concerned the second plan
remained the same as the first, showing the vacation.
Hanus asked what the impact would be changing plans from a cassion foundation to a full
basement.
Nasset commented that complications could arise with pipes freezing, heating problems and that
eventually the owner would request to enclose the cassions to a full basement.
4
IgTO
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
Sutherland stated that many homes in Mound have been built into steep slopes. He mentioned
Highland Blvd., Ridgewood Road and Denbigh Road. He stated that with the conditions as
listed in the staff recommendation, he was comfortable with the change from caisson to
conventional construction.
Hanus stated that the revised plans would be reviewed by the Planner and Engineer prior to
issuance of any permits.
Fred Johnson stated, as the builder, he had to guarantee the home for 2 years and that
structurally, enclosing the pipes and basement would be better and keep soil in place.
Glister stated that the Commission had approved the PDA as an entire package and did not like
to redo here and there.
Hanus asked if this changes the initial PDA and if a new public hearing would be required?
Sutherland stated this was a minor change, he and Planner Mark Koegler had discussed this and,
in their opinion, a new public hearing would not be required.
Michael stated this change in setback and style only affect Lots 1, 2, and 3. This style of house
would also add footage to the dwelling.
The vote was called. Motion to approve the requested 10 foot front yard
setback and to allow the style of dwelling to be changed to a full basement as
opposed the cantilever/cassion style dwelling. All change in plans must be
approved by the Planner, Engineer and Building Official. Landscape plans
must be included as prepared by a certified landscape architect. The motion
carried 4-3. Weiland, Michael and Glister voting nay.
This item will be on the May 27, 1997 City Council Agenda.
612-8~5-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 968 P02 MAY 15 '97 88:48
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: May 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Variance Request (Front Yard) and Resolution Modification
APPLICANT: Caliber Builders - Fred Johnson
CASE NUMBER: 97-20
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5j
LOCATION: S 100 Drummond Road
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-iA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
gin
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a front yard setback variance and
modification of one of the conditions of the approval resolution for the Teal Pointe subdivision in
order to construct a new home. The parcel in question is Lot 3, Block 1 of Teal Pointe which fronts
on both a short street (Outlot A) and an unimproved portion of Drummond Road. Because of thc
location of the lot, it is required to observe a 20 foot setback off of Drummond Road. A I0 foot
setback is being proposed, hence the variance of 10 feet.
COMMENTS: When the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was reviewed and subsequently approved,
the developer proposed vacation of parts of Drummond Road (see Exhibit 1). In the course of the
review of thc preliminary plat, the right-of-way was not vacated and the plat continued to identify
an incorrect I0 foot setback from the Drummond Road right-of-way. Presumably, the plat was
drawn assuming setbacks with the right-of-way having been vacated. As a result, Caliber Homes
is seeking a 10 foot setback variance to allow a home to be placed i0 feet from the lot line. This
case is very similar to a recent variance for Bradley White which was approved by the City Council.
Variances can be granted on a basis of findings that either a hardship or practical difficulty exists.
In this particular case, the requested variance is reasonable since the Drummond Road right-of-way
is likely to exist as open space in the future becau~ of the steep terrain. Locating a home within 10
feet of the lot line docs not compromise future use of the property for public purposes such as a trail
access.
Hardship in this case is probably more difficult to find than the existence of practical difficulty. The
fact that Drummond Road east of Outlot A is likely to be held a.q perpetual open space and the fact
that the new home docs not compromise the future use of the public right-of-way are grounds for a
finding by the Planning Commission that this case satisfies the existence of practical difficulty.
/772-
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis. Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
"1
.I
1
61~-8~5-~160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 968 P06 MAY 15 '97 88:51
EXHIBIT 2
I ~q(~
Teal Pointe
10/95
All in Block 1
PID ]24,-117-24 12 0
Lot 1 (231)
Lot 2 (232)
Lot 3 (233)
5108
5104
5100
Drummond Road
Drummond Road
Drummond Road
x
Lot 4 (234)
Lot 5 (235)
Lot 6 (236)
Lot 7 (237)
Lot 8 (238)
Lot 9 (239)
5O9O
5080
5070
5060
5065
5075
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
Windsor Road
DRU~K)ND RD
WIMDSOR RD :..
~'AIERBURY RD R
! 'i '
14
J8'.
-it ~:x-J J - I
I I
~(~ L 148 I
('L'~I O. 14
OUTLOT B
(z,,)
L
I
I'
!
CiTY OF MOUND
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
APR 2 9 1.q97
.Apphcauon Fee: i..'$;100. O0
Planning Commission Date: -.)Ct/~'~ q /~/~)/ ?,3, Case No. O
City Council Date: ,.)¢~e :~'~ ~/ ~ 7
Distribution: City Pla~er DNR
City Engineer ~
~blic Works
S~ECT Address ~1o a ~o~o~o ~
PROPERTY Lot LOT 3 (ALSO AFFECTS LOTS 1 8 2) Block [
LEGAL Subdivision ~ ~ ~ ~¢
/0~ ~o ~ Platg
DESC. PID~ 2~ I1~ 2+I~oZ~, I 3~
R-1 ~R-13~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
ZONING
DISTRICT
PROPERT. Y Name ~ ~ ~ ~~ v ~ ~a ~ 5 ( ~ ~
ow~ Address ~t~ ~~ ~ ~'~~
P~one (H) 4T~- I ~ ~o (W) (M) ~ -~~
~PPL]C~NT Name~_~v ~~ ~ ~
(IF OTHER Address ~*'q~
THAN Phone (H). .(W) (M)
OWNER)
Has an app!ication 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.
2. 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
(), NoR. 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:
(
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
(NSEW)
: (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
sq fi sq ft sq fi
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:
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
'¢t--.)4oo narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
describe: '-I:v r',.. o. -~os, e. ~
( ) soil
( ) existing situation
( ) other: specify
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. t~"~al~
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 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 true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature~~
Applicant's Signature ~----~"~-
I -'Q3
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Date
Date
03,'27/97 12:17 FAX
CITY OF ~JOCND
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVEFI CALCULATION.~
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDREss:
]!
IOTAREA I~/c~_~ SQ. FT. X 30% = {for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record') .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = {for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6.1~. 1. lsee back). A plan must be submitted
end approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
D~-TACHED BLDG$
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIV-m,/VAY, PARKING
AREAS, SI O EW_._.~.A LKS,
ETC.
LENGTH WIDTH SO FT
~4 X %~ = ~"~ ~.
X =
X =
TOTAL HOUSE
DECKS Open decks (1/~,' min.
opening borween board~) with a
pervious surl~ace un(Jet ere
no~ counted ~e herclcover
OTHER
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDG$ .................
'ar- X 20 = ~o
4 X ~ = I~
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ~C ..................
TOTAL DECK
TOTAL OTHER
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I
~ OVER (indicate difference////'' ........................... I
TEAL t-'L)
PRELIMINARY PI
TEAl- POINT
IN BLOCKS I0,1 '
WATERBURY
~4
;7
RO~J::'
TEAL POINT DEVELOPM
May 20, 1997
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
TO:
FROM:
SUBEJCT:
CITY COUNCIL
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
LICENSE RENEWALS
The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is July 1, 1997 through June 30,
1998. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted.
CLUB ON-SALE
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
SUNDAY SALES
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
ON-SALE WINE
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
House of Moy
ON-SALE BEER
Mound Lanes
OFF-SALE BEER
By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell)
Mainstreet Market
PDQ Food Store
SuperAmerica
printed on recycled paper
SECTION 00030
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
CITY OF MOUND
SHERWOOD DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION
Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M., Wednesday, June 18,
1997 at the City Offices, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the
furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials to complete the reconstruction of Sherwood Drive.
The estimated quantifies of major items are: 1,350 LF of concrete curb and gutter, 800 SF
of concrete driveway aprons, and 200 TN bituminous overlay.
The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, June 24, 1997.
Al1 proposals shall be addressed to:
Fran Clark, City Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "SHERWOOD
DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION" and shall be on the Bid Form included in the specifications for the
project.
Copies of the plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file
with the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue
North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be
obtained at the offices of the Engineer upon payment of $25.00 per set (includes MN sales tax),
which is NON-REFUNDABLE. Individual sheets of the plans and sections of the specifications
may be purchased at the rate of four dollars ($4.00) per sheet (includes MN sales tax) of plans and
twenty-five cents ($0.25) per page (includes MN sales tax) of specifications, which is NON-
REFUNDABLE.
Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an
amount of not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn
within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or
irregularities therein.
City of Mound, Minnesota
Bob Polston, Mayor
ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk
END OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY LAND
ALTERATION/PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT
OF ARBORVITAE BUSHES ON
DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE #43180
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to
allow for the temporary placement of bushes on the commons abutting the property located at
4829 Island View Drive, and;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote
for Construction or land alteration of any kind on any public way, park or commons, and;
WHEREAS, The applicant is in the process of demolishing and constructing a new
dwelling at the above address, and in order to facilitate the demolition, reconstruction and
regrading around the new dwelling the bushes had to be removed, and;
WHEREAS, in an effort to accommodate the applicant in the attempt to save the
arborvitae bushes, the City has allowed their temporary placement on the commons with
conditions, and;
WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission reviewed this request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to temporally place the arborvitae
bushes on the commons with the following conditions:
ao
This approval shall expire on November 1, 1997 and the applicant shall have the
bushes removed form the commons and the area restored as approved by the
Parks Director prior to that date. The applicant shall schedule a final inspection
with the building Official/Parks Director to verify the work is complete.
bo
In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved by the above date,
the Parks Director may remove or destroy the encroachment at his discretion and
the cost for such removal shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
Proposed Resolution
Marek
May 27, 1997
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember,
Councilmember.
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 15, 1997
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION - TEMPORARY LAND ALTERATION - 4829
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE/DEVON COMMONS
Fackler stated a request has been received for temporary placement
of shrubs during the demolition of a house. He stated staff has
given permission.
Motion made by Tulberg, seconded by Ahrens to approve the
public land permit application. Motion carried unanimously.
DATE:
MEETING
DATES:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MOUND
Staff Report
May 8, 1997
May 15, 1997 Dock and Commons Commission
May 27, 1997 City Council
Dock and Commons Commission, City council, and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~
Jim Fackler, Parks Director,/3~~'
Public Lands Permit Application from
4829 Island View Drive
Dock Site//43180
Devon Common, Class C
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Background/Comments. The applicant is seeking a Land Alteration Permit to temporarily place
some arborvitae bushes on Devon Commons during the demolition and reconstruction period of
their home. A silt fence will be erected on the lake side to control erosion. Bushes will be move d
back to private property as soon as rough grading around the new dwelling is accomplished. Th e
applicant will restore the commons area as approved by the parks director.
Staff reviewed the applicant's request to save the bushes and permitted them to be placed on the
commons prior to the formal approval process. Please note the attached letter to the applicant
dated April 28,1997. We realize this is not the normal process, however due to the
circumstances we took the normal precautions and allowed the applicant to proceed. The only
other issue on this site is a storm water roof drain that was approved in 1996.
Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a permit to allow for the temporary placement
of the arborvitae bushes on the commons with the following conditions:
This approval shall expire on November 1, 1997 and the applicant shall have the bushes
removed from the commons and the area restored as approved by the parks director prior
to that date. The applicant shall schedule a final inspection with the Building Official/Parks
Director to verify the work is complete.
In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved by the above date the Parks
Director may remove or destroy the encroachment at his discretion and the cost for such
removal shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
JS:ls
The abutting property owners have been notified of this request.
/g~ ~pr,~t~ ..... ycleclpaper
Rev. 4/97
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
55364
DISTRIBUTION:
BUILDING OFFICIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
DNR
MCWD
PUBLIC WORKS
DATE RECEIVED --~- / -
DOCK MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE
lcheck one):
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code
Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTL.rR_E - to ~low an existing encroacl'anent to remain m an "as is" condition
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
~)0 ~//~ ALTERATION-change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320,
Subd. 4).
The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc.
are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those
structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and
are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
>ermit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
Applicant Name d.Of; /0/7~ (~/C__
Address .,~c~_~'7'_C.//~,(d !/,7., 'C t~J b:
Phone (home)(O(~. ~V~. ~UI~ (work) q~ '3~
~utting Address
ProDerty Owner
Legal Lot Block
Description Subd.
C Name ~f ~0 ~ ~'~c ~5
Pub
1
i
Property Dock Site g Shoreline T~e
Contractor Name
Address
Phone
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE:
Signa~~:
Date
CITY OF MOUND
April 28, 1997
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Lori and Jerry Marek
4829 Island View Drive
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT:
Request to temporarily place bushes on Devon commons adjacent to the above
address.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Marek:
I have received your request to temporarily place your arborvitae bushes on the commons during
the period of demolition and reconstruction of your house. After reviewing your request with
staff, I have given you verbal approval to temporarily place the bushes on the commons. You
agreed to follow up with the attached permit application. As we discussed the permit will be
reviewed by the Dock Commission and must be approved by the City Council. Your application
is due by Thursday, May 1, 1997.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jim Fackler, Linda Strong, or
myself.
Respectfully~,-
~,.Jor~ Sutherl~nd
Building Official
cc Jim Fackler Parks Director
JS:ls
Enclosures
printed on recycled paper
04/21/1997
1G:18
LMMMMMMMMM
I :L
PAGE
02
4.21.97
To: John Sutherland\ Jim Fackler
From: Lori and Jerry Marek ~ ~?_
Re: The temporary relocation of arborvitae bushes
In order to allow the demolition equipment access to our house we need to
temporarily relocate approximately twelve 3-foot arborvitae bushes on the
commons. We have planned to erect a silt fence between the lake and the
bushes so that nothing "leeches" into the lake. We were also planning to
store them above ground so the commons will not be excavated. Please
allow us to save these trees! Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely;
CLRTIFICATE OF SURV' FOR
LORI AND dERRY -'EK
OF LOT 8, BLOCK 12, :N
HENNEPIN COUNTY, Mit,; IA
EXISTING
GA~'~.' qE
TO ,~ ,~^~N EXISTING
: PROPOSED
,, HOUSE
HOUSE "'"~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PRI~MISES :
Lot 8, Block 1.3, DEVON
o : denotes iron marker
(945.6): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum ~'~
~: denote* proposed spot elevotion, mean ~eo ~evel dotum
Beorings shown ore bosed upon on ossumed dotum,
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property,
the Iocotion of an exi~tln~ ~oro~e, on ~xi~tin~ house to 't
proposed location of a proposed house thereon. It does ,~
any other improvements or encroachments.
Proposed Resolution
Seton Bluff
May 27, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION/g97
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI-IE CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, FOR
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, SHORELAND
VARIANCES FOR SETON BLUFF
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a
single family development called Seton Bluff in the manner required for platting of land under
the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota
State Statue and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability
of the preliminary plat, the planned development area, and the variances, taking into
consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement and
location of the street, their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage
disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining
lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 13, 1997, held a public hearing pursuant to
Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Seton
Bluff Subdivision located on property described as follows and shown on the attachment:
Lots 15 through 32, Block 11, Seton,
PID's 19-177-23 22 0036 to 0041 and 0054.
WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development
Areas "to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having
unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of
water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or
location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and
controlled platting technique to protect and promote the quality of life in the City", and
WHEREAS, the physical conditions of the site and this area of Mound complicate
development of the property. In lieu of a traditional platted lot approach which would result in
driveway cuts and retaining walls for all of the lots in order to provide access to Kildare Road,
the developers are proposing the project which facilitates the establishment of a common access
drive serving all of the proposed homes. The common access drive allows much more control
of storm water runoff, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 2 acres of land area for Planned
Development Areas. The net site area of Seton Bluff is 1.35 acres necessitating a variance of
· 65 acres in order to process the request as a PDA. Because of the physical conditions of the
Proposed Resolution
Seton Bluff
May 27, 1997
site, processing this request as a PDA gives the City the ability to add appropriate conditions
to the approval. The proposed density with the applicable bonus is consistent with the maximum
density allowed under the shoreland ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the applicant's proposal includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to
establish Seton Bluff as a Planned Development Area (PDA), together with a request for street
design variances and variances from the bluff setback and impervious surface provisions of the
Mound City Code, and
WHEREAS, the development is located in the R-lA Zoning District which requires for
lots of record, a minimum of 6000 sq. fi. lot area, a minimum lot width of 40', a front yard
setback of 20', side yard setbacks of 6' and 6', a 15' rear yard setback and a 50' setback to the
lakeshore and a minimum building floor area requirement of 840 square feet, and
WHEREAS, all lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet as
required in the R-lA zoning district, and
WHEREAS, impervious cover for the project totals 32.8%. The additional impervious
cover is largely due to the expansive common driveway and guest parking area. Developing the
property with traditional driveways would reduce the amount of impervious cover, however, it
would complicate storm water drainage problems in the area, and
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project
as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval
addressing those considerations, and
WHEREAS, the street variances for the new portion of Kildare Road and the private
drive will facilitate the construction of street extensions that will match the grade of the existing
paved streets. Traffic resulting from the proposed development will be generated at the same
rate as the existing households in the vicinity since the proposed development and all of the
development in the area consists on detached single family homes, and
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density
of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed
subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use
in the area, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to preserve wooded areas and to retain, as far
as practicable, existing tree cover. Seton Bluff contains scattered tree cover. Construction of
the access drive and units will necessitate removal of most of the vegetation in front portion of
the site. The amount of tree loss is, in all likelihood, equal to the amount of tree removal that
would be necessary to construct homes with individual driveways on to Kildare Road, and
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as
required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided, and
2
Proposed Resolution
Seton Bluff
May 27, 1997
WHEREAS, the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate
the practical difficulty created by the topography of the site and to facilitate the preservation of
existing vegetation, and the granting of variances will.~lil not be detrimental to the purposes
of the Zoning Ordinance or to property in the same zone, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations
and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of
the City of Mound.
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has voted 7 to 2 for approval of the plan with
7 units.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota:
Approves the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to Preliminary Plat, establish a Planned
Development Area including the establishment of a private drive and the following variances:
Right-of-Way width
Cul-de-sac right-of-way radius
Improved cul-de-sac radius
Improved street width
Street grade
PDA Site Area
Lots:
Lot 1 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Lot 2 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Lot 3 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Lot 4 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Lot 5 - Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Front Yard Setback
Required Proposed Variance
50' 35' 15'
50'r 40'r 10'r
40'r 35'r 5'r
28' 24' 4'r
8% max 13% 5%
2 acres 1.35 acres .65 acres
Required Proposed Variance
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 4'
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 4'
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 4'
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 4'
30' 20' 10'
10' 6' 4'
20' 15' 5'
Proposed Resolution
Seton Bluff
May 27, 1997
Lot 6 - Bluff Setback 30'
Side Yard Setback (west) 10'
Front Yard Setback 20'
20' 10'
6' 4'
15' 5'
Lot 7 - Bluff Setback (rear)
Bluff Setback (side)
30' 10' 20'
30' 10' 20'
Impervious Cover
30% 32.8% 2.8%
The above variances are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following requirements
and those found within the City Engineer's memo dated April 1, 1997:
o
°
The preliminary plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this
Resolution and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the
approval of the City Engineer. The location of all dwellings shall be only as provided
on the City's Zoning regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council;
and anyt inconsistent references to dwelling locations in the preliminary plat shall be
ignored.
The Homeowner's Association documents will be prepared and submitted with the Final
Plat and incorporated into final plat resolution.
The Conservation Easement will be provided and included in the Final Plat Approval.
The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit
from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat.
The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all
required reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning
construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are
secured.
Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract
with the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all items
covered by said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the
final plat. As part of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with
a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved
by the City Attorney in the amount of 125 % of estimated construction costs as per plans
approved by the City Engineer.
The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to
the City showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall
provide the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Seton
Proposed Resolution
Seton Bluff
May 27, 1997
Bluff.
o
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of
the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period,
it shall become null and void.
The cost of constructing all the public utilities in Kildare Road and in any other portion
of the plat shall be borne by the developer, including all required utilities on which the
design shall be approved by the City Engineer.
10.
The approval would not be construed as creating an obligation on the part of the City to
expend funds to provide a location for off-site water storage.
11.
Street, Grading, Site and Utility plans prepared by the developer shall be submitted to
the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the City releasing the final plat.
12.
A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the subdivision and
provided prior to the Final Plat Approval. All these documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
13.
Building permits or Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the
subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City
Engineer, Fire Chief and Building Official.
14.
The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and
subsequent management of the property.
15.
Park dedication in the amount of $500 per lot totaling $3,500 is to be paid prior to the
City releasing the final plat.
16.
Any outstanding cash balance in the escrow account plus an additional $2,500 necessary
to cover engineering, planning, legal and administrative fees shall be deposited with the
City prior to the City releasing the final plat.
17.
The developer shall modify the landscaping plan to provide additional overstory trees
along Kildare Road frontage. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by
City Staff.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by
the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the
subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without
further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound
Code of Ordinances.
5
/8'?7
1.9 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE i996-64 - REVISED PRELIMINARY
PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES SETON BLUFF, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
LOTS 15-32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54
The City Planner reviewed his report dated April 9, 1997. He reported that a comprehensive
review was done by the Planning Commission in February when the plan had 8 units. The
Planning Commission, at that time, voted 7 to 1 recommending denial. Based on the action of
the Planning Commission, the applicant took the comments and sug gestions that the Commission
offered and revised the plan and went back to the Planning Commission wi th the new plan which
is what is before the Council tonight. The Planning Commission has now voted 7 to 2 for
approval of the new plan with 7 units. There are a number of conditions that Staff suggested be
included if this is approved on pages 1583-2585 and the Planning Commission further modified
the suggested conditions that were offered by the City Engineer on pages 1575 - 1576.
The Council asked about stormwater management and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
The City Engineer stated that the Watershed District will not hear this until the City has given
preliminary approval. The City Engineer stated they have to meet Rule B.
Counciimember Hanus asked about the turning radius of the road. The City Engineer stated that
what is on the plan right now is without obtaining an additional easement on the corner that allow s
for a 9 foot radius. He further stated that when all these streets were constructed where we have
30 foot right-of-ways back in 1978 through 1980, the intersections were all put in with a 5 foot
radius and that is what is right across to the east. In new construction, most communities require
a 15 to 20 foot radius. This would require an easement from the property owner.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
NORM BERGLUND - stated he has been involved with this parcel of property since the
late 1960's. At that time it was zoned for multiple and a number of problems came up and
we couldn't build multiple. They then went to townhouses and again problems arose. The
property has been dormant for years now. He stated that he feels the project as proposed
by Brenshell Homes (Fine Line Design Group), is the best for the area and would like to
see it approved.
PETE BUCKNER, 2626 KILDARE LANE -spoke in favor of the project because the
applicant built his home and a neighbors home and did a quality job. He felt this
development will add value to the area and community.
The following persons spoke against this project:
Steve Grand, 2620 Kerry Lane
Tim Wilkinson, 4628 Carlow Road
Vicki Hockert, Kerry Lane
/ggg
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
STEVE GRAND, 2620 KERRY LANE - stated he is against this proposal. Reasons: the corner
turning radius; he will have to look at 14 foot retaining wall across from his home and worry
about his children climbing and falling fi.om that wall; the 23 variances that will be approved if
this is approved; and will diminish property values in the area.
TIM WILKINSON, 4628 CARLOW ROAD - concerned about drainage onto his corner
lot which is on the corner of Carlow and Kerry and currently gets about 40% of sites the
water; he was also concerned about child safety and the 14' wall. He was against the
project.
The Developer stated that with the private drive capturing the water and a new slope
system only 8 % of the water will be directed to the coner.
VICKI HOCKERT, KERRY LANE - concerned about additional sand that will be
washing down in the winter; this could cause parking problems.
REASONS:
The corner turning radius.
Will have to look at 14 foot retaining wall and worry about children climbing and
falling from that wall.
The 23 variances that will be approved if this is approved.
This will diminish property values in the area.
Concern about drainage onto the corner lot which is on the corner of Carlow and
Kerry and currently gets about 40 % of sites the water.
The Developer stated that with the private drive capturing the water and a new slope
system only 8 % of the water will be directed to the corner.
Concern about additional sand that will be washing down in the winter.
This could cause parking problems.
The Mayor closed the public Hearing.
Councilmember Hanus asked about parking and if this meets the code requirements for parking.
The Planner stated that the project does meet the parking code requirements. The code requires
2. He further assured the residents and the Council that there would be no parking on the
extended Kildare Lane. Guest parking would be in the private driveway portion of the project.
The developer stated they are providing 4 parking spots per house (2 inside, 2 outside, plus 5
guest parking spots).
Councilmember Jensen asked about the retaining wall height and if a fence would be required on
top of it. The developer stated that they have broken the wall up into 3 tiers with planting
between and they are planning heavy planting at the top which could take the place of a fence if
that meets the approval of the Building Official. He further stated they are planning a keystone
type wall with ivy so the effect will be softened.
The Council discussed Rule B and the fact that the City has not yet entered into a cooperative
agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The City Engineer stated that there is
7
May 13, 1997 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
more to Rule B than just the cooperative agreement. The problem is that the water cannot be
contained on the site. The Developer stated that the MWCD is willing to look at their
management system, evaluate it, and assess it out to make up the difference. The City Engineer
stated he is fairly sure that the Watershed District will require a monetary contribution for part
of it.
The City Engineer explained that the City Attorney has revised some verbiage in the agreement
that has been sent to the watershed district that would give the City more control in this type of
project. The City Attorney stated that we are trying to address this as a preclusion from being
required to store water on locations outside the City and giving the City the say in additional
storage of water from locations within the City beyond those contemplated at the time the
agreement is entered into. The City Attorney suggested that the Council think about adding a
condition to the preliminary approval resolution as follows: "The approval would not be
construed as creating an obligation on the part of the City to expend funds to provide a location
for off-site water storage." The Council thought this was a good idea.
The Mayor stated that he will have to vote against this item because of concerns about the
watershed, drainage plan, and the number of variances (23) for new construction.
Councilmember Hanus asked the City Planner how many of the variances would not be required
if these were lots of record? The Planner stated that the variances that pertain to the street
construction would be there regardless of whether it is this proposal or one home, if it's proposed
to be served by a cul-de-sac street of this nature. If it was considered a lot of record the bluff
setback is 10' instead of 30' so they would be compliant with that. The sideyard setbacks, they
would be compliant with as well. He stated the only thing that would be an issue would be the
front yard setback on two of the lots and what they've reduced was originally about 7% overage
in impervious coverage, is down to 2.8%. Those would still be there regardless of the lot of
record situation. He stated the lot of record status would alleviate most of the variances that are
outside of the street construction. The Planner stated that all the lots exceed the minimum 6,000
square foot requirement.
The City Engineer stated that the width of the street and the size of the cul-de-sac is consistent
with Teal Pointe, the cul-de-sacs in Pelican Point and Maple Manors.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen directing staff to prepare a resolution
of approval for the preliminary plat/PDA/variances, using all the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, City Planner and City Engineer and
adding the condition suggested by the City Attorney this evening. The vote was 4 in
favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried. This approval resolution to
be brought back to the Council on May 27, 1997.
1.10 PRESENTATION OF 1996 AUDIT - GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR &
STEVE MC DONALD, ABDO, ABDO AND EICK
The 1996 Audit was presented by Steve McDonald of Abdo, Abdo & Eick and Finance Director,
Gino Businaro.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
/ qoO
EXHIBIT
I /
The existing legal description of the subject property is Lots 15 through 32, Block 11, Seton,
PID's 19-117-23 22 0036 to 0041 and 0054, as shown on the plat map below:
~ %o1~o1,ol,ol,o1'~1 ~l I'~Ol~01401401'401~014(~
3FOR
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
CASE ~796-64
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT,
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
AND RELATED VARIANCES
FOR THE "SETON BLUFF" RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will
meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 13, 1997 to
consider the approval of a preliminary plat, a planned development area by conditional use permit, and
related variances for the residential development called Seton Bluff. This proposal involves the
improvement of Kildare Road and the creation of seven (7) single family residential building sites.
The existing legal description of the subject property is Lots 15 through 32, Block 11, Seton,
PID's 19-117-23 22 0036 to 0041 and 0054, as shown on the plat map below:
,
}FOR
,I'~
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity
to be heard at this meeting.
P-~ggy 'Jart4e~ Planing Secretary
Published m "The Laker" on April 26, 1997, and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property by May 2,
1997.
prlrlted on recy¢ledpaper
MINIfrES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 1997
CASE 96-64: PUBLIC HEARING: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES
"SETON BLUFF", FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.
LOTS 15 - 32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. Fine Line Design Group is seeking
approvals for a Planned Development Area (PDA) on a 1.47 acre tract of land along a currently
unimproved portion of Kildare Lane. Approval of the plan will require action by the Cky to issue a
conditional use permit for the PDA, grant variances as part of the PDA and approve the proposed
preliminary plat. This application is similar to the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission on
February 10, 1997. Major changes to the plan include the deletion of one unit, all lots now conform
to minimum size criteria and the total number of variances has been significantly reduced.
PDA. The developer is seeking PDA approval in order to establish the common access drive. The
Zoning Code requires a minimum of 2 acres of land area for Planned Development Areas. The net site
area of Seton Bluff is 1.35 acres necessitating a variance of .65 acres in order to process the request
as a PDA. Because of the physical conditions of the site, processing this request as a PDA gives the
City the ability to add appropriate conditions to the approval. For this reason, staff supports the PDA
site area variance.
Variances. Koegler displayed an overhead showing a list of the variances being requested. The street
construction variances are the types of variances that the Planning Commission sees on a pretty routine
basis due to the topography in Mound. There are bluff setback variances being requested for each lot.
i qo t
Planning Commission Minutes April 14, I997
Koegler stated that the setbacks are ten feet or more from the required bluff line, and suggested that
the developer may provide the commission with more information on exactly what those setbacks are.
The actual requested bluff setback could be used as the basis for the variance request in lieu of a 20 foot
blanket setback variance.
Impervious coverage has been reduced further from what was originally proposed, however a variance
is being requested for Impervious cover of 32.8 % resulting in a variance of 2.8 %.
A side yard setback variance of 4 feet is being requested for Lots 1 through 6 resulting in a 6 foot
setback to one side yard. Six foot side yard setbacks are permitted for lots of record, however, because
this property is being replatted it no longer qualifies for lot of record setbacks and therefore requires
side yard setbacks of 10 feet. A front yard setback of 15 feet is being requested for Lots 5 and 6
resulting in a 5 foot setback variance.
Density. There are different density provisions in the code which apply to developments. By applying
the non-shoreland PDA density provisions, this site area will accommodate 9 units. However, this site
is in the shoreland area, and based on the location of the 929.4 contour, this property is considered to
be in the first tier. The shoreland ordinance does allow density bonuses and the proposed site plan does
qualify because the setbacks from the ordinary high water contour equal or exceed a minimum of 125 %
of the required 50 foot setback. The proposed density with the applicable bonus is consistent with the
maximum density allowed under the shoreland ordinance. Application of the shoreland standards results
in a maximum of 7 units.
The issues of tree preservation, landscaping, traffic, and wetlands were briefly reviewed.
Recommendation. The developers of Seton Bluff have designed a project that complies with density
provisions of the Zoning Code and meets the lot of record setback provisions. The project, however,
does not meet the non-lot of record provisions which apply in this case since 12 of the lots were
combined in the past. In any PDA project, trade-offs are involved. In this case, the major trade-off
appears to be impervious cover and setback variances for a plan that to be answered by the Planning
Commission and City Council is whether or not this trade-off is equitable. Staff feels that the proposed
plan with one less unit satisfies most of the concerns that were raised in previous reviews. After its
deliberations, if the PlaIming Commission feels that it is equitable, the development could be approved
with appropriate conditions. Alternatives to that approach include approval with modifications or
denial.
Staff suggested conditions as outlined in the Planning Report and City Engineer's Memorandum if the
Planning Commission feels that the plan is appropriate and consistent with the Mound's provisions for
PDA's.
Voss questioned how many residences could be built on this property without any variances. Koegler
responded that is a difficult question to answer because variances result from a specific site plan. Voss
recalled a statement made at a Council meeting that the only way they could development this property
is if there were no variances. Koegler could not recall that comment.
2
Planning Commission Minutes April I4, 1997
Density bonuses were discussed. Mueller asked how the City will police tree trimming. Koegler
clarified on the overhead the location of the conservation easement which is measured from the bluff
line to the lot line. Mueller is concerned about people cutting/removing trees on the bluff and how they
could get permission to do this. Koegler stated that they would have to come before the council and
amend the resolution to do tree trimming other than diseased and dead tree removal. It was discussed
that Lot 7 will need to install some type of path or stairway on the bluff in order to access his dock.
Weiland raised a concern regarding the curb radii at Kerry and Kildare and feels the developer should
be working with the owner of the property on that corner to get an easement so the radii can be larger.
Koegler noted that the City Engineer commented in his report that "a more desirable drainage pattern
will need to be designed for the City cul-de-sac than the sheet drainage as shown." Koegler suggested
that the Commission could include in their recommendation that alternatives for the curb radii be further
investigated as well.
Mueller asked about the amount of water flow down Kildare due to the 13% slope. He recalled that
options had been discussed, such as installing a larger catch basin. Koegler did not know if Cameron
had reviewed that issue further, but maybe he can expound upon that more.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing
Steve Grand, resident at 2620 Kerry Lane, expressed a concern about the ability for people to tow large
boats around the corner and up the hill. Grand is concerned that the private drive area will be used for
storage of snowmobiles on trailers and boats with tarps, he does not want to be looking at a storage
depot. He is afraid the developers won't save the trees as they propose since the other lots they have
built on in the area were stripped of trees. He also has a large concern about drainage and the
accumulation of sand and dirt in the roads and lake.
Weiland referred to condition #8 in the Planning Report, it states, "The common driveway area
exclusive of the guest parking area shall be posted as "no parking" area. Koegler noted there will be
no parking on Kildare Road due to the narrow width, and he noted that the covenants precludes parking
of recreational vehicles on the site. Mueller asked if homeowners covenants are enforceable by the
City. Koegler stated that since the covenants are part of the PDA approval, the City can enforce
compliance with the PDA and the covenants cannot be changed without city approval of a modified
PDA, however, the City does not enforce covenants.
Tim Wilkensen, resident of 4628 Carlow Road stated that his property is on the corner of Carlow and
Kerry and feels that drainage is a big issue. The water that drains down Kerry runs through his lot into
Black Lake and they already have too much sand. He also expressed a concern about child safety and
stated there are a number of kids under the age of five in the neighborhood and he is concerned about
the increase in traffic as a result of this development.
Developer, Steve Behnke addressed issues raised in the Planning Report:
All houses except the end lot are all part of the association and will have similar features, but
all seven houses will have a consistent theme to them.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 1997
Relating to the "blanket 20 foot bluff setback variance," only Lot 2 would have conceivably less
than the 20 foot variance, it would have a 15 foot variance.
Referring to the Impervious Cover variance of 2.8 %, Behnke noted that if traditional driveways
were developed, impervious coverage would differ by only 2 %, and the drainage situation would
be worse.
- With density bonuses, seven units are allowed.
Tree loss is equivalent without the private drive.
There will be no grading changes from the back of the houses to the rear lot line except for
required storm sewer construction.
Under-story trees and shrubs were planned for the five foot wide utility easement in case they
have to be removed for utility repairs. Normally trees are not allowed in utility easements.
The retaining wall will consist of two six foot high boulder walls with plantings between.
The size of parking stalls requested by the Engineer is fine.
The construction of the private drives, individual drives, and turn-arounds all match the
Engineer's comments from previous meetings. His comments on elevations are acceptable.
Referring to the Engineer's memo, #3.e. and f., he explained, from the back of the houses
forward, the drainage will flow towards the driveway.
Behnke responded to comments made by the Planning Commission:
- The number of houses that could be built on this property under lot of record status is eight.
The intent for Lot 7 is to have a meandering path or stairway to the lake that would be built by
the homeowner. The conservation easement restricts tree removal. The two stairways proposed
will handle the other six lots.
It was never the intent of the project to disturb tree removal, except for the storm sewer
construction.
The street design, as proposed, is the same that the Engineer recommended back in 1985. The
radii of the corner at Kildare and Kerry is larger than the southeast corner.
The covenants do not allow storage of recreational vehicles and fish houses on the driveway.
The parallel parking is being treated for guest parking, nothing else.
Planning Commission Minutes April I4, 1997
Behnke showed on the overhead that 40 % of the site as it exists today which drains down Kerry,
and then showed that after the property is developed, only 8 % will drain into Kerry, so the
amount of run-ff will be reduced by 32 %.
All the residences east on Kildare sit on 40 foot wide lots with only 12 feet between each house.
They are proposing houses on wider lots with 16 feet between the houses.
Clapsaddle noted an error on the preliminary grading plan, an elevation noted on a contour line by the
driveways into Lots 2 and 3 should read 956, not 960.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
Mueller questioned if Lot 7 should be included as part of the association and subject to the covenants
and restrictions since his property is affected by the conservation easement. Mueller asked how this
Lot owner will now that they need to provide their own walkway to the lake and the restrictions of
disturbing the vegetation. Tom Stokes with Fine Line Design stated that Lot 7 has been pre-sold and
the owner is aware of the stairway requirements. Stokes confirmed that Lot 7 could be included in the
association. It was noted that Lots 6 and 7 have private lakeshore, and the reason Lot 7 was not
included in the association is because it is not involved in the common drive.
Clapsaddle suggested that condition //8 specifically include a statement that no recreational vehicle
storage or no other vehicular storage be permitted in the common drive to ensure that it can be enforced
by the City.
Mueller stated that the Planning Commission should be given opportunity to comment on final plats and
be given the opportunity to review the covenants. Staff commented that this issue can be addressed at
a discussion meeting.
Relating to the over-story trees in the utility easement, Koegler stated that they would like to look at
the utility plans and work with the developer, but there is enough space in the 5 foot boulevard to
support an over-story tree if it can be kept away from the utility lines and staff would like flexibility
in the resolution until they can determine where trees can be added.
MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the PDA as recommended by
staff, with the conditions 1 - 10 listed in the Planning Report and in the Engineer's
Memorandum, with the following additions and modifications:
#4
Covenants and association bylaws shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Attorney and reviewed by the Council prior to
approval of the preliminary plat.
#8
The common driveway area exclusive of the guest parking area shall
be posted as a "no parking/no exterior storage" area. The Guest
parkin~ area shall not allow the parking of recreational vehicles for
more than 48 hours continuous exclusive of the covenants and
restrictions.
/qog
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 1997
The developer shah submit detailed plans for the retaining wall
identifying materials and a tiered construction for rev:'cw and
approval by the City Engineer.
glO
Move gl0 in the report to gll, the new #10 should read as follows:
Lot seven shall be included in the covenants and restrictions and
verbiage allowing individual costs of snow removal.
#11
The recommendations and conditions found in the Engineer's Report
are incorporated herein.
g3.h.
Modification of the radius from the new Kildare Road
to Kerry Lane, to increase the distance between the
southwest corner to more easily accommodate turning
on the road.
g3.i.
That a larger availability for absorption of water at the
intersection of Kerry Lane and new Kildare Road be
presented to the Council by the Engineering staff.
Clapsaddle seconded the motion.
Voss stated that he will vote against the motion due to the steep grade of the road, the narrow street,
and the child safety issue due to increased traffic. Reifschneider agreed with Voss and stated he has
a hard time with 23 variances, this kind of hardcover on this kind of slope, and the fact that there are
too many outstanding issues.
Hanus asked who will determine what the radius will be at the corner of Kerry and Kildare. Weiland
suggested that Cameron and Steve Grand get together to discuss how much property can be taken to
improve the radii. Koegler summarized that two issues have been raised, the street radius being one,
and this drainage on the new portion of Kildare Road being another. He suggested the Commission ask
the City Engineer to use his professional judgement, are there means and methods by which the radius
can be improved and by which the impact of storm water can be lessened coming off the cul-de-sac and
to report what those means and methods might be to the City Council.
Mueller moved to amend the motion to incorporate the language suggested by the
City Planner into "#3.h. and i", with the exception that the storm water be lessened
coming of the "street", not the "cul-de-sac," as follows:
g3.h.
The City Engineer is to report to the Council possible means and
methods to improve the turning radii at Kerry and Kildare and means
and methods to lessen the impact of storm water run-off from Kildare
Road.
Clapsaddle seconded the amendment.
Planning CommiSSion Minutes ' April 14, 1997
Burma stated that there will never be a PDA that won't have issues to deal with, and the developer has
addressed problems raised by staff and the Planning Commission. Burma stated that he will vote in
favor of the motion.
Hanus asked what a finding of fact may be for permitting the setback variances. Clapsaddle commented
that one finding may be the way the City was originally platted with small streets and small lots.
Mueller suggested that the technical expense of making it accessible and the fact that a conservation
easement is being given to keep the shoreland pristine could be findings.
Koegler clarified that the variances the Commission should be acting on are the 20' foot bluff setbacks,
all except for Lot 2 which should be 15'.
Motion carried 7 to 2. Those Burma, Clapsaddle, Glister, Michael, Muller,
Weiland, and Hanus. Those opposed were: Reifschneider and Voss.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 13, 1997.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: April 9, 1997
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit (PDA), Variances and Preliminary Plat - Seton Bluff
APPLICANT: Fine Line Design Group, Inc. (Steve Behnke)
CASE NUMBER: 96-64
ItKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5s
LOCATION: Lots 15 through 32, Block 11, Seton - Kildare Road
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- lA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: Fine Line Design Group is seeking approvals for a Planned Development Area
(PDA) on a 1.47 acre tract of land along a currently unimproved portion of Kildare Lane. Approval
of the plan will require action by the City to issue a conditional use permit for the PDA, grant
variances as part of the PDA and approve the proposed preliminary plat. The current application is
similar to the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 10, 1997. Major changes
to the plan include the deletion of one unit, all lots now conform to minimum size criteria and the
total number of variances has been significantly reduced.
The Seton Bluff site lies along the north side of Kildare Road (right-of-way). Historically, the area
was platted into a series of 18 individual lots. At some point in the past, some of the lots were
combined which resulted in one parcel containing the 12 easternmost lots. The actual platted
ownership involved in this case also includes lots that lie below the OHW for Lake Minnetonka.
The center of the site contains a knoll with an elevation of 962 and the site drops off on all sides with
the western and northern boundaries of the property bordering Lake Minnetonka. Scattered tree
cover exists throughout the property and slopes along the western and northern portions of the site
qualify as bluffs under the Mound Zoning Code. The bluff line is delineated on the survey.
The physical conditions of the site and this area of Mound complicate development of the property.
In lieu of a traditional platted lot approach which would result in driveway cuts and retaining walls
for ail of the lots in order to provide access to Kildare Road, the developers are proposing the project
as a Planned Development Area (PDA) which facilitates the establishment of a common access drive
serving all of the proposed homes. The common access drive also allows much more control of
storm water runoff.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
lq//
Seton Bluff Planning Report
April 9, 1997
Page 2
The development plan calls for the extension of Kildare Road from its present terminus at Kerry
Lane westward a total distance of approximately 250 feet. Construction of six homes will occur on
the eastern portion of the site with 5 of them served by a common driveway. These homes will all
have common elements such as building materials, roof pitch and other characteristics which will
make them a cohesive development without having the exact same facade treatment. The remaining
lot will not necessarily "match" the structures on the eastern six lots. The two westernmost lots have
direct access to the bubble of the proposed cul-de-sac. Homeowner's association bylaws and
covenants will apply to the eastern six lots. In addition to the two garage stalls in each unit and the
two driveway parking spaces, five additional guest parking spaces are located in a parallel
configuration along the common driveway area.
COMMENTS: Implementation of the project will require approval of a conditional use permit,
variances and a preliminary plat. Additional approvals are being requested from the Park and Open
Space Commission pertaining to a multiple dock license and a Public Lands Permit for a proposed
stairway. A recommendation on these items will be forwarded to the City Council from the Park and
Open Space Commission. Items requiring Planning Commission action are addressed as follows:
plonned Development Area
The Mound Zoning Code allows the establishment of a Planned Development Area (PDA) by
conditional use permit as "a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having
unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water
table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel' s unusual shape or location in
relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires more unique and controlled platting
techniques to protect and promote the quality of life in the City." The developer is seeking PDA
approval in order to establish the common access drive. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of
2 acres of land area for Planned Development Areas. The net site area of Seton Bluff is 1.35 acres
necessitating a variance of .65 acres in order to process the request as a PDA. Because of the
physical conditions of the site, processing this request as a PDA gives the City the ability to add
appropriate conditions to the approval. For this reason, staff supports the PDA site area variance.
Variances
The provisions of the Mound Zoning Code require that variances associated with the PDA be listed
and approved as part of the plan. The proposed site plan includes the following variances:
Right-of-way width
Cul-de-sac right-of-way radius
Improved cul-de-sac radius
Improved street width
Street grade
PDA Site Area (discussed above)
Required Proposed Variance.
50' 35' 15'
50'r 40'r 10'r
40'r 35'r 5'r
28' 24' 4'
8% max 13% 5%
2 acres 1.35 acres .65 acres
Seton Bluff Planning Report
April 9, 1997
Page 3
Lots:
Lot 1 -
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
~ ~ Variance
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 4'
Lot 2 - Bluff Setback 30' 10' 20'
Side Yard Setback (west) 10' 6' 4'
Lot 3 - Bluff Setback 30' 10' 20'
Side Yard Setback (west) 10' 6' 4'
Lot 4 - Bluff Setback 30' 10' 20'
Side Yard Setback (west) 10' 6' 4'
Lot 5 -
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Front Yard Setback
30' 20' 10'
10' 6' 4'
20' 15' 5'
Lot 6 -
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (west)
Front Yard Setback
30' 20' 10'
10' 6' 4'
20' 15' 5'
Lot 7 - Bluff Setback (rear) 30' 10' 20'
Bluff Setback (side) 30' 10' 20'
Impervious Cover
30% 32.8% 2.8%
In the case of Lots 1 - 6, the developer has requested a blanket 20 foot variance from the required
bluff setback. In reality, some of the units can be setback a distance greater than 10 feet from the
bluff line because of the location of the bluff contour. Accordingly, the Planning Commission may
want to consider a lesser bluff setback variance which would truly represent a minimum situation
under the Zoning Ordinance criteria. At the meeting, the developer should be able to provide
additional information on the actual bluff setbacks for each of the lots. The actual requested bluff
setback could be used as the basis for the variance request in lieu of a 20' blanket setback variance.
Five variances pertain to the public street that will serve the property. In addition to the right-of-way
that totals 35 feet in width, the plan calls for the creation of an additional 5 foot wide street easement
bringing the total public land width to 40 feet. Specific details about the street related variances can
be found in the City Engineer's report.
According to calculations submitted by the applicant, impervious cover for the project totals 32.8%.
The additional impervious cover is largely due to the expansive common driveway and guest parking
area. Developing the property with traditional driveways would reduce the amount of impervious
cover, however, it would complicate storm water drainage problems in the area.
Seton Bluff Planning Report
April 9, 1997
Page 4
Side yard setback variances are being requested for Lots 1 - 6. For the R-IA zone, 10 foot side yard
setbacks are required and for lots of record, one side yard setback can be 6 feet. The west side
setback for the six lots is 6 feet which conforms to the lot of record requirement but does not
conform to the non-lot of record requirement.
preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat shows an additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Kildare Road and land area
to accommodate the cul-de-sac bubble. All lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000
square feet as required in the R-lA zoning district. The setbacks identified in this report were taken
from the Preliminary Plat which is the legal instrument establishing the lot areas.
PDA projects in Mound are required to comply with the density restrictions found in Section
350:460 of the Code of Ordinances. Since Seton Bluff is in the shoreland area, the density
limitations for shoreland PDA's also apply. Density in a PDA is established by the underlying lot
size for the applicable residential district. The PDA provisions specifically delete land used for
streets and utilities from the gross density calculation. In the case of Seton Bluff, the amount of land
above the flood plain elevation totals 56,357 square feet. This site area will accommodate 9 units
under the non-shoreland PDA density provisions.
Since Seton Bluff is in the shoreland area, it needs to be evaluated consistent with the shoreland
density regulations found in Section 350:1200 of the Code of Ordinances. Shoreland standards
establish a series of tiers within which units are allowed based on a standard of 10,000 square feet.
The tiers are established based on the location of the 929.4 contour. In the case of Seton Bluff, all
of the property is in the first tier. The shoreland ordinance does allow density bonuses and the
proposed site plan does qualify because the setbacks from the ordinary high water contour equal or
exceed a minimum of 125% of the required 50 foot setback. The proposed density with the
applicable bonus is consistent with the maximum density allowed under the shoreland ordinance.
Application of the shoreland standards results in a maximum of 7 units.
Tree Preservation
Section 350:725 of the Mound Zoning Code contains standards regarding tree preservation. The
code states, "It is the intent of the City of Mound to preserve wooded areas throughout the City and
with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, substantial existing tree
cover." Seton Bluff contains scattered tree cover. Construction of the access drive and units will
necessitate removal of most of the vegetation in the front portion of the site. Trees located within
the bluff area will remain undisturbed. The amount of tree loss due to the Seton Bluff development
proposal is, in all likelihood, probably equal to the amount of tree removal that would be necessary
to construct homes with individual driveways on to Kildare Road.
Seton Bluff Planning Report
April 9, 1997
Page 5
A landscaping plan was included as part of the site development plans. The landscaping plan calls
for the installation of trees and shrubs along the Kildare Road frontage and in front of the units in
between the driveway areas. Because of the amount of tree cover being removed on the front portion
of the site to accommodate the housing units and driveway areas, it would be appropriate to include
additional overstory tree plantings between the curb of the private parking area and the curb of
Kildare Road.
The grading plan shows a retaining wall near the common driveway along the southeastern portion
of the site. At it tallest point, the wall is approximately 14 feet in height. There is enough room
along the southern exposure of the wall to create a tiered retaining wall with additional plantings
being placed in the tier to break up the expanse of wall surfacing. Materials for the wall are
unspecified and should be subject to staff review and approval.
Traffic resulting from the proposed development will be generated at the same rate as the existing
households in the vicinity since the proposed development and all of the development in the area
consists of detached single family homes. The seven new residences will each generate
approximately 10 trips per day based on standards published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers and the Urban Land Institute.
According to the City's wetlands map, the wetland elevation for the property in question is 929.5
feet. The development plan does not identify any construction in the wetland area and all of the units
comply with the Watershed District's 35 foot setback requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: The developers of Seton Bluff have designed a project that complies with
density provisions of the Zoning Code and meets the lot of record setback provisions. The project,
however, does not meet the non-lot of record provisions which apply in this case since 12 of the lots
were combined in the past. In any Planned Development Area project, trade-offs are involved. In
this case, the major trade-off appears to be impervious cover and setback variances for a plan that
handles storm drainage from the site in a more beneficial manner. The policy question that needs
to be answered by the Planning Commission and City Council is whether or not this trade-off is
equitable. Staff feels that the proposed plan with one less unit satisfies most of the concerns that
were raised in previous reviews. After its deliberations, if the Planning Commission feels that it is
equitable, the development could be approved with appropriate conditions. Alternatives to that
approach include approval with modifications or denial.
If the Planning Commission feels that the plan is appropriate and consistent with the Mound's
provisions for Planned Development Areas, the following conditions are suggested:
Seton Bluff Planning Report
April 9, 1997
Page 6
1. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent with Section
330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances.
3. The landscaping plan shall be modified to add deciduous overstory trees in the turf area between
the curb of Kildare Road and the curb defining the edge of the guest parking spaces and plantings
in the retaining wall tier. The landscaping plan modification shall be subject to a review and
approval by the City Planner.
4. Covenants and association bylaws shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Attorney.
5. Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all times, maintain
a positive fund balance.
6. Issues pertaining to proposed docks shall be addressed by the Mound Park and Open Space
Commission and City Council.
7. The conservation, drainage and utility easement that is proposed for the rear portion of the lots
shall contain a provision which allows tree removal only for trees that are dead or diseased.
Trees shall be defined in the agreement as all species exceeding 3 inches in caliper. The
easement document shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
8. The common driveway area exclusive of the guest parking area shall be posted as a "no parking"
area.
9. The developer shall submit detailed plans for the retaining wall identifying materials and a tiered
construction for review and approval by the City Engineer.
10. The recommendations and conditions found in the Engineers Report are incorporated herein.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739
Telephone
612_/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
ME M 0 R A ND UM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
John Cameron, City Engineer
April 8, 1997
City of Mound
Preliminary Plat - Seton Bluff, Case #96-64
Engineering Review
MFRA #11542
We have reviewed the revised plans submitted for preliminary plat approval of Seton Bluff
which has one less lot than the previous submittal. Most of the concerns we expressed in our
review letter dated February 5, 1997 have been addressed except for the following items:
1. The previously identified variances remain necessary for this revised plan.
ao
Right-of-way width- 15' variance.
Cul-de-sac right-of-way- 10' variance.
Improved street -width 4' variance.
Improved cul-de-sac radius - 5' variance.
Street grade - variance from 8% to 13% slope.
ao
The 3 center guest parking stalls need to be 23 feet long and the 2 end stalls 22
feet long, for an overall length of 113 feet, curb to curb. The plan ~cales 110'.
The private driveway, individual drives and mm around are not dimensioned, but
in scaling the drawing, they appear to be sufficient.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
/¢/7
Jon Sutherland
April 8, 1997
ao
Grading limits must be restricted to applicant's property and City right-of-way.
Plans must be approved by MCWD.
Proposed slopes cannot exceed 2-1/2:1. Prefer 3:1.
Proposed elevation at front of unit on Lot 5 needs to be raised a minimum of 12"
and the unit on Lot 4, a minimum of 6".
A flatter area (5 feet minimum) behind the curb on Kildare at Lots 2, 3 and 4
needs to be provided for snow storage.
The drainage arrows indicate that the entire building envelope drains south to the
private drive and/or cul-de-sac. The rear portion of these units will have to drain
north.
A more desirable drainage pattern will need to be designed for the City cul-de-sac
than the sheet drainage as shown.
Utility_ Plan
a. Add surge basin at storm sewer outlet and relocate to the toe of the slope.
b. Provide sump with baffle in CBMH.
c. Public improvements to meet all City standards.
e:~nain:\l 1542~suthcr48
I
CITY OF MOUND
Memorandum
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 21, 1997
John Cameron, City Engineer
Mark Koegler, City Planner
Ceil Strauss, DNR
Greg Skinner, Public Works Dept.
Fire Department
Jim Fackler, Parks Department
Peggy James, Planning Secretary ~
Seton Bluff
Attached are revised drawings for the proposed Seton Bluff PDA. This case will be heard by
the Planning Commission on April 14th and by the City Council on May 13th. The Park
Commission will be reviewing the Park Dedication fee issue on April 10th. Please submit your
comments/reports to Peggy by April 9th.
Thank you.
cc: Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Enclosures
printed on recycled paper
Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 ' -
easement.
Snow removal was discussed. Behnke noted that the association will handle the plowing and
snow will be stored at the end of the cul-de-sac.
The setbacks were reviewed. Behnke confirmed that decks will be within the footprint shown.
Mueller expressed a concern about setting a precedent by approving the bluff setbacks. Koegler
commented that you can argue all variances on a case by case basis, and noted that this is a
difficult site due to the road and bluff, and analyzing the merits of this development, if the same
conditions were present elsewhere, then maybe variances would need to be considered.
Mueller questioned the ability to develop this property utilizing existing lot lines. Staff
confirmed that these lots could not be developed until the street is improved and utilities are
extended.
Mueller questioned if there are any other developments that have been approved that have no
direct access from a public road. Koegler noted that there are townhouses by the bridge on
Bartlett that may be similar, but this may be the first, and explained that this configuration was
the product of a lot of discussion in order to control the grade.
Mueller asked if the City is required to allow people to build on lots just because they're platted.
Koegler noted that there would be cases where the property could not be developed.
Clapsaddle commented that it is bad to assume that the structures will not be built closer than
3 feet to the property line and suggested that the plat just show 6 feet.
Clapsaddle expressed a concern about outside storage of recreational vehicles. Behnke noted
that the association rules will require they be parked inside the garages and that no outside
storage will be allowed. Behnke would not object if this were a requirement of the PDA.
Hanus asked Koegler to explain the confusion with the DNR relating to the delineation of a
bluff. Koegler explained, and noted the end result is that the drawing does conform to the
definition.
The density variance was reviewed. Koegler noted that this development does meet the overall
density requirements and it does comply with the underlying 6,000 square foot lot area
requirement.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Steve Grand expressed concerns with the development and drainage in the area. At the end of
his driveway on Kerry Lane there is a dip in the road and this is were most of the sand and silt
from Kildare Road settles. His neighbor's property across the street also gets silt in front of her
house. Also, the corner of her lot was destroyed by during construction of the new houses on
Kildare. Grand is concerned about loss of view towards the lake, he will not be able to see
between the houses because they will be so close together. He has great concerns about drainage
and aesthetics. Grand explained that when they built the existing houses on Kildare they
/ 2go
Addendum to Seton Bluff Narrative
March 19, 1997
The existing site is now under one ownership, and one applicant.
The net site is now defined as 1.35 acres. A variance for a PDA less than 2 acres is
being requested.
Project Overview
The project now comprises of the platting of 6 - 44' wide lots and a 7th comprising the
balance of the land. All lots comply with the 62.5' setback from the 929.4' OHW
allowing the site to benefit from a density bonus from 6 lots to 9 lots.
The guest parking is now 5 spaces.
The private drive is now 19' wide.
Side yard variances of 4' are being requested on one side of each lot.
A front yard variance from 20' to 15' is being requested for lots 5 and 6.
A Bluff setback variance from 30' to a minimum of 10' is being requested for all 7
lots.
A coverage variance of 32.8% is being requested to allow the construction of the
private drive.
Landscape Plan
Trees have been added to the 'islands' between the homes.
1 }2 (
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
March 12, 1997
Mr. Steven Behnke
Fine Line DESIGN group, inc.
P.O. Box 1611
Burnsville, MN 55337
RE: REVIEW OF SETON BLUFF
Dear Mr. Behnke:
On January 31, 1997, you submitted a completed application for a preliminary plat, variances
and a conditional use permit for the Seton Bluff development in the City of Mound. After the
Planning Commission meeting on February 10, 1997, you stated that you intend to modify the
existing site plan and resubmit another plan for Planning Commission approval prior to the time
that the request is acted upon by the City Council.
Minnesota Statute § 15.99 gives cities 60 days to make certain types of land use decisions. In
accordance with your desire to prepare a new plan and the statutory review process, this letter
is to inform you that the City is terminating the review time for this project. When you
complete your new plan, it will be considered as a new application for the purposes of § 15.99,
however, you will not be required to pay any additional application fees to the City of Mound,
but additional costs relating to staff review may be assessed to your escrow account.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact our City Planner, Mark Koegler at
835-9960.
Building Official
JS:pj
cc: Mark Koegler, City Planner
/gzz.
printed on recycled paper
Rev. 3-6-96
Application for
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 5536,
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 -~
Planning Commission ua=e:,,~--
City Council Date:
~tion:
City Planner:
City Engineer:
Case No. q
Conditional Use Permit Fee~
Other:~
Please type or print the following information:
INFORMATION
Name of Business
DESCRIPTION
Subdivision PID#
APPLICANT The applicant is: __owner ~other:~
,,,
· ~li=~ml ~ I I / '
ARCHITECT,
SURVEYOR, , '
ENGINEER Phone(H, ~0--~
ZONING Cimle: 8-1 ~ R-2 8-3 8-1 8-2 8-3
DISTRICT
CHANGEOF FROM: ~--(~
USE
Conditional Use Permi= Application
Page 2
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in
the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking,
and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts.
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing
reasonable guarantees for the comp~tion of tb~ proposed dev~lopment~, Estimated
Development Cost of the Project: $ ~0,~ ~~ ~ ~F-~~ (~
!
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 numar(%) and~p~ovide copies of resolutions.
ant s Signatu%
Property Owner's signature N0( a% ~tk~l~'~ Date
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
CASE 96-64: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES
"SETON BLUFF", FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.
LOTS 15 - 32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54
Chair Michael explained the public hearing procedures. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed
the Planning Report. Fine Line Design Group is seeking approvals for a Planned Development
Area (PDA) on a 2.04 acre tract of land along a currently unimproved portion of Kildare Road.
The physical conditions of the site and this area of Mound complicate development of the
property. In lieu of a traditional platted lot approach which would result in driveway cuts and
retaining walls for all of the lots in order to provide access to Kildare Road, the developers are
proposing the project as a PDA which facilities the establishment of common areas including a
common access drive serving all of the proposed homes. The common access drive also allows
more control of storm water.
The plan calls for the development of Kildare Road westward from Kerry Lane about 250 feet.
Six of the proposed homes will be served by a common driveway, and two homes will have
direct access to the cul-de-sac. Homeowner's association bylaws and covenants will apply to
only the eastern six lots.
Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 '-
Items requiring Planning Commission action include approval of a PDA by Conditional Use
Permit, Variances, and the Preliminary Plat. The PDA is being sought in order to establish the
commons access drive and the commons green space areas that will be maintained by a
homeowner's association.
Koegler briefly reviewed the variances requested associated with the PDA. The street variances
are as follows:
Required Proposed
Right-of-way width 50' 35'
Cul-de-sac right-of-way (radius) 50' 40'
Street paved width 28' 24'
Variance
15'
10'
4'
Koegler noted that there are various variances requested for lots 1-6, 8 & 9, including lot size,
bluff setback, and side and front yard setbacks. The lot size variances relate to the type of
development proposed because a significant amount of the site will be platted as an outlot. The
total land area of the project lying above the flood elevation of 931.0 is 60,364 square feet. If
the common areas were removed and the proposed lots were evenly split among the total site
area, lot sizes would be 7,545 square feet.
Impervious Surface coverage for the entire property is proposed to be 36.7% resulting in a
variance request of 6.7%. The additional coverage is largely due to the expansive common
driveway and guest parking area.
The setback variances do not represent the true structural setback situation. The Uniform
Building Code requires that buildings be placed 3 feet from the side and rear lot lines unless the
construction is fire rated. The developer has stated that it is his intent to observe the additional
3 foot setback from the side and front property lines resulting in 12 feet of separation between
the actual housing units. A 6 foot setback (12 feet total) conforms to the lot of record setback
for the R-IA zone but not the 10 foot setback required by the non-lot of record provisions.
Koegler reviewed the density requirements in Section 350:460 of the City Code. This site area
will accommodate 10 units under the PDA density provisions. However, since Seton Bluff is
in the shoreland area, it also needs to be evaluated consistent with the shoreland density
regulations in Section 350:1200 of the Code. The proposed density of 8 units exceeds the
maximum of 6 units allowed by the ordinance. The shoreland ordinance does allow density
bonuses, however, the proposed site plan does not qualify because the setbacks from the
ordinary high water contour do not equal a minimum of 125 % of the required 50 foot setback.
Therefore, a variance for the two units that exceed the density standard will need to be granted
if the project is to proceed as planned.
Koegler further reviewed tree preservation, landscaping, traffic, and wetland issues.
RECOMMENDATION: The developers of Seton Bluff have designed the project that complies
with most of the lot of record setback provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. The project,
however, does not meet the non-lot of record provisions which apply in this case since 12 of the
lots were combined in the past. In any PDA, trade-offs are involved. In this case, the major
Planning Commission Minutes
................................. February 10, I997
trade-off appears to be higher density than what is allowed by the shoreland ordinance and
setback variances for a plan that handles storm drainage from the site in a more beneficial
manner. The policy question that needs to be answered by the Planning Commission and City
Council is whether or not this trade-off is equitable. After its deliberations, if the Planning
Commission feels that it is equitable, the development could be approved with appropriate
conditions. Alternatives to that approach include approval with modifications or denial. Koegler
noted the suggested conditions for approval listed in his report.
Koegler referred to the Engineer's report and noted that it contains further comments and
recommendations. The Engineer recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to a
number of conditions as outlined in the report.
Applicant, Steve Behnke introduced himself as President of Fine Line Design Group, and
addressed the planning report. Behnke noted that the street is proposed to developed as
originally designed by the City Engineer in his street report which was done in December of
1995. Behnke emphasized the following:
The average lot size is well over the 6,000 square foot minimum at 7,500 square feet
when you take the common land and spread it out.
Lot 8 is the smallest due to the cul-de-sac.
Lots 8 and 9 are still lots of record and therefore are entitled up to 40 % hardcover.
31 percent of this site is under water.
64 % of the site is green space.
The impervious coverage that is planned is designed to keep water out of the Kildare
Road and Kerry Lane intersection.
The arrangement of the proposed dwellings maintain the lines as originally platted.
The private drive increases impervious cover, but also performs the function of
decreasing run off onto Kildare.
Current impervious surface calculations are with the driveways three car wide. If the
driveways are reduced in size to two cars wide, the impervious coverage drops by 1%.
If this property was developed with standard driveways extended from Kildare,
impervious coverage would drop by only another 1%.
The houses have been situated to create a detached townhome feeling with the grounds
being maintained by an association.
This is the same number of houses that would be allowed by the original plat and is 4/5
of what the density requirements would allow now.
Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997 ' -
Only lot 8 is not at 125 % of the lake side setback.
They have no problem installing over-story trees in certain locations, between lots 2 &
3, 4&5, and 6&8. The other islands contain services and over-story trees are not
recommended over services.
Behnke proceeded to address the conditions outlined in the Engineer's Memorandum, and made
the following comments:
All association land is held in common and is available for drainage and utility
easements. The association also would control any construction within the common area.
Lots 8 and 9 will have the drainage and utility easements added around the boundaries.
- The "no parking on the private drive" is acceptable to them.
The parking area is not intended to be used for everyday parking, and therefore, would
like to maintain the 16 foot wide width of the private drive. He also noted that 18 feet
is the recommended maximum width for hardcover drives according to design standards.
He does not feel it would be wise to shift the houses closer to the bluff as this would
decrease the bluff setback and also add impervious surface by increasing the length of
the driveways.
He does not feel curb and gutter have a value at this point since the private drive will
drain through the middle.
During construction they will install silt fences and intend to control all run-off from the
site.
Watershed approval is being sought, but they will not review until there is preliminary
approval from the City. Behnke explained the "rip rap basin" proposed at the bottom of
the slope, and the catch basin manhole at the top.
Visual aids were used to indicate that 40 % of the site currently drains down Kerry Lane,
and after development only 10% will drain down Kerry. The 30% balance will go into
the proposed catch basin.
Visual aids were provided to show the types of homes to be constructed.
The Commission discussed the steep grade of the proposed road and the steep grade of the
existing Kildare Road extending to the east. Voss expressed a concerned with the silt/sand on
Kerry Lane that washes down from Kildare, and noted that the amount of silt should be reduced
with the development of this plan.
Mueller questioned if the retaining wall proposed at the southeast coruer of the development will
be 16 feet tall. Behnke confirmed that the wall will be 15 to 16 feet tall and will have plantings
on the top and bottom. Mueller noted that there will only be 3 feet between the wall and the
4
Planning Commission Minutes
................................. February 10, 1997
easement.
Snow removal was discussed. Behnke noted that the association will handle the plowing and
snow will be stored at the end of the cul-de-sac.
The setbacks were reviewed. Behnke confirmed that decks will be within the footprint shown.
Mueller expressed a concern about setting a precedent by approving the bluff setbacks. Koegler
commented that you can argue all variances on a case by case basis, and noted that this is a
difficult site due to the road and bluff, and analyzing the merits of this development, if the same
conditions were present elsewhere, then maybe variances would need to be considered.
Mueller questioned the ability to develop this property utilizing existing lot lines. Staff
confirmed that these lots could not be developed until the street is improved and utilities are
extended.
Mueller questioned if there are any other developments that have been approved that have no
direct access from a public road. Koegler noted that there are town_houses by the bridge on
Bartlett that may be similar, but this may be the first, and explained that this configuration was
the product of a lot of discussion in order to control the grade.
Mueller asked if the City is required to allow people to build on lots just because they're platted.
Koegler noted that there would be cases where the property could not be developed.
Clapsaddle commented that it is bad to assume that the structures will not be built closer than
3 feet to the property line and suggested that the plat just show 6 feet.
Clapsaddle expressed a concern about outside storage of recreational vehicles. Behnke noted
that the association rules will require they be parked inside the garages and that no outside
storage will be allowed. Behnke would not object if this were a requirement of the PDA.
Hanus asked Koegler to explain the confusion with the DNR relating to the delineation of a
bluff. Koegler explained, and noted the end result is that the drawing does conform to the
definition.
The density variance was reviewed. Koegler noted that this development does meet the overall
density requirements and it does comply with the underlying 6,000 square foot lot area
requirement.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Steve Grand expressed concerns with the development and drainage in the area. At the end of
his driveway on Kerry Lane there is a dip in the road and this is were most of the sand and silt
from Kildare Road settles. His neighbor's property across the street also gets silt in front of her
house. Also, the corner of her lot was destroyed by during construction of the new houses on
Kildare. Grand is concerned about loss of view towards the lake, he will not be able to see
between the houses because they will be so close together. He has great concerns about drainage
and aesthetics. Grand explained that when they built the existing houses on Kildare they
5
Planning Commission Minutes ................................. February 10, 1997
removed all the trees on the lot and everything was a muddy mess. All the erosion eventually
goes into Black Lake.
At the request of the Chair, City Engineer, John Cameron explained that less drainage will go
towards Kerry Lane with the proposed plan.
Voss questioned how many houses could be constructed on this property if it were not replatted.
Koegler stated that the way the property is currently platted, the one parcel would need to be
divided and there are three lots at the end, but street access would need to be provided, so he
would estimate about 5 or 6 units with driveway access directly of Kildare could be constructed.
Behnke commented that utilizing the property as lots-of-record, he believes 9 units could be
constructed.
Grand stated that he does not want a worse problem, and there is no drainage problem from that
property now, but when the road is developed there will be.
Vicki Hockert, owner of the house across the street from Steve Grand stated that during the
construction of the two new homes across the street from her, the corner of her lot was
destroyed by trucks and construction equipment. There was a tremendous amount of dirt and
erosion running onto her property. She expressed a concern about increased traffic as a result
of this development. She feels the proposal is for too many homes in too little of an area.
Vicki asked who is responsible for damage done to her property.
Behnke confirmed that until the Kildare Road improvements are done, there will be construction
equipment in the intersection of Kerry and Kildare.
Sutherland commented that he had a problem with Brenshel Homes in controlling the erosion
during construction the houses on Kildare, but with a new development such as what is proposed
the City will have a development contract and a financial guarantee to better control these types
of issues.
The radius of the corners from Kerry to Kildare was reviewed. Grand agreed that he would
rather see a rounder corner rather than seeing people bounce over the curb and ruining his yard.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
Clapsaddle asked staff how this project will affect the intersection and asked what is the solution.
Cameron explained that the radius of the corner on Kerry and Kildare is currently 5 feet which
is the result of improving a 28' wide street in a 30' wide platted right-of-way. When these
streets were improved they had to get easements from owners for the corners of their properties.
Vicki's property corner is in the street.
Behnke stated that no parking will be allowed on Kildare Road due to the narrow width, which
is why guest parking was proposed in the private drive. Behnke stated that with the additional
4 feet of right-of-way on the south side, they could have a 9 foot radius, and if Grand donated
an easement the radius could be even bigger.
Planning Commission Minutes
................................. February 10, I997
Erosion control during the project was further discussed. Behnke noted that the excavator who
worked with Brenshel during the construction of the existing homes is no longer working with
Brenshel.
The width of the driveway and parking stalls was reviewed. Cameron noted that the reason he
is recommending curbing on the south side of the common driveway is to protect the easement
area from cars parking on it and to assist with drainage.
The requirement for a guardrail at the top of the 16 foot high retaining wall was discussed.
Sutherland, noted that the building code does not require a guardrail. Behnke stated that he
would accept a condition requiring a hedge on the top of the wall.
MOTION by Voss to recommend denial of the Seton Bluff PDA. Seconded
by Mueller. Reasons for denial is that the project is too dense, there are
topographical problems, drainage issues, and too many houses are proposed
for this property.
Mueller commented that they are pushing the envelope in every perspective. There are setback
variances, bluff setback variances, and hardcover variances and this is because they are pushing
the envelope. The DNR allows six houses in the first tier, and if only six houses were proposed
the variances would go away and the houses would not be so narrow. Mueller feels they have
to look out for the good of the community and for the furore residents of this development.
Clapsaddle feels that the parking and private drive does not work. He does not totally agree
with Mueller, but does agree that the project is too dense.
Motion to deny carried 7 to 1. Those in favor of denial were:
Burma, Reifschneider, Weiland, Hanus, Voss and Mueller.
opposed.
Clapsaddle,
Michael was
This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 4, 1997.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 7, 1997
Park and Open Space Commission/
t
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Seton Bluff - Park Dedication & Docks
On Tuesday, March 4, 1997, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the Seton Bluff
PDA/Preliminary Plat. The following items are being brought to the Park Commission for their
recommendations:
PARK DEDICATION
The developer, Fine Line Design group, inc. (Steve Behnke) has not reserved land on the
proposed plat for dedication. City Code Section 330:120 states, "At the City's option .... the
subdivider shall contribute an equivalent amount of cash, in lieu of all or a portion of the land
which the City may require.., cash contribution shall be a minimum of ten percent (10%) of
the total fair market value of the land being divided. In no case shall the dedication in cash be
less than $500 for each new lot being created."
According to the Hennepin County tax records, the market value of the subject properties are
as follows:
19-117-23 22 0036 $ 300
19-117-23 22 0037 300
19-117-23 22 0038 300
19-117-23 22 0039 300
19-117-23 22 0040 1,800
19-117-23 22 0041 1,800
19-117-23 22 0054 6,000
TOTAL $10,800
Calculating $10,800, at 10% would result in a total contribution of $1,080. Therefore, it is
recommended that a dedication in cash of $500 per lot be collected in lieu of land dedication.
The total dedication would be $4,500.
printed on recycled paper
,- ....t,, I ,t,
A multiple dock with eight (8) slips is being proposed as part of the plat. More information will
need to be submitted in order for a complete review by the Commission, such as a scaled
drawing of the proposed dock, and an application for a public lands permit. In reviewing the
preliminary plat, staff has made the following observations:
Only six homes sites, those numbered 1 thru 6, would qualify as abutting owners under
City Code Section 437:05, Sub& 7, a. "First Priority. An abutting owner...".
Building sites 8 and 9 would have private lakeshore and would be addressed under City
Code Section 437:05, Subd. 7, aa. "Residents owning private lakeshore..."
A Public Lands Permit will be required for the proposed stairways to be located between
home sites 4 and 5 and between 2 and 3 which extend onto the City controlled
unimproved street right-of-way, Longford Road.
Longford Road will need to be recognized on the Dock Location Map and assigned a
"Shoreline Type".
An application must be made to the DNR for this proposed dock site because it exceeds four
slips and extends through protected waters.
The lineal footage of this shoreline will also need to be added to the Dock Location Map for
purposes of calculating the number of boat storage units BSU's allowed by the LMCD for our
Multiple Dock License.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, lVlN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
R ,CEIVEL'
FEB - 7 1997
February 5, 1997
Mr. Jon Suthefland
5341 Maywood Road.
Mound, MN 55364
Seton Bluff Planned Development Area, Preliminary Plat, Lake iV'finnetonka - Black Lake
(27-133-12), City of Mound, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Suthedand:
We have reviewed the site plans and supporting materials for the above-referenced proposal
(received January 28, 1997) located in NWl/4, Section 19, T117N-R23W) and have the
following comments to offer:
1. Lake Minnetonka - Black Lake (27-133-12), is on the proposed site. Any activity below
the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section
of protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of DNR and may require a DN-R
protected waters permit. The OHW for the lake is 929.4' (1929 NGVD). All plans
should be labeled with the OHW noted.
2. I have concerns regarding the BluffLine identified on the plans. Apparently there is some
confusion regarding interpretation of the city's shoreland ordinance regarding the
definition of a bluff. The city should consider amending its shoreland ordinance to avoid
any future misinterpretation of the definition. At this point in time, the DNR will not
object to the city's interpretation. However, regardless of the interpretation, the existing
bluff lines appear to be located below the top of the bluff.
3. Impervious surface should be looked at closely. It appears that impervious surface limits
are exceeded on several lots. We object to maximum impervious surface being exceeded,
especially in an area with such steep topography.
4. Apparently the building density was calculated using the underlying density requirement of
6,000 square feet per unit. The City of Mound shoreland overlay district requires a
density not to exceed 10,000 square feet per unit. The DNR would object to granting of a
building density based on the use of the less restrictive underlying density requiremems.
DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 · TTY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opporlunit3 Employer ~ Printed on Rec.,,cled Paper Containing a
Who Values DiversiD Minimmn or' 10~;~ posi-Consumer Waste
Mr. Jon Suther/and
February 5, 1997
Page 2
It is unclear how many slips will be requested by the homeowners' association for the
docking facility. The docking facility will require a permit from the DNR and/or from the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). The LMCD is the agent for DNR
General Permit #97-6098 for permanent and/or multiple docks on Lake Minnetonka.
Please contact Greg Nybeck at 471-9588 for guidelines and additional permit information.
It appears that the stormwater is proposed to be routed directly to Black Lake (27-133-
12). Stormwater sedimentation/treatment ponds, or other appropriate stormwater
treatment features, should be included in the plan. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
should be contacted to discuss stormwater management and any permitting requirements.
There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or deed restriction for the
properties adjacent to the bluffand/or wetland areas. This would help to ensure that
property owners are aware that the DNK the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City of
Mound, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District may have jurisdiction over the areas and that bluffs and or wetlands may not be
altered without appropriate permits.
There may be wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for
activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the
city in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991.
The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
bo
Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction
period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan and
Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be
followed.
If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or one
million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. You are advised
that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
If construction activities disturb five acres of land, or more, contractors are
required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (Scott Thompson ~ 296-7203).
/
Mr. Jon Suthedand
February 5, 1997
Page 3
The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional
matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support
or lack thereof for a particular project.
Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have questions.
Acting Area Hydrologist
PAML/cds
c~
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, G-reg Nybeck
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, J'un Hafner
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta
Hennepin Conservation District
Fine Line Design Group, Steve Behnke, P.O. Box 1611, Bumsville 55337
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:
Jon Sutherland, Planning & Zoning
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
John Cameron, City Engineer
February 5, 1997
City of Mound
Preliminary Plat ~ Seton Bluff Case #96-64
Engineering Review
MFRA # 11542
FEB - 6 1997
As requested, we have reviewed the plans submitted for preliminary plat approval of Seton Bluff
and have the following comments and recommendations:
Preliminary_ Plat
There are no proposed drainage or utility easements shown on the preliminary plat. At
the very minimum, 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements should be required along
the exterior boundary of Lots 7, 8, and 9. In addition, any land area below elevation
931.5 needs to be covered by a drainage easement. The proposed street right-of-way does
not meet the City's minimum standards; thus, variances will be required for the
following:
1. Right-of-way width- 50' required, 35' proposed- 15' variance required.
2. Cul-de-sac right-of-way - 50' radius required, 40' proposed - 10' variance required.
3. Improved street - 28' wide back-to-back of curb required, 24' wide proposed - 4'
variance required.
4. Improved cul-de-sac - 40' radius to back of curb required, 35' proposed - 5' variance
required.
If the narrower street and cul-de-sac are approved with the appropriate variance, parking on the
City street would need to be prohibited.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Jon Sutherland, Planning & Zoning
February 5, 1997
Page 2
Site Plan
The private driveway and parallel parking which serve lots 1 through 6 needs some modification
which in mm, may affect the location of the platted lots. The 6 parallel parking stalls are not
dimensioned, but in scaling the total length they appear to be approximately 4 feet short. The
two end stalls can be 22' long and the remaining 4 should be 23' long, resulting in an overall
length of 136 feet. The most westerly stall cannot be located within the proposed right-of-way
for Kildare; thus they need to be shifted easterly and the additional footage added to the east end.
The width of the private drive as shown at 16' is of concern. We would consider 18' to be the
absolute minimum; with 20' wide preferred. We would recommend that lots 3, 4, and 5 be set
back 50' from the proposed right-of-way line of Kildare Road. This would allow for the 5' wide
easement, 10' wide parallel parking stalls, 19' wide drive and 16' between the edge of the drive
and the proposed lot line. This will allow ample space for cars to park in front of the garages and
still provide for two way traffic on the private drive. The drawing shows a dimension of 48' on
lot 5; whereas it scales 46'; thus the front lot lines for lots 3, 4, and 5 will need to be moved north
4'.
The width of the private drive across lot 2 is not dimensioned, but it scales approximately 15'.
We are recommending that this section could be narrowed to 14' wide but the distance between
the edge of the private drive and the front of lot 2, as measured along the east edge of the parking
area must be increased to 16'. This will require either shifting the private drive south or moving
the proposed lot northerly.
The proposed plan does not indicate any proposed curb and gutter except for the public portion
of Kildare Road. We would recommend that at a minimum, concrete curb and gutter be required
along the south edge of the private drive and parking stalls. This would include lots 1 and 2.
The grading limits must be restricted to the applicant's property and/or existing platted right-of-
way, unless easements are obtained from the adjacent property owners. The southerly edge of
the project is of particular concern. The amount of silt fence must be increased to encompass all
grading activity to protect all the bluff areas and adjacent property. The easterly end of the guest
parking must be redesigned to drain towards the proposed catch basin. This may require
additional retaining wall in this area. The slope from the parking area, drive and retaining walls
towards Kildare Road is too steep. This should not be greater than 2-1/2 to 1 slope.
The proposed street grade for Kildare Road is not identified, but it appears to be approximately
13%, whereas City code limits this grade to 8%. The desired street grade will need to be
identified and a variance granted for that grade. This street cannot be constructed without
exceeding the City's maximum slope allowed by code. The most westerly edge of the proposed
cul-de-sac shows grading taking place within the identified bluff area. The City's Shoreland
2
Jon Sutherland, Planning & Zoning
February 5, 1997
Page 3
Management Ordinance requires that roads meet the same setbacks as structures "when other
reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist." If no alternatives exist, then they may be
placed within the bluff and shore impact zone, but must be designed to minimize adverse
impacts, which has been done in this case.
The grading and erosion control plan must be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD). The MCWD in the past, has not processed permits applications until the City
has granted preliminary approval at the Planning Commission level; thus any City approval
should be contingent upon MCWD approval.
The proposed grading and drainage for this project is based on the goals of eliminating long
individual driveways, with retaining walls, connecting directly to Kildare Road and diverting as
much runoff away from Kildare Road as possible. This has been accomplished with the private
driveway and private storm sewer system.
Utili _ty Plan
Again; the storm sewer must be approved by the MCWD. The outlet of the storm sewer at the
toe of the bluff, will need something to dissipate the discharge such as a surge basin. In addition,
the proposed catch basin adjacent to the private drive should be designed to include a sump and
baffle system to remove sediment and floating debris. The size of the proposed sanitary sewer
and watermain are not indicated. They must be 8" P.V.C. for the sanitary and 6" DIP for the
water. All improvements located within Kildare Lane which will become public, must be
constructed to City standards. This includes the street construction.
Conclusions and Recommendations
We would recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Seton Bluff subject to the following
conditions:
Granting of variances to right-of-way width, improved street width and street grades as
follows:
a.) Right-of-way width - 15' variance.
b.) Cul-de-sac right-of-way - 10' variance.
c.) Improved street - 4' variance.
d.) Improved cul-de-sac radius - 5' variance.
e.) Street grade - variance from 8% to 13% slope.
Resubmit Preliminary Plat and Site Plan that match each other with the following revisions:
a.) Addition of proposed easements.
b.) Revised lot configuration to accommodate requirements for guest parking, private
driveway widths and parking in front of garages.
Jon Sutherland, Planning & Zoning
February 5, 1997
Page 4
o
o
c.) Concrete curb and gutter along south edge of parking and private drive.
Grading Plan:
a.) Increase amount of silt fence to encompass entire construction area.
b.) Approval of plans by MCWD.
c.) Revise proposed grades to drain private drive and parking to private storm sewer.
d.) Revise proposed grades to limit slopes to 2-1/2:1.
Utility Plan:
a.) Add surge basin at storm sewer outlet.
b.) Provide sump manhole with baffle.
c.) Public improvements to meet all City standards.
e:~nain:\l 1542\suth2--4
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: February 4, 1997
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit (PDA), Variances and Preliminary Plat - Seton Bluff
APPLICANT: Fine Line Design Group, Inc. (Steve Behnke)
CASE NUMBER: 96-64
HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5s
LOCATION: Lots 15 through 32, Block 11, Seton - Kildare Road
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: Fine Line Design Group is seeking approvals for a Planned Development Area
(PDA) on a 2.04 acre tract of land along a currently unimproved portion of Kildare Lane. Approval
of the plan will require action by the City to issue a conditional use permit for the PDA, grant a
number of variances as part of the PDA and approve the proposed preliminary plat.
The Seton Bluff site lies along the north side of Kildare Road (right-of-way). Historically, the area
was platted into a series of 18 individual lots. At some point in the past, some of the lots were
combined which resulted in one parcel containing the 12 easternmost lots. The six remaining lots
on the west are still separately platted parcels. The actual platted ownership involved in this case
also includes lots that lie below the OHW for Lake Minnetonka.
The center of the site contains a knoll with an elevation of 962 and the site drops off on all sides with
the western and northern boundaries of the property bordering Lake Minnetonka. Scattered tree
cover exists throughout the property and slopes along the western and northern portions of the
property qualify as bluffs under the Mound Zoning Code. The bluff line is delineated on the survey.
The physical conditions of the site and this area of Mound complicate development of the property.
In lieu of a traditional platted lot approach which would result in driveway cuts and retaining walls
for all of the lots in order to provide access to Kildare Road, the developers are proposing the project
as a Planned Development Area (PDA) which facilitates the establishment of common areas
including a common access drive serving all of the proposed homes. The common access drive also
allows much more control of storm water which is an issue detailed in both the developers narrative
and the City Engineer's report.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Seton Bluff Planning Report
February 4, 1997
Page 2
The development plan calls for the extension of Kildare Road from its present terminus at Kerry
Lane westward a total distance of approximately 250 feet. Construction of six homes will occur on
the eastern portion of the site, all served by a common driveway. The homes in this portion of the
site are on property owned by and to be built upon by Fine Line Design. The eastern six homes will
all have common elements such as building materials, roof pitch and other characteristics which will
make them a cohesive development without having the exact same facade treatment. The remaining
lots are owned by a second party and may or may not be built in conformance with the structures on
the eastern six lots. The two westernmost lots have direct access to the bubble of the proposed cul-
de-sac. Homeowner's association bylaws and covenants will apply to the eastern six lots.
COMMENTS: Implementation of the project will require approval of a conditional use permit,
variances and a preliminary plat. Additional approvals are being requested from the Park and Open
Space Commission pertaining to a multiple dock license and a Public Lands Permit for a proposed
stairway. A recommendation on these items will be forwarded to the City Council from the Park and
Open Space Commission. Items requiring Planning Commission action are addressed separately as
follows:
Planned Development Area
The Mound Zoning Code allows the establishment of a Planned Development Area by conditional
use permit as "a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual
building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table,
unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in
relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires more unique and controlled platting
techniques to protect and promote the quality of life in the City." The developer is seeking PDA
approval in order to establish the common access drive and the common green space areas that will
be maintained by a homeowner's association.
Variances
The provisions of the Mound Zoning Code require that variances associated with the PDA be listed
and approved as part of the plan. The proposed site plan includes the following variances:
Right-of-way width
Cul-de-sac right-of-way (radius)
Street paved width
Lots:
Lot 1 - Area
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setbacks
Require4 Proposed Variance
50' 35' 15'
50' 40' 10'
28' 24' 4'
6,000 sf 2,210 sf 3,790
30' 10' 20'
3' 10' 7'
sf
Lot 2 - Area
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setbacks
6,000 sf 2,312 sf 3,688 sf
30' 8' .~
223" 10' 7'
Seton Bluff Planning Report
February 4, 1997
Page 3
Lots:
Lot 3 -
Area
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setbacks
Required
6,000 sf
30'
10'
Proposed
2,312 sf
22'
3'
Variance
3,688 sf
8'
7'
Lot 4 -
Area
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setbacks
6,000
30'
10'
sf
2,312
10'
3'
sf
3,688
20'
7'
sf
Lot 5 -
Area
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setbacks
6,000
30'
10'
sf
2,210
11'
3'
sf
3,790
19'
7'
sf
Lot 6 -
Area
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setbacks
6,000
30'
10'
sf
2,040
11'
3'
sf
3,960
19'
7'
sf
Lot 7 - Association Common Property
Lot 8 -
Area 6,000 sf 4,620 sf 1,380 sf
Bluff Setback 30' 10' 20'
Side Yard Setbacks 10' 6' 4'
Front Yard Setback 20' 14' 6'
Lot 9 -
Bluff Setback
Side Yard Setback (east)
Front Yard Setback
30' 10' 20'
10' 6' 14'
20' 16' 4'
Impervious Cover
30% 36.7% 6.7%
Three variances pertain to the public street that will serve the property. In addition to the right-of-
way that totals 35 feet in width, the plan calls for the creation of an additional 5 foot wide street
easement bringing the total public land width to 40 feet. Specific details about the street related
variances can be found in the City Engineer's report.
The lot size variances that are required relate to the type of development proposed. Because a
significant amount of the site will be platted as an outlot to be maintained by the homeowner's
association, actual platted lot sizes are under the minimum standard for traditional R-lA single
family detached development. The total land area of the project lying above the flood elevation of
931.0 is 60,364 square feet. If the common areas were removed and the proposed lots were evenly
split among the total site area, lot sizes would be 7,545 square feet.
Seton Bluff Planning Report
February 4, 1997
Page 4
According to calculations submitted by the applicant, impervious cover for the project totals 36.7%.
The additional impervious cover is largely due to the expansive common driveway and guest parking
area. Developing the property with traditional driveways would reduce the amount of impervious
cover, however, it would likely complicate storm water drainage problems in the area.
The setback variances that are shown in the chart reflect the distance between lot lines. This
situation does not represent the true structural setback situation. The Uniform Building Code (UBC)
requires that buildings be placed 3 feet from the side and rear lot lines unless the construction is fire
rated. The developer has stated that it is his intent to observe the additional 3 foot setback from the
side and front property lines resulting in 12 feet of separation between the actual housing units. A
6 foot setback (12 feet total) conforms to the lot of record setback for the R-lA zone but not the 10
foot setback required by the non-lot of record provisions.
Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat shows an additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Kildare Road and land area
to accommodate the cul-de-sac bubble. Lots 1 through 6 are of a reduced size as has been noted
herein. Lot 9 conforms to the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The dimensions
of the preliminary plat and site plan do not precisely match. The setbacks identified in this report
were measured from the Preliminary Plat which is the legal instrument establishing the lot areas.
Density
PDA projects in Mound are required to comply with the density restrictions found in Section
350:460 of the Code of Ordinances. Since Seton Bluff is in the shoreland area, the density
limitations for shoreland PDA's also apply. Density in a PDA is established by the underlying lot
size for the applicable residential district. The PDA provisions specifically delete land used for
streets and utilities from the gross density calculation. In the case of Seton Bluff, the amount of land
above the flood plain elevation totals 60,364 square feet. This site area will accommodate 10 units
under the PDA density provisions.
Since Seton Bluff is in the shoreland area, it needs to be evaluated consistent with the shoreland
density regulations found in Section 350:1200 of the Code of Ordinances. Shoreland standards
establish a series of tiers within which units are allowed based on a standard of 10,000 square feet.
The tiers are established based on the location of the 929.4 contour. In the case of Seton Bluff, all
of the property is in the first tier. The shoreland ordinance does allow density bonuses, however, the
proposed site plan does not qualify because the setbacks from the ordinary high water contour do not
equal a minimum of 125% of the required 50 foot setback.
The proposed density exceeds the maximum density allowed under the shoreland ordinance.
Application of the shoreland standards results in a maximum of 6 units in lieu of the 8 units that are
proposed. Therefore, a variance for the two units that exceed the density standard will need to be
granted if the project is to proceed as planned.
Seton Bluff Planning Report
February 4, 1997
Page 5
Tree Preservation
Section 350:725 of the Mound Zoning Code contains standards regarding tree preservation. The
code states, "It is the intent of the City of Mound to preserve wooded areas throughout the City and
with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, substantial existing tree
cover." Seton Bluff contains scattered tree cover. Construction of the access drive and units will
necessitate removal of most of the vegetation in the front portion of the site. Trees located within
the bluff area will remain undisturbed. The amount of tree loss due to the Seton Bluff development
proposal is, in all likelihood, probably equal to the amount of tree removal that would be necessary
to construct homes with individual driveways on to Kildare Road.
Landscaping
A landscaping plan was included as part of the site development plans. The landscaping plan calls
for the installation of trees and shrubs along the Kildare Road frontage. The plan, however, only
calls for four overstory, hardwood trees which is insufficient considering the total amount of tree loss
that will occur due to construction. As a minimum, additional trees could be planted in the lawn
areas north of the access drive on Lot 7, outside of the lots accommodating the individual units.
Traffic
Traffic generated by the proposed development will be generated at the same rate as the existing
households in the vicinity since the proposed development and all of the development in the area
consists of detached single family homes. The eight new residences will each generate
approximately 10 trips per day based on standards published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers and the Urban Land Institute.
Wetlands
According to the City's wetlands map, the wetland elevation for the property in question is 929.5
feet. The development plan does not identify any construction in the wetland area and all of the units
comply with the Watershed District's 35 foot setback requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: The developers of Seton Bluff have designed a project that complies with
most of the lot of record setback provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. The project, however, does
not meet the non-lot of record provisions which apply in this case since 12 of the lots were combined
in the past. In any Planned Development Area project (or Planned Unit Development (PUD) as it
is known in most cities), trade-offs are involved. In this case, the major trade-off appears to be
higher density than what is allowed by the shoreland ordinance and setback variances for a plan that
handles storm drainage from the site in a more beneficial manner. The policy question that needs
to be answered by the Planning Commission and City Council is whether or not this trade-off is
equitable. After its deliberations, if the Planning Commission feels that it is equitable, the
development could be approved with appropriate conditions. Alternatives to that approach include
approval with modifications or denial.
Seton Bluff Planning Report
February 4, 1997
Page 5
If the Planning Commission feels that the plan is appropriate and consistent with the Mound's
provisions for Planned Development Areas, the following conditions are suggested:
1. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent with Section
330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances.
3. The landscaping plan shall be modified to add deciduous overstory trees in the lawn islands
along the north side of the access drive. Tree and shrub sizes shall be as shown on the Landscape
Plan dated 12/23/96.
4. Covenants and association bylaws shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Attorney.
5. Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all times, maintain
a positive fund balance.
6. Units on Lots ! through 6 shall observe a 3 foot setback from the front and side yard lot lines for
all construction.
7. Issues pertaining to proposed docks shall be addressed by the Mound Park and Open Space
Commission and City Council.
8. The recommendations and conditions found in the Engineers Report are incorporated herein.
January 27, 1997
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Mr. Steven Behnke
Fine Line Design group, inc.
P.O. Box 1611
Burnsville, MN 55337
SUBJECT: SETON BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Behnke:
On January 23, 1997 we received from you a preliminary plat drawing for the proposed Seton
Bluff development. Your application is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on
February 10, 1997 and by the City Council on March 11, 1997. In reviewing your application,
I have found a few items which yet need to be addressed.
1. An 8-1/2" x 11" copy of the preliminary plat must be submitted.
The Conditional Use Permit application fee of $200.00 must be paid.
The Conditional Use Permit application and Preliminary Plat application forms must be
signed by all owners.
Your drawings are being forwarded to our Planner and Engineer for further review. This letter
has been written as I have been unsuccessful reaching you by phone. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
y James
Planning & Inspections Secretary
cc:
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Mark Koegler, City Planner
John Cameron, City Engineer
Brenshell Homes, 4839 Cumberland Road, Mound, MN 55364
prmted on recycled paper
Faxed to Koegler 10-21-96
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 21, 1996
Park and Open Space Comm' sion.
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Seton Bluff - Docks and Park~edication
of 11-14-96)
From reviewing the site plan for the proposed planned development area (PDA) named Seton Bluff, I
have the following observations:
DOCKS
1. Only six homes sites, those numbers 1 thru 6, would be given first priority for dock license
issuance, see City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 7, a. "First Priority. An abutting owner...
2. The two sites denoted as 'A' and 'B' would be recognized as residents owning private lakeshore
and would be addressed under City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 7, aa. "Residents owning private
lakeshore..."
3. A Public Lands Permit will be required for the portion of the proposed stairway located between
home sites//4 and//5 which extend onto the City controlled unimproved street right-of-way,
Longford Road.
4. The dock location running along the unimproved street right-of-way, Long Ford Road, has to
be recognized on the Dock Location Map and assigned a Shoreline Type.
An application must be made to the DNR for the location of this proposed dock site because it exceeds
four slips and extends through protected waters.
The lineal footage of this shoreline will also need to be added to the Dock Location Map for purposes
of calculating the number of boat storage units BSU's allowed by the LMCD for our Multiple Dock
License.
PARK DEDICATION_
As there is no land proposed to be dedicated to the City for park purposes, a cash contribution of not
less than ten percent (10%) of the total fair market value of the land being divided will need to be
collected prior to filing the final plat, according to City Code Section 330:120.
JF:pj
printed ot~ tocyclod paper
Application for
MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND-
PRELIMINARY PLAT, FINAL PLA~
or PLANNED DEVELOPMI~NT ARE~i~DA)%
City of Mound
Phone. 472-0600, Fax: 4?2-0620
City Council Date: ~:~-' ~ Sketch Plan Review:. ~
~ --7~Preliminary Plat: $150.00
3~ Final Plat: $100.00
'~2~EscrOw $1,000.00
Deposit:
Distribution:
City Planner ~ f~ o ~ ~, Deficient Unit Charges?
.................. ;..~ ............ ., .....f ...... - _ /
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY
INFORMATION
EXISTING
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
ZONING
DISTRICT
APPLICANT
~,'44aod ~5
OWNER
{if other than
applicant}
SURVEYOR/
ENGINEER
, rev, 12/8/~94
Subject Address
Subdivision ~
Circle: R-1 G R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
The applicant is: __owner //~other:
Phone (H)
Major Subdivision Application
Page 2
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in
the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking,
impacts
and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the ·
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing
the. prop.os.ed dev, elo~ment~. Estimated
reasonable guarantees for the completion of ~~
Development Cost of the Project: $ ~O,GOO ~¢~t ~ ~'~/~
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS:
Number of Structures: ~
Lot Area Per Dwelling unit:
Number of Dwelling Units Per Structure: I
sq. ft. Total Lot Area: ?~/ 87D sq. ft.
lication ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or
Hay an ap? ....... for this nroperty~ Eyes, ( ) no. If yes, list ~a~e(s) of
o~ner zoning pro~=uu~= = ' . · '
....... ion taken, resolution numbe~ and provlde coples of resolu:lons.
application, ~u~
This application ~ signed by all owners of the subject property,
o_Q_r an expl~~g~e~why this is not the case.
~A~licant' s Signature Date
~opert~ d~er's S~nature ~~ ~' ~~ Date
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
September 17, 1996
Mr. Steven Behnke
Fine Line Design Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 1611
Burnsville, MN 55337
Dear Mr. Behnke:
On July 30, 1996, you submitted an application for approval of variances for the
construction of Kildare Road in the City of Mound. The variances requested included
the following:
2.
3.
4.
Street grade - 15% in lieu of the maximum 8 %
Cul-de-sac right-of-way size - 40' radius in lieu of required 50' radius
Cul-de-sac paved area - 35' radius in lieu of 45' radius
Street width - 24' in lieu of 28'
When this case was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on August 12, 1996,
it was tabled pending resolution of a number of matters which relate to the development
of the adjacent lots that the street will serve. It is my understanding at this time that you
are considering various development options for the property including application of a
subdivision waiver and possible processing under Mound's Planned Development
Ordinance (PDA).
Under Minnesota Statutes, the City of Mound has 60 days to act on all variance requests.
The statutes also allow for an extension of the review time when warranted by
extenuating circumstances. This letter is to inform you that Mound is hereby extending
the review time for these variances for an additional 60 days to allow for additional
review by both the City and yourself of the complex issues that surround this case.
Those issues generally include ownership of the land necessary for the roadway (cul-de-
sac) easement, property variances, and platting/subdivision requirements.
printecl on recycled paper
Fine Line Design Group, Inc.
September 17, 1996
Page 2
In order for the City to act on the requested street variances no later than November 30,
1996, you will need to determine how you intend to proceed with the project and file the
appropriate applications. We will be glad to provide any further assistance that you may
need in answering any questions pertaining to this project.
~j~n Suther_iand, '
Building Official
JS:pj
Enclosures
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471-0590
Fax: (612) 471-0682
Email:
admin@mnwatershed.org
Web Site:
www.mnwatershed.org
Board of Managers:
in E. Thomas
President
Pamela G. Blixt
Vice President
Monica Gross
Secretary
Thomas W. LaBounty
Treasurer
C Woodrow Love
Thomas Maple, Jr.
Malcolm Reid
District Office:
Eugene R. Strommen
District Director
Suzanne M. Weedman
Asst District Director
Minnehaha Creek 0 Watershed District
ImprOving Quality of Water, Quality of Life RECEIVED
SEP 0 5 1,9.9~
MOUND PLANNING & /NSf'
September 3, 1996
Dear Resident,
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has received permit application 96-180
from Brenshell Homes for the following project:
PROJECT:
The project is for a stormwater management
plan, including a pond and stornl sewer
outfalls for six single family homes.
PROJECT LOCATION:
PERMIT APPLIED FOR:
Mound - Kildare Road
Lots 14 - 20, 27- 32 Block 11
Stormwater Management
Notice of this project has been ['nailed to residents who reside within 600' of the
proposed project. Preliminary approval must be obtained from the City of Mound
prior to approval by the watershed district board of managers. This permit
application is tentatively scheduled for the September 12, 1996, Board Meeting.
If you plan to attend this meeting, please contact the MCWD at 471-0590 to
verify that the permit application is on the agenda for' the scheduled meeting date.
Thank you.
COPIED ON 9-5-96:
MARK KOEGLER
JOHN CAMERON
JON SUTHERLAND
¢4 ¢.ct
~FORt
-40 ~ 40 ~ 50 ~ 50
RD
(~8) J-
o
· '-,~- CARLOW
(62)
(35)
156.2
~o ,'5 (37)
[5L 86
4 ('58)
107.5
,.o VAC 5-4-64 Al,iD
_ _LO_L s_O ~
5?
'\
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: August 5, 1996
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Fine Line Design (Norm Berglund - Owner)
CASE NUMBER: 96-46
HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5s
LOCATION: Kildare Road (Lots 15 - 32, Seton)
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a street to serve a series
of existing lots of record. The construction of the street and the development of these lots is an issue
that has appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council on a number of occasions.
Although the development of the lots is not the issue in this case, it may be helpful to present a brief
overview of the project.
Fine Line Design has been working for a number of months to develop 7 lots of record along an
unimproved portion of Kildare Road. The project also involves the development of an additional lot
that is owned by another party. The project will be built in a somewhat unconventional manner
because of topography and drainage concerns. The housing units, all of which are detached single
family homes, will be served by a common driveway that will parallel Kildare Road. The reason for
this unique access is twofold, first, it will allow the collection and treatment of storm water drainage
on the site rather than allowing the water to flow into Kildare Road. This portion of Kildare Road
does not have storm sewers and drainage from the development could cause problems to the east.
The second reason that the lots will not be accessed from Kildare Road is because of the developer's
desire to preserve existing tree cover. Driveways accessing Kildare Road would require more grading
and tree removal than the proposed access.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
Planning Report - Fine Line Design - Kildare Road Variances
August 5, 1996
Page 2
As a part of the review that this project has already undergone, staff including the City Attorney and
City Engineer has looked closely at a variety of issues. There are still a number of minor issues that
need to be addressed by the developer in order to ensure that the access drive is unobstructed and it
has provisions for a vehicle to turn around on the eastern end. These issues can and will be addressed
by staff as part of the review of the homeowners association and easement documents. The Planning
Commission and City Council do, however, need to take formal action on a number of variances that
are necessary in order for the project to proceed.
Variances
Based on the proposed plan, the following variances need to be approved:
· Lot 19 - Impervious cover variance of approximately 84 square feet
· Lot 21 - Impervious cover variance of approximately 244 square feet
· Kildare Road right-of-way - 30 feet in lieu of required 50 feet
· Kildare Road paved surface - 24 feet in lieu of required 28 feet
· Kildare Road cul-de-sac bubble right-of-way - 80 feet in lieu of required 100 feet
· Kildare Road cul-de-sac bubble paved surface - 70 feet in lieu of required 80 feet
All of the requested variances are attributable to existing topography in the area coupled with the
existing developmem pattern. Therefore, staff feels that all of the variances are justified and that the
request meets the City's criteria for granting variances.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the variances noted above to allow development of the property subject to the following conditions:
1. Information including but not necessarily limited to the following shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval:
Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plan
Final street plan (plan and profile)
Final utility plan (plan and profile)
- All required project details
- Project specifications
- Copies of all agency approvals such as Health Department, PCA, etc.
2. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be approved by the Watershed District.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for the housing units, the developer shall
submit a copy of all homeowner's association and easement documents to staff for review and
approval.
Planning Report - Fine Line Design - Kildare Road Variances
August 5, 1996
Page 3
4. The site plan shall be modified to accommodate a turn-around at the eastern end of the private
driveway.
5. Prior to consideration of this request by the City Council, the developer shall submit copies of
impervious cover calculation for all lots in the development.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
January 27, 1997
Mr. Steven Betmke
Fine Line Design group, inc.
P.O. Box 1611
Burnsville, MN 55337
SUBJECT: SETON BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Behnke:
On January 23, 1997 we received from you a Preliminary plat drawing for the proposed Seton
Bluff development. Your application is scheduled to be ,tteard by the Planning Commission on
February 10, 1997 and by the City Council on March,k(?1997. In reviewing your application,
I have found a few items which yet need to be addressed.
1. An 8-1/2" x 11" copy of the preliminary plat must be submitted.
The Conditional Use Permit application fee of $200.00 must be paid.
The Conditional Use Permit application and Preliminary Plat application forms must be
signed by all owners.
Your drawings are being forwarded to our Planner and Engineer for further review. This letter
has been written as I have been unsuccessful reaching you by phone. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Re~spectfully,
' Peggy James
Planning & Inspections Secretary
CC:
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Mark Koegler, City Planner
John Cameron, City Engineer
Brenshell Homes, 4839 Cumberland Road, Mound, MN 55364
prmted on recycled paper
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
_VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
JUL30 i~
_~- A15131icaifibn Fee: ~
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
_~-/~y.ff)._c~ City Planner
" City Engineer
,t Public Works
Case No.
DNR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Address
Lots X q - '~P ~ Block
Subdivision ~-~ ~'~/,q
PID#
Plat #
ZONING DISTRICT R-I ~ R-_3 B-1 B-2 B-3
'- (M).
Address ~2>.O. ~2~O'~
Phone (H) ~-~O-q"2Xe"]
(M) r)--t O.--q6vO I
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.):
(]~ev. 12/8/95)
Variance Application, P. 2
Case No.
Do the existing structures comply ,w~th. 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:
REQUIKED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ff' ff'
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 ff sq ft sq ff
Does the pres_enJ, 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 charactersfics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ~..topography ( ) soil
( ) too small f( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
(Rev. I2/8/95)
Variance Application, P. 3
I
Case No.
o
Was the hardship described above created by the action of any,,on.e having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~ If yes, explain:
hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road*
If yes, explain: ·
Yes (),
8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this pefiton? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Applicant's Slgna~~
(Rev. 12/8/95)
Date .._c( / / 5' / ~,
'ate
Pl~nnla,~ end I)$s~n ~_.on~lting
M~nr (612) 890-4~67 - Office/Fax (6'i2) 6_?0-79~ - Mob,~
July 30, 1996
Addendum to Variance Application
1 .) This Parcel has been seen at Parks Commission, Planning Commission and City
Council for other many issues including: Docks (this issue is pending)
Design and Layout of Kildare Road. (This application is an extension of this action)
2.) This proposal include the extension and construction of Kildare Road west of Kerry Lane.
The Project includes constructing a 24' Bituminous Street with Curb and Gutter, a 70'
Cul-de-sac ending Kildare Road and Site preparation for the construction of 6 Residences
along the new road frontage.
3.) See Application
4.) See Application
5.)
See also Application,
The site presented, has a dominant ridge running the length of the property. This ridge
undulates from 935.3' to 962+'. On the Lake side the grade returns to the 929.4
OHWL of Lake Minnetonka.
6.) See Application
7.) See Application
8.) See Application
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997
1.9 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - JOE ZYLMAN, MAPLE MANORS.
The City Engineer gave the background of this item. He stated that there are still a couple of
things that need to be worked out. One is the Watershed District approval. There are 12
conditions in the resolution for final plat approval. The Council asked about the balance in the
escrow fund which is #6 in the conditions. The Staff did not have that information at this time.
They also questioned condition #10 which reads as follows: "A new 100 year flood elevation
is being created for the stormwater holding pond which applies to units 7 and 8. The City
floodplain ordinance requires these units to have a two foot freeboard above the 100 year
elevation, and the lowest floor elections shall be revised to be inconformance with the floodplain
ordinance." The Watershed District's Rule B also needs to be addressed for this plat.
Councilmember Jensen asked about the City Attorney's letter dated 2-20-97, review of the Maple
8
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997
Manors Homeowners Documents. She referred to item//3 of the letter as follows: "There is
a provision in the articles that allows the association to be dissolved and, upon dissolution, the
common area to be dedicated to the public. If the dedication is refused, the property is
transferred to any non-profit corporation, association, trust or organization devoted to a similar
purpose. This is noted for your information and, not by way of objection."
The City Attorney advised that the Articles of the Association could be revised so the City is
out of the loop entirely and the property would just go to a non profit or association or trust
upon dissolution. Councilmember Ahrens asked if the dissolution item has to be in the
Homeowners Agreement. The City Attorney stated that this section is required by state law and
is needed to assure that the common area, upon dissolution of the homeowners association, is
not ever sold off separately and developed and the owners of the parcels lose the common areas.
The idea is that there be some third party trustee of the common areas that would continue to
have them as common areas.
Councilmember Hanus asked if this plat will have variances to the hardcover requirements on
the lots? He asked the City Planner this earlier and the Planner thought that this was covered
in the CUP and the preliminary plat. Staff will check this out.
The Council decided that without answers to their questions, they would not be able to approve
this final plat tonight.
The City Engineer stated that what the Watershed District has done, under Rule
B, in the past, is that they will approve the permit conditioned upon, the City
entering into a cooperative agreement with the Watershed District which we are
in the midst of trying to work out now. It appears that the way it will come
down is that there will be regional ponding. The Council expressed concern that
then the City would have to pay for the construction of the ponds. The City
Engineer stated that a way to fund this would be to take the money that is donated
in lieu of building all the little ponds and put that toward construction of the
regional ponds. Then the maintenance, which is the big item, is turned over to
the City. The acquisition of the property would also be the City's responsibility.
What level of participation the Watershed District will participate is unknown at
this time. There was discussion about creating a Stormwater Utility so that the
City can charge the users and not have the taxpayers get stuck with building
treatment ponds at taxpayer expense, when user fees are what should be covering
it.
MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus to continue this item until the May 13,
1997, meeting so that all the issues discussed tonight can be addressed by Staff.
1. Get the balance of the escrow account.
2. The connnons area and the homeowners agreement.
3. #10 of the conditions in the proposed approval resolution.
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997
4. The hardcover issue.
5. The agreement with the Watershed District.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
EXHIBIT B,
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
ENGINEER'S MEMO
TO
THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION ~97-
DATE:
CASE NO:
PETITIONER:
FINAL PLAT:
LOCATION:
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
1. [] [] []
2. [] [] []
3. [] [] []
4. [] [] []
5. [] [] []
April 1, 1997
97-12
Joe Zylman - Waters Edge Investment Co.
Maple Manors
Three Points Boulevard
Watermain area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building
permits are issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be
that in effect at the time of final plat approval.
Area assessments.
Other additional assessments estimated:
LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS:
7. [] [] []
Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet
(10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines. SEE SPECIAL
CONDITIONS.
All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
N/A
Yes
No
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97-
The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been
reviewed with the final construction plans and the following
changes are necessary: SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
10.
11.
Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lines below the established
100-year high water elevation and conformance with the
City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have
been vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-
way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the
Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted
to the City with this application - If it is subsequently
determined that the sub)ect property is abstract property., then
~;lljs requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate CertifiCate of Title in
order that he may file the required easements referred to
above.
All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the Developer:
[] DNR
[] Hennepin County
[] MPCA
[] State Health Department
[] Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
[] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
[] Other
The Developer must comply with the conditions within any
permit.
12.
Yes
No
EXItlBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97-
Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to
the City grid system for street names. The following changes
will be necessary:
13.
14.
Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the
City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection
of
and
All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
17. []
18.
Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to
construct utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be
responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer,
water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A
registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and
profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm
sewer facilities and streets to serve the development.
Final utility plans submitted comply with all City
requirements-
The Developer has submitted the required construction plans
for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as
well as the proposed street system (public and private). SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED.
Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the
city.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October
N/A ~ No
19. [] [] []
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97
1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is
paying 100% of the cost.
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
20. [] [] []
City's adopted
The construction plans conform to the
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required: SEE SPECIAL
CONDITIONS.
It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public
Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any
proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for
contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating
permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way.
GRADING. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
22. [] [] []
Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the
following lots: Ali Lots 1 thru 10 have a minimum
basement elevation of 933.0.
23. [] [] []
Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been
submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if
it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm
Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be
incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan
shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
/9'70
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
23.
The final plat does not have any easement over the common area shown as Lot 11.
Either a blanket drainage and utility easement over the entire lot is required or
specific easements for the storm sewer, ponding, drainage, etc. The best solution is a
blanket easement over the entire Lot 11. Also, the drainage easement for the
wetlands must include everything designated as wetlands. A small area behind Lot
4 is omitted.
24.
The City has not been furnished any drainage calculations. Copies of information
submitted to the MCWD will be sufficient.
25.
The proposed lift station must conform to the City's standard requirements.
Additional information is needed such as specific requirements for the control
panel, pump, valves, ultrasonic level transmitter, etc. In addition, the control panel
must be located on a separate 4'x4' concrete pad in a location as approved by Public
Works. The exact location of proposed lift station must also be approved by Public
Works.
26. Specifications and construction details must be submitted.
27.
Approval of the preliminary grading and drainage plan required that additional
information in the form of more topography along the east side of the proposed plat
at the existing garages on the adjacent property be provided. Additional topo was
also requested south and east of Lot 10 and at the proposed street intersection with
Three Points Boulevard. None of this information is on the final grading plan. City
ordinance requires existing conditions within 100 feet, but we will accept less as long
as the information provided is sufficient.
28.
Our preliminary review also required additional information on the existing
driveway immediately west of the proposed street. This has not been furnished.
29.
The inlets to both storm sewer systems located in the yards adjacent to Lots 9 and
10 will need shallow 27" dia. catchbasin structures.
30.
The proposed grade of the new street needs to be flatten more at the intersection
with Three Points Boulevard. A slope closer to 2% is preferred. The 7% grade
could be steeper, but not over 8% which is the maximum allowed by City code.
31.
The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as
telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be
installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such
utilities shall be installed underground.
32.
No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and
street construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed
and recorded at Hennepin County.
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97-
33.
34.
Prior to acceptance of the completed subdivision by the City Council, it will be
necessary to furnish an Engineer's Certification of Completion. Upon receipt of
said certification and recommendation by the City Engineer that the completed
work will be accepted, the City Council will be requested to accept-the completed
public improvements. Acceptance will be by formal Resolution of the City Council.
The following items shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be covered
by an escrow guarantee (surety bond, cash, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable
letter of credit), as specified:
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
Grading and Street Construction
ESTIMATED TOTAL
$ 56,000
$ 23,000
$ 21,000
$150,000
Amount of escrow guarantee:
Estimated total ($150,000) x 125% -' $187,500
Submitted by: -~"J~hn Cameron, City Engineer
¢:main: 11417:engmemo
/qTZ.
12.
N_~ Yes No
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION
~97-
Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to
the City grid system for street names. The following changes
will be necessary:
Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the
City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection
of and
All existing street rights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to
construct utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be
responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer,
water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A
registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and
profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm
sewer facilities and streets to serve the development.
Final utility plans submitted comply with all City
requirements-
The Developer has submitted the required construction plans
for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as
well as the proposed street system (public and private). SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED.
Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the
City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
pan of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October
EXHIBIT A, ..RESOLUTION ~97-
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) WITH VARIANCES
FOR 'MAPLE MANORS'
TWIN HOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the final plat of Maple Manors has been submitted in the manner required
for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter
462 of the Minnesota State Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on January 14, 1997, held a public hearing pursuant to
Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the
preliminary plat of Maple Manors located on property described as:
5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25,
"Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot
25; Also that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying
northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that
part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 which lies north of
a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said Lot 25 from a point on
said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from
the southwest corner of said Lot 25. PID 13-117-24 22 0249.
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations
and the requirements of the laws of the State Of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of
the City of Mound.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota;
A. Final plat approval is hereby granted for Maple Manors Twin Home Residential
Development under PDA requirements, as requested by Waters Edge Investment Co. and as
shown on the attached 'Exhibit A', subject to compliance with all of the conditions found in the
City Engineer's memo dated April 1, 1997, set forth and incorporated herein as part of the
document as 'Exhibit B', and all the conditions of the preliminary plat approval (Resolution//97-
1) set forth and incorporated herein as part of the document and the following conditions:
The Developer shall secure all applicable permits as defined by the City Engineer from
all entities with jurisdiction over this project.
Park dedication fees shall be collected in the amount of $5,000 prior to release of this
resolution for filing of the final plat.
Proposed Resolution
Maple Manors Final Plat
April 8, 1997
Page 2
10.
11.
No construction activity shall occur on the site until all applicable provisional or final
permits have been issued by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and other
applicable agencies.
The Developer shall provide the City Attorney with Homeowner's Documents and
Declaration of Covenants for his review and approval. The Developer shall also provide
the City Attorney with information necessary to conduct a title search and make a clear
title opinion, all prior to filing of the final plat with Hennepin County.
Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract
furnished by the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all
items covered by said contract and shall be completed within a specified period of time
and shall require compliance with all City Codes not modified by this resolution. As part
of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance
bond, an irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security approved by the City
Attorney in the amount of 125% of the cost of all applicable public improvements
necessary to be completed prior to filing the final plat.
The Developer shall provide the necessary escrow funds required in Section 330:30 of
the City Code. The existing balance of $ plus an additional, $1,000 plus any
additional sums necessary to cover engineering, planning, legal and administrative
expenses shall be deposited with the City prior to the City releasing the final plat.
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within 240 days of the City Council
approving the final plat (November 27, 1997).
Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities
and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Fire Chief and
Building Official.
Construction and maintenance of the site shall adhere to MPCA Best Management
Practices. Construction documents submitted to the City Engineer shall reflect said
BMPs.
A new 100 year flood elevation is being created for the stormwater holding pond which
applies to units 7 and 8. The City floodplain ordinance requires these units to have a two
foot freeboard above the 100 year elevation, and the lowest floor elevations shall be
revised to be in conformance with the floodplain ordinance.
Additional revisions will be required to the grading plan relating, but not limited to, the
following issues: erosion control, lowest floor elevations, grading modifications related
to the lowest floor elevations, and retaining walls that may be needed and as required by
the City Engineer on the east side of the property.
/qTb
Proposed Resolution
Maple Manors Final Plat
April 8, 1997
Page 3
12.
The surveyor shall certify the final grading work is in conformance with the approved
grading plan, and the City Engineer and/or Building Official shall review and approve
of the surveyors certification.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said
plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith
by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith
without further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the City of Mound Code of
Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
EXI{IBIT A, -.RESOLUTION ~97-
.'7.2
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
ENGINEER'S MEMO
TO
THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL
~97-
DATE:
CASE NO:
PETITIONER:
FINAL PLAT:
LOCATION:
April 1, 1997
97-12
Joe Zylman - Waters Edge Investment Co.
Maple Manors
Three Points Boulevard
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
2. [] [] []
3. [] [] []
4. [] [] []
5. [] [] []
Watermain area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
SAC and REC charges will be payable m the time building
permits are issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be
that in effect at the time of final plat approval.
Area assessments.
Other additional assessments estimated:
LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS:
6. [] [] []
7. [] [] []
Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet
(10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines. SEE SPECIAL
CONDITIONS.
All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
N/A
Yes
No
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97-
The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been
reviewed with the final construction plans and the following
changes are necessary: SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
o
10.
11.
Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property lines below the established
100-year high water elevation and conformance with the
City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have
been vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-
way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the
Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted
to the City with this application - If it is subsequently
determined that the subject property is abstract property., then
this requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in
order that he may file the required easements referred to
above.
All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the Developer:
[] DNR
[] Hennepin County
[] MPCA
[] State Health Department
[] Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
[] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
[] Other
The Developer must comply with the conditions within any
permit.
12.
N/A
[]
Yes
No
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97-
Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to
the City gtid system for street names. The following changes
will be necessary:
]3. [] [] []
14. [] [] []
Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the
City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection
of and
15. [] [] []
All existing street tights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on
16. [] [] []
17. [] [] []
18. [] [] []
Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to
construct utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be
responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer,
water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A
registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and
profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm
sewer facilities and streets to serve the development.
Final utility plans submitted comply with all City
requirements-
The Developer has submitted the required construction plans
for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as
well as the proposed street system (public and private). SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED.
Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the
City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October
N/A Yes No
19. [] [] []
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97
1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is
paying 100% of the cost.
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
20. [] [] []
21. [] [] []
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
CONDITIONS.
SEE SPECIAL
It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public
Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any
proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for
contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating
permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way.
GRADING. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
22. [] [] []
23. [] [] []
Minimum basement elevations -
Minimum basement elevations must be established for the
following lots: All Lots 1 thru 10 have a minimum
basement elevation of 933.0.
Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been
submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if
it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm
Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be
incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan
shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary: SEE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
EXHIBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED:
23.
The final plat does not have any easement over the common area shown as Lot 11.
Either a blanket drainage and utility easement over the entire lot is required or
specific easements for the storm sewer, ponding, drainage, etc. The best solution is a
blanket easement over the entire Lot 11. Also, the drainage easement for the
wetlands must include everything designated as wetlands. A small area behind Lot
4 is omitted.
24.
25.
The City has not been furnished any drainage calculations. Copies of information
submitted to the MCWD will be sufficient.
The proposed lift station must conform to the City's standard requirements.
Additional information is needed such as specific requirements for the control
panel, pump, valves, ultrasonic level transmitter, etc. In addition, the control panel
must be located on a separate 4'x4' concrete pad in a location as approved by Public
Works. The exact location of proposed lift station must also be approved by Public
Works.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Specifications and construction details must be submitted.
Approval of the preliminary grading and drainage plan required that additional
information in the form of more topography along the east side of the proposed plat
at the existing garages on the adjacent property be provided. Additional topo was
also requested south and east of Lot 10 and at the proposed street intersection with
Three Points Boulevard. None of this information is on the final grading plan. City
ordinance requires existing conditions within 100 feet, but we will accept less as long
as the information provided is sufficient.
Our preliminary review also required additional information on the existing
driveway immediately west of the proposed street. This has not been furnished.
The inlets to both storm sewer systems located in the yards adjacent to Lots 9 and
10 will need shallow 27" dia. catchbasin structures.
The proposed grade of the new street needs to be flatten more at the intersection
with Three Points Boulevard. A slope closer to 2% is preferred. The 7% grade
could be steeper, but not over 8% which is the maximum allowed by City code.
The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as
telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be
installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such
utilities shall be installed underground.
No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and
street construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed
and recorded at Hennepin County.
EXtIIBIT B, RESOLUTION ~97-
33.
34.
Prior to acceptance of the completed subdivision by the City Council, it will be
necessary to furnish an Engineer's Certification of Completion. Upon receipt of
said certification and recommendation by the City Engineer that the completed
work will be accepted, the City Council will be requested to accept' the completed
public improvements. Acceptance will be by formal Resolution of the City Council.
The following items shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be covered
by an escrow guarantee (surety bond, cash, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable
letter of credit), as specified:
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
Grading and Street Construction
ESTIMATED TOTAL
$ 56,000
$ 23,000
$ 21,000
$ 50.000
$150,000
Amount of escrow guarantee:
Estimated total ($150,000) x 125% = $187,500
Submitted by: ~
/ - ' John Cameron, City Engineer
e:main: 11417:engmemo
Iqgq.
AppLication for
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
PAID
MAR 6 1997
CITY OF MOUND
~150
!
PLANNING
COMM.
DATE
/~L / g,_ CASE NO.
C=Y ENGINEER I, P~LI~INA.Y PLAT $200
~u~uc wo~s , ~ ~IS~ ~ ~ ~0
=s~ , s~0,~o~ ova. = ~o~s
FI~ DEPARTMENT
jl COND~IO~g USE PE~: PDA $ 250
ASSESSING ESCROW DEPOSIT $ 1,000
OTHER: VA~NCE $ 100
TOTAL $ two. e .;
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject Address ~"H ~'(~' -~ P"/~_ .~ I ed.
INFORMATION - --
Name of Proposed Plat ~ ~1 ? ~ ~n 0~ ~J ~' '~"~ 4
EXISTING Lot ~~b / Block Plat
DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID~ /~ -//T-
ZONING
DISTRICT Circle: R*~ ~ R-2 R-3 B-~ B-2 B-3
APPLICANT The applicant is: owner ~ther: ~ '- ~- L~
Address ~ ~;~/ 2~/~ ~, / /O~z ~-
OWNER
applicant) ' - - *
Phone (H) Z~ '/~ / (W) ~ ~ G ~ (U),
SURVEYOR/ ~ - ~' 0
ENGINEER Address ~ ~J~ , ~C~ ~~
,...:v. 1/29197)
Major Subdivision Application
Page 2
Description of Proposed Use:
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, includ
not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the irt
ti t..,,.-p,-c,.;e .CL,
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the cor
of the proposed development.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS:
Number of Structures: _~'
Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit:3'5/00
Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ ./~,.,).0/. Oo ,'. O o
sq. ft.
Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: ~
Total Lot Area: Fo/~O D sq. ft.
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this p:
~. yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resoluti
This application must be signed by al_~l owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the
Print Applicant's Name
Ap~ic~a;~nt,s ~g~
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
(Rev. 1/29/97)
315/97
6326 RAMBLER LANE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
612-472-5759
This letter is in regard to the proof of title to the land for the Maple Manors Project.
Title is currently held by the Landsmen's who live in Alexandria.
We are planning to transfer ownership on 3/17/97. Title will then be held by Waters Edge
Investment Co.
Sincerely,
Joe Zylman
President - Waters Edge Investment Co.
° REAL ESTATE BROKER · GENERAL CONTRACTOR
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
CORRINE H. THOMSON
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9217
February 20, 1997
Peggy James
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
RE: Maple Manors Homeowners Documents
Dear Ms. James:
This is in response to your letter to Curt Pearson dated February 12, 1997. I have reviewed the
documents enclosed with that letter and have the following comments:
There is a discrepancy between the number of lots indicated in the homeowners
documents and the number of lots shown in the approved preliminary plat. The
homeowners documents indicate that there are 15 lots, while the plat shows only 11 lots.
This discrepancy needs to be corrected.
With the exception of the discrepancy noted above, the Declaration contains the necessary
dedication of easements in favor of the City.
There is a provision in the articles that allows the association to be dissolved and, upon
dissolution, the common area to be dedicated to the public. If the dedication is refused,
the property is transferred to any non-profit corporation, association, trust or organization
devoted to a similar purpose. This is noted for your information and not by way of
objection.
Sincerely,
Corrine H. Thomson
cc: John Dean
CC: JOEL ZYLMAN 2-21-97
MARK KOEGLER "
30HN CAMERON "
CAHii$217
MU200-62
January 14, 1997
RESOLUTION NO. 9%1
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT FOR A
PLANNE~D DEVEIOPMENT AREA WITH VARIANC~
FOR MAPLE MANORS
TWIN HON[E RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AT THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK
PID 13--117-24 22 0246, CASE/96-69
WHEREAS, the applicant, Joe Zylman of Waters Edge Investment Co., has submitted
an application for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit to establish 'Maple Manors'
as a Planned Development Area, with variances, pursuant to Section 330 of the Mound City
Code, and;
WHEREAS, the ten housing units in the development will consist of one level twin
homes that will be owner occupied. In order for twin homes to be built on property zoned R-
lA, a Conditional Use Permit needs to be approved to establish a Planned Development Area,
and;
WH~AS, the project results in the following variances:
Right-of-Way Width
Cul-de-sac Right-of-Way (radius)
Cul-de-sac Paved Street (radius)
Lot Size (all Lots except 8)
Lot Size - Lot 8
required proposed variance
50' 40' 10'
50' 40' 10'
40' 35' 5'
6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf
6,000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf
WHEREAS, the ten (10) units comply with the maximum density allowable under the
shoreland restrictions without the density bonuses that are allowed by the Code. The non-
shoreland PDA standards would allow this site to have 14 units under R-lA zoning. As
proposed, the net density equates to 8,569 square feet of land per unit, and;
WHEREAS, the granting of the variances requested will not confer upon the applicant
any special privilege that is denied owners of other lands in the same zone, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed design as conditioned is consistent with applicable
development plans and policies, and;
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density
of development contemplated if the conditions imposed herein are met, and;
January 14, 1997
WHEREAS, according to the plan, 18 of the 34 trees on the site will be preserved, and;
WHEREAS, the Mound Wetland Ordinance identifies the wetland contour in the area
of the project as 929.5. A wetland delineation was completed for the site. All of the proposed
units comply with the Watershed District's 35 foot setback requirements from the edge of the
wetland, and;
WHEREAS, this development will create nonconforming situations on the adjacent
properties that are not part of this development. A new street frontage will be created for the
two residential lots that lie along Three Points Blvd. to the south of the site. Parcel 250 has a
garage that is located approximately 5 feet from the property line and the home is located
approximately 15 feet from the new right-of-way line creating variances of 15 feet and 5 feet
respectively. Parcel 246 has a detached garage that is 16 feet from the new fight-of-way
resulting in a 4 foot variance from the 20 foot setback requirement. Future improvements to
these homes may require approval of a variance. The construction of the new street is ceminly
grounds for approving (recognizing) variances for the existing conditions should such be
necessary in the future, and;
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project
as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and impose conditions upon the approval
addressing those considerations. The proposed twin homes would generate traffic ranging from
59 to 65 trips per day, according to published standards, and;
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are
being provided, and;
WHEREAS, The twin home use that is proposed is an appropriate land use for the
existing site that lies between the condominium complex to the east and the business zoned
property to the west, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed project as conditioned will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval, with conditions, subject to the following findings of fact:
Now that the property is rezoned, it could possibly have up to 14 units, therefore,
the 10 units proposed is not a large impact.
The proposed layout of the twin homes has a minimal impact on the overall land
the roadway and cul-de-sac are typical of others that have recently been approved
by the City and have worked well.
The proposed lot sizes, including common areas, overall are beyond what is
required in the R-lA zone.
January 14, 1997
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, to hereby:
Ac
Approve the Preliminary Plat according to the attached Exhibit 'A', and approve a
Conditional Use Permit to establish Maple Manors as a Planned Development Area, with
variances, subject to the following conditions:
Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District.
The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent
with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances.
The applicant shall submit for staff review and approval, detailed landscaping
plans for the site showing plantings on the association property to mitigate tree
loss due to road and unit construction and containing typical landscaping
treatments for twin home units. Landscaping plans shall identify all plant
materials by name, size (height or caliper) and root type and shall be compliant
with the minimum planting sizes referenced in the City Code.
Covenants, as submitted by the applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all
times, maintain a positive fund balance.
The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a 50 foot right-of-way for the land
area between the two adjacent single family residential properties.
Locate and show on the site plan the existing driveway to the westerly residence
(Parcel 246) to determine if it needs to be relocated, and if so, the cost of
relocating shall be born by the developer.
o
All drainage newly created by the development, either by excavating or building
shall be maintained within the property so it does not go to the east and
negatively impact any property to the east and that the provision be made that the
engineer specifically look at that property abutting the east to determine that water
flow stay within that property.
The site plan and grading plan be incorporated in this resolution and be made a
part thereof.
January 14, 1997
B. Approve the following variances as part of the Planned Development Area:
Right-of-Way Width
Cai-de-sac Right-of-Way (radius)
Cul-de-sac Paved Street (radius)
Lot Siz~ (all Lots except 8)
Lot Siz~ - Lot 8
required proposed varianco
50' 40' 10'
50' 40' 10'
40' 35' 5'
6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf
6,000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf
C. Approve the development of the property legally described as follows:
5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25,
"Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot 25; Also
that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying northerly of the
northerly fight-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that part of the East 100 feet
of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 which lies north of a line drawn east at fight angles
to the west line of said Lot 25 from a point on said west line distant 318.29 feet north,
as measured along said west line, from the southwest comer of said Lot 25. PID 13-
117-24 22 0249.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by
Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Polston.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION ~97-1
MAPLE MANORS PRELIMINARY PLAT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il!
ORDINANCE #83-1997
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS AS DESCRIBED
FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TO R-lA SINGLE F.A_MILY RESIDENTIAL
The City of Mound does ordain, The City of Mound Zoning Map is hereby amended as
follows:
Property described as follows, is hereby rezoned from R-1 Single Family Residential
(10,000 square foot minimum lot area), to R-lA Single Family Residential (6,000 square foot
minimum lot area:
5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25,
"Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot
25; Also that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said LOt 25 lying
northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that
part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said LOt 25 which lies north of
a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said LOt 25 from a point on
said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from
the southwest comer of said LOt 25. PID 13-117-24 22 0249.
5510 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the West 100 feet of the South 250 feet
of said Lot 25 and of the East 50 feet of the South 250 feet of Lot 26 lying North
of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0246.
5470 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of
said Lot 25 lying South of a line running East at a right angle with the West line
of said Lot 25 from a point thereon 318.29 feet North from the Southwest comer
of said Lot 25 and lying North of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0250.
The Zoning Map of the City of Mound on file with the City Clerk is hereby amended
in accordance with these rezoning provisions.
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
Adopted by the City Council January 14, 1997
Published in The Laker February 1, 1997
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) WITH VARIANCES
FOR 'MAPLE MANORS'
TWIN HOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the final plat of Maple Manors has been submitted in the manner required
for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter
462 of the Minnesota State Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on January 14, 1997, held a public hearing pursuant to
Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the
preliminary plat of Maple Manors located on property described as:
5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25,
"Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot
25; Also that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying
northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that
part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 which lies north of
a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said Lot 25 from a point on
said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from
the southwest corner of said Lot 25. PID 13-11%24 22 0249.
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations
and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of
the City of Mound.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota;
A. Final plat approval is hereby granted for Maple Manors Twin Home Residential
Development under PDA requirements, as requested by Waters Edge Investment Co. and as
shown on the attached 'Exhibit A', subject to compliance with all of the conditions found in the
City Engineer's memo dated April 1, 1997, set forth and incorporated herein as part of the
document as 'Exhibit B', and all the conditions of the preliminary plat approval (Resolution//97-
1) set forth and incorporated herein as part of the document and the following conditions:
The Developer shall secure all applicable permits as defined by the City Engineer from
all entities with jurisdiction over this project.
Park dedication fees shall be collected in the amount of $5,000 prior to release of this
resolution for filing of the final plat.
Proposed Resolution
Maple Manors Final Plat
April 8, 1997
Page 2
No construction activity shall occur on the site until all applicable provisional or final
permits have been issued by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and other
applicable agencies.
The Developer shall provide the City Attorney with Homeowner's Documents and
Declaration of Covenants for his review and approval. The Developer shall also provide
the City Attorney with information necessary to conduct a title search and make a clear
title opinion, all prior to filing of the final plat with Hennepin County.
5. Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract
furnished by the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all
items covered by said contract shall be completed within a specified period of time and
shall require compliance with all City Codes not modified by this resolution. As part of
the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance bond,
an irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security approved by the City Attorney
in the amount of 125 % of the cost of all applicable public improvements necessary to be
completed prior to filing the final plat.
6. The Developer shall provide the necessary escrow funds required in Section 330:30 of
the City Code. The existing balance of $ plus an additional, $1,000 plus any
additional sums necessary to cover engineering, planning, legal and administrative
expenses shall be deposited with the City prior to the City releasing the f'mal plat.
7. The plat shall be filed with Hermepin County within 240 days of the City Council
approving the f'mal plat (November 27, 1997).
8. Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities
and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Fire Chief and
Building Official.
9. Construction and maintenance of the site shall adhere to MPCA Best Management
Practices. Construction documents submitted to the City Engineer shall reflect said
BMPs.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said
plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith
by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith
without further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the City of Mound Code of
Ordinances.
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:
Application for
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
PAID
mAR 6 1997
CITY OF MOUND
PLANNING COMM. DATE ~ / ~ CASE NO.
DISTRIBUTION DATE TYPE OF APPLICATION FEE
CITY PLANNER n~ --~ SKETH PLAN REVIEW
CiTY ENGINEER I t PRELIMINARY PLAT $ 200
PUBLIC WORKS II X FINAL PLAT $150
DNR il $10/LOT OVER 2 LOTS
FIRE DEPARTMENT
/i CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PDA $ 250
ASSESSING ESCROW DEPOSIT $ 1.000
OTHER: VARIANCE $ I00
TOTAL $t~"c.¢
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject Address _~'q fO 3 P-/~ ~ I ~d
INFORMATION -- - - - ' -- '
Name of Proposed Plat ~ ,,'~t")( ~ ~ I~-~q Or~ ~ J ~' ~,'~ 4
~~b / Block Plat g
EXISTING
Lot
LEGAL / /
DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID~ /~ - //7- ~ _~_ ~
ZONING
DISTRICT
~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
Circle:
R-1
Phone(H) ~--,~E (WI ~7~- ~7~ (U)~l-~O
OWNER -
applicant) ' - - ~
Phone (H) _ Z~ /~/ (W) ~ ~C~ (M)
Name ~~ ~ ~~F~
SURVEYOR/ -~ - ~' O
ENGINEER Address /,~ ~ ~ ~d~ . ~C~ ~~
(Rev. 1/29/97)
Major Subdivision Application
Page 2
Description of Proposed Use:
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but
not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts.
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion
of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $/_~D/. o o ,'. O a
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS:
Number of Structures: .<~' Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: o'~)x
Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit:_3~00 sq. ft. Total Lot Area: (o 80 O sq. ft.
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property?
~k~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
This application must be signed by al._~l owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
Print Applicant's Name Apl61icant's gig&ature Date/
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature
Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature
Date
(Rev..1/29/97)
3/5/97
6326 RAMBLER LANE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
612-472-5759
This letter is in regard to the proof of title to the land for the Maple Manors Project.
Title is currently held by the Landsmen's who live in Alexandria.
We are planning to transfer ownership on 3/17/97. Title will then be held by Waters Edge
Investment Co.
Sincerely,
Joe Zylman
President - Waters Edge Investment Co.
· REAL ESTATE BROKER · GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
CORRINE H. THOMSON
Attorney at I. aw
Direct Dial (612) 337-9217
February 20, 1997
Peggy James
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
RE: Maple Manors Homeowners Documents
Dear Ms. James:
This is in response to your letter to Curt Pearson dated February 12, 1997. I have reviewed the
documents enclosed with that letter and have the following comments:
There is a discrepancy between the number of lots indicated in the homeowners
documents and the number of lots shown in the approved preliminary plat. The
homeowners documents indicate that there are 15 lots, while the plat shows only 11 lots.
This discrepancy needs to be corrected.
With the exception of the discrepancy noted above, the Declaration contains the necessary
dedication of easements in favor of the City.
o
There is a provision in the articles that allows the association to be dissolved and, upon
dissolution, the common area to be dedicated to the public. If the dedication is refused,
the property is transferred to any non-profit corporation, association, trust or organization
devoted to a similar purpose. This is noted for your information and not by way of
objection.
Sincerely,
Corrine H. Thomson
cc: John Dean
CC: JOEL ZYLMAN 2-21-97
MARK KOEGLER "
JOHN CAMERON "
CAHl18217
MU200-62
January 14, 1997
RESOLUTION NO. 9%1
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED DEVEI~P~ AREA WITH VARIANCES
FOR MAPLE MANORS
TWIN HOME RF_~IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AT THAT PART OF LOT 25, LAFAYETTE PARK
PID 13-117-24 22 0246, CASE/D6-69
WHEREAS, the applicant, Joe Zylman of Waters Edge Investment Co., has submitted
an application for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit to establish "Maple Manors"
as a Planned Development Area, with variances, pursuant to Section 330 of the Mound City
Code, and;
WHEREAS, the ten housing units in the development will consist of one level twin
homes that will be owner occupied. In order for twin homes to be built on property zoned R-
iA, a Conditional Use Permit needs to be approved to establish a Planned Development Area,
and;
WHEREAS, the project results in the following variances:
Right-of-Way Width
Cul-de-sac Right-of-Way (radius)
Cul-de-sac Paved Street (radius)
Lot Size (all Lots except 8)
Lot Size - Lot 8
required proposed variance
50' 40' 10'
50' 40' 10'
40' 35' 5'
6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf
6,000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf
WHEREAS, the ten (10) units comply with the maximum density allowable under the
shoreland restrictions without the density bonuses that are allowed by the Code. The non-
shoreland PDA standards would allow this site to have 14 units under R-lA zoning. As
proposed, the net density equates to 8,569 square feet of land per unit, and;
WHEREAS, the granting of the variances requested will not confer upon the applicant
any special privilege that is denied owners of other lands in the same zone, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed design as conditioned is consistent with applicable
development plans and policies, and;
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density
of development contemplated if the conditions imposed herein are met, and;
January 14, 1997
WHEREAS, according to the plan, 18 of the 34 trees on the site will be preserved, and;
WHEREAS, the Mound Wetland Ordinance identifies the wetland contour in the area
of the project as 929.5. A wetland delineation was completed for the site. All of the proposed
units comply with the Watershed District's 35 foot setback requirements from the edge of the
wetland, and;
WHEREAS, this development will create nonconforming situations on the adjacent
properties that are not part of this development. A new street frontage will be created for the
two residential lots that lie along Three Points Blvd. to the south of the site. Parcel 250 has a
garage that is located approximately 5 feet from the property line and the home is located
approximately 15 feet from the new right-of-way line creating variances of 15 feet and 5 feet
respectively. Parcel 246 has a detached garage that is 16 feet from the new right-of-way
resulting in a 4 foot variance from the 20 foot setback requirement. Future improvements to
these homes may require approval of a variance. The construction of the new street is certainly
grounds for approving (recognizing) variances for the existing conditions should such be
necessary in the future, and;
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project
as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and impose conditions upon the approval
addressing those considerations. The proposed twin homes would generate traffic ranging from
59 to 65 trips per day, according to published standards, and;
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are
being provided, and;
WltEREAS, The twin home use that is proposed is an appropriate land use for the
existing site that lies between the condominium complex to the east and the business zoned
property to the west, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed project as conditioned will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval, with conditions, subject to the following findings of fact:
Now that the property is rezoned, it could possibly have up to 14 units, therefore,
the 10 units proposed is not a large impact.
The proposed layout of the twin homes has a minimal impact on the overall land
the roadway and cul-de-sac are typical of others that have recently been approved
by the City and have worked well.
The proposed lot sizes, including common arms, overall are beyond what is
required in the R-lA zone.
January 14, 1997
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, to hereby:
Ao
Approve the Preliminary Plat according to the attached Exhibit 'A', and approve a
Conditional Use Permit to establish Maple Manors as a Planned Development Area, with
variances, subject to the following conditions:
1. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District.
The applicant shall be responsible for park dedication requirements consistent
with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances.
The applicant shall submit for staff review and approval, detailed landscaping
plans for the site showing plantings on the association property to mitigate tree
loss due to road and unit construction and containing typical landscaping
treatments for twin home units. Landscaping plans shall identify all plant
materials by name, size (height or caliper) and root type and shall be compliant
with the minimum planting sizes referenced in the City Code.
Covenants, as submitted by the applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
Escrow accounts shall be established as required by City Code and shall at all
times, maintain a pesitive fund balance.
The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a 50 foot fight-of-way for the land
area between the two adjacent single family residential properties.
Locate and show on the site plan the existing driveway to the westerly residence
(Parcel 246) to determine if it needs to be relocated, and if so, the cost of
relocating shall be born by the developer.
All drainage newly created by the development, either by excavating or building
shall be maintained within the property so it does not go to the east and
negatively impact any property to the east and that the provision be made that the
engineer specifically look at that property abutting the east to determine that water
flow stay within that property.
The site plan and grading plan be incorporated in this resolution and be made a
part thereof.
January 14, 1997
B. Approve the following variances as part of the Planned Development Area:
Right-of-Way Width
Cul-de-sac Right-of-Way (radius)
Cul-de-sac Paved Street (radius)
Lot Siz~ (all Lots except 8)
Lot Siz~ - Lot 8
required proposed variance
50' 40' 10'
50' 40' 10'
40' 35' 5'
6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf
6,000 sf 3,314 sf 2,686 sf
C. Approve the development of the property legally described as follows:
5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25,
"Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot 25; Also
that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying northerly of the
northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that part of the East 100 feet
of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 which lies north of a line drawn east at right angles
to the west line of said Lot 25 from a point on said west line distant 318.29 feet north,
as measured along said west line, from the southwest comer of said Lot 25. PID 13-
117-24 22 0249.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Sensen and seconded by
Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Polston.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION t97-1
MAPLE MANORS PRELIMINARY PLAT
I
I
I
I
!
!
!
I
!
ORDINANCE//83-1997
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS AS DESCRIBED
FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TO R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
The City of Mound does ordain, The City of Mound Zoning Map is hereby amended as
follows:
Property described as follows, is hereby rezoned from R-1 Single Family Residential
(10,000 square foot minimum lot area), to R-lA Single Family Residential (6,000 square foot
minimum lot area:
5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25,
"Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot
25; Also that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said Lot 25 lying
northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that
part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said Lot 25 which lies north of
a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said Lot 25 from a point on
said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from
the southwest comer of said Lot 25. PID 13-117-24 22 0249.
5510 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the West 100 feet of the South 250 feet
of said LOt 25 and of the East 50 feet of the South 250 feet of LOt 26 lying North
of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0246.
5470 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of
said Lot 25 lying South of a line running East at a right angle with the West line
of said LOt 25 from a point thereon 318.29 feet North from the Southwest comer
of said LOt 25 and lying North of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0250.
The Zoning Map of the City of Mound on file with the City Clerk is hereby amended
in accordance with these rezoning provisions.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council January 14, 1997
Published in The Laker February 1, 1997
BY-LAWS
.,OF
MAPLE MANORS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
ARTICLE I.
Name and Location
The name of the corporation is Maple Manors Homeowners' Association, Inc.,
hereinafter referred to as "Association" The principal office of the corporation shall be
located at 6326 Rambler Lane, Mound, Minnesota 55364, but meetings of members
and directors may be held at such places within the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, as may be designated by the Board of Directors.
ARTICLE II.
Definitions
Section 1. "Association" shall mean and refer to Maple Manors Homeowners'
Association, Inc., a Minnesota non-profit corporation, its successors and assigns.
Section 2. "Properties" shall mean and refer to that certain real property
described in the Declaration, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought
with the jurisdiction of the Association.
Section 3. "Common Area" shall mean all real property (including the
improvements thereto) owned by the Association for the common ,,~ ,-~ ~njoymen!
of the owners. The common Area to be owned by the Association prior to the
conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner other than Declarant is described as follows:
Lot 11 Block 1. Maple Manors Addition, Hennepin Oounty.
-1-
Section 4. "Lot" shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any
recorded subdivision map of the Properties with the exception of the Common Area.
Section 5. "Living Unit" shall mean and refer to all or any portion of a building
situated upon the Properties designed and intended for use and occupancy as a
residence by a single family.
Section 6. "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or
more person or entities, of the fee simple title to any Lot which is a part of the
Properties, including contract sellers, but excluding those having such interest merely
as security for the performance of an obligation.
Section 7. "Member" shall mean and refer to all Owners who are members of
the Association as provided in this Declaration.
Section 8. "Declarant" shall mean and refer to Maple Manors Homeowners'
Association, a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns, if such successors
and assign should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot from the Declarant for the
purpose of development.
Section 9. "Declaration" shall mean and refer to Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions, as amended from time to time, applicable to the
Properties and recorded or to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder or
Registrar of Title (as appropriate) in and for Hennepin County. Minnesota.
ARTICLE III.
Meeting of Members
Section 1. Annual Meeting. Regular annual meetings of the members shall be
held on the 15th day of January of each year at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m.. If the day
for an annual meeting of the members is a legal holiday, the meeting will be held at
-2-
the same hour on the first day following which is not a legal holiday.
Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the members may be called
at any time by the president or by the Board of Directors, or upon written request of the
Class A members who are entitled to vote one-fourth (1/4th) of all of the Class votes of
the members.
Section 3. Notice of Meetings. At least 21 days in advance of any annual
meeting, and at least 7 days in advance of any special meeting, written notice of each
meeting of the members shall be given by, or at the direction of, the secretary or
person authorized to call the meeting, by mailing to each member entitled to vote
thereat, addressed to the member's address last appearing on the books of the
Association, or supplied by such member to the Association for the purpose of notice.
Such notice shall specify the place, day and hour of the meeting, and in the case of a
special meeting, the purpose of the meeting.
Section 4. Quorum. The presence at the meeting of members entitled to cast. or
of proxies entitled to cast, one-tenth (l/lOth) of the votes of each class of membership
shall constitute a quorum for any action except as otherwise provided in the Articles of
Incorporation, the Declaration, or these By-Laws. If, however, such quorum shall not
be present or represented at any meeting, the members entitled to vote thereat shall
have power to adjourn the meeting from time to time, without notice other than
announcement at the meeting until a quorum as aforesaid shall be present or be
represented.
Section 5. Proxies. At all meetings of members, each member may vote in
person or by proxy. All proxies shall be in writing and filed with the secretary. Every
proxy shall
-3-
be revocable and shall automatically cease upon conveyance by the member of his
Lot.
ARTICLE IV.
Board of Directors: Selection: Term of Office
Section 1. Number. The affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board
of three directors, who need not be members of the Association. Until the firms annual
meeting of the members, the Board shall consist of the three persons named in the
Articles of Incorporation. After the first annual meeting of the members, the Board may
consist of five (5) directors.
Section 2. Term of Office. At the first annual meeting the members shall elect a
minimum of three directors for a term of one year. three directors for a term of two years
and three directors for a term of three years. At each annual meeting thereafter, the
members shall elect directors to fill all vacancies created by the number of directors
whose terms are expiring.
Section 3. Removal. Any director may be removed from the Board, with or
without cause, by a majority vote of the members of the Association. In the event of
death, resignation or removal of a director, his successor shall be selected by the
remaining members of the Board and shall serve for the unexpired term of his
predecessor.
Section 4. Compensation. No director shall receive compensation for any
service he may render to the Association. However, any director may be reimbursed
for his actual expenses incurred in the performance of his duties.
Section 5. Action Taken Without Meeting. The directors shall have the right to
take any action in the absence of a meeting which they could take at a meeting by
-4-
obtaining the written approval of all the directors. Any action so approved shall have
the same effect as though taken at a meeting of the directors.
ARTICLE V.
Nomination and Election of Directors
Section 1. Nomination. Nomination for election to the Board of Directors shall
be made by a Nominating Committee. Nominations may also be made from the floor at
the annual meeting. The Nominating Committee shall consist of a Chairman, who shall
be a member of the Board of Directors, and two or more members of the Association.
The Nominating Committee shall be appointed by the Board of Directors prior to each
annual meeting of the members, to serve from the close of such annual meeting until
the close of the next annual meeting and such appointment shall be announced at
each annual meeting The Nominating Committee shall make as many nominations for
election to the Board of Directors as it shall in its discretion determine, but not less than
the number of vacancies that are to be filled. Such nominations may be made from
among members or non-members.
Section 2. Election. Election to the Board of Directors shall be by secret written
ballot. At such election the members or their proxies may cast, in respect to each
vacancy, as many votes as they are entitled to exercise under the provisions of the
Declaration The persons receiving the largest number of votes shall be elected.
Cumulative voting is not permitted.
ARTICLE VI.
Meetings of Directors
-5-
Section 1. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall
be held monthly without notice, at such place and hour as may be fixed from time to
time by resolution of the Board. Should said meeting fall upon a legal holiday, then
that meeting shall be held at the same time on the next day which is not a legal
holiday.
Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall
be held when called by the president of the Association, or by any two directors, after
not less than three (3) days notice to each director.
Section 3. Quorum. A majority of the number of directors shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business every act or decision done or made by a
majority of the directors present at a duly held meeting at which a quorum is present
shall be regarded as the act of the Board.
ARTICLE VII
Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors
Section 1. Powers. The Board of Directors shall have power to:
a. Adopt and publish rules and regulations governing the use of the
Common Area and facilities, the personal conduct of the members and their
guests thereon and such other matters as are authorized by the Declaration and
to establish penalties for the infraction thereof;
b. Suspend the voting rights and right to use of the recreation facilities of
a member during any period in which such member shall be in default in the
payment of any assessment levied by the Association. Such rights may also be
suspended after notice and hearing, for a period not to exceed 60 days, for
infraction of published rules and regulations;
-6-
c. Exercise for the Association all powers, duties and authority invested in
or delegated to this Association and not reserved to the membership by other
provisions of these By-Laws, the Articles of Incorporation; or the Declaration;
Declare the office of a member of the Board of Directors to be vacant in the
event such member shall be absent from three (3) consecutive regular meetings
of the Board of Directors, and
e. Employ a manager, an independent contractor, or such
other employees as they deem necessary, and to prescribe their duties.
Section 2. Duties. It shall be the duty of the Board of Directors to:
a. Cause to be kept a complete record of all its acts and corporate affairs
and to present a statement thereof to the members at the annual meeting of the
members, or at any special meeting when such statement is requested in
writing by one-fourth (1/4th) of the Class A members who are entitled to vote;
b. Supervise all officers, agents and employees of this Association, and
to see that their duties are properly performed;
c. As more fully provided in the Declaration, to: (i). Fix the amount of the
annual assessment against each Lot at least thirty (30) days in advance of
each annual assessment period; (ii). Send written notice of each assessment to
every Owner and to bring an action at law against the Owner personally
obligated to pay the same if said assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days
of the assessment due date.
d. Issue, or to cause an appropriate officer to issue, upon demand by any
-7-
member, a certificate setting forth whether or not any assessment has been
paid. A reasonable charge may be made by the Board for the issuance of these
certificates. If a certificate states an assessment has been paid, such certificate
may be relied upon as being conclusive evidence of such payment by all
persons or entities, except the Owner or Owners whose obligation it is to pay
the same;
e. Procure and maintain adequate liability and hazard insurance on
property owned by the Association which shall include fire and extended
coverage on insurable common property on a current replacement cost basis in
an amount not less than 100% of the insurable value (based on current
replacement cost), using the proceeds of such hazard insurance solely for the
repair, replacement or reconstruction of such insurable common property,
including insured improvements;
f. Cause all officer or employees having fiscal responsibilities to be
bonded, as it may deem appropriate,
g. Cause the Common Area and the exterior of improvements on each
Lot to be maintained as provided in the Declaration.
ARTICLE VIII.
Officers and Their Duties.
Section 1. Enumeration of Offices. The officers of this Association shall be a
president and vice-president, who shall at all times be members of the Board of
Directors. a secretary and a treasurer and such other officers as the Board may from
time to time by resolution create.
Section 2. Election of Officers. The election of officers shall take place at the first
-8-
meeting of the Board of Directors following each annual meeting of the members.
Section 3. Term. The officers of this Association shall be elected annually by the
Board and each shall hold office for one (1) year unless he shall sooner resign, or
shall be removed, or otherwise be disqualified to serve.
Section 4. Special Appointment. The Board may elect such other officers as the
affairs of the Association may require, each of whom shall hold office for such period,
have such authority, and perform such duties as the Board may. from time to time.
determine.
Section 5. Resignation and Removal. Any officer may be removed from office
with or without cause by the Board Any officer may resign at any time by giving written
notice to the Board, the president or the Secretary. Such resignation shall take effect
on the date of receipt of such notice or at any later time specified therein, and unless
otherwise specified therein, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary
to make it effective.
Section 6. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office may be filled by appointment by
the Board. The officer appointed to such vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the
term of the officer he replaced.
Section 7. Multiple Offices. The offices of secretary and treasurer may be held
by the same person. No person shall simultaneously hold more than one of any of the
other offices, except in the case of special offices created pursuant to Section 4. of this
Article.
Section 8. Duties. The duties of the officers are as follows:
President
-9-
The president shall preside at all meetings of the association and the
Board of Directors; shall see that orders and resolutions of the Board are carried
out; shall sign all leases, mortgages, deeds and other written instruments and
shall co-sign ali checks and promissory notes.
Vice-President
The vice-president shall act in the place and stead of the president in the event
of his absence, inability or refusal to act, and shaJl exercise and discharge such duties
as may be required of him by the Board.
Secretary
The secretary shall record the votes and keep the minutes of all meetings and
proceedings of the Board and of the members; serve notice of meetings of the Board
and of the members; keep appropriate current records showing the members of the
Association, together with their addresses, and shall perform such other duties as
required by the Board.
Treasurer
The treasurer shall receive and deposit in appropriate bank accounts all monies
of the Association and shall disburse such funds as directed by resolution of the Board
of Directors; shall sign all checks and promissory notes of the Association; keep proper
books of account; cause an annual audit of the Associatio~ books to be made by a
public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year, and shall prepare an annual
budget and a statement of income and expenditures to be presented to the
membership at its regular annual meeting, and deliver a copy of each to the members.
-10-
ARTICLE IX.
Committees
The Board may appoint an Architectural Control Committee, as provided in the
Declaration, and a Nominating Committee, as provided in these By-Laws. In addition,
the Board of Directors may appoint other committees as deemed appropriate in
carrying out its purpose.
ARTICLE X.
Books and Records
The books, records and papers of the Association shall at ali times, during
reasonable business hours, be subject to inspection by any member and by any first
mortgagee. The Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation, and the By-Laws of the
Association shall be available for inspection by any member and by any first
mortgagee at the principal office of the Association, where copies may be purchased
at reasonable cost.
ARTICLE XI.
Assessments
As more fully provided in this Declaration, each member is obligated to pay to
the Association annual and special assessments which are secured by a continuing
lien upon the property against which the assessment is made. Any assessments which
are not paid when due shall be delinquent If the assessment is not paid within thirty
(30) days after the due date, the assessment shall bear interest from the date of
delinquency at the rate of twelve.
-11-
(12%) percent per annum and the Association may bring an action at law against the
Owner personally obligated to pay the same or foreclose the lien against the property,
and interest, costs and reasonable attorneys fees of any such action shall be added to
the amount of such assessment. No Owner may waiver or otherwise escape liability for
the assessments provided for herein by nonuse of the Common Area or abandonment
of his Lot.
ARTICLE XII.
Limitation on Contracts
Any agreement for professional management of the Properties, or any other
contract providing for professional management or other services by the Declarant,
shall provide for termination by either party without cause or payment of a termination
fee on thirty (30) days or written notice and shall provide for a maximum contract term
of two (2) years.
ARTICLE Xlll.
Corporate Seal
The Association shall have no corporate seal.
ARTICLE XIV.
Amendments
Section 1. These By-Laws may be amended, at a regular or special meeting of
the members, by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by
proxy, except that the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans Administration
shall have the right to veto amendments where there is Class B membership
-12-
Section 2. In the case of any conflict between the Articles of Incorporation and
these By-Laws, the Articles shall control, and in the case of any conflict between the
Declaration and the By-Laws. the Declaration shall control.
ARTICLE XV.
Miscellaneous
The fiscal year of the Association shall begin on the first day of January and end
on the 31 st day of December of every year, except that the first fiscal year shall begin
on the date of incorporation.
The foregoing constitute the By-Laws of Maple Manors Homeowners Association, Inc.
as duly adopted by the Board of Directors on the jj.-H-- day of /~/~,~ ,
1996. /~.
S~creta,~/~/
-13-
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS.
RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS, FOR
MAPLE MANORS ADDITION
This Declaration, dated this /~ ~ day of /vid t/ ,1997 is made by
z
Waters Edge Investment Co., A Minnesota Corporation, fee owners and, shall
hereinafter be referred to as "Declarant").
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain real estate located in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, which is more particularly described as:
Lots 1 through 11 inclusive, Block 1, Maple Manors Addition, Hennepin County.
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that the real property described
above shall be transferred, held, sold, conveyed, occupied and developed subject to
the following easements, covenants, restrictions, and condition, which are for the
purpose of protecting the value and desirability of, and which shall run with the real
property described above, and be binding on all parties having any right, title or
interest in the same, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit
of each owner thereof.
ARTICLE
Definitions
Section 1. The following words, when used in this Declaration (unless the
context shall prohibit ) shall have the following meanings:
-1-
I ,, L
a. "Association" shall mean and refer to the Maple Manors Homeowners'
Association, Inc., a Minnesota non-profit corporation, its successors and assigns.
b. "Properties" shall mean and refer to that certain real property above
described and such additions thereto as may be hereafter brought within the
Jurisdiction of the Association.
c. "Common Area" shall mean all real property (including the improvements
thereto) owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners.
The Common Area to be owned by the Association prior to the conveyance of the first
Lot hereunder is described as follows:
Lot 11, Block 1, Maple Manors Addition,
Hennepin County.
d. "Lot" shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any recorded
subdivision map of the Properties, with the exception of Common Area.
e. "Living Unit" shall mean and refer to all or any portion of a building situated
upon the Properties designed and intended for use and occupancy as a resident by a
single family.
f. "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more
persons or entities, of the fee simple title to any Lot which is a part of the Properties,
including
-2-
contract sellers, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for
the performance of an obligation.
g. "Member" shall mean and refer to all Owners who are members of the
Association, as provided in ARTICLE III, Section 1, hereof.
h. "Declarant" shall mean and refer to Waters Edge Inv. Co., their successors
and assigns, if such heirs, successors or assigns should acquire more than one
undeveloped Lot from the Declarant for the purpose of development.
ARTICLE II.
Property Rights In The CommQn Area
Section 1. Every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to
the Common Area, which shall include, without limiting the generality thereof, the right
of access to and from the Owner's Lot, the right to park within areas designated there
for by the Association, if any, the right of lateral support, the right to use party walls, if
any, adjoining owners Lot, and the right to use utility, water and sewer easements, and
which shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot, subject to the
following provisions:
a. The right of the Association, in accordance with its Article and Bylaws,
to borrow money for the purpose of improving the Common Area, and in aid
thereof to mortgage said Common Area. No such mortgage shall be effective
unless an instrument agreeing to such mortgage signed by two-thirds (2/3rds) of
each class of Members has been recorded' and
b. The right of the Association to take such steps as are reasonably
necessary to protect the Common Area against foreclosure, and
-3-
c. The right of the Association to suspend the voting rights and use of the
recreational facilities, if any, by any Owner for any period during which any
assessment against his Lot remains unpaid and, for a period not to exceed 60 days,
for each infraction of its published rules, and
d. The right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the
Common Area to any public agency, authority, or utility for such purposes and subject
to such conditions as may be agreed to by the Members. No such dedication of
transfer shall be effective unless an instrument agreeing to such dedication or transfer
is signed by two-thirds (2__J'3rds) of each class of Members has been recorded, and
e. The right of individual Owners to the use of any parking spaces as provided
in this Article, and
f. The right of the City of Mound, to enter upon the Common Area for the
purpose of shutting off the water to any Uving Unit in the event that the charges for
water service to such Uving Unit has not been paid.
g. Easements in the Common Area, hereby created, for utility, water and sewer
lines serving each Lot, including, but not limited to, any such easements as are shown
on the recorded plat of the Properties.
Section 2. Delegation of Use. Any Owner may delegate, in accordance with the
By-Laws, his right of enjoyment to the Common Area and facilities to the members of
his family, his tenants, or contract purchasers who reside on the property.
Section 3. Parking Rights. Each Lot contains parking areas (including garages)
for the use of its Owner. In addition, each Owner may use the portion of the driveway
which is located on the Common Area in such fashion as to not interfere with the use
of such driveway by other Owners whose lots are served thereby. The Association may
maintain additional parking spaces on the Common Area for the use of Owner's
-4-
zo 5
guests and invitees, subject to reasonable regulation by rule of the Association.
Section 4. Municipal Service Easement. The title of the corporation to the
Common Area shall be subject to a non-exclusive easement in favor of the City of
Mound, for the purpose of ingress and egress for police, fire, rescue and other
emergency calls, for animal control, for health and protective inspection, and to
perform or provide any other public service deemed necessary by the City of Mound.
Section 5. Utility Maintenance and Construction Easement. An easement is
hereby granted to the City of Mound for ingress, egress, construction and maintenance
over the Common Area for the performance of the following functions: street repair and
maintenance, street construction and reconstruction, snow removal, sanitary sewer
and storm sewer construction, reconstruction and maintenance, water main
construction, reconstruction and maintenance' surface drainage and storm sewer
construction, reconstruction and maintenance, weed control, cable television, and
other public services that may become necessary in the future. Said easement rights
shall be exercised only in the event that the City Council finds that the Association is
unable to adequately perform such functions and that the health, safety and welfare of
the Owners require that such functions be performed Any work performed by the City
of Mound pursuant to the foregoing shall be assessed against either the Common
Area or against the individual Lots which benefit from the performance of the work.
Section 6. Special Assessment for City Maintenance or Construction. If the City
of Mound performs any of the work pursuant to Article II. Section 4 and 5 of this
Declaration, or constructs any public improvement pursuant to the laws of the State of
Minnesota, then the City may assess the cost of such work directly against the
benefited Lots, or the City may assess the Common Area for the cost of such work. In
the event the City assesses the Common Area for the cost of such work, then the
Association shall levy a Special Assessment against the benefited Lots to defray the
-5-
total amount of the assessment. Such Special Assessment n~-'cd not have the assent
of the Owners.
ARTICLE IIh
Membership and Voting Rights in the Association
Section 1. Membership. Every Owner of a Lot which is subject by covenants of
record to assessment by the Association, shall be a member of the Association.
Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of any
Lot which is subject to assessment.
Section 2. Voting Rights. The Association shall have two classes of voting
membership:
Class A. Class A members shall be all Owners, with the exception of the
Declarant, and shall be entitled to one vote for each Lot owned. When more
than one person holds an interest in any Lot, all such persons shall be
members. The vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they determine, but in no
event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any Lot.
Class B. The Class B member(s) shall be the Declarant and shall be
entitled to three (3) votes for each Lot owned. The Class B membership shall
cease and be converted to Class A membership on the happening of either of
the following events, whichever occurs earlier:
1. When the total votes outstanding in the Class A membership are
greater than the total votes outstanding in the Class B. membership, or
2. On June 30, 2001.
-6-
ARTICLE IV.
Covenant for Maintenance Assessment
Section 1. Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments. The
Declarant, for each Lot owned within the Properties, hereby covenants, and each
Owner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed there for, whether or not it shall be so
expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Association:
(1) annual assessments or charges, and (2) special assessments for capital
improvements or capital equipment to be owned by the Association, such
assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. Assessments
shall be on a calendar year basis. The annual and special assessments, together with
interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys fees, shall be a charge on the land and shall
be a continuing lien upon the property against which each such assessment is made.
All assessments, both annual and special, shall become a lien upon the Lot on the
date they become due and payable. Such annual assessments shall be due and
payable in twelve equal monthly installments on the 1st day of each and every month,
commencing on the 1st day of January. Special assessments shall be due and
payable as determined by the Board of Directors. Each such assessment, together
with interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, shall also be the personal
obligation of the person who was the Owner of such property at the time when the
assessment fell due and payable. The personal obligation for delinquent
assessments shall not pass to his successors in title, unless expressly assumed by
them.
Section 2. Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by the Association
shall be used exclusively to promote the recreation, health, safety, and
-7-
welfare of the residents in the Properties, and for the improvement and maintenance of
the Common Area, and for the exterior maintenance of the Living Units situated upon
the Properties. An adequate reserve fund shall be maintained for maintenance,
repairs and replacement of those elements of the common property that must be
replaced on a periodic basis.
Section D. Maximum Annual Assessment Until January 1 of the year
immediately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum
annual assessment shall be Eight Hundred and 40/100 Dollars ($840.00) per Lot.
a. From and after January 1, of the year immediately following the
conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may
be increased each year to an amount which is not more than the greater of five
percent (5%) then current assessment or consumer price index (CPI-Urban
Consumer), whichever is greater of the maximum assessment for the previous
year without a vote of the membership. If the consumer price index is not being
published at any point in time, such other index as is reasonably comparable
shall be used for the purposes of the foregoing.
b. From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the
conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may
be increased above the amount permitted by subparagraph a. above by a vote
of two-thirds (2..~) of each Class of members who are voting in person or by
proxy, at a meeting duly called for this purpose.
c. The Board of Directors may fix the annual assessment at an amount
not in excess of the maximum.
-8-
Section 4. Special Assessment for Capital Improvements. In addition to the
annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy, in any assessment
year, a special assessment applicable to that year only for the purpose of defraying' in
whole or in part, the cost of any construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of a
capital improvement upon the Common Area, including fixtures and personal property
related thereto, or capital equipment to be owned by the Association, provided that any
such assessment shall have the assent of two-thirds (2/3rds) of the votes of each class
of Members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this
purpose.
Section 5. Notice and Quorum for Any Action Authorized Under Sections 3 and
4. Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of taking any action authorized
under 3 or 4 shall be sent to all members not less than 30 days nor more than 50 days
in advance of the meeting. At the first such meeting called, the presence of members
or of proxies entitled to cast sixty percent (60%) of all the vote of each class of the
membership shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, another
meeting may be called subject to the same notice requirement, and the required
quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum at
the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than 60 days
following the preceding meeting.
Section 6. Uniform Rate of Assessment. Both annual and special assessments
must be fixed at a uniform rate for all lots and may be collected on a monthly basis.
Section 7. Date of Commencement of Annual Assessments: Due Dates. The
annual assessments provided for herein shall commence as to all Lot Owners other
than the Declarant on the 1st day of the month following a conveyance to an non-
Declarant Owner. Declarant shall not pay annual assessment on any Lot owned by
Declarant. -9-
The first annual assessment shall be adjusted according to the number of months
remaining in the calendar year. The Board of Directors shall fix the amount of annual
assessment against each Lot at least thirty (30) days in advance of each annual
assessment. Written notice of the annual assessment shall be sent to every Owner
subject thereto. The Association shall, upon demand, and for a reasonable charge,
furnish a certificate signed by an officer of the Association setting forth whether the
assessments on a specified lot have been paid. A properly executed certificate of the
Association as to the status of assessments on a lot is binding upon the Association as
of the date of this issuance.
Section 8. Effect of Nonpayment of Assessments: Remedies Of the
Association. Any assessment not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date shall
bear interest from the due date at the rate of 12 percent per annum. The Association
may bring an action at law against the Owner personally obligated to pay the same, or
foreclose the lien against the property. No Owner may waive or otherwise escape
liability for the assessments provided for herein by non-use of the Common Area or
abandonment of his Lot.
Section 9. Subordination of the Uen to Mortgages. Except as hereinafter
provided in this Section, sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment lien.
The lien of the assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any
first mortgage. Such subordination shall apply only to the assessments which may
have become due and payable prior to the date of expiration of the period of
redemption following a mortgage foreclosure sale, or the date of any other sale or
transfer to the first mortgagee in lieu of foreclosure. No sale or transfer shall relieve
such Lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien
thereof.
-10-
ARTICLE V.
Insurance and Reconstruction
Section 1. Uability Insurance: Fidelity Bonds. The Board of Directors of the
Association, or its duly authorized agent shall obtain a broad form of public liability
insurance insuring the Association, with such limits of liabilities as the Association
shall determine to be necessary, against all acts, omission to act and negligence of the
Association, its employees and agents and provide public liability insurance
specifically covering the common area. The Association's Board of Directors shall also
provide fidelity bonds providing protection to the Association against loss by reason of
acts of fraud or dishonesty on the part of the Association's directors, managers,
officers, employees, or volunteers who are responsible for the handling of funds of the
Association in an amount sufficient to provide no less protection than 110% times the
estimated annual operating expenses and reserves of the Association.
Section 2. Destruction and Reconstruction. In the event that a building or
buildings containing a living unit is partially or totally destroyed and in the further event
that a decision is made by the Owners of the living units in such building or buildings
to repair or reconstruct such building or buildings, then such repairs or reconstruction
must be substantially commenced no later than ninety (90) days following the date
upon which such decision has been made by the Owners. No such reconstruction or
repairs shall be commenced without (I.) the unanimous written consent of all the
Owners in the buildings affected and (11.) the written approval of the plans and
specifications of the proposed repairs and reconstruction by the Architectural Control
Committee or Board of Directors as outlined in Article VI. hereof. In the event that the
damage or destroyed building is not substantially completed within 180 days from the
-11-
o
commencement of reconstruction, the Owner(s) of the living units within the building(s)
in which the damage or destruction has occurred, upon prior written notice and
approval of the plans and specifications of the proposed repair and construction by the
Architectural Control Committee or the Association as outlined in Article VI. herein, by
giving prior written notice to the Owner(s) of the lots affected and with the approval of
members of the Association as is required for capital improvements, respectively may
cause to have the damaged or destroyed building(s) repaired or reconstructed.
Section 3. Manner of Reconstruction. On reconstruction, the design, plan and
specifications of any building or living unit may vary from that of the original upon
approval of the Architectural Control Committee; provided, however, that the number of
square feet of any living unit may not vary by more than 5% from the number of square
feet for such living unit as originally constructed and the location of the buildings shall
be substantially the same as prior to the damage or destruction. Ali reconstruction
costs and expenses shall be the sole obligation of the affected Owners only, and shall
not be assessed to any other Owners.
Section 4. Casualty Insurance on Insurable Common Area. The Association
shall keep all insurable improvements and fixtures of the Common Area insured
against loss or damage by fire for the full insurance replacement cost thereof, and may
obtain insurance against such other hazards and casualties as the Association may
deem desirable. The Association may also insure any other property whether real or
personal, owned by the Association, against loss or damage by fire and such other
hazards as the Association may deem desirable, with the Association as the owner
and beneficiary of such insurance. The insurance coverage with respect to the
Common Area shall be written in the name of, and the proceeds shall be used by the
-12-
Association for the repair of replacement of the property for which the insurance was
carried. Premiums for all insurance carded by the Association are common expenses
included in the common assessments made by the Association.
In addition to casualty insurance on the Common Area, the Association, through
the Board of Directors, may elect to obtain and continue in effect, on behaff of all
Owners, adequate blanket casualty and fire insurance in such form as the Board of
Directors deems appropriate in an amount equal to the full replacement value, without
deduction for depreciation or coinsurance, of all of the dwelling units, including the
structural portions and fixtures thereof, owned by such Owners. Insurance premiums
from any such blanket insurance coverage, and any other insurance premiums paid by
the Association shall be a common expense of the Association to be included in the
regular common assessments of the Owners, as levied by the Association. The
insurance coverage with respect to the dwelling units shall be written in the name of,
and the proceeds thereof shall be payable to the Association as trustee for the
homeowners. Further the Board of Directors may, by a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote, have
the Association elect to carry additional blanket casualty and fire insurance to cover
improvement made by the owners on their individual units.
Section 5. Replacement or Repair of Property. In the event of damage to or
destruction of any part of the Common Area improvements, the Association shall repair
or replace the same from the insurance proceeds available. If such insurance
proceeds are insufficient to cover the costs of repair or replacement of the property
damaged or destroyed, the Association may make a reconstruction assessment
against all Lot Owners to cover the additional cost of repair or replacement not
covered by the insurance proceeds, in addition to any other common assessments
made against such Lot Owner. In the event that the Association is maintaining blanket
-13-
casualty and fire insurance on the dwelling units on the Lots in the properties, the
Association shall repair or replace the same from the insurance procccds available.
Section 6. Annual Review of Policies. All insurance policies shall be reviewed
at least annually by the Board of Directors in order to ascertain whether the coverage
contained in the policies is sufficient to make any necessary repairs or replacement of
the property which may have been damaged or destroyed.
ARTICLE 5
Architecture Control
No building, fence, wall, patio or other structure shall be commenced, erected or
maintained upon the Properties, nor shall any exterior addition to or change or
alteration therein (including change of color and planting of trees and bushes and
garden area) be made until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind,
shape, color, height, materials, and location of the same shall have Icon submitted to
and approved in writing as to harmony of external design and location in relation to
surrounding structures and topographs by the Board of Directors of the Association, or
by an architectural committee composed of three (3) or more representatives
appointed by the Board. In the event said Board, or its designated committee, fails to
approve or disapprove such design and location within thirty (30) days after said plans
and specifications have been submitted to it, approval will not be required and this
Article will be deemed to have been fully complied with. No structural change to a
Living Unit shall be made which diminishes the structural integrity of the building of
which the Living Unit is a part.
-14-
ARTICLE VII.
Exterior Maintenance
Section 1. Mandatory Maintenance. In addition to maintenance upon the
Common Area, the Association shall provide exterior maintenance upon each Lot
which is subject to assessment hereunder, as follows: paint, repair, replacement and
care of roofs, gutters, downspouts, exterior building surface, driveways, trees, shrubs,
grass, walks and other exterior improvements. Such exterior maintenance shall not
include glass surfaces, storm windows, screens and garage door (except painting,
which shall be a responsibility of the Association) except that if an Owner after notice
neglects to replace broken glass in exterior surfaces, the Association may do so,
charging the cost thereof to the Owner. All such painting, repair and maintenance shall
be done as and when, and to the extent that, the Board of Directors of the Association
deems it necessary or desirable. The Association shall plow snow from the driveways,
parking areas and sidewalks, including such portions thereof as are located on the
Lots, but shall not be required to remove snow from walkways, Living Unit steps or
patios.
Section 2. Assessment of Cost. The cost of maintenance pursuant to Section 1
of this Article, if the need for such maintenance or repair pursuant to Section 1 is due
to the willful or negligent act of an Owner or his family, guests or invitees, and to the
extent the cost of such maintenance exceeds the net insurance proceeds received by
the Association due to such act of neglect, if any, shall be assessed against the Lot
upon which such maintenance is done and shall be added to and become a part of the
current annual assessment against that Lot and, at the option of the Board of Directors,
shall be payable in full with the next ensuing monthly installment of the then current
-15-
annual assessment, or divided equally over the remaining months for the then current
annual assessment and payable with and in addition to the monthly installments of the
then current annual assessment.
Section 3. Access at Reasonable Hours. For the purpose solely of performing
the maintenance and repairs authorized by this Article, the Association, through its
duly authorized agents or employees, shall have the right, after reasonable notice to
the Owners, to enter upon any Lot or Living Unit with such persons and material as the
Association deems necessary at reasonable hours on any day.
Section 4. Emergency Access. For the purpose of performing emergency
repairs under this Article, or of taking emergency action to seal a Living Unit from
weather or otherwise to prevent damage or destruction to any Lot or Living Unit, the
Association through its duly authorized agents or employees, shall have the right to
enter upon any Lot or Living Unit at any time, without notice, with such person and
material as the Association deems necessary, to accomplish such emergency repairs
or to take such emergency action.
Section 5. Heating of Living Units. For the purpose of preventing damage to
and breakage of water, sewer and other utility lines and pipes in a Living Unit which
might result in damage to that or other Living Units, all Owners shall maintain the
temperature in their Living Units, at all times, at least 55 degrees Fahrenheit, subject,
however, to the inability to maintain such temperature due to causes beyond the
Owner s reasonable control. Any damage resulting from the refusal or failure of an
Owner to so maintain such minimum temperature may be repaired by the Association
and (unless due to causes beyond the Owner's reasonable control) the cost thereof
assessed against the Lot of the refusing or failing Owner to the extent and in the
-16-
manner set out in Section 3 of this Article. However, if the failure to maintain such
minimum temperature is due to causes beyond the Owner s reasonable control, the
cost of such repair shall be a common expense.
Section 6. Lawn and Planting Maintenance. The Association shall mow, water,
rake and maintain, all to the extent the Board deems necessary or desirable, all lawns
and exterior plantings both on the Common Area or on the Lots.
ARTICLE VIII.
Party Walls
Section 1. General Rules of Law to Apply. Each wall which is built as a part of
the original construction of the Living Units upon the Properties and placed on the
dividing line between the Lots shall constitute a party wall, and, to the extent not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Article, the general rules of law regarding party
walls and liability for property damage due to negligence or willful act or omissions
shall apply thereto.
Section 2. Sharing of Repair and Maintenance. The cost of reasonable repair
and maintenance of a party wall shall be shared by the Owners who make use of the
wall in proportion to such use.
Section 3. Destruction by Fire or Other Casualty. If a party wall is destroyed or
damaged by fire or other casualty, any Owner who has used the wall may restore it,
and if the other Owners thereafter make use of the wall, they shall contribute to the cost
of restoration thereof in proportion to such use without prejudice, however, to the right
of any such Owners to call for a larger contribution from the others under any rule of
law regarding liability for negligent or willful acts or omissions.
-17-
Section 4. Weatherproofing. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article,
an Owner who by his negligent or willful act cause the party wall to be exposed to the
elements shall bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary protection against such
elements.
Section 5. Right to Contribution Runs With Land. The right of any Owner to
contribution from any other Owner under this Article shall be appurtenant to the land
and shall pass to such Owner successors in title.
Section 6. Arbitration. In the event of any dispute arising concerning a party
wall, or under the provision of this Article, each party shall choose one arbitrator, and
such arbitrators shall choose one additional arbitrator, and the decision shall be by a
majority of all the arbitrators.
ARTICLE IX.
Building and Use Restrictions
Section 1. Residential Use. No Lot shall be used except for residential
purposes, provided, however, that this Section shall not be construed to prohibit the
use of a portion of a residence for incidental office purpose to t~e extent permitted by
applicable zoning laws.
Section 2. Common Area Restriction. No industry, business, trade, occupation
or profession of any kind shall be conducted, maintained or permitted on any part of
the Common Area, nor shall any "for sale" or "for rent" signs be maintained or
permitted on any part thereof. The foregoing shall not prohibit Owners from
maintaining flor sale" or "for rent" signs on their Lots.
Section 3. Obstructions. There shall be no obstruction of the Common Area,
nor shall anything be kept or stored on any part of the Common Area without the prior
-18-
written consent of the Board of Directors or the architectural control committee. Nothing
shall be altered on, constructed on, or removed from the Common Area except upon
the prior written consent of the Board of Directors or the Architectural Control
Committee.
Section 4. Prohibition of Damage and Certain Activities. Nothing shall be done
or kept on any Lot or on the Common Area or any part thereof, which would be in
violation of any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, permit or other validly imposed
requirement of any government body. No damage to, or waste of, the Common Area or
any part thereof or to or of the exterior of the Properties or any buildings or other
improvements thereon shall be committed by any Owner or any invitee of any Owner
and each Owner shall indemnify and hold the Association and the other Owners
harmless against all loss resulting from any such damage or waste caused by him or
his invitees, to the Association or other Owners. No noxious, destructive or offensive
activity shall be allowed on any Lots or in the Common Area or any part thereof, nor
shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or
nuisance to any other Owner or to any other person at any time lawfully residing on the
Properties.
Section 5. Fences, Walls and Patios. No Owner shall construct, relocate,
heighten, lower or otherwise move or change any fence, wall, patio or other structure
upon, adjoining or adjacent to the Common Area, except as provided in ARTICLE VI
hereinabove. The Board of Directors of the Association or the architectural control
committee shall have the authority, however, to grant to an Owner the right to construct
a patio partly on Common Area adjoining his Lot within uniform maximum area and
location limitations and in accordance with such rules and regulations as are
-19-
established and amended from time to time by the Board of Directors or the
architectural control committee, provided the improvements are approved in
accordance with ARTICLE VI. hereinabove.
Section 6. Prohibited Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer,
basement, tent, or shack shall be maintained on the Common Area of any Lot nor shall
any garage or other building except a permanent residence, be used on any Lot at any
time as a residence or sleeping quarters, either temporarily or permanently. The
Association may maintain on the Common Area storage sheds to be used by the
Association for the storage of lawn maintenance equipment and other common
property.
Section 7. Storage. Outside storage of any items, including but without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, sporting equipment, toys, outdoor cooking equipment
(except lawn furniture and one gas or charcoal grill per Lot), yard and garden tools
and equipment and trash and garbage containers shall not be allowed. No boats,
snowmobiles, trailers, camping vehicles, tractor/trailer or trucks in excess of 9,000
pounds gross weight or unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall at any time be stored
or parked on any Lot outside of a living unit or garage. No such boats, snowmobiles,
trailers, camping vehicles, tractor/trailers, trucks, unlicensed or inoperable vehicles
shall be stored or parked on any Common Area without the express written approval of
the Board of Directors, which may be withheld without stated reason.
Section 8. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on
any Lot, except as permitted by regulations adopted by the Board.
Section 9. Antennae. No television or radio antennae shall be erected or
placed upon the exterior of a Lot or house or garage.
-20-
Section 10. Cloths Line. No clothes line shall be permitted upon a Lot or the
exterior of a house or a garage, nor shall clothes, s~ts, blankets, laundry of any kind
or other articles be hung out so as to be visible from outside the Lot.
Section 11. Pets. No pets shall be permitted to be kept on the Property by any
Owner or occupant except conventional domesticated animals of a type normally kept
as pets in residential areas. No kennel, dog house or outside run shall be constructed
or maintained on the Property. No pet shall be kept for any commercial purpose nor
shall pets be bred for a commercial purpose upon the Property. Any cat or dog,
whenever outside of a Living Unit, must be kept under the direct control of the pet
owner or another person able to control the pet. The person in charge of the pet must
clean up after it. The Board may adopt more specific rules and penalties not
inconsistent with the foregoing, and may make all or specified portions of the Common
Area off limits to pets. Upon the petition of 75% of the Owners of Lots located within 75
feet of the Lot in which resides a specified dog, the Board may order the removal of a
particular dog for constant and uncontrolled barking, repeated instances of wandering
unleashed or other repeated behavior reasonably offensive to others, provided that
the Owner of the Lot harboring the dog shall first have 30 days written notice in which
to correct the offensive behavior.
Section 12. Landscaping. The Board of Directors or the architectural control
committee may, in accordance with uniform standards adopted from time to time and
subject to amendment and revocation, permit an Owner to maintain annual and
perennial flowers and planting within such Owner's Lot or a specified portion of the
Common Area adjacent to his Lot, subject in each instance to the right of the Board of
Directors or the Architectural control committee to disapprove plantings and locations
-21-
which would be disharmonious without a stated reason.
Section 13. Rules and Regulations. The Board may from time to time adopt
such other rules and regulations governing the use and enjoyment of the parking area
and the Common Areas and additional rules and regulations concerning the
appearance of those portions of each Lot visible from a street as the Board in its sole
discretion deems appropriate or necessary. The Board may also cause prohibited
vehicles and other objects to be removed from the Common Area at the Owners
expense
Section 14. Rights of Declarant. Until the last Lot is sold and conveyed to an
Owner other than a Declarant, the following activities by Declarant will not be deemed
violations of the foregoing restrictions:
a. The use of a Lot or Lots for model and sales office purposes;
b. The storage of construction trailer, equipment, materials and earth
during the construction of new Living Units;
c. The display of signs advertising the Properties or the new Living Units
and the maintenance of temporary fencing, walkways, landscaping and
burning in the vicinity of model and sales units.
ARTICLE X:
Rights of First Mortgagees
Section 1. The provisions of this Article take precedence over any other conflicting
provisions of this Declaration.
-22-
Section 2. A first mortgagee of a Lot, upon written request to the Association, is
entitled to written notification from the Association of any default in the performance by
the Owner of the Lot of any obligation under the Declaration or By-Laws which has not
been cured within sixty (60) days of the date of such default. The Association shall
maintain a log of such requests. A contract vendor is entitled, upon written request, to
be included in such log, and to receive such notifications.
Section 3. Any first mortgagee who obtains title to a Lot pursuant to the
remedies provided in the mortgage, or by foreclosure of the mortgage, or by deed or
assignment in lieu of foreclosure, will be exempt from any right of first refusal
contained in the Declaration or By-Laws.
Section 4. Any first mortgagee who obtains title to a Lot by foreclosure of the
mortgage or by sale or transfer in lieu of foreclosure shall not be liable for the unpaid
assessments of the Lot which become due and payable prior to the date of expiration
of the period of redemption following a mortgage foreclosure sale, or the date of sale
or transfer to the first mortgagee in lieu of foreclosure.
Section 5. Unless at least two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Owners or their assigns,
including but not limited to, first mortgagees who have obtained title to a lot by
foreclosure or by sale or transfer in lieu of foreclosure, not including the Declarant,
have given their prior written approval, the Association shall not be entitled to:
a. By act or omission seek to abandon, partition, subdivide, encumber,
sell or transfer the common property owned, directly or indirectly, by the
Association for the benefit of the Lots. The granting of easements for
public utilities or for other public purposes consistent with the intended use of
-23-
such common property shall not be deemed a transfer within the meaning of
this subsection:
b. Change the method of determining the obligation, assessments, dues
or other charges which may be levied against an Owner;
c. By act or omission change, waive or abandon any scheme of
regulations, or enforcement thereof, pertaining to the architectural design of the
exterior appearance of Living Units, the exterior maintenance of Uving Units, the
maintenance of the common property, party walks or common fences and driveways,
or the upkeep of lawns and plantings;
d. Fail to maintain fire and extended coverage on insurable common
property on a current replacement cost basis in an amount not less than one
hundred percent (100%) of the insurable value, based on current replacement
cost; or
e. Use hazard insurance proceeds for losses to any common property
otherwise than for the repair, replacement or reconstruction of such common
property.
Section 6. First mortgagees shall have the right to examine the books and
records of the Association.
Section I. First mortgagees may, jointly or singly, pay taxes or other charges
which are in default and which may or have become a charge against any common
property and may pay overdue premiums on hazard insurance policies or secure new
hazard insurance coverage on the lapse of a policy for the common property, and first
mortgagees making such payments shall be owed immediate reimbursement there for
from the Association.
-24-
Section B. No provision of the Declaration or By-Laws shall be construed as
giving the Owner or to any other party priority over any rights of first mortgagees of Lots
pursuant to their mortgage in the case of a distribution to Owners of insurance
proceeds or condemnation awards for losses to or a taking of a common property.
ARTICLE XI.
General Provisions
Section 1. Enforcement. The Association, or any Owner, shall have the right to
enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants,
reservations, liens and shares now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this
Declaration. Failure by the Association or by any Owner to enforce any covenant or
restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so
thereafter.
Section 2. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or
restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions
which shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 3. Duration and Amendment. 'The covenants and restrictions of this
Declaration shall run with and bind the land, and shall inure to the benefit of, an be
enforceable by the Association or the Owner of any Lot subject to this Declaration,
their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assign, for a term of
twenty (20) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time the
covenants and restrictions shall be automatically renewed for successive periods of
ten (10) years.
Except as hereinafter provided, this Declaration may be amended during the
-25-
first twenty-year period by an instrument signed by not less than ninety (90%) percent
of
the Owners and thereafter by an instrument signed by not less than two-thirds (2/3rds)
of the Owners. Any amendment must be recorded. The prior written approval of at least
two-thirds (2J'3rds) of the first mortgagee of Lots, based upon one vote for each
mortgage owned, or Owners other than the Declarant shall be required for any
amendment of this Declaration which would affect the right of the Association to take
any of the action referred to in Article X., Section 5.
Section 4. Notices. Any notice required to be sent to any Member or Owner
under the provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been properly sent
when mailed postage paid to the last known address of the person who appears as
Member or Owner of record of the Association at the time of such mailing.
Section 5. Easements. Each Lot shall have the benefit of a permanent,
appurtenant, driveway easement over the portions of the Common Area and of any
other Lot on which the driveway serving such benefited Lots, as originally constructed,
is located. Additionally, each Lot shall have the benefit of a permanent, appurtenant
easement for the maintenance of any portion of the Living Unit located on the
benefited Lot that encroaches onto or overhangs an adjoining Lot or an adjoining
portion of the Common Area whether such encroachment is a part of such Living Unit
as originally constructed or results from settling, sag, or similar cause.
ARTICLE. E Xil
FHANA Approval
At all times while there is a Class B member, the following actions will require
the prior approval of the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans
Administration: annexation of additional properties, mergers and consolidations,
-26-
mortgaging of Common Area, dedication of Common Area, and amendment of this
Declaration.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undesigned, being the Declarant herein, has
hereunto caused thee presents to be executed on this/3 ~day of
1997. ,~0..,/¢7 ,,,),.)?`
J~l ~-. Zylman, J~r~sident
Waters Edge Investment Co.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The for. egoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /~,-¢¢/ day of,
,,~/' 1997, by Joel M Zylman President; Waters Edge Investment Co.
Subscribed and sworn to, before me, this /~." day of ,A//Cf,¢ , 1997.
-27-
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION ~:'. ~ ,i:7~
O_~F
THE MAPLE MANORS HOMEOWNERS, ASSOCIATION, INC.
The undersigned, for the purpose of forming a corporation
under the Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation Act 317A, do hereby
associate ourselves as a body corporate and do hereby adopt the
following Articles of Incorporation:
ARTICLE I.
The name of the Corporation shall be Maple Manors Homeowners'
Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Association")
ARTICLE II.
REGISTERED OFFICE
The registered office of the Association shall be located
6326 Rambler Lane, Mound, Minnesota 55364
ARTICLE III.
PURPOSES AND POWERS
The purposes of the Association are to provide for
maintenance, preservation and architectural control of Lots and
Common Area (as said terms are defined in the Declaration referred
to in subparagraph b of this Article III ) within the following
described property, to-wit:
Lot 11. Block 1. Maple Manors Addition, Hennepin County,
hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property", together
with such additional land as may be brought within the
-1-
jurisdiction of the Association by amendments of the Declaration
referred to in subparagraph b. of this Article III., or by
annexation in the manner provided in said Declaration; to promote
the health, safety and welfare of the residents within the
Property, and to maintain insurance as provided in the
Declaration, all as set forth in the Declaration.
To accomplish the foregoing purpose, the Association shall
have the following powers:
a. To operate and function exclusively as a non-profit
corporation with the right, powers and privileges permitted
by Chapter 317A of the Minnesota Statutes.
b. To exercise all of the powers and privileges and to
perform all of the duties and obligations of the Association
as set forth in that certain DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR MAPLE MANORS
ADDITION (herein called the "Declaration") applicable to the
Property and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder
for Hennepin County, Minnesota, and as the same maybe
supplemented, amended, or restated from time to time as
therein provided,said Declaration being incorporated herein
as if set forth at length.
c. To fix, levy, collect and enforce payment by any
lawful means, all charges or assessments against the
Property, to pay all expenses in connection therewith and all
office and other expenses incident to the conduct of the
business of the Association including all licenses, taxes or
-2-
-2-
governmental charges levied against the Association or its
Property.
d. To acquire (by gift, purchase or otherwise), own,
hold, ~mprove, operate, maintain, convey, sell, lease,
transfer, dedicate for public use, or otherwise dispose of
real or personal property in connection with the affairs of
the Association.
e. To borrow money, and, subject to the requirement of
obtaining the written assent of two-thirds (2/3rds) of each
class of Members as is required in the Declaration, to
mortgage, pledge, deed in trust, or hypothecate any or all of
its real or personal property as security for money borrowed
or debts incurred.
f. To dedicate, sell or transfer all or any part of the
Common Area of the Property to any public agency, authority
or utility or non-profit corporation organized for the same
general purposes as this Association, for such purposes and
subject to such conditions as the Association shall deem
appropriate. However, no such dedication, sale or transfer
shall be effective unless an instrument directing such
dedication, sale or transfer shall have been signed by such
number, if any, of each class of members and, of the holders
of first mortgages of record against Lots as is required by
the Declaration, agreeing to such dedication, sale or
transfer.
g. To participate in mergers and consolidations with
other non-profit corporations organized for the same
-3-
purposes,provided that such merger or consolidation shall
have been approved by an instrument signed by two-thirds
(2/3rds) of each class of Members, or two-thirds (2/3rds)
percent of the first mortgages;
h. To enforce any and all covenants, conditions, and
restrictions applicable to the Property:
i. To do any other thing now or hereafter permitted a
corporation organized under the non-profit corporation law of
Minnesota. which in the opinion o~ the Board of Directors of
the Association, will promote the co~on benefit and
enjoyment of the members of the Association.
The foregoing enumeration of powers is made in furtherance,
and not in limitation, of the powers conferred upon this
Association by law, and is not intended, by the mention of any
particular power, to exclude, limit or restrict any lawful power
to which this Association may be otherwise entitled.
ARTICLE IV
NO PECUNIARY GAIN TO MEMBERS
The Association does not and shall not afford pecuniary gain.
incidentally or otherwise, to its m~mhers.
ARTICLE V.
MEMBERSHIP
Every person or entity who is a record owner, whether one or
more persons or entities, of the simple title to any Lot
including contract sellers, but excluding those having such
--4--
interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation
which is subject by the covenants of record to assessment by the
Association shall be a member of the Association. Membership
shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership
of any Lot which is subject to assessment by the Association. No
property rights inheres in any membership, and memberships are
not transferable, except in connection with transfer of the
fee or equitable interest out of which the membership arises.
ARTICLE VI.
VOTING RIGHTS
The Association shall have two classes of voting membership:
Class A: Class A members shall be all Owners, with the
exception of the Declarant (as said terms are defined in the
Declaration), an4 shall be entitle4 to one vote for each Lot
owned. When more than one person hol4s an interest in any
Lot, all said persons shall be members. The vote for said
Lot shall be exercised as they among themselves determine,
but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect
to any Lot owned by a Class A member.
Class B: The Class B member shall be the Declarant.
Declarant shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each Lot
in the Property owned by the Declarant The Class B
membership shall cease and be converted to Class A membership
on the happening of either of the following events, whichever
occurs earlier:
a. When the total votes outstanding in the Class A
membership is greater than the total votes outstanding in the
--5--
Class B membership, or
b. On June 30, 2001,
Thereafter, Declarant shall be entitled to one (1) vote for
each Lot owned by the Declarant in the Property.
ARTICLE VII
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The affairs of the Association shall be managed by a Board of
Directors. The initial Board of Directors shall consist of
three(3) directors, each of whom shall continue until the first
meeting of the members and until his successor is elected and
qualified. The names and addresses of the members of the
first Board of Directors are as follows:
Joel M. Zylman
6326 Rambler Lane
Mound. Minnesota 55364
Christina F. Zylman
6326 Rambler Lane
Mound. Minnesota 55364
Linda R. Jacaruso
1850 S.W. Crane Creek Ay.
Palm City, FL 34990-2216
-6-
At the first annual meeting the members shall elect five (5)
directors. Who need not be members of the Association. Until this
first annual meeting of the members, the Board shall consist of
the three persons named in the Articles of Incorporation. After
the first annual meeting of the members, the Board mayconsist of
five (5) directors.
Article VIII,
DURATION
The duration of the Association shall be perpetual.
ARTICLE IX.
CAPITALSTOCK
The Association shall have no capital stock.
ARTICLE X.
PERSONAL LIABILITY OF MEMBERS
The members of this Association shall have no liability for
obligations of the Association.
ARTICLE XI
DISSOLUTION
The Association may be dissolved with the assent given in
writing and signed by not less than two-thirds (2/3rds) of each
class of members. Upon dissolution of the Association, other
than incident to a merger or consolidation, the assets of the
Association shall be dedicated to an appropriate public agency to
be used for purposes similar to those for which this Association
was created. In the event that said dedication is refused
acceptance, said assets shall be granted, conveyed and assigned
to any non-profit corporation, association, trust or other
-7-
organization to be devoted to such similar purposes.
ARTICLE XII.
AMENDMENTS
Amendment to these Articles shall require the assent of members
owning two-thirds (2/3rds) of the Lots (as that term is defined
in the Declaration).
ARTICLE XIII.
iNCORPORATIONS
The name and address of the Corporation constituting the
incorporator who is forming Maple Manors Homeowners'
Association, Inc is as follows:
Waters Edge Inv. Co.
Joel M. Zylman, Pres.
6326 Rambler Lane
Mound, Minnesota 55364
ARTICLE XIV.
FHA/VA APPROVAL
As long as there is a Class B membership, the following
actions will require the prior approval of the Federal Housing
Administration or the Veterans Administration: annexation of
additional properties, mergers and consolidations, mortgaging of
Common Area, dedication of Common Area. dissolution and amendment
of these Articles.
-8-
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto executed these Articles
of Incorporation this
day of /~ , 199 7-
',
On this /Z~ day of /~O~ , 199~. before me a notary
public within and for said County, personally appeared Joel M
Zylman,President, Waters Edge Investment Co., to me known to be
the incorporator described in the foregoing instrument and who
executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the same as their free act and deed.
Notary Public
-9-
Z $J
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
April 1997
33.33%
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
April 1997 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
1,266,460 0
6,250 290
121,800 7,018
968,210 14,872
51,100 574
65,000 15,188
43,300 75
43,500 0
10,000 1,164
0 (1,266,460) 0.00%
1,932 (4,318) 30.91%
32,866 (88,934) 26.98%
55,585 (912,625) 5.74%
3,175 (47,925) 6.21%
37,126 (27,874) 57.12%
714 (42,586) 1.65%
0 (43,500) 0.00%
3,897 (6,103) 38.97%
TOTAL REVENUE
135.295 ~ 5.25%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
336,020 38,435
108,320 14,991
1,525,000 107,827
430,000 30,419
880,000 70,295
4,100 550
73,800 (3,282)
152,615 (183,405) 45.42%
30,247 (78,073) 27.92%
409,870 (1,115,130) 26.88%
124,990 (305,010) 29.07%
313,821 (566,179) 35.66%
550 (3,550) 13.41%
66,455 (7,345) 90.05%
05/19~97
rev97
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
April 1997
33.33%
April 1997
BUDGET EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND
Council 69,370 6,365
Promotions 4,000 0
Cable TV 800 125
City Manager/Clerk 193,470 17,612
Elections 2,100 0
Assessing 59,480 1
Finance 168,960 12,387
Computer 23,550 2,859
Legal 114,460 7,036
Police 924,350 80,494
Civil Defense 4,100 97
Planning/Inspections 172,870 16,492
Streets 405,270 39,335
City Property 82,840 6,077
Parks 148,550 10,138
Summer Recreation 36,200 0
Contingencies 20,000 1,938
Transfers ,161,390 12,869
YTD PERCENT
EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
37,725 31,645 54.38%
0 4,000 0.00%
225 575 28.13%
64,341 129,129 33.26%
1,759 341 83.76%
358 59,122 0.60%
50,034 118,926 29.61%
10,224 13,326 43.41%
26,775 87,685 23.39%
287,064 637,286 31.06%
773 3,327 18.85%
50,550 122,320 29.24%
160,418 244,852 39.58%
25,741 57,099 31.07%
38,051 110,499 25.61%
0 36,200 0.00%
6,405 13,595 32.03%
51,477 109,913 31.90%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,591,760
213,825 811.920 1,779,840 31.33%
Area Fire
Service Fund 336,020
Recycling Fund 118,950
Liquor Fund 289,020
Water Fund 429,300
Sewer Fund 1,020,460
Cemetery Fund 8,100
Docks Fund 68,440
30,420 93,504 242,516 27.83%
22,191 46,489 72,461 39.08%
19,768 73,418 215,602 25.40%
28,120 113,511 315,789 26.44%
86,864 391,581 628,879 38.37%
2,471 3,348 4,752 41.33%
'1,263 6,898 61,542 10.08%
Exp-97
05/19~97
G.B.
MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - MAY 15, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m. Members Present: Brewer, Longpre, Pietrowski,
Jensen, Drahos and Willette. Absent and Excused: Meisel and Cook. Also Present: Bruce
Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; and Ed
Shukle, City Manager.
Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Longpre and carried unanimously, the minutes of the April 17,
1997 meeting were approved.
Lost Lake Improvement Project
Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator and Ed Shukle, City Manager updated the
Commission on the status of the permit applications, schedule and other issues. Chamberlain
indicated that the MCWD application process delayed the project so that the dredging is set back
some but still can be accomplished in 1997. He indicated that the DNR permit is in the process of
being sent to the City. The Corps of Engineers permit is still under review and Shukle asked that
Chamberlain track that as closely as possible. Chamberlain also indicated that he was going to
review the dredge disposal sites with certain landowners in the area.
Auditor's Road Improvement Project
Ed Shukle reviewed the status of the right of way properties and the current traffic analysis that the
City is undergoing with Hennepin County in the Auditor's Road, 15 and 110 areas. It is still the
intention of the City to proceed on the realignment in 1997.
Update on Westonka Community_ Center/Senior Center
Ed Shukle updated the Commission on the activities of the joint cities/school district study of the
possible restoration of the existing community center. He indicated that an analysis is being
prepared and will include a cost estimate on the renovation of the existing property that should be
ready for review by July 1.
Update on Discussions with Planning Commission
Bruce Chamberlain indicated that he has been attending recent planning commission meetings to
discuss zoning, signing and other possible changes in the downtown area as a result of the
implementation of the Mound Visions program.
Other Business
Ed Shulde distributed some information from John Dean, City Attorney, regarding the Open Meeting
Law and how it affects the City's advisory commissions. Dean will be making a presentation at the
Economic Development Commission Minutes
May 15, 1997
Page 2
Committee of the Whole meeting on May 20, 1997. Shukle invited the EDC to attend the meeting,
if their schedules permitted.
It was noted that the next meeting of the EDC is scheduled for Thursday, June 19, 1997, 7 a.m., City
Hall. Jerry Pietrowski is scheduled to bring the rolls.
There being no other business it was moved by Willette, seconded by Drahos and carded
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 a.m.
~ectfully s~ubmffted,
City Manager
MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 12, 1997
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Becky
Glister, Gerald Reifschneider and Orv Burma; Council Representative Mark Hanus; Building
Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Linda Strong. Absent and excused: Commissioners Bill
Voss and Jerry Clapsaddle.
The following persons were also in attendance: Gary Nachreiner, Jeanie and Bruce Turtle and
Todd Hovren.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the April 28, 1997 Planning Commission were presented for approval.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider, to approve the Minutes of
the April 28, 1997 meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE//97-17: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION
GARY NACHREINER, 6056 CHERRYWOOD ROAD
LOTS 6 & 7, BOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS,
PID #23-117-24 34 0088.
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the case had been referred back to the Planning
Commission by the Council at their April 22, 1997 meeting. The applicant has identified two
other homes in the area that he thought were similar to his situation.
The first property is 5952 Idlewood, where a variance was received to allow a reduced front
yard setback in order to allow construction of a new home. Special conditions were found for
this case which included a limited buildable footprint due to topography, wetlands and a 12 foot
wide boulevard that resulted in a 39 foot setback to the dwelling.
The second comparison is 2940 Oaklawn that was developed in 1996. The builder utilized the
line up provision in our zoning code (Section 350:440, Subd. 6) and placed the home in a
conforming location. The Building Official commented that the applicant had specific
circumstances that were reasonable in this case and the variance is the minimum in order to
alleviate the hardship.
The applicant's proposal for a 26-28' garage does not represent the minimum sized garage. If
the depth were reduced to 24', it would be closer to meeting the minimum situation as outlined
in the ordinance.
Staff recommendation remains the same which is consistent with the Planning Commission's
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting
May 12, 1997
recommendation for denial of the applicants request for a 28' garage (which he has verbally
modified to 26'). Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow a 24' deep garage addition
as there appears to be some practical difficulty and limiting topography.
Location of the utilities was discussed. It was asked of the applicant what would be gained by
moving the meters back four feet. The applicant stated he would not gain much, due to the need
for so much insulation in both the old and new portion. Commissioner Mueller stated he
understood the applicant wanted the depth of the garage as deep as possible to store boat on a
trailer. The applicant stated that the purpose was for resale.
Discussion included locating the garage so that it is further back and relocation of utilities. The
Commission consensus was to deny the applicant's request and recommend a 24' deep garage
resulting in only a 4' variance.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend denial of the 28'
x 36' garage, and recommend a 24' x 36' garage resulting in only a 4'
variance. This is the same recommendation they gave previously. The
information provided regarding other cases, no garage had a greater than 24'
depth, each individual property is looked at to see the hardship requirements
with regards to the minimum sized variance. Giving a variance for a 24'
garage is the minimum and is very standard.
Commissioner Michael stated he did not agree, as it is not what the applicant requested. It was
also stated that the existing structure is non-conforming. Commissioner Michael suggested he
bring his information with him to the Council meeting on Tuesday, May 13, 1997.
MOTION carried 6-1, Michael voting nay.
Commissioner Mueller stated findings of facts. Whatever the applicant has stated at the Council
meeting where there were 10-12 properties that were given variances for construction in the
same neighborhood and there were two the applicant brought forward. There is a boulevard in
front of the street which minimizes the 4' variance request. Otherwise, a 22' garage is typically
what we have done in the past. A 24' garage is also one that we have done in the past. We
have never gone over that for an existing structure as he can remember. It appears the applicant
is not willing to spend the extra monies involved in relocating utility services to facilitate a
deeper garage in a portion of the lot that would be in a conforming location.
2
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting
May 12, 1997
CASE//97-18: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE,
BRUCE TUTTLE, 4920 CRESTVIEW ROAD
LOT 3 & 4, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT
13-117-24 11 00087
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the applicant is seeking a variance to the existing
nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a conforming garage. The existing
dwelling is setback 18.4 feet from the front property line abutting Crestview Road. A 30 foot
setback is required resulting in the recognition of a variance of 11.6 feet. All other issues are
conforming in this case. The City Engineer has commented that the applicant may need to
provide a more complete grading plan to insure the elevations will work.
The staff recommends to the Planning Commission approval of the request, as the proposal is
conforming to the ordinance, and is a reasonable use of the property with the condition that the
applicant provides a more complete grading plan that shall be subject to the City Engineer.
The Building Official stated to the Commission that Mr. Tuttle had been in the office that day
and provided a more complete grading/water runoff plan. At the time he was in, the City
Engineer was also present, and he had approved the grading plan.
The Commission discussed this property having two front yards. They asked if the property
would ever be subdivided. The applicant stated no, but due to the slope of the property, this
is where the garage needs to be located. The Building Official confirmed the parcels have been
combined and cannot be subdivided without City approval.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Reifschneider, to approve the variance
request of 11.6 front yard setback, to allow the construction of a detached
garage at 4920 Crestview Road. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE//9%19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION
RANDY MORIARTY, 4536 8,: 4552 DENBIGH ROAD,
LOT 5,6,7,8 & SWLY 1/2 OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON
13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048.
Building Official Jon Sutherland summarized this case. He stated that in November of 1996,
the City Council had approved a minor subdivision involving three lots on property owned by
Randy Moriarty at 4536 and 4552 Denbigh Road. The subdivision created 3 tracts known as
A, B and C. Tracts B and C contained existing homes, one of which (Tract C) is in very poor
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting
May 12, 1997
condition and will be removed as a condition of approval of the subdivision.
This case was difficult because of the bluff variances involved and because it created a new lot.
During the final review of the request, the discussion focused on the removal of the home on
Tract C which was touted as a benefit of approving the minor subdivision. The Planning
Commission Minutes of September 9, 1996 reflect that there is a problem with the bluff zone,
but Mr. Moriarty considers that as a hardship. Jack Cook emphasized that a benefit to this
proposal is that the house on Tract C that is in poor condition, will be removed.
At this time, the applicant is requesting an extension of the minor subdivision approval for either
6 or 12 months, depending on the City's willingness to modify the approval resolution condition
that required the removal of the home on Tract C. The resolution states, "l.f. The house and
garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for
filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days, see//7) A demolition permit is
required." If the City is not willing to modify this provision, the applicant would like the
approval time to be extended for 1 year.
The staff recommends the Planning Commission hold to the original approval of the resolution
#96-116.
Todd Hovren, a representative for Mr. MORIARTY was present, and stated that the owners
were out of state for the summer working and could not be here to demolish this summer.
Commissioner Mueller mentioned that only one extension is allowable for subdivisions. The
applicant would need to reapply after the extension expired.
MOTION by Mueller to deny the application for extension based on the fact
that the impact to the bluff has not changed and allowing another structure
on DENBIGH Road that is congested is not a good idea, all of which were
included in the original minutes on this resolution. Nothing has changed.
Mueller does not recommend yet another structure to be built on Denbigh
Road that cannot meet the setback requirements of our zoning code. Motion
seconded by Reifschneider.
Chair Michael asked for discussion.
Hanus confirmed that this was a motion to deny the extension.
Mueller confirmed he made the motion for denial due to all of the reasons that were mentioned
before.
MOTION carried 6-1, Hanus voting nay.
NOTE: There was additional discussion on the consensus of the Planning Commission that
4
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting
May 12, 1997
variance extension requests could go directly to the City Council. This item will go to the City
Council on May 27, 1997.
LETTER FROM GENE L. PETERSON TO NEIGHBOR ROBERT RICHARDS COPIED TO
PLANNING COMMISSION.
Building Official Jon Sutherland explained that Mr. Peterson, 6017 Ridgewood, is selling their
home. When a potential buyer, who would like to build an addition, was visiting, Mr.
Richards began verbally opposing any changes on the property and Mr. Peterson responded with
this letter that is for your information.
ADD-ON
GEOFF MICHAEL ATTENDING THE SPRING PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING
REGARDING G-WILL LIQUORS
Geoff Michael discussed the issue of his attending the Spring Park City Council meeting on the
proposed G-Will Liquors Store. He would like to invite the establishment to think about
bringing their business in Mound if Spring Park is not in favor. It was the consensus of the
Planning Commission that he could qualify himself, but not speak on behalf of the Planning
Commission.
MEETING DATE CHANGE - MAY 19, 1997 AT 6 PM
Discussion was held on the time of the May 19th Planning Commission meeting as Mr. Michael
would be attending the Spring Park City Council meeting that evening. Consensus was to hold
the May 19th Planning Commission at 6 pm on that Monday, and also to postpone Bruce
Chamberlain's report on the downtown uses until June 9, 1997 regular Planning Commission
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller and carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 9:05 pm.
Chair Geoff Michael
Attest
zooq
MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1997, 6 PM
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Gerald
Reifschneider, Bill Voss and Orv Burma; Council Representative Mark Hanus; Building Official
Jon Sutherland and Secretary Linda Strong. Absent and excused: Commissioners Michael
Mueller and Jerry Clapsaddle.
The following persons were also in attendance: Harry Nasset and Fred Johnson.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the May 12, 1997 Planning Commission were presented for approval.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Glister, to approve the Minutes of the May
12, 1997 meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE #97-20: FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION
MODIFICATION.
CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD, TEAL POINTE
LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PID #25-117-24 12 0233.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planners report. The applicant is seeking
approval of a front yard setback variance and modification of one of the conditions of the
approval resolution for the Teal Pointe subdivision in order to construct a new home. The
parcel in question is Lot 3, Block 1 of Teal Pointe which fronts on both a short street (Outlot
A) and an unimproved portion of Drummond Road. Because of the location of the lot, it is
required to observe a 20 foot setback off of Drummond Road. A 10 foot setback is being
proposed, hence the variance of 10 feet.
When the preliminary plat for Teal Pointe was reviewed and subsequently approved, the
developer proposed vacation of parts of Drummond Road. In the course of the review of the
preliminary plat, the right-of-way was not vacated and the plat continued to identify an incorrect
10 foot setback from the Drummond Road right-of-way. Presumably, the plat was drawn
assuming setbacks with the right-of-way having been vacated. As a result, Caliber Homes is
seeking a 10 foot setback variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the lot line. This
case is similar to Bradley Whyte, 5090 Windsor, which was approved by the City Council.
Variances can be granted on a basis of findings that either a hardship or practical difficulty
exists. In this case, the requested variance is reasonable as a practical difficulty since the
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
Drummond Road right-of-way is likely to exist as perpetual open space in the future because of
the steep terrain. The fact that the new home does not compromise the future use of the public
right-of-way are grounds for a finding by the Planning Commission that this case satisfies the
existence of practical difficulty.
The second aspect of the applicant's requests relates to the type of new home construction that
can occur on this lot as well as Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1. Lots 1, 2, and 3 all intrude into a bluff
area as defined by the Shoreland Ordinance. Because of the timing of this development relative
to the adoption of Mound's shoreland standards, the approval resolution granted "A variance
from Section 330:1225. Subd. 4 (B) to allow minimal fill for home construction on these lots
(1-3) within the bluff impact zone and/or bluff area."
The resolution also stated the homes constructed on Lots 1-3 shall be caisson and/or cantilevered
structures. Prior to issuing building permits, the developer shall submit a set of plans prepared
by a registered Landscape Architect for review by the City.
The idea of the caisson and cantilevered homes on Lots 1-3 was offered by the developer as a
means to lessen the impact on the steep slope. At this time, the developer is seeking to modify
this clause in the resolution to allow the construction of traditional single family homes, with full
basements. Staff does not oppose traditional homes on Lots 1-3, providing the impact on the
site is no more sever that it would have been with the caisson and cantilevered homes. The
grading plans previously submitted are not definitive nor is it in total compliance with the plan
submittal requirements identified in the resolution. The City Engineer and Planner are
comfortable in taking action on the request, but require the missing information to be submitted
for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.
The rear elevation of the home plans by Caliber Builders show a sliding door at the basement
level that will access into the back yard. It is assumed that the Builder will want to place some
form of deck or patio in this area to allow limited use of the rear portion of the home. Only a
minimal encroachment for a deck or patio should be allowed in this area consistent with the
intent of the original approval and the conservation easement that protects most of the rear of
this lot.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
requested 10 foot front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-of-way
of Drummond Road. The facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty.
Staff further recommends that item 16 of Resolution 95-13 be modified to remove the
requirement for caisson and cantilevered structures. The remainder of the condition should be
amended to read: "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3, the developer shall
submit a set of plans prepared by registered engineers and landscape architects for review by the
City. The plans shall contain a detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10'
identifying existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory, an
2
Planning Cotnrnission Minutes
May 19, 1997
erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. Additionally, the grading plan shall note
all site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate details shall be provided.
Also, complete plans for the proposed construction on Lot 3 consistent with the mentioned
requirements shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner
prior to issuance of a building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shall be
limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
The applicant Fred Johnson was present along with Harry Nasset.
Chair Michael opened discussion.
Weiland mentioned his concern of what would happen to lots 7 & 8 later on. Would all of these
lots be requesting variances? The idea of cantilever homes was good at the beginning, why not
now? He listed several conditions in the original resolution that were now being changed. He
stated he was against changing the style of the home on Lot 3, and also 1 & 2.
Chair Michael clarified that there was two requests. One for a 10 foot setback and the other to
change the style of house from cantilever to traditional foundation.
Weiland wondered how the street vacation on Drummond did not happen and the vacation
remained on the plans.
Hanus stated the lot line goes through Drummond, but that portion of Drummond was never
vacated.
The front yard was discussed. The property has two street frontages and a 20' front yard
setback is required to both streets.
Voss was concerned with how this plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Sutherland
stated it fits the residential zoning district and the development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and complies with the zoning ordinance. There is the practical difficulty
with the area being steep.
Reifschneider questioned how the slope would be maintained with a conventional house?
Sutherland stated there would be several retaining walls erected to support the slope. Plans must
be developed by a landscape architect and an engineer. These plans will be then reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and City Planner who is a certified landscape architect.
Voss commented there 17 variances granted for this PDA.
Sutherland stated there had been a considerable amount of discussion regarding this development
and the developer had made the plans to appease the Commission's requests.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
Hanus stated there had been concern with erosion of the slope and the developer designed the
area to suit this concern.
Mr. Nasset stated that several cassions would be needed to support slope and home and that a
full basement would be better.
Sutherland stated the change to the resolution does allow conventional construction on Lots 1,
2 and 3, and the city planner and engineer are comfortable with the conditions.
Weiland stated he would like to see the plans for the retaining walls now that the foundation has
changed and that this variance would affect lots 1 and 2 also.
Chair Michael asked for a motion.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider, to approve the requested 10
foot front yard variance to allow a home to be placed 10 feet from the right-
of-way of Drummond road and to modify item #16 of Resolution 95-13 to
remove the requirement for cassion and cantilevered structures. To amend
the condition to say "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3,
the developer shah submit a set of plans prepared by registered engineers and
landscape architects for review by the City. The plans shah contain a
detailed grading plan at a scale of not larger than 1" = 10' identifying
existing and proposed contours in one foot increments, a lot tree inventory,
an erosion control plan and a detailed landscaping plan. The grading plan
shah note aH site features such as retaining walls and decks and appropriate
details shah be provided." Complete plans for the proposed construction on
Lot 3 consistent with the above requirement shall be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to issuance of a
building permit. Grading and the construction of a deck or patio shah be
limited to the area extending eight feet to the rear of the proposed home.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Burma stated the resolution was passed by the Planning Commission earlier with the intention
that that portion of Drummond Road would be vacated. He was concerned the second plan
remained the same as the first, showing the vacation.
Hanus asked what the impact would be changing plans from a cassion foundation to a full
basement.
Nasset commented that complications could arise with pipes freezing, heating problems and that
eventually the owner would request to enclose the cassions to a full basement.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
Sutherland stated that many homes in Mound have been built into steep slopes. He mentioned
Highland Blvd., Ridgewood Road and Denbigh Road. He stated that with the conditions as
listed in the staff recommendation, he was comfortable with the change from caisson to
conventional construction.
Hanus stated that the revised plans would be reviewed by the Planner and Engineer prior to
issuance of any permits.
Fred Johnson stated, as the builder, he had to guarantee the home for 2 years and that
structurally, enclosing the pipes and basement would be better and keep soil in place.
Glister stated that the Commission had approved the PDA as an entire package and did not like
to redo here and there.
Hanus asked if this changes the initial PDA and if a new public hearing would be required?
Sutherland stated this was a minor change, he and Planner Mark Koegler had discussed this and,
in their opinion, a new public hearing would not be required.
Michael stated this change in setback and style only affect Lots 1, 2, and 3. This style of house
would also add footage to the dwelling.
The vote was called. Motion to approve the requested 10 foot front yard
setback and to allow the style of dwelling to be changed to a full basement as
opposed the cantilever/cassion style dwelling. All change in plans must be
approved by the Planner, Engineer and Building Official. Landscape plans
must be included as prepared by a certified landscape architect. The motion
carried 4-3. Weiland, Michael and Glister voting nay.
This item will be on the May 27, 1997 City Council Agenda.
MINUTES OF THE DOCK AND COMMONS MEETING OF APRIL 3, 1997 & APRIL 17,
1997.
There were no comments.
Discussion - Truth in Zoning
5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1997
The Commission discussed briefly bringing to the Council again some form of Truth in Zoning.
Hanus stated he could forecast definite positive aspects. However, he was concerned about the
cost to people. Michael stated it would be a good thing to have for realtors.
The Building Official commented another option to a Truth in Zoning requirement could be to
require an updated Certificate of Survey at the point of sale, and this would help identify non
conforming issues.
Adjournment
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider, and carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 7:15 pm.
Chair
Attest:
LAKE MINNETONKA cONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 28, 1997
Tonka Bay City Hall
Bay,
p_.U__UBLIC HEARING
7:00 City of the~iliage of Minnetonka Beach, 2945 Westwood Road, Crystal
Consideration of a dock length variance application from LMCD Code to extend the dock
at dock site 2 from 60' to 80'.
CALL TO oRDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
READING OF MINUTES- 5/14/97 Regular Board Meeting
pUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subiects not on agenda (,5 min.)
cONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion
unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item wilt be
removed from the consent agenda.
for
1. WATER sTRUCTURES
A. City of Mound- Lost Lake Channel, Discussion on request for lighted buoys
natural vegetation at north end of proposed project;
B. City of the Village of I~linr~etonka Beach, Discussion on Public Hearing for dock
length from LMCD Code;
C. Lord Fletcher's of the Lake, Staff recommending the Board declare a negative
declaration regarding an Environmental impact Statement (,ELS} on the proposed
project, consideration of new multiple dock and special density license applications;
D. 1997 Multiple Dock Licenses, approval of 199Bmultiple dock license applications
as outlined in 5/21197 staff memo;
E. Additional Business;
LAKE USE & RECREATION
*A. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
ITEM
1.A
May 21, 1997
Greg Nybeck
L~e Minnetonka Conservation District
From: Bruce Chamberlain
Lost Lge C~,"d Project Manager
Re'. Buoys proposed at the no,'th end of the Lost Lake canal.
At the noah end of the proposed Lost Lake canal there will be a boat turn-around formed much
like a cul-de-sac. The center of the turn-around is planned to be a wetland vegetation restoration
area. tn other words, the existing cattmls will be removed and a native wetland plant community
of diverse, low growing species will be re-~stablished.
As the project was going through the permitting process with the MCWD earlier this year, one of
the MCWD board members raised a valid concern that boats may try to drive across the
revcgetation area unless it is delineated. As a re.~ult the MCWD made the inclusion of lighted
buoys i~round the perimeter of the area a condition of their permit approval. As we were going
th¥ough the proces.~ with the MCWD. it did not dawn on me that the buoys may be a concern to
thc LMCD (I am not sure why Gene Su-onm~en who .~hould be familiar with LMCD rules did not
point this out). None the less, the MCWD permit is conditional on installing lighted buoy.,-' and it
appem's that the LMCD does not typically allow them m their rules so we obviously need to deal
with the situation to fred common ground.
I will be at the May 28 LMCD meeting to di.~cuss the issue. As we discussed today, tt will be
important that you and 1 mid NICWD staff talk prior to that to address concerns and see if we can
formulate ~ approach that wonlcl be palatable to all par~ies and then pose it to the DMCD and
MCWD Boards. If you have any questions, give me a call. I will call you on Tuesday morning
for a conference call with MCWD stat'f.
(612') g35-9960 Fax (612) 835-3100
Lake Minnetonka Conservatiou District
Regular Board Meeting
May 14, 1997
Ce
Page 2
Discussion and consideration of new on-sale liquor license public hearing for
Aahhhz of Excelsior Park and the charter boat Biueline
MOTION: Foster moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the new on-sale liquor
license for the Aahhz or Excelsior park and the charter boat
Blueline for 1997.
¥OTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion and consideration of new on-sale liquor license public hearing for
Wayzata Bay Charters and the charter boat Triple Crown
Reese noted no charter boat name was entered on the application. Staff was
directed to add Triple Crown to the application and change the files from Wayzata
Bay Charters to Triple Crown.
MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded to approve the on-sale liquor
license for Wayzata Bay Charters and the charter boat Triple
Crown for 1997.
vOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion and consideration of new beer and wine licenses public hearing for
Holiday Fair, Inc. and the charter boat Holiday Fair.
MOTION: Foster moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the new beer and
wine licenses for Holiday Fair, Inc. and the charter boat Holiday
Fair for 1997.
vOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
F. Pelican Point ttOA, request for LMCD to place two slow-wake buoys at the
approaches to the channel which separates Pelican Point from Pelican Point
Islaud at the south end of Spring Park Bay
Babcock introduced this agenda item noting the request is on the Southwest comer
of Spring park BaY. He added the Board may want to consider this request
provided the distance between the shoreline and the island is 300' or less. Foster
stated he believed members should have an opportunity to look at the site. it was
the consensus of the Board to review the site during the lake inspection tour lune
7*. The agenda item was tabled to the 6/11/97 meeting.
G. Suburban ltennepin Regional Park District, request for LMCD to places
slow-wake buoys 300' out from the shoreline at the Lake Minnetonka
Regional Park.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 14, 1997
Page 4
Be
Audit of Vouchers for Payment
5/1/97 - 5/15/97
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment.
MOTION: Rascop moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for
payment.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Schedule Officer and Board Review of Draft 1998 Budget
A meeting was scheduled for 8:15 on Wednesday, 6/21/97 to have a preliminary review
of the draft 1998 budget.
Additional Business
Gilman stated there is a need to review reimbursement of vacation when an employee
resigns. Staff was directed to include this policy in the 5/28/97 Board packet.
WATER STRUCTURES
A. Woodend Shores Beach Association, minor change application to realign non-
confornfing dock structure to extend perpendicular from the shoreline.
Babcock introduced the agenda item noting the slip sizes and locations are
generally staying the same size.
MOTION: Reese moved, Foster seconded to approve the minor change
application to realign the Woodend Shores Beach Association
multiple dock structure to extend perpendicular from the shoreline.
Bm
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance Amendment, 1st reading of an ordinance relating to special
density licenses; amending LMCD Code 2.05, Subdivision 5.
Babcock introduced this agenda item noting this is a response to previous Board
cornments on special density licenses and would change the word "municipality"
to "city".
MOTION:
Rascop moved, Gilman seconded to approve the 1~' reading of the
ordinance, to waive 2"a and 3~ readings, and to adopt the
ordinance.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance Amendment, 1st reading of an ordinance relating to side setbacks
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 14, 1997
Page 6
Bo
Appointment of new secretary on Board of Officers
Babcock reported with Joe Zwak's resignation, :here is a vacancy for secretary of
the Board of Officers. He opened the floor for nomination for which there were
none. He noted that Foster has indicated he would serve as Secretary for the
remainder of 1997.
MOTION: Nelson moved, Rascop seconded to appoint Bert Foster as
Secretary for the remainder of 1997.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Additional Business
There was no additional business.
e
SAVE THE LAKE
Nybeck noted a solicitation letter had been sent out.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
· Nybeck stated the office will be closed on Memorial Day.
· He stated he would be taking a vacation day May 23, 1997.
· He noted there is a concern from staff regarding the sun between 7:30 - 9:30 a.m.,
which makes it virtually impossible to use the computers. He recommended the
purchase of mini blinds for the windows. He reviewed bids received noting Window
Van Go was the Iow bidder at $1877 to do the whole office.
MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded to approve the bid in the amount of
$1872.00 for mini blinds.
VOTE:
Motion carded unanimously.
go
e
10.
OLD BUSINESS
Nelson asked if there is any additional intbrmation on tax - deductibility status of Save the
Lake donations. Nybeck stated LeFevere reported the Save the Lake is tax deductible and
that receipts must be provided for donations of $250 or more tbr auditing purposes.
NEW BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at $: 16 p.m.
22 May 1997
i.., ?_ 3 1997
RECEIVED
Mayor Polston
Mound City Hall
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mayor Polston,
l'm very concerned about the situation concerning the community center. I have
two children ages 4 and 2 that have benefited greatly from the ECFE and
Preschool programs for over 3 - 1/2 years. I have just recently found out that
nothing is being done about either the deteriorating condition of the present
community center or the building of the new community center. I have been told
that the city of Mound won't make a decision on which way to go. If nothing is
decided, l've heard there is a possibility that ECFE will have to be held at a
temporary site with hours that will be extremely difficult for most families that
depend on ECFE. I have come to rely on ECFE, the support and information the
staff and other parents have provided has been extremely beneficial in the raising of
my children. It would be a shame if the city continues to sit on the fence concerning
this issue, there are so many families that need the services provided by the
community center and ECFE programs. We need a place that is safe and
committed to the children and parents of this community.
Sincerely,
Linda Dreyer
6371 Bay Ridge Road
Mound, MN 55364
472-7720
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 27, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah
Weycker. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward $. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Mark Koegler, and
City Clerk Fran Clark.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
1.1 *A.
*CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 13, 1997 REGULAR MEETING ........... 1809-1824
*B.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 1997 COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE MEETING .............................................................................. 1825-1827
*C.
CASE 97-18: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, BRUCE TUTTLE,
4920 CRESTVIEW ROAD, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT,
13-117-24 11 00087 ................................................................................. 1828-1838
} ,~. *D. CASE 97-19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION, RANDY
MORIARTY, 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, 7, 9 & SWLY 1/2
OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 ........................... 1839-1847
'' "t'
~,~.~~l~ t~,~7 , _ ..,.. .
~~ - ~o, ~~ - ~.
*E.
CASE 96-24: REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE, KEVIN
DONAHOE, 1801 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6, SHADY-
WOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0005 .......................................................1848-1851
*F.
SET PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT, LOST LAKE CANAL PROJECT. SUGGESTED DATE:
JUNE 10, 1997
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT RE:
MINNESOTA TRAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ............................................. 1852
*I.
CASE 97-20: FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION MODIFICATION,
CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD, TEAL POINTE, LOT 3,
BLOCK 1, PID//25-117-24 12 0233 ................. 1864-1882
*J. LICENSE RENEWALS: CLUB ON-SALE; SUNDAY SALES; ON-SALE WINE; ON-SALE BEER;
*K. SET BID OPENING FOR SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS. SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE
18, 1997, 11 A.M ................................................ 1884
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION- TEMPORARY LAND ALTERATION 4829 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE/DEVON COMMONS .............................. 4 ........... 1885~1892 _
CASE 96-64: RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL RE: REVISED PRELIMINARY
PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES FOR SETON BLUFF, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
LOTS 15-32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54 ................... .. ............... 1893-1963
DISCUSSION: PROPOSED COOPE~TIVE AGREEME~ BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MOUND AND THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
(MCWD) RE: STORMWATER MANAGEME~ - TO BE HA~ED OUT TUESDAY EVE~NG
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, JOE ZYLMAN, MAPLE MANORS ........... 1964-2055
7. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
o
Bo
Co
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR APRIL 1997 AS PREPARED BY GINO
BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ........................................................... 2056-2057
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 15,
1997 ................................................................................................... 2058-2059
MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12TH & 19TH, 1997 .................... 2060-2067
REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED MONDAY, MAY 26,1997
IN OBSERVANCE OF MEMORIAL DAY
JOINT COMMITTEE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF MINNETRISTA
AND CITY OF MOUND WILL BE MEETING AT 7:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY,
MAY 28, 1997 AT MINNETRISTA CITY HALL
MOTION made by , seconded by to adjourn at'P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
Feb, 17, 1997 ll'04AM
MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
No, 6755
P, 2/5
(Draft)
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
for the
City of Mound Wet Detention Ponds
(1/22/97)
This Cooperative Agreement is made this __ day of' ,1997, by and between
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (hereinafter referred to as "MCWD"), a
watershed district created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D; the City of
Mound, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), a municipal corporation under the laws of
IVfmnesota.
1. Recitals and Statement of Purpose
WHEREAS, multiple sites to accommodate stormwater wet detention ponds have
been identified in the City of Mound; and
WHE~, stormwater tributary to the identified sites drains to Lake
Minnetonka; and
WHEREAS, the stonnwater draining from the land to Lake Minnetonka contains
pollutants such as phosphorus and sediment which contribute to declines in water quality;
and
WHEREAS, the downtown development 'associated with the Lost Lake Canal
Rehabilitation Project wiIl require storrnwater treatment with wet detention ponds for
individual projects or for combined properties served by a regional facility; and
WHEREAS, MCWD Rule B sets out the MCWD's policies and requirements
relating to stormwater management for individual projects, specifically that wet detention
ponds for individual projects be constructed on-site where practicable and effective; and,
WHEREAS MCWD Rule B also acknowledges that there may be occasions where
it will be difficult to accommodate wet detention ponds on individual sites, and in those
cases the MCWD may instead accept a contribution to a dedicated MCWD water
qualky/stormwatcr storage fund in lieu of on-site requirements if there is also an
agreement for a regional facility in place with the affected municipality.
Feb, 17.
lgg? ll'04AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No, 6755
3/5
NOW THEREFORE, Ff I$ MUTUALLY AGREED by and between the MCWD
and the City that they enter into this Cooperative Agreement in order to:
a) document the understanding ofthe parties as to the installation of regional
stormwater detention facilities to meet National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards
for ~tormwater treatment ponds;
b) reaffirm the commitment of each party as to the general responsibilities and
tasks to be undertaken by each party, and
c) facilitate communication and cooperation among the parties to ensure
successful completion and maintenance of the wet detention ponds to achieve the ultimate
goal of maximizing the treatment eapabilitie, s ofthe facilities.
2. General Responsibilitie~ of Partie~
2.1 MCWD Responsibilities: '
2.1.1. The MCWD shall be respons~le for the design, permitting and
construction of the wet dctention ponds required to provide regional treatment for
st o_rmw~at ~¢.vj'cinit~ of downtown Mound. :~.2. CLW of Mound Responsiohities
2.2.1 The City shall be respons~le for providing the wet detention pond sites,---
required easements and necessary city project permits on an in-kind basis;
2.2,2 The City shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the ~
stormwater detention ponds in accordance with the Maintenance Plan set forth as
A/tachment 1 to this Agreement. The City shall be solely responsible for maintenance
costs incurred in carrying out the obligations outlined in the Mainienance Plan.
2.2.3 Within six (6) months from the date of this agreement, the City shall
develop and implement a Best Management practices .(BIv[P) Plan for the entire city to
minimize pollutants entering stormwater, including but not limited to:
a. Periodic street and parking lot sweeping, including fall leaf removal; -,.-
b. Encouragement of the city-wide use of non-phosphorus lawn fertilizers; -
c. Regular inspection and maintenance of existing sediment traps and
basins throughout the city;
Feb, 17, 1997 ll'05AM MCCOMBS PRANK ROOS No. 6755
P, 4/.5
d. Regular inspection and maintenance of outfall structures to all natural
ponds and lakes;
e. Requirement of and enforc~nent of silt fence use on all surface
disturbances due to grading, maint~ance and construction;
f. Develop policies and disseminate information to its residents on a variety
· of BMP's relating to water quality, including but not limited to:
> use of non-phosphorus lawn fertilizer
> proper yard wazte disposal
> protecting exposed soil from erosion;
g Evaluae winter street snow removal stora§e for impact on water
resources and implemen! BMP's to prevent negative environmental
pacts.
3. Renewal and Termination of Agreement
This Agreement shall terminate on December 3 I, 2001, but may be renewed for
another five year term by written agreement of all of the parties hereto prior to such date.
This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon a ninety (90) day advance written
notice via registered mail, return noticed requested, to the parties identified in this
agreement.
4. Amendments
This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by all of the parties herelo.
5. Notice
Notices to all of the parties to the Agreement shall be given by hand deliver or
First Class Mail addressed to the following representatives of each party to this
Agreement:
a) As to the MCWD:
b) As to the City:
Feb,
17, 1997 ii'05AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No, 6755
P, 5/5
Dated
lV[INN~IqAHA CtLEEK WAT£1:LSI-I~ED DISTILICT
By
Its
Dated
Attachment 1
City of Mound
By
Its
MAINTENANCE PLAN
1. The City shall inspect the wet detention ponds once a year to determine if the
ponds' retention and treatment characteristics are adequate. A pond will be considered
inadequate if sediment at the pond outfall interferes with the flow of stormwater into the
pond, or the sediment has decreased the wet storage volume by one-half of its original
design volume. If the pond(s) or outfa[1 sediment delta is identified for sediment cleanout,
the City shall remove the sediment delta and restore the pond(s) to the original contours
within one year of the inspection date.
2. The City shall inspect the outfall structures for evidence of erosion and blockage in
the spring and fall of' each year. The City shall remove all sediment and debris during the
inspections such that the outfall operates as designed.
3. In the event that the City is unable to or fails to perform the inspections and
maintenance established in this Maintenance Plan and Agreement, the MCWD will give 30
days notice to the City of the MCWD's intent to perform the inspection(s) and/or
maintenance. If ai~er :30 days notice, the City remains unable or has failed to perform the
inspections and maintenance, the MCWD will perform the inspection(s) and maintenance
and charge the City for the costs of these activities.
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: atrys@kennedy-graven.com
May 23, 1997
JOHN B. DEAN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9207
Louis N. Smith, Esq.
Sm;th Parker, a Profess,_'onal
Limited Liability Partnership
808 Colwell Building
123 North Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55401
BY FAX AND MAIL
344-1550
RE: Draft Cooperative Agreement Between The City of Mound ami MCWD
Dear Mr. Smith:
Ed Shukle, has reviewed your letter to him dated May 21 with John Cameron, Mound's
consulting engineer and with me; and has requested that I provide you with the City's response.
Your letter was clearly an important step forward in arriving at an agreement which meets
the mutual and the separate concerns of both parties. We agree entirely with your suggestions
for the new paragraph 3, and your proposed language for the former paragraph 3 (I assume it will
be renumbered).
We offer the following suggestions in the form of changes to the other paragraphs which
were contained in your letter. The changes are greylined for your review.
"2.1.1 The MCWD shall be responsible for the design, permitting and construction of the
wet detention pond(s) required to provide regional treatment for stormwater in the vicinity of
downtown Mound. The pond(s) as designed must meet NURP standards. The MCWD will
txansmit the final draft design to the City for review and comment. The City will have 45 days
from receipt of the final draft design to provide comments to the MCWD, including comments
on whether the design is in compliance with applicable City ordinances. If the City fails to
provide specific comments within the 45-day comment period, the design will be deemed
approved by the City. Any disagreements between the City and the MCWD regarding the design
will be resolved through the dispute resolution process set forth in Paragraph 3 of this
Agreement.
JBD123391
MU200-1
Louis N. Smith
May 23, 1997
Page 2
MC~ aCknoWledges and.understands that;once the City has agquired the necess~Y I~d
interests for the Pond(S);: MCWD 'Shall be Obli ated either to;:i) ConStruct:the 0nds to
~Pl~fig~; andi ifneces~y extend ibis agree~nt a SUfficient fi~ for SUch p~se; ::6i ~)i PaY
t~ ~q O~i ~:: amount 0fmoney ~qu~I tothe fees and :charges c0!!<ted from the intend~ ~ers
Ofithe
Due to the relatively short termination date of the agreement, Mound wants to be certain
the ponds will be built once it has acquired the site. Under this language, Mound would have
some assurance that MCWD would either construct the ponds, or turn over the money MCWD
has collected for that purpose so that Mound could construct them.
II.
"2.2.1 The City shall be responsible for obtaining the land rightS to construct the
ponds(s), either through obtaining title to the land or obtaining an easement over the land. The
City shall aB~ provide an easement to the MCWD allowing construction of the pond(s) and long-
term access to the pond(s) for repair and maintenance. ~e City S~a!l not:be re~0~sib!e f0t th~
e~pe~i~e,0~ ~nds necess~: fo~..~e acquisiti0n o~ p0nding areal ~hiCh:fare
~i ~9h~(~):. i~:~ ~eceiving water ;fr0m axeas n°t; Wi~h~ the :City .g~d ~he; ~iCinity of d0~fown
Our proposal represents a significant departure from our earlier suggestion on this issue.
However, we feel very strongly that Mound cannot agree to be obligated to fund the acquisition
of land rights in excess of the land which is necessary to provide ponding for Mound users. This
matter is of special concern to Mound because it will not be possible to identify all of the
ponding site locations prior to the date the agreement will be entered into.
III.
"2.2.4. If a permit from the City is needed for construction or maintenance of the pond(s),
the City shall be responsible for acting on the MCWD's permit application in a timely manner.!'
We have deleted your suggested language pertaining to fees and costs. I understand that
in its permit process, MCWD does impose such fees and costs on other units of government.
Consequently, we see no reason to treat MCWD differently.
In your letter to Mr. Shukle, you also stated that, for the MCWD's purposes: "Approval
by the Planning Commission constitutes preliminary approval." Although, the MCWD is free
to place whatever weight on a planning commission "approval" it wishes, you should know that
the planning commission is advisory to the city council. The planning commission's important
role is to make recommendations, not to grant approvals of either a final or preliminary nature.
JBD123391
MU200-1
Louis N. Smith
May 23, 1997
Page 3
I would like to have an opportunity to discuss these matters with you following your
review of this letter. The Mound City Council meets on May 27, and it is anxious to reach a
resolution.
JBD:ds
cc: Edward Shulde
John Cameron
Sincerely,
JBD123391
MU200-1