The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-08-26AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 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. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 12, 1997, REGULAR MEETING .................................. 2953-2957 *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD WITH THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD AUGUST 7, 1997 ................ 2958 *C. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD WITH THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD AUGUST 20, 1997 ............ 2959-2960 *D. RESCHEDULE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER SUGGESTED DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, 7:30 P.M. *E. RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE 2950 METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1998 ................................ 2961-2964 *F. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR PERMIT AND SIGN PERMIT FOR QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION PORTABLE SIGN - WESTONKA WINTERFEST, NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS ............................. 2965-2967 *G. CASE #97-29: VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DECK AT 5959 IDLEWOOD ROAD, GLEN & BRENDA ISAACSON, LOT 6, BLOCK10, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 42 0046 ................... 2968-2984 *H. CASE #97-32: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, TIM HENDRICKSON, 4773 ABERDEEN ROAD, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 9, DEVON, PID #30-117-23 22 0072 .......................... 2985-3006 *I. CASE #97-33: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, RUSSELL AND AND SANDRA BOTHERN, 5943 HILLCREST ROAD, LOT 66, MOUND SHORES, PID # 14-117-24 42 0098 ......................... 3007-3022 *J. CASE #97-34: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE AND DECK, STAN MIERZEJEWSKI, 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 12 & P/il, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0014 ................ 3023-3047 *K. CASE #97-97-35: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, PATRICK BUFFINGTON, 4456 RADNOR ROAD, LOTS 12-15 & W15' OF 11 & 15, BLOCK 15, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 34 0108 ................. 3048-3071 *L. CASE #97-36: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, MIKE ZYGADLO, 5043 ENCHANTED ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 12 0096 ................................ 3072-3089 *M. APPROVAL OF STREET LIGHT REQUEST - CORNER OF BEDFORD ROAD AND CAMBRIDGE LANE .............................. 3090-3091 *N. APPROVAL OF DANCE AND BEER PERMITS FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE'S INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL SEPTEMBER 13-14, 1997 ........ 3092-3093 *O. PAYMENT OF BILLS ................................. 3094-3105 2951 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ADDITION TO SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. (DUE TO CONTINUED STUDY OF RENOVATION, THIS ITEM SHOULD BE CONTINUED UNTIL SEPTEI~IBER 23, 1997. PLEASE NOTE THAT SURVEY RESULTS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN EARLY TO MID-SEPTEMBER SO WE WILL HAVE AN IDEA AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL BE PURSUING A REFERENDUM THIS FALL). BID AWARD: BUILDING DEMOLITION, AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ............................................. 3106=3107 DISCUSSION: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN HOSPITALITY, INC., RE: LOST LAKE INN ........................ 3108-3111 7. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. DISCUSSION: SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT REGARDING WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION - WAWONAISSA AND WAURIKA COMMONS (JOHN DEAN, CITY ATTORNEY, MAY WANT TO ASK FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THIS ITEM) ............................................ 3112-3115 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: Financial Report for July 1997 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director ...................................... 3116-3117 Bo Information from Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) regarding Department of Public Service Area Code Split ................................. 3118-3120 Co The next joint meeting of the City Councils' of Minnetrista and Mound along with the School Board will be held Thursday, September 18, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Minnetrista City Hall. The results of the Decision Resources survey will be reviewed at that time. Do REMINDER: If you are interested in attending the National League of Cities (NLC) Conference in Philadelphia December 2-6, please contact Fran ASAP regarding registration. 2952 City Council Minutes - August 12, 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 12, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 12, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, and City Clerk Fran Clark, and the following interested citizens: Mr. & Mrs. James Krenik and Bev Botko. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *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 Councibnember 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. 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 Jensen asked to have Item A removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Weycker asked to have Item D removed from the Consent Agenda. * CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION made by Hanus seconded by Jensen to approve all other items on the Consent Agenda as submitted. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD WITH THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA JULY 24, 1997. Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. '1.2 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATIONS: ROBERT CARLSON, 4991 BRIGHTON BLVD. RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING STAIRWAY ON COMMONS. Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. '1.3 SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS, SHERWOOD DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION, CENTRAL BUSINE~qS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, DEI.INQUENT MOWING BILL SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1997. Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. City Council Minutes - August 12, 1997 *1.4 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCERESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. RESOLUTION//97-72 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCERESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. '1.5 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH (INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL) SElYI'EMBER 13 & 14, 1997. RESOLUTION//97-73 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH (INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL) SEPTEMBER 13 & 14, 1997 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. '1.6 PAYMENT OF BILLS. Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. 1.7 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1997, REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Jensen asked to have the vote on the third motion on Page 2855 corrected. She voted nay. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to approve the Minutes of the July 22, 1997, Regular Meeting, as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 JAMES KRENIK, 5240 PIKE ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT-VARIANCE FROM CITY CODE RELATING TO DOCK DESIGN. The request is for a dock that is 2 feet wider than allowed by the ordinance. Councilmember Weycker questioned using the word variance for a dock. following: The Council discussed the 2 City Council Minutes - August 12, 1997 1. Granting an exception (variance) for ten years. e Whether the dock is a permanent structure. It has since been determined that the dock is not a permanent structure. What happens if there is congestion in the dock area sometime in the 10 years. This dock area has a 30 foot spacing and even with the exception, there is still a 31 foot spacing. 4. The dock is a private structure on public land even though it is not permanent. The City Attorney suggested drafting a resolution for an exception to the dock ordinance listing the conditions for allowing the dock. Councilmember Hanus suggested the following in the resolution: When the pilings come out or deteriorate, is when the exception would end or if and when congestion in this dock area occurs. The applicant agreed that if there was a problem, he would move the dock or reduce the width. He explained that he built the dock so it would be stable. MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Jensen directing staff to prepare a resolution of approval for an exception in dock design for James Krenik, 5240 Pike Road. This resolution will be brought back at the August 26, 1997, Council Meeting for approval. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 DISCUSSION: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN HOSPITALITY, INC., RE: LOST LAKE INN. The City Manager presented a proposed development agreement that was drafted by the City of Mound and City Attorney. This agreement was prepared as a result of a sample agreement that was sent to the City by Northern Hospitality. The agreement was sent to the developer who has suggested some changes. These changes were just received today. The developer would like to postpone action until the next meeting when they will be ready to present a draft at that time. This will give City Staff time to review the agreement and have a recommendation for the Council. The Council agreed. This item will be considered at the August 26, 1997 Council Meeting. No action was taken. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.10 APPROVAL OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER SURVEY. The City Manager presented the final draft of the survey on the Westonka Community Center that would be conducted by Decision Resources around the end of August with results to be given in the early part of September. This survey has been reviewed by the joint committee. The Committee wanted each governmental unit (City of Mound, City of MINNETRISTA and the School District) for formal approval City Council Minutes - August 12, 1997 of the survey. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to approve the recommended survey as presented by the joint committee studying the renovation of the WESTONKA Community Center. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. IINrFORMA TION/MIS C ELLANEOUS; A. Department Head Monthly Reports for July 1997. B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for July 1997. The Council asked that Mr. Re. ese come to the Committee of the Whole Meeting quarterly for regular discussions with the Council. C. Information From Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Re: flood mitigation efforts. D. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of July 17, 1997. E. Memorandum From Woody Love, MCWD, Re: Next meeting of the Stormwater Management Task Force. Mayor Polston is Mound's Representative to this group. The next Meeting is Tuesday, August 19, 1997, 3:30 - 5:00 p.m., Shady Oak Room, Minnetonka Community Center. 1.11 Reminder: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, August 19, 1997, 7:30 P.M. The City Manager asked that the Council reschedule the COW meeting scheduled for August 19, 1997, since 3 Councilmembers will be gone. MOTION made by Hanus , seconded by Jensen to cancel the August 19, 1997, COW Meeting. They will try to reschedule. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Go Reminder: National League of Cities (NLC) Conference, Philadelphia, December 2-6, 1997. If interested in attending, contact Fran ASAP. 1.12 CITY ATTORNEY UPDATE The City Attorney reported that the Building Official has received a request for a Building Permit from an owner of land on Wawonaissa Common. The permit is to build a new deck on their property toward the Common. This person was one of the individuals who was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The request shows the deck within less that 4 feet of his property line. Under the City's ordinance a rear yard setback of 10 feet is required for a deck. At first glance this would need a variance. But then it was discovered that last year, this plaintiff along with several other plaintiffs applied for and received from the County tax consolidations of their parcels which combined as a single lot the Commons abutting their property and their property. These are now combined for tax purposes as single parcels. The net effect is that the old interior lot line between the Common and the private property is now gone for the purpose of determining setbacks. The City Attorney's opinion is that the Building Official can go ahead and process the Building Permit application as requested. The reason he is advising the Council is that the owner of the property has 4 City Council Minutes - August 12, 1997 indicated that if the Building Permit is not issued by tomorrow morning, he'll commence legal action against the City. No action was taken. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 8:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk MINUTES-JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCILS' OF MOUND AND MINNETRISTA AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD-AUGUST 7, 1997-MOUND CITY HALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: City of Mound-Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker and City Manager Ed Shukle; Minnetrista-Mayor Ed Gale and Councilmember Cheryl Fischer; Westonka Public Schools: Bill Pinegar, Bill Hultgren, Bruce Charon and Superintendent Pam Myers. Others present: Bruce Williamson, Spring Park City Council; Leona Peterson, Bil Hawks, George Jones, Sue Weibel and Cathy Bailey and Mark Thiede, TSP/EOS. Mark Thiede, TSP/EOS presented a summarized version of the design and cost estimate of the proposed renovation of the Westonka Community Center. A review of the proposed final draft of the survey was conducted. Decision Resources, Inc., prepared the draft and the group present discussed possible changes to the document. Although there were some questions regarding the survey, it was the consensus to have each of the entities present review the survey with each of their councils' and board and to get formal approval of the survey no later than August 18, 1997. Following the approvals, the survey will be performed and results will be available shortly after Labor Day. Being that there was not a quorum of the City Councils' or the School Board present, the rest of the agenda was postponed for discussion until the next meeting. That meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, August 20, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager MINUTES-JOINT CITY COUNCIL'S OF MOUND AND MINNETRISTA AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD-AUGUST 20, 1997 The meeting began about 7:15 p.m. at Mound City Hall. Members Present: Mayor Ed Gale, Minnetrista; Councilmembers Dolores Jeanetta, Ron Kline and Cheryl Fischer, Minnetrista; Mayor Bob Polston, Mound; Councilmember Leah Weycker, Mound; Westonka School Board: Bill Pinegar, Bill Hultgren, Bob Bittle and Bruce Charon. Others Present: Mark Thiede, TSP/EOS; Dr. Pam Myers, Superintendent of Schools; Ed Shukle, City Manager; and Sue Weibel. Mark Thiede, TSP/EOS completed his presentation that had begun at about 6:30 p.m. regarding the design and cost estimate for the renovation of the community center. This was done for those new to the project and he answered questions from those present about the design and estimate. Introductions were then made and then City Manager Ed Shukle was asked to review the process of the survey to be conducted by Decision Resources, Inc. Shukle indicated that the survey had been approved by the cities of Minnetrista and Mound and by the School Board. He ordered the survey to be initiated and it will be conducted within the next 2-3 weeks. The results of the survey will be available the week of September 15. Discussion focused on the definition of "positive" as it relates to the outcome of the survey. It seemed to be the consensus that less than 50% was not going to be acceptable to several of the councilpersons present. Also discussed was the timing of the referendum should one be conducted. It was the consensus to tentatively schedule the referendum for December 4, 1997. Issues related to who conducts the referendum, ownership of the property, operating expenses and other issues were discussed. School District members indicated that they would be supportive of the School District conducting the referendum. Ownership focused on the need for a joint powers agreement among the two cities and the school district. Operating expenses fell into that discussion as well and other issues related to stormwater management, parking, wetlands, etc. Further research needs to be done in order to draft a question for a referendum ballot, entity that would issue the bonds, management of the project, joint powers agreement, etc. It was the consensus that staff from the school district and the two cities work together on developing the framework and reporting back to the three entities at the next meeting. It seemed to be the consensus that an actual joint powers agreement should be drafted after the survey results are in and before a referendum is conducted. Alternatives, should the survey be negative, or if the survey is positive and the referendum is negative were briefly discussed but no consensus was reached. These topics will need to be covered in more detail at a later date. The next meeting of the two city councils' and school board was scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Minnetrista City Hall. Minutes of the Joint City Council Meeting, Minnetrista and Mound, Westonka School Board August 20, 1997 Page 2 The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully subrtititted, City Manager RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1998 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act ( Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 1998, a metropolitan municipality that participated in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 1997, can continue to participate under Minnesota Statutes section 473.154 if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1997; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Communities Act during the calendar year 1998. Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 12, 1977 City Managers and Administrators Thomas C. McElveen, Deputy Director, Community Development Division'~y'~ Certification of 1998 ALHOA Thank you for your participation in the 1997 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA)program. Your community's commitment and involvement has contributed to the region's overall economic competitiveness and made tangible progress in providing affordable and life-cycle housing for metro area residents. Looking ahead to 1998, the Metropolitan Council seeks your community's renewed participation and continued cooperation in Livable Communities efforts. As part of the LCA legislation, the Council provides to each community on an annual basis an "Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA)". The ALHOA is derived from the formula prescribed in law including market value, tax capacity and tax rates by the county assessor. It is an amount of local expenditure to support or assist the development of affordable and life-cycle housing or maintain and preserve such housing. Communities have flexibility in determining the use of their ALHOA contribution. Examples include local dollars for housing assistance, development or rehabilitation programs, local housing inspection and code enforcement, tax levy to support local or county HRA. Incentives for your community's renewed participation include access to $11 million for housing development, clean-up of polluted sites for business and housing development, and mixed use development. Also, your community's ALHOA expenditure will be reported in the Council's Annual Housing Report Card required by the LCA. Your community's intent to participate in the 1998 Metropolitan Livable Communities program is needed by Nov. 15. To help you in the preparation, a model resolution is enclosed. Planning assistance for staff or information presentations for elected officials are available by contacting your sector representative (see below). Questions about the ALHOA can be referred to Guy Peterson at 602-1418. We look forward lo continuing our regional cormmitment to affordable and life-cycle housing. Thank you for your consideration. Sector Representatives: Anoka, Washington, and Ramsey Counties Dakota, Carver and Scott Counties Hennepin County Minneapolis and St. Paul Guy Peterson 602-1418 Carl Schenk 602-1410 Tom Caswell 602-1319 John Kart 602-1548 u Akruger\peterson\np~a,~97b.doc 230 East Fifth Streel St. I auI, Minnesota 55101- 1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 An Eql~al Opportuniiy Employer TDD/'ITY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 Address: TEMPORARY ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR PERMIT Chairman ~5~/,~..~~ ~.~.~,,,/~ Phone No.: orTitle: Work Phone: Section 810.10, Subd. 2. Liability Insurance. (a) Prior to the issuance of any Beer license, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A. 801 to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility shall be given by filing a certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the minimum coverages for dram shop liability as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is the intent of this section to require the minimum insurance coverages and amounts required by Minnesota law. Name oflnsurance Co.: 7'--'~~ , mount of Coverage. l! d g. Section 810:10. Subd. 1. Application Form. In the case of any application for a Temporary "On-Sale" license to allow sale and consumption of beer on public land or public school lands, the applicant shall, prior to issuance of such license, file the written consent of the owner of such lands to such use of its lands. App~z/ant's Signature SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PuBETC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION~f>~S (If more than one, plcas~ lis, on separal¢ sheet of papcr) NUMBER OF SIGNS: TYPE OF SIGN, ~banner ~wall mount ~free standing permanent SIZE OF SIGN' ~/~/~e~ high x ~~ f = square feet DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.): Applicant ' s~ignature Date ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: August 21, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DECK AT 5959 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 10, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 42 0046, P & Z CASE//97-29 WHEREAS, the applicants, Glen and Brenda Isaacson, have applied for a variance to recognized the existing nonconforming shed, to build a conforming 16 feet by 8 feet deck, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, and 40 feet of lot frontage, and; WHEREAS, the existing shed is located at the rear of the property, it is 24 inches from one side yard lot line and 26" from the rear lot line, the shed sits on a concrete slab, and; WHEREAS, the property does not exceed the 40% hardcover requirement, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the proposed deck with the a 2 foot side yard variance and 1 foot 10 inches variance for the shed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a side yard setback variance of 2 feet and a rear yard setback variance of 1 foot 10 inches for the existing shed to allow construction of a conforming 16' x 8' 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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 16 x 8 foot conforming deck. Proposed Resolution August 21, 1997 5959 ldlewood Road P. 2 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 6, Block 10, The Highlands. 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: MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1997 AGENDA ADD ON: CASE g97-29: VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DECK, 5959 IDLEWOOD ROAD, GLEN AND BRENDA ISAACSON, LOT 6, BLOCK 10, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 42 0046 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed this case. BACKGROUND: Went to City Council on July 22, 1997 The Building Official explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Since that time it was discovered that there was an error made when the applicant drew in the hardcover on the survey. Then if a variance is needed it would go back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Building Official explained that the applicant calculated hardcover that was not on the lot. They calculated their whole driveway and they did not need to calculate the area in the road right-of-way. There was also a shed on the property that appears is nonconforming to setbacks which would require recognizing. The applicant may move this shed which would then make it conforming. He has discussed this with the applicant. If the hardcover is at 40% ratio rather than a 30 % ratio. The applicant expressed frustration with the process. Minutes - PC 8-11-97 MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to table the request and have the applicant go back in through either a survey or being able to identify the irons themselves to Staff's satisfaction and have the information brought back to the Planning Commission. The Council discussed the motion. Hanus withdrew his motion and Ahrens withdrew her second. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to have the applicant go back in through either a survey or being able to identify the irons themselves to Staff's satisfaction and have the information brought back to the Planning Commi.~sion for further clarification, if necessary. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hanus to refund the variance fee to the applicant, if it is determined that they do not need a variance. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS: Sutherland stated Hanus found a couple of items that were not originally found at the Planning Commission on July 14, 1997. On the survey, curb in street right-of-way is 50 feet. The dimension from the front of the garage to the property line is 35 feet. The hardcover could be calculated at 40% ratio instead of the 30%. The hardcover is 343 under the maximum. The applicant updated his site plan. There is a shed in the back of the property. It is 24" from on side and 26" on the other. The shed is metal and is on a slab of concrete. The applicant stated that maybe someday he may build a wood shed. A variance was given to Niccum on Oaklawn. Sutherland would be fmc with the shed staying were it is with a variance, one setback variance to the side and one to the rear. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions. A side yard and rear yard variance for the nonconforming shed. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss to approve Staff recommendation of setback variance of shed. The motion carried 8-0. Hanus said the shed was heavily screened with vines. It is on a substantial slab. There have been qlrnilar qh~rt~ annrovecl before. Mound CiO, Council Mimttes July 22, 1997 The Building Official explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Since that time it was discovered that there was an error made when the applicant drew in the hardcover on the survey. There is additional hardcover on the site, which can be removed from the calculations and it may be that a variance is not needed. Staff would like to work with the applicant to revise the placement of hardcove on the survey. Then if a variance is needed it would go back to the Planning Commission for review anc recommendation. The Building Official explained that the applicant calculated hardcover that was not on the lot. They calculated their whole driveway and they did not need to calculate the area in the road right-of-way. There was also a shed on the property that appears is nonconforming to setbacks which would require recognizing. The applicant may move this shed which would then make it conforming. He has discussed this with the applicant. If the hardcover is at 40% or less, the applicant would not need a variance. The original Staff recommendation was for denial. The Planning Commission recommended approval, finding that the hardcover could be calculated at 40% ratio rather than a 30% ratio. The applicant expressed frustration with the process. MOTION made by Hanns, seconded by Ahrens to table the request and have the applicant go back in through either a survey or being able to identify the irons themselves to Staff's satisfaction and have the inforn'mtion brought back to the Planning Commission. The Council discussed the motion. Hanus withdrew his motion and Ahrens withdrew her second. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to have the applicant go back in through either a survey or being able to identify the irons themselves to Staff's satisfaction and have the information bronght back to the Planning Com~nission for further clarification, if necessary. The vote was unanimot,sly in favor. Motion carried. MOTION nmde by Poiston, seconded by Hanus to refund the variance fee to the applicant, if it is determined that they do not need a variance. The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.7 ADD-ON ITEM: ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS & SETTING BID OPENING FOR BUILDING DEMOLITION - AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City Manager explained this is for three properties for the Auditor's Road Improvement Project. Suggested date is Wednesday, August 20, 1997, at 11:00 A.M. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to authorize and advertisement for bids for Bnilding Demolition - Auditor's Road Improvement Project, for Wednesday, Augnst 20, 1997, at 11:00 A.M. The vote was unanin~ously in favor. Motion carried. LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: (..~,~-~V~ '(~::)~ bi ~TC) SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. (J~¢ ~)~D SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... · I SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SO FT X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAG~ DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" rain, opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover Iq x = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ~ x ~'~'~ = x TOTAL D~IVEW~Y, ETC .................. X X X TOTAL DECK .......................... OTHER X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I~JJ~vER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY ~_,~ ~ DATE . . ,. *:. ~ . .,..'~ ~ ~..' , -4. . ' ~'; ' ' --*~'.~ k4,.. ', ' ' ~ ;~ t' . . .. . ..~,.~.~.. .. .; '. . , .& ,. .~..~ . . .., i , i,'.,':~ ' ' ' ' " '?'~ ' ';>'i i~'' ~"' ' , ~ "~ '~..,:i .I 2::) 6.27 -70 I~on marker Land ~urveyor and Planner Long Lake~ ]~nnesota Certificate 'of ~urve¥l I here. bM cer~tl~ that this is a true and correct ropr, sentotion . ':"..' of a survey of the boundaries of Lo~s 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 10, The Highlands. l~ doel no% purport to show improv~.ments or en- e l'oa~hfllol'lt, 8, : 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 July 14, 1997 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ , Variance Request Glen and Brenda Isaacson 97-29 5959 Idlewood Road, Lot 6, Block 10, The Highlands, PID 23-117-2442 0046 R-2 One and Two Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming impervious surface in order to allow for construction of an entry deck in the front yard that is conforming to setbacks. The proposed deck is 16 x 8 feet in size and is to be installed over the top of the existing concrete steps. The deck is considered an expansion of the footprint and the expansion is not permitted without the prior approval of a variance that would recognize the nonconforming impervious surface situation (Zoning Code Section 350:420). The deck does not increase the amount of impervious surface and the applicant is actually reducing the amount of hardcover by eliminating the poly under the existing rear deck. These improvements however, are still not in conformance with the ordinance. A maximum of 30% of hardcover is allowed for this site due to the fact that the site does not qualify for the special conditions noted in the Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, that allows for 40%. The existing driveway is rather large and drains predominantly into the street. According to the applicants calculations, the impervious surface coverage (not including the rear deck with poly under) is 2551 square feet. The maximum allowable impervious surface for this site at 30% is 1 800 sq. ft., this results in a variance request of 751 square feet +-. printecl on recyclecl paper Staff Report 5959 Idlewood Road July 14, 1997 Page 2 Comments The survey and hardcover calculations submitted by the applicant calculate the impervious surface in the front of the site at 1428 square feet. When considering the additional poly under the landscaping, this figure would be increased slightly. The driveway, with the additional parking area is rather large, and if some of this was to be converted over to green space, it would bring the site closer to being in conformance with the 30% requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed, as the impervious surface on this site exceeds the maximum allowable at 30%, and there is no condition of hardship or practical difficulty that has been identified. Staff would support a recommendation for approval to allow construction of the conforming deck with the condition the impervious surface conditions identified below are removed prior to building permit issuance. 1) The poly be removed or substantially perforated in all landscape areas, and under the deck. 2) The parking space that is approximately 15 x 20 (to be specifically identified on an exhibit) located in the northeast section is to be removed and converted to green space as approved by the Building Official. The abutting property owners have been notified. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PAID JUN 2 5 1997 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: : Distribution: 0 -~?' q U City Pla~er DNR ~ ~ City Engineer ~er /, ~blic Works S~ECT Address 6q~ PROPERTY Lot LEGAL Subdivision DESC. PID~ ~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 B-1 B-2 PROPERTY Name ~ I e~ OWNER Address 5q5 q I Phone(H) ~0 ~- ~Z~X (W) APPLICAN% Name~ [ e (~ 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, (9 no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. o Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.)' Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (19, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (OS E W) -~o' ft. ~'~'5 ~"'~ p"'ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E~I Lo' ft. ~../.q ' ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S & / ft. ~' /- ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N(~)E W ) / ~' ' ft. (o0~.- ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: ~,ooo sq ft (o~ ooo +}-sq fi sq fi Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 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 (~5) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: ~'Oc c\( ,,,,-~ ~. ~,~i~ ~ ~ (Rev. 1/14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No (~. If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature i Date ~,].,.., / ~..~ c)-'~ Applicant's Signature Date x (Rev. 1/14/97) Minutes - Mound Planning Commission July 14, 1997 #97-29: VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DECK, 5959 IDLEWOOD ROAD, GLEN AND BRENDA ISAACSON, LOT 6, BLOCK 10 THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 42 0046. Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed this case. BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming impervious surface in order to allow for construction of an entry deck in the front yard that is conforming to setbacks. The proposed deck is 16 x 8 in size and is to be installed over the top of the existing concrete steps. The deck is considered an expansion of the footprim and this is not permitted without the prior approval of a variance that would recognize the nonconforming impervious surface situation (Zoning Code Section 350:420). The deck does not increase the amount of impervious surface, the applicant is in fact reducing the amoum of hardcover by eliminating the poly under the existing deck. These improvements however are still not in conformance with the ordinance. A maximum of 30 % of hardcover is allowed for this site due to the fact that the site does not qualify for the special conditions noted in the zoning ordinance section 350:1225, (that allow for 40%). The existing driveway is rather large and drains predominantly into the street. According to the applicants calculations the impervious surface coverage (not including the rear deck with poly under) is 2551 square feet. The maximum allowable impervious surface for this site at 30% is 1800, this results in a variance request of 751 square feet +-. COMMENTS The survey and hardcover calculations submitted by the applicant calculate the impervious surface on in the front of the site at 1428 square feet, when considering the additional poly under the landscaping, this figure would be increased slightly. The driveway with the additional parking area is rather large, and if some of this was converted over to green space it would bring the site closer to being in conformance with the 30 % requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request as proposed, as the impervious surface on this site exceeds the maximum allowable at 30%, and there is no condition of hardship or practical difficulty that has been identified. Staff would support a recommendation for approval to allow construction of the conforming deck with the condition the impervious surface conditions identified below are removed prior to building permit issuance. 7 Minutes - Mound Planning Commission July 14, 1997 1) The poly be removed or substantially perforated in all landscape areas, and under the deck. 2) The parking space approximately 15 x 20 (to be specifically identified on an exhibit) in the north east section is to be removed and converted to green space as approved by the building official. Commissioner Questions Clapsaddle suggested the applicant remove an area of driveway and convert it to greenspace. The applicant stated it would be too costly. Weiland suggested the applicant remove the poly under a 16' x 16' area on the north side of the house for more drain area. The applicant stated he could do that and he will remove the stairs and the concrete on the west side of the property. Mueller stated the applicant is reducing the overall hardcover by adding the new deck and removing the above mentioned hardcover. There was no hardcover rule when the home was built. Hanus commented why the 40% hardcover rule could not apply, the drainage plan could be approved by the building official. The Commission needed to consider the site with the landscape and that the lot is quite flat and that there is really no where for the runoff to go but to the street. Sutherland stated the idea of the green space is to consider vehicle drippings that if washed into a green space, would not directly flow into the street and eventually into the lake. Weiland stated if the concrete were to be removed, the water would still flow the same way. It was suggested that the applicant crown the driveway to help the runoff. The applicant stated it was too costly. Discussion included the fact that a driveway permit is not required, just approval from the Public Works Superintendent as to utility location. Sutherland stated if the 40 % rule was applied, the hardcover would still not meet the ordinance. Maybe the applicant could reduce the driveway. Hanus stated the drainage is the best it can be on the lot now, as the lot is flat. He was in favor of applying the 40% rule. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission July 14, 1997 Voss stated he did not like to go against staff recommendation, but he did not want to deprive the owner of normal use of the property. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of a hardcover variance, to allow construction of a conforming deck and to require the applicant to remove the concrete stairs and slab under the proposed deck, to remove the poly under the rear yard landscaping and to perforate the poly under the front yard landscaping. Comments Voss agreed to the amendment to his resolution. Michael disagreed with the staff recommendation and suggested to remove item #2, Weiland stated if staff would go with the 40% hardcover, he would not have to apply for a variance. That way there would be no filings on his property. Clapsaddle stated the motion needs to be amended to state the requirement to remove the concrete under the proposed deck. The applicant agreed to remove the concrete stairs and slab under the deck. Voss seconded the amended motion. Mueller clarified the motion commenting, the applicant was going to perforate landscaping, remove the concrete stoop and slab and the poly under the back deck. Hanus stated that improvements were being made to the hardcover through these actions. He also stated that if the 40 % hardcover rule could apply, the applicant would not need a variance. The vote was called, the motion carried 6-1, Hanus voting nay 9 OAKLA~ LA KIPLING August 21, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITION AT 4773 ABERDEEN ROAD, LOT 8 & 9, BLOCK 9 DEVON, PID 13-117-24 11 0005, P & Z CASE//97-32 WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Henderickson, is seeking setback variance to build a addition on a nonconforming house, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, and 40 feet of lot frontage, and; WHEREAS, the proposed addition is a single story design, 18 feet by 18 feet 6 inches located to the rear of the home reducing the rear setback from 30 feet to 12 feet, and: WHEREAS, the proposed addition would increase the hardcover calculations to 48%, and; WHEREAS, the existing hardcover would need to be reduced, reducing the driveway size by approximately 684 square feet, would allow the hardcover to be at 36%, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with applicants acceptance of changes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance of 10 feet to allow the construction of a conforming 15 x 18.6' addition. 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. Proposed Resolution August 21, 1997 4773 Aberdeen Road P. 2 o It is determined that the livability of the residemial property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming addition of 15 x 18.6' This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 8 & 9, Block 9, Devon This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember, Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: MINIJrES OF A MI~ETING MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1997 CASE # 97-32: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, TIM HENDERICKSON, 4'//3 ABERDEEN ROAD, LOT 8 & 9, BLOCK 9, DEVON, PII) 30-I17-23 22 0072. Assistant City Planner, Loren Gordon, reviewed the case. BACKGROLTND: The property owner at 4?73 Aberdeen Rd. has submitted a variance application to build an addition to a nonconforming house. The home is defined as nonconforming due to the front yard setback. Applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Existin~ Propose..d. Required Variance Front Yard 10' 20' 10' Rear Yard 30' 12' 15' 3' The proposed addition is a single story design, 18 feet by 18 feet 6 inches located on the rear of the home. As indicated on the site plan, the rear yard setback would be reduced from 30 feet to 12 feet. The lot dimensions are 80 feet by 80 feet which satisfy the minimum R-2 district requirements of 6,000 square feet and 40 feet of lot frontage. Current improvements to the property include a 1002 square feet home, a 484 square feet two- stall garage, and a 100 square feet shed which the applicant indicates will be removed. The property is considered a lot of record for hardcover calculation purposes. The total existing impervious surface coverage is 41 percent. This is 11 percent above the maximum allowable hardcover without approved drainage techniques and 1 percent above using approved mitigation techniques. The proposed improvements would increase the total hardcover by 332 square feet for a total of 48 percent. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. D. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The lot is currently built out and additional structures cannot be built on the lot unless existing hardcover is removed. Assuming the garage and house will remain intact, the only other alternative to reduce hardcover is to decrease the driveway width from a double to a sino. le lane Minutes - PC 8-11-97 This approach would remove approximately 684 square feet of hardcover. The total hardcover on the property after that portion of driveway is removed and includes the proposed addition would be 2288 square feet or 36 percent. If appropriate drainage techniques are approved, the 40 percent coverage could be used which would satisfy code requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of the request if the following conditions can be satisfied. 1) The driveway be reduced to a 9 feet single lane from the street to the garage approach pad. 2) The driveway slope away from the street and a drainage plan for the site be approved as per the 40 percent hardcover requirements. 3) The new addition depth be reduced to 15 feet to meet the rear yard setback requirement. 4) The existing shed be removed. If the hardcover percent cannot be reduced below 40 percent and a drainage plan be approved, Staff recommends the Commission deny the request. Commissioner Question.~ Voss asked what the driveway was made of?. Gordon stated that the driveway is crushed rock up to the apron by the garage. Voss asked if the apron was to be taken off, would it reduce hardcover? What size is the apron? Gordon stated that the staff is recommending if the driveway from the street to the apron is reduced from two lanes to one lane, 18 feet to 9 feet that it would take off approximately 700 square feet of hardcover off the lot. This would take it below the 40 % Hardcover requirement. This would allow the applicant to build the addition. Drainage plan would also have to be approved. Chair Michael asked if the applicant had seen the recommendation and what his feeling was about it. Applicant said that he could comply to the recommendation of the staff. Hanus summarized based on staff recommendation and with applicants acceptance, the only variance is the existing 10' front yard set back. Gordon stated that the rear yard could be a issue also if the commission decides that 18' would Minu~es - PC 8-II-~7 be fine then there would be a 3' variance for the rear. Hanus stated that is not staff's recommendation and applicant has agreed to reduce addition to 15'. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve staff recommendation for setback variance for addition. The motion carried 8-0. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 11, 1997 SUBJECT: Nonconforming Structure Variance APPLICANT: Tim Hendrickson - Owner - 4775 Aberdeen Rd. CASE NUMBER: 97-32 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5r LOCATION: 4773 Aberdeen Rd. EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The property owner at 4773 Aberdeen Rd. has submitted a variance application to build an addition to a nonconforming house. The home is defined as nonconforming due to the front yard $ctback. Applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Front Yard 10' 20' l 0' Rear Yard 30' 12' 1 $' 3' The proposed addition is a single story design, 1 $ feet by 18 feet 6 inches located on the rear of the home. As indicated on the site plan, the rear yard setback would be reduced from 30 feet to 12 feet. The lot dimensions are 80 feet by 80 feet which satisfy the m/nimum R-2 district requirements of 6,000 square feet and 40 feet of lot frontage. Current improvements to the property include a 1002 square feet home. a 494 square feet two-stall garage, and a 100 square feet shed which the applicant indicates will be removed. The property is considered a lot of record for hardcover calculation purposes. Thc total existing impervious surface coverage is 41 percent. This is 11 percent above the maximum allowable hardcover without approved drainage techniques and 1 percent above using approved mitigation techniques. 'the proposed improvements would increase the total hardcover by 332 square feet for a total of 48 percent. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difticulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): 7300 Metro Boulevar.{J, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835.9960 Fax(612) 835-3160 ~BgBBoN NOIBNISIOH VARIANCE APPLICATION PAID CITY OF MOUND '~ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364JU[ 2 ~. 1997 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 CITY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: )istribution: Case No. :'~o) q -q~7 City Planner DNR tt City Engineer Other ,' Public Works SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Subdivision RO Block ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 B-1 Plat # B-2 B-3 Phone (H) Name Address Phone (H) '," (W) (M). Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ¢fno. 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. q 7-'3 oL~ o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the located.'? Yes ~, No ~ff)'. If no, specify each non-conforming use: ~s~W ) ~2av ~. lO ~. lO ~. (N ~)~ ft. 33',¥,' ft' ft. (N~E ) ~' ]0' i~t ff. a. Rear Yard: ( ~ E W ) } $ ft. _ ~ ~. ~. .q ~. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) g. ff. - ~. · (NSEW) ft. g. ~. Street Frontage: ~O' ~. ~O ft. ~. Lot Size: ~q~' sq ~ 6 qO0 sq ~ sq ~ "aracover: lq ~sq a~ ~q a ~ sq a zomng district in which it is Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (e'~other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 1/14/97) lllL..l ........ [ 1 Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. ~ '3 ~ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No (). If yes, explain: Yes ~, Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (e/fi, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~ ~~/'~ Applicant's Signature % ~~ Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATION-~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA 812l. 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. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X TOTAL HOUSE DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. /~l ~'%~ ~- DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. q x 2_0 = '-/ x I5' = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPAREDBY ~" ~ _ DATE -- I I W n~ z~ Lgz~ C E F~ECEIVED JUL 2 I 1997 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. 7-20-97 Tim Hendrickson 4773 Aberdeen rd Mound MN 55364 City of Mound Home improvements i plan to do to my home in your city are outlined in the packed i have provided. The work will be done by myself and friends who are in the trade. The flame work and cordination ofneccessary work will be provided by Dave Orozco. He was the forman for the developement at Pelican Point. The work will done to presem code he as gone over the house and made these recomendation to provide me with a well constructed home. We wil be using standard window, door,stairway and header building technichs. We are estimating the cost ~ $60 per sq ft the square footage to be remodled will be 600sq ft This makes the estimated cost $36,000. This estiment is with hiring the work out to contractors the actual cost will be less then indicated. Thank you~,0r your time and cooperation Tim Hendrickson 300 84131 .. JOB NUMBER 25 ]17 24 SEC/TWP/RN Kathryn Messer CLIENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION'. Lots 8 and 9, Blokc 9, DEVON ADDITION 4/25/84 DATE SURVEYED STANDARD SYMBOLS "O" Denotes 112" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State Registration No. 9235, set. "e" Denotes iron monument found. "+" Denoles cross chiseled in concrele surface. "982x5" Denoles existing spot elevation measured at Ihe point marked by "x", in Ihis case, 982.5 feel above mean sea level. 4 / 267'~4- DATE DRAFTED 20 SCALE IN FEET PER INCH PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:TM __FIRST FLOOR . TOP OF FOUNDATION GARAGE FLOOR LOWEST FLOOR SANITARY SEWER BENCHMARK ELEVATION BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: .~Denoles proposed spol elevalion al Ihe polnl marked by "x". ..... )" Denotes proposed direction of sierra waler runoff. CERTIFICATION I hereby certily thai this plan, survey, report or specificalion was prepared by me and lhal I am a duly R.~gistered Land Surveyor and Profes- sional Engineer under the Laws of Ihe of Minnesota. Ja H. Parker, Minn. Reg. No. 9235 00 ---8 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE? / NO LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 R1A__~000/40_._ B2 20,000/80 o.ooo/6o R2 14,000/8D R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXISTING LOT SIZE:, & LOT WIDT~ LOT DF-pTTo YARD HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE DIRECTION SE W N S~W N S W N S E W~ N S E W 15' REAR LAKE N S E W 50' OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W N S E W FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER ', NO N S E w N S E W N S E w N S E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 50' 10' OR 30' 30% OR 40% IBy: IDATED: portion of the requirements out_lined in the Cily of Mound Zoni~ ~.~l;~~e--r-i"fn-rmntl""' coronet the tTAm.n~ BLVD_. GOVT i ~605.80 ~ES. ¢.~ ~o t- o --' -i i O va.} I'~. o 0 · e',- < m 0 August 21, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AT 5943 HILLCREST ROAD, LOT 66, MOUND SHORES, PID 13-117-24 11 0005, P & Z CASE//97-33 WHEREAS, the applicants, Russell and Sandra Bothern, have applied for a variance to build a 20 foot by 24 foot garage, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, and 40 feet of lot frontage, and; WHEREAS, the existing home sits within 18.92 feet of the front lot line and the proposed garage would be 1 foot of the side yard lot line, this results in a setback variance of 1.18 feet to the front and 3' feet to the side lot line respectively, and: WHEREAS, the property will not exceed the 40% hardcover requirement, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with the garage meeting 4' rear setback, 3' side yard setback, and not to exceed 40 % hardcover calculation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance of 1.18 feet and a side yard variance of 1 foot to allow construction of a nonconforming 20' x 24' 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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 20 x 24 foot nonconforming garage. Proposed Resolution August 21, 1997 5943 Hillcrest Road P. 2 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 66, Mound Shores. 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. The following Councilmembers voted in the affu-mative: and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: $008 MINIfrES OF A ~EE~G MOLrND AD~ORY PLANNI1NG COMI~ISSION AUGUST 11, 1997 CASE //9%33: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, RUSSELL AND SANDRA BOTHER, 5943 ItlLLCREST ROAD, LOT 66, MOUND SHORES, PID 14-117-24 42 0098 Assistant City Planner, Loren Gordon, reviewed this case. BACKGROUND: The property owner at 5943 Hillcrest Road has submitted a variance application to build a 20 feet by 24 feet garage. Applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Existing Proposed Required Variance Front Yard (house) 18.92' Side Yard (garage) 1' 20' 1.18' 1' 4' 3' The existing house is nonconforming due to the front yard encroachment of 1.18 feet. The one stall garage is also nonconforming with 1 foot setbacks from the side and rear lot lines. The neighboring properties share a common driveway in their side yards. Each property has single stall garages setback 1 foot from the property line. The proposal is to build a two stall garage which maintains the existing setback. The property exceeds hardcover requirements by 1065 square feet at 30 percent and 418 square feet when figured at 40 percent. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Minutes - PC 8-11-97 C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Do That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Staff does not feel a hardship or practical difficulty is present which merits the granting of a variance. The hardcover is a limiting factor on this property and exceeds both the 30 and 40 percent standards. It does not appear that there is any feasible manner in which to reduce the surface area below 40 percent while allowing a two stall garage design. The lot is currently above the 30 percent hardcover limit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance request. Commissioner Question,q Reifschneider reviewed survey area between garage & street was not included in hardcover. There would will only be the front yard variance. He also says that the existing garage is not usable. Weiland concurs with Reifschneider. Weiland asked the applicant if it would be possible to move the garage forward 4 feet. This would eliminate 1 variance and include greenspace to reduce hardcover. Hanus concurred with this statement. The hardcover was calculated wrong. MOTION by Reifschneider, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the request for garage with moving garage to meet 4' setback to the rear, hardcover to be recalculated, only 1 variance of sideyard setback of 1'. Comments Hanus added that the hardcover must conform to 40 %. Weiland made a comment that the water runoff has nowhere to go. Sutherland had comments on sideyard setback, code is 4' setback, we have issued permits for 3' setback. Cautioned that if a 1' setback is used the homeowner will have to have a fire Minutes - PC 8-11-97 resistant exterior wall. Staff would like to see at least a 3' sideyard setback. Reifschneider would like to add a 3' sideyard setback to the motion. MOTION by Reifscheider, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the request for garage with garage meeting 4' rear setback, 3' sideyard setback, not to exceed 40% hardcover calculation. The motion carried 8-0. $o # PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 11, 1997 SUBJECT: Garage Variance APPLICANT: Russell and Sandra Bothem - Owner - 5943 Hillcrest Road CASE NUMBER: 97-33 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5s LOCATION: 5943 I-Lillcrest Road EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The property owner at 5943 Hillcrest Road has submitted a variance application to build a 20 feet be 24 feet garage. Applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Front Yard (house) Side Yard (garage) ~ Propose~d ~ Varian~ 18.92' 20' 1.1 $' l' 1' 4' 3' Thc existing house is nonconforming duc to thc front yard encroachment of 1.18 feet. Thc one stall garage is also nonconforming with 1 foot setbacks from the side and mar lot lines. The neighboring properties share a common driveway in their side yards, Each property has single stall garages setback 1 foot from the property line. Thc proposal is to build a two stall garage which ma/ntains the ex/sting setback. The property exceeds hardcover requirements by 1065 square feet at $0 percent and 418 square feet when figured at 40 percent. COMMENTS: A variance can b, granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. £6, LO 9~U ~Od 7300 Metro Boulevar. d, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 1135-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 ~qg~O~ NOIBNISIOH 09I£-S~8-~I9 Exceptional or cxuraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the sarnc zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the sm'ne district under the ten-ns of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting of thc variance request will not confer on thc applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The lot is currently built out and additional structures cannot be built on the lot unless existing hardcover is removed. Assuming the garage and house will remain intact, the only other alternative to reduce hardcover is to decrease the driveway width from a double to a single lane. This approach would remove approximately 684 square feet ofhardcover. The total hardcover on the property after that portion of driveway is removed and includes the proposed addition would be 2288 square feet or 36 percent. Il' appropriate drainage techniques are approved, the 40 percent coverage could be used which would satisfy code requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of the request if the following conditions can be satisfied. 1) The driveway be reduced to a 9 feet single lane from thc street to the garage approach pad. 2) The driveway slope away from the street and a drainage plan for the site be approved as per the 40 percent hardcover requirements. 3) The new addition depth be reduced to 15 feet to meet the rear yard setback requirement. 4) The existing shed be removed. If the hardcover percent cannot be reduced below 40 percent and a drainage plan be approved, Staff recommends the Commission deny the request. ~:£~ £0 9~ £0d 6L£ ~39930~ NOI~NISIOH VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 JUL 2 4 1997 CITY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR Oki-ICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: fi-l/- q7 Case No. '7- City Council Date: ~7 _ o~ ~9- 0 '7 Distribution: '7'S q- 4'7 City Planner DNR , r City Engineer Other /' Public Works SUBJECT Address ,.~9 q~3 Idillct-¢$r PROPERTY Lot ~ Block LEGAL Subdivision DESC. PID# I/4- - I I "J - Z/4- 49. O O q 8 Plat # ~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA PROPERTY Name "~u$ ~r:- LL OWNER Address ,,594,~ Phone (H) /~t~'- 47~-/.~Z35 (W) ~IZ- O?~-Ool 0 (M)__ APPLICANT Name (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, (ff~o. 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.): C~n~uc-s Who+ mOt. Lid he~ ~.~ ¢h_d-t~,s ,q~tO have Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. e~;'~' ~ 'O 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ); No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ((~)S _E W ) 2c~ ft. ~8.qZ ft- i. 18 ft. Side Yard: ( N SCOW ) q- ft. I fi' 3 ft. Side Yard: ( N S E (~)) q- ft. I q. qB ft. ~ ff- Rear Yard: ( N(~)E W ) ~ ft. I ft. ~ fi- Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft- fi' ff' · (NSEW) fi- fi' ft. Street Frontage: /~t4,q ._ ft. fi' Lot Size: .--1~sq fI sq ff sq fi Hardcover: ~sq fi ~Stl- 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 (Off, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (~ topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: [tle_ holm cc k]e_r~ ~lt4; LDe_LL (Rev. 1114/97) Variance Application, p. 3 Case No. ~,~ "~ o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone, having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: o Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of har. edship 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~~a~,~~~~~ Applicant's Signature_ (~,, .~^o ~ f X~o~t~r./_ Date Date '7'-ZZ-?7 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS. (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA ~/4qO SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I t ~ q I .I LOT AREA /¢,~"/O SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I_ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . · *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE 2_/~ X ?-/'f' = ~7-~ i o, I L~ X ?--?-' = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, F~rr ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = = ~c._~ x lo.q- TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ~0' x 2_~.'~' = ~ ~.5' x ~ = i ~ x ~.'7 = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL DECK .......................... TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... "7-ZZ-9'7 $ t7 HILLCRESTROAD J~E NCHMARK q,"- TNH-977.50 FT.~ ' PLAT- 64.7)q9 .(~.~ ( CURB STOP ~'~-' ~'~' 65.23 ( ~ ,) ~___~ HENNEPINCO. MN. ~ ' THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ~7-~.~7 ~.o5-~J CONTAINS 6488 SQ. FT. 2 STORY ~4.~ · DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT X XXX.XX DENOTES EXIST. GROUND ELEV. X (XXX.XX) DENOTES PROP. GROUND ELEV. 0 0 20' THERE ARE NO DEDICATED EASEMENTS FOR LOT 66 SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF MOUND SHORES. FRAME HOUSE '5943 24 8' PATIO 10.5' ELDER ,.~ 2~.63 ~ GRAVEL DRIVE 20.76 2 STORY FRAME HOUSE °5937 PROI~OSED CONCI SLAB EXISTING GARAGE 64.35 (PLAT--64.69) PROPOSED GARAGE (PROPOSED SLAB ELEV.-973.75) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: RUSSELL BOTHERN 5943 HILLCREST ROAD MOUND, MN. 55364 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct su~>ervision anO that lam o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State REV. 7-14-97 0 20' 0 0 0 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 66, MOUND SHORES, HENNEPIN · DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT HILLCREST (PLAT- 64.7) 65.23 ROAD 2 STORY FRAME HOUSE 20.6 BOX ELDER .-:-1.35 64.35 (PLAT=64.69) 1.0 CO. MN. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: RUSSELL BOTHERN SUDervisior~ on~ that Ic~m c Ouly Rep,St~re~ ~rveyor unoer the lows of l~e Stote RV~ Off FILE? · EXISTING LOT DEPTH. .EXISTING LOT WIDTH. __ FRONT: N S E W - SIDE: N S E W - ~'~, - SIDE: N S E W _C/~"/r-'' - REAR: N S E W 15' - LAKESHORE: ' m r d o .H W TOP OF BLUFF: ------- EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: FR~0~NT~ N S E W I FRONT: N S E W SIDE; N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: 'TOe OF BLUFF: '.OVER CONFORMING? YES / NO Inance, For further Information, contact the City SIDE: N S E W ~4' REAR: N S E W ~['~ .... LAKESHORE: .~0~' (measured from O,H,W,) - ..TOP OF BLUFF: · . ._~ . ,. FRONT: N S E--W.-~ . ,, ,:, :, .. FRONT: N S E,'W"' . , -, ,~ -- SIDE: N S E~W,: ' , .,. , ' - SIDE: N S E W-~ , ,._ REAR:~- 14 S E W!,~ " LAKE~HORE: -- TOP OF B IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? ":YES I N ~ F, ~'~' .' :'".': '.:'~* -'~ ~:~?: .;~' .~ ~'~ . . DATE~ Ph , at 472-0Goo.~.'~''~ (67) HILLCRESI .RD , FO"' ' , GOVT LOT 6 I GOv~ LOT 7 (f4,) (~) (Si) (7) (6) (19) (18) (~) (~) : (18) (53)- (13) (14) (~5) (16) ( MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 26, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 26, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Andrea Ahrens, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interest citizens: John Rothbauer, Stan Mierzejewski, Karen & Pat Buffington, Lyn Hexum, David Kunz, Mike Aspelin, Cathy Bailey, Mike Zygadlo, Dave Harrison, Russ Bothern, Tim Hendrickson, Brenda & Glenn Isaacson, Helen Eiss, Ellen Storlien, and Betty Ann Eccles. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *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. 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: Councilmember Jensen asked that the proposed resolution for P & Z Case//97-34 be corrected. In the first Whereas it refers to a 34 foot garage which should have been a 24 foot garage. Mr. Buffington, P & Z Case//97-35 asked to have the 3rd Whereas corrected to show the garage is attached not detached. The City Manager stated there is an Add-On Item from the SRA concerning the 612 Area Code split. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda as corrected and the Add-On item to the Regular Agenda. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 12, 1997, REGULAR MEETING. Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING HFIDWHH THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD AUGUST 7, 1997. Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.3 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD WITH THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD AUGUST 20, 1997. Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.4 RESCHEDULE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER SUGGESTED DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, 7:30 P.M. Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. · 1.5 RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1998. RESOLUTION//97-74 RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1998 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.6 APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR PERMIT AND SIGN PERMIT FOR QUASI-PUBLIC FUNCTION PORTABLE SIGN - WESTONKA WINTERFEST, NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS. Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.7 CASE #97-29: VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DECK AT 5959 IDLEWOOD ROAD, GLEN & BRENDA ISAACSON, LOT 6, BLOCK 10, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 42 0046. RESOLUTION #97-75 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DECK AT 5959 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 10, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 42 0046, P & Z CASE//97-29 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.8 CASE #97-32: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, TIM HENDRICKSON, 4773 ABERDEEN ROAD, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 9, DEVON, PID #30-117-23 22 0072. RESOLUTION//97-76 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ADDITION AT 4773 ABERDEEN ROAD, LOT 8 & 9, BLOCK 9, 2 DEVON, PID 13-117-24 11 0005, P & Z CASE #97-32 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.9 CASE//97-33: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, RUSSELL AND SANDRA BOTHERN, 5943 HILLCREST ROAD, LOT 66, MOUND SHORES, PID # 14-117-24 42 0098. RESOLUTION #97-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AT 5943 HILLCREST ROAD, LOT 66, MOUND SHORES, PID 13-117-24 11 0005, P & Z CASE #97-33 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.10 CASE//97-34:' SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE AND DECK, STAN MIERZKIEWSKI, 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 12 & P/ll, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0014. RESOLUTION #97-78 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AND DECK, AT 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 12 & P/ll, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0012, P & Z CASE #97-34 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. *1.11 CASE #97-97-35: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, PATRICK BUFFINGTON, 4456 RADNOR ROAD, LOTS 12-15 & W15' OF 11 & 15, BLOCK 15, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 34 0108. RESOLUTION #97-79 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE, AT 4456 RADNOR ROAD, LOTS 12-15 & W 15' OF 11 & 15, BLOCK 15, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 34 0108, P & Z CASE #97-35 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. · 1.12 CASE #97-36: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, MIKE ZYGADLO, 5043 ENCHANTED ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID //13-117-24 12 0096. RESOLUTION//97-80 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE, AT 5043 ENCHANTED LANE, LOT 6, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 12 0096, P & Z CASE #97- 36 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. · 1.13 APPROVAL OF STREET LIGHT REQUEST - CORNER OF BEDFORD ROAD AND CAMBRIDGE LANE. RESOLUTION//97-81 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE INSTALLATION OF A STREET LIGHT AT THE CORNER OF BEDFORD ROAD AND CAMBRIDGE LANE Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. .1.14 APPROVAL OF DANCE AND BEER PERMITS FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE'S INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL SEPTEMBER 13-14, 1997. Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. · 1.15 PAYMENT OF BILLS. Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. 1.16 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ADDITION TO SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. (DUE TO CONTINUED STUDY OF RENOVATION, THIS ITEM SHOULD BE CONTINUED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 1997. PLEASE NOTE THAT SURVEY RESULTS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN EARLY TO MID-SEPTEMBER SO WE WILL HAVE AN IDEA AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL BE PURSUING A REFERENDUM THIS FALL). The City Manager explained this is a continuance from April. At that time it was decided to continue the public hearing to certain dates upon completion of the study that was to be done on the possible renovation of the Community Center. He explained that there is a survey being done in the community by Decision Resources and that will be completed, with results available by the middle of September. The Committee has asked that the Council continue the Public Hearing until September 23, 1997, to allow the survey to be completed and results made available. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to continue this Public Hearing until September 23, 1997. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 BID AWARD: BUILDING DEMOLITION, AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. The City Manager explained that this is the first step toward the redevelopment of downtown Mound. The following bids were received: 4 1. JME of Monticello, Inc. $47,815.00 2. Veit & Company, Inc. $63,395.10 The City Engineer's estimate was//77,998.00. The City Engineer is recommending the bid be awarded to JME of Monticello, Inc. as per his letter, dated August 21, 1997. This demolition project could be started by mid September. Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-82 RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE BID FOR THE BUILDING DEMOLITION IN THE AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT TO JME OF MONTICELLO, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,815.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 DISCUSSION: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN HOSPITALITY, INC., RE: LOST LAKE INN. The City Manager explained that we have been negotiating with Northern Hospitality of Brainerd, MN. who is interested in placing a hotel on the Lost Lake site. A Development Agreement has been worked out between the City and the Developer and this is what is before the Council tonight. This Agreement spells out, in a general way, what will intended to be done. The Developer will conduct a market or feasibility study on whether there is a market for this type of hotel in Mound. There is a clause to get out of this Agreement by either party. Staff is recommending approval. The City Manager reviewed the changes tat have been made in the Agreement. Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-83 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN HOSPITALITY OF BRAINERD, MN. IN THE LOST LAKE AREA The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.19 DISCUSSION: SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT REGARDING WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION - WAWONAISSA AND WAURIKA COMMONS (JOHN DEAN, CITY ATTORNEY, MAY WANT TO ASK FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THIS ITEM). The City Manager advised that the City has been served with a Summons as a respondent in the declaratory judgement action being petitioned by a number of residents in the Woodland Point area. The City Attorney stated the City has been served with pleadings in a lawsuit. The City being one of the many defendants in the lawsuit. He has asked for and received an extension in time to answer. The 5 extension is for 2 weeks. This will allow the City time to engage in discussions. The City Attorney suggested that the Council go into Executive Session to discuss the background of the litigation; the City's posture and approach in formulating and preparing an answer might be; and what the issues might be that we would address in those pleadings. Councilmember Weycker removed herself from the Executive Session. The Council went into Executive Session at 7:48 P.M. They returned at 9:10 P.M. The City Attorney stated that the Council has now discussed the process to be followed in connection with the litigation. The Acting Mayor read the following statement: "The City of Mound has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving two commons in Woodland Point, Wawonalssa and Waurika. The purpose of the lawsuit is to determine who owns these commons and who has the right to use them. Mound is a party in the lawsuit because it owns land within the Woodland Point subdivision and because of the inclusion of the commons in Mound's public land programs for many years. At this time, Mound intends to answer the suit and pursue claims regarding the rights of the general public to use and enjoy the commons. We are having our attorney do a fact finding in order to be able to advise us, if and what to respond. It is important that all those who have been named in the lawsuit understand that Mound will not be representing them in this litigation. In fact, Mound's efforts to claim a public right in the commons may run counter to claims which owners of property in Woodland Point may wish to pursue. This litigation does involve a determination of property rights in the Commons. Mound will only be involved in the litigation to protect the public interest. All other named defendants need to be prepared to provide their own defense if they want to have an influence in how the matter is resolved. Whether or not the named defendants chose to answer and participate in the lawsuit, the outcome of the case will affect their interest in the commons." The Acting Mayor acknowledged that the City has received 2 written comments from two people who currently reside in the subdivision. She asked that anyone else who has comments or input, please submit them in writing. The Acting Mayor asked if there was anyone present who would like to speak on this issue. There was no response. The City Attorney advised that as was stated earlier the City has obtained, for its own benefit, an extension of time to answer the complaint in this lawsuit. As a result of that extension of time, this matter will be presented again to the City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting in two weeks. He then made it clear that this extension of time to respond only applies to the City of Mound and not the other respondents named in the lawsuit. 1.20 ADD-ON ITEM - DISCUSSION ON AREA CODE SPLIT The City Manager explained that the City is a member of the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) which follows utility issues that affect Mound. The Public Utility Commission (PUC) has determined that may be a need to expand the area code system in the Metro area. This can be done a number of different ways: 1. Geographic split or 2. Overlay (this would involve dialing a ten digit number). The PUC has tabled further discussion until October. The SRA is asking all cities if they have any comments or statements they would like to submit to the PUC through the SRA. Councilmember Hanus who is Mound's representative on the SRA stated that most cities tend to favor the fiver split, except that will split some cities and the SRA is opposed to splitting area codes in cities. The SRA would like to maintain the integrity of city boundaries for area codes. A modified river split seems to be what is favored. The City Manager suggested that he would put this item on the next agenda to give the Council time to think about it and formulate some comments to be submitted to the PUC through the SRA. No action was taken on this item at this time. It will be discussed at the Council meeting September 23, 1997. This will allow time to poll the business community about the options. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Financial Report for July 1997 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Information from Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) regarding Department of Public Service Area Code Split. The next joint meeting of the City Councils' of Minnetrista and Mound along with the School Board will be held Thursday, September 18, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Minnetrista City Hall. The results of the Decision Resources survey will be reviewed at that time. The City Manager advised that this is a Special Meeting of both the Cities of Mound and Minnetrista and if there is a quorum of each Council, a decision could be made at that time, on whether to go forward with the referendum or not. If a referendum was to be held, the Committee has suggested December 4, 1997, as a possible date. Councilmember Ahrens stated she would not be able to attend the September 18th Meeting and asked that the item be put be on the September 23rd Agenda. The Council agreed. REMINDER: If you are interested in attending the National League of Cities (NLC) Conference in Philadelphia December 2-6, please contact Fran ASAP regarding registration. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 7 August 21, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AND DECK, AT 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE~ LOT 12 & P/11, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0012, P & Z CASE//97-34 WHEREAS, the applicants, Stan Mierzejewski, has applied for a variance to build a 22 foot by ~..4 foot garage, and is seeking renewal of previous variance outlined by resolution g93-110, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the proposed attached garage is to be setback 22.3 feet from the front property line. A variance of 7.7 feet is requested, and: WHEREAS, the previous approval allowed a setback variance to the OHW of 42' +/- for the lakeside deck. The adjacent dwelling to the South is closer to the lake, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with the garage as proposed and renew the previous variance covered by resolution g03-110. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance of 7.7 feet to allow construction of a nonconforming 22' x 24' garage. 2. The City does hereby grant the renew of variance covered by resolution//93-110. o The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution ~lugust 21, 1997 1942 Shorewood Lane P. 2 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 22 x 34 foot nonconforming garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 12 & P/ll, Block 2, 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, Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: August 21, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AND DECK, AT 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 12 & P/ll, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0012, P & Z CASE it/97-34 WHEREAS, the applicants, Stan Mierzejewski, has applied for a variance to build a 22 foot by 34 foot garage, and is seeking renewal of previous variance outlined by resolution//93-110, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the proposed attached garage is to be setback 22.3 feet from the front property line. A variance of 7.7 feet is requested, and: WHEREAS, the previous approval allowed a setback variance to the OHW of 42' +/- for the lakeside deck. Both dwellings on either side are closer to the lake, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with the garage as proposed and renew the previous variance covered by resolution//93-110. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance of 7.7 feet to allow construction of a nonconforming 22' x 34' garage. 2. The City does hereby grant the renew of variance covered by resolution #93-110. 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. Jo.L Proposed Resolution August 21, 1997 1942 Shorewood Lane P. 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 property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 22 x 34 foot nonconforming garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 12 & P/ll, Block 2, 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, Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1997 {2ASE g97-34: SETBACK VARLaANCE FOR MIERZF_JEWSKI, 1942 SI:IOREWOOD LANE, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0014 GARAGE AND DECK, STAN LOT 12 & P/ll, BLOCK 2, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed this case. BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking the renewal of the previous variance that was granted by resolution #93-110 in order to construct the deck on the lakeside that has not been completed to date. In addition, the applicant would also like to construct a 22x34 attached garage that is setback 22.3 feet from the front property line. A 30 foot setback is required in the R-1 zone and this results in a 7.7 foot variance request. In the previous approval the lakeside deck resulting in a setback variance to the OHW of 42' +/-, It is also noted that both dwellings on either side are closer to the lake. COMMENTS: The proposed deck is reasonable based on the previous approval. The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is minimally sized, and lines-up slightly behind the neighbor to the east. There are no garages on the side and limited storage area, the garage is a minimal encroachment and will enhance the use and function of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request for the garage as proposed and also to renew the previous variance covered by resolution #93-110. Chair Michael asked if the Commission had any questions or comments. There were none. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to accept staff recommendation of a request for a garage and also to renew the previous variance covered by resolution//93-110. The motion carried 8-0. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of August 14, 1997 TO: FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official -~~'~ SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Stan Mierzejewski CASE NO.: 97-034 LOCATION: 1942 Shorewood Lane, Lot 12 and Lot 11 except NW 25 feet, Block 2, Shadywood Point, PID # 18-117-23 23 ~ c'~ I~, ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking the renewal of the previous variance that was granted by resolution #93-110 in order to construct the deck on the lakeside that has not been completed to date. In addition the applicant would also like to construct a 22x24 attached garage that is setback 22.3 feet from the front property line. A 30 foot setback is required in the R-1 zone and this results in a 7.7 foot variance request. In the previous approval the lakeside deck resulting in a setback variance to the OHW of 42' +/-, It is also noted that both dwellings on either side are closer to the lake. COMMENT The proposed deck is reasonable based on the previous approval. The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is minimally sized, and lines-up slightly behind the neighbor to the east. There are no garages on the site and limited storage area, the garage is a minimal encroachment and will enhance the use and function of the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request for the garage as proposed and also to renew the previous variance covered by resolution #93-110. printed on recycled paper (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 J U L PAID 2 4 1~7 $100.00 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works CaseNo. ~'7-~'Z~ DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Lot \~ _o.,T or- [\ Subdivision %~x{ }AJO~)~) ZONING DISTRICT ~_ R-IA Name R-2 1~-3 B-I B-2 Address Phone (H) B-3 t,-~ ~. (t:,~ ~ (W) 5L~.-O ~ ~6 ! (M). Address Phone (H).. (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property.'? (~es, ( ) 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 wiS~l, all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes l~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N~E W ) g°t ff. 7...'7-.~ft. "7.7 ft. Side Yard: ( N S(E)~_ ) ~.O m '~ ft. I O ft. 1o~o'~' ft. Side Yard: ( NS"]~(~) e~; ~ ! 0 ft. lg> ft. ~o~4~ ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ~ ~. ft. ft. - ft. Lakeside: ((~ E W ) :E~;o ft. 4.oe.% ft. 6,.'7 ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ---- ft. Street Frontage: G5 ft. ft. tI/DI, A~ ft. Lot Size: [ ~ t-t'za~ ~.~ sq ft ~ sq ft -.--- sq ft Hardcover: ~ 4' $q4-'/. sq ft 3"5o~."t sq ft Kr'o,o~ sq ft Does the present u~,se of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~647, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (~'i'6'pography ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~4etoo shallow ( O~iape Please describe: %'rOo t..or-t,o-(-t.a soil ,~ . ex~sting situation other: specify Variance Application, P. 3 I Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone~l~aving property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~5'7 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: 8. Are the conditions of hardship for/which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments; I 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 (Rev. 1/14/97) Date r~~TY OF MOUND RD A Ti N (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots} ' I J LOTAREA //~ '~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ..... '.. I 45'7~.71 LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . I J eExisting 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 i~uiiding Official. LENGTH WIDTH SO FT HOUS~ /4.7~- x -CZ = ~/p · zz x -- g,,z7 " 'z¥,zx /7_. . DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PAF~KING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decka (1!4' min. opening between boards) with m DerVioue surface under are no~ counted am he.cover 'OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X ~ X --' y x /? = 5'-7 X = X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. ~'- 7 v .Cz- x 4 = /~ > zl~.7 ~ In X I~_ ?_ -- .,TOTAL DECX ............. ' F~P~'~----~'c,~ /z x z, r- = ~o .. TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~7 ?~,, 7 I (~ovER. 177 ?~1 (indi~,~ diff~,~e_,nc~ PREPARED BY~~~, _ _ _ - DATE ~, ,~g CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. LOT AREA [I/~'~ SQ. FT. LOT AREA 11 X 30% = (for all lots) .............. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I 4-~'7~7 SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH HOUSE ;~a~. X .... x TOTAL HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER WIDTH SQ FT X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER . .ri~,~.~,~.C~., .~..~.~.~., .~:.. TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE , N~ OVER difference) ............................... I '""~ (indicate PREPARED BY ~3rJn~L) ~v/~ '~,---~ - DATE '7' 3o 1 FOR: BUll.nlNG PERMrr SUR . ' I o/ Lot: %3 , Block --~ ' DRAINAGE 13" ~ ~ENiE PI, ACED O · IRON MON. SET · ~.~N~8.0~ PROI~:~D Ii~ORMATION ~0 ' ~. ~. ~O~S~ ~- · · IRON MON. INPLACE , GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELHV.. EXIST. A PROP. ELEV. , ~ I~ or under.~ dlr~-t Sul~r~st~l .nd tl~t I .m · 4u~ I~gls. w.d ~ Surv~/~r under ~ I~ M ~e Siam 473 3 Certificate of Survey for Rich IIenderson of Lot 13, Block 2, Shadywood Point Hennepin County, Minnesota Date : 10-26-88 Scale: 1" = ~0' o : Iron marker found L~q'kl Description Lot 13, Block 2, Shadywood Point. This survey shows the location of all all existing buildings and a pro- posed garage in relation to the boundaries of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other impro~ements or encroachments. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN & GRONB~kG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg M~. Lic. No. 12755 Engineers, L~nd Surveyors, Planner Long Lake, blinnesota s~~ 6125~2668 SAWHORSE DESIGNERS F-174 T-~49 P-004 JUl_ 21 '9? 16:18 ~ONT EL~ATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'..0" · ..SIDE' ELEVATIONS SC.6L~:]ZS" -- 1"-0" 3o3 1 ? / t 1 f t 1 6125~32668 ii.. SAWHORSE DESIGNERS F-174 T-349 P-002 JUL 21 '97 16:17 RESOLUTION #93-110 August 24, 1993 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK AT 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 12 AND PART OF LOT 11t BLOCK 2t SHADYWOOD POINTt PID #18-117-23 23 ~ P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-42 WHEREAS, the applicant, Stan Mierzejewski, has applied for a variance to recognize a nonconforming setback to the ordinary high water (OHW) from both the existing and proposed decks, and; WHEREAS, the actual setback to the OHWwas unknown at time of application, and it appears the shoreline has eroded since the original survey for this property, and; WHEREAS, the proposed deck wXll not extend further towards the lake than the existing deck, and it will not extend further towards the lake than either of the adjacent neighbor's decks, and; WHEREAS, two other decks at the front and side of the dwelling are proposed, however, conform to all setback requirements, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the OHW, and; WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a lakeside setback variance to the ordinary high water to allow construction of the decks, upon the following conditions: ae The owner/applicant establish the location of the ordinary high water elevation. be The lakeside deck shall not be closer than 40 feet to the ordinary high water elevation. 273 August 24, 1993 The lakeside deck shall not extend closer to the ordinary high water than the existing deck. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of three decks, two of which will be conforming. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 11 except the Northwesterly 25 feet thereof, and Lot 12, Block 2, 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 foregeing rese!uti~n was mcve~ by Counci!mam~er Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk 274 SS/SKIP JOHNSON Mayor CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534~ U~AYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364- ,6~2 472.0600 FAX !6~2) 4,"2-C,620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. Planning Commission Agenda of August 9, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff. Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~[~ Variance Request Stan Mierzejewski 93-042 LOCATION: ZONING: 1942 Shorewood Lane, Lot 12 and Lot 11 except NW 25 feet, Block 2, Shadywood Point, PID ~18-117-23 23 ~T~ ~Ol~ R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setback to the ordinary high water (OHW) from the deck. The proposal is identified in three stages and includes expanding the lakeside deck resulting in a setback variance to the OHW of 42'+/-, note C on the survey. The proposed decks noted on the site plan as A and B are conforming. It is also noted that both dwellings on either side are closer to the lake. COMMENT The line-up provision of the City Code, Section 350:440, Subd. 6 is only applicable to the street side~ DO~ to the lakeshore~ The original draft of the Shoreland Management Ordinance contained this provision and it is acceptable to the DNR, however, it was deleted at the Planning Commission level and it is not part of the ordinance now (the related minutes are attached). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request with the condition that all proposed work be conforming to the 50 foot setback to the OHW. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 24, 1993. JS:pj printed on recycled paper 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OP MOUND 5341 14aywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:' City Council Date: ALL~L3~q~ Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: Case No. $50.00 Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~g~i~e~r: Please t~q~e or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Day Phone Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Addition .°-i\ A ~ ~¢~LA~> POi t~T Zoning District Block PID No. Use of Property: 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 constr~uction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc. ): /\~) .~. ,~_~_~% ~ q)~(£'(~ ~- ~ A~ 4/93 Variance Application Case No. Do the existi~comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulati~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. )_ k(~' ,_~_,~C.l~hb3~ required Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: requested (or exis.t lng) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. .ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to aC regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small (~) too shallow Please describe: ~ ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) shape ( ) other: specify 5. Was the hardsh'ip described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in t/e land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~), No ( ) If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Appl£¢at£on Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?. Yes (), No (). If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar 'only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers"or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signaturo~>~//~ Applioant's Signature Date ADDRESS: CITY OF M0"~ND .a, ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE? ~,YES?I NO LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO YARD ZONING DiSi-RICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~ lO,OOO/eO - i ?,soo/o RzR e,ooo-655-/~6~ 2o.ooo/eo R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60' R2 14,000/80 R3 ggg ORD. Z! 30,000/100 HOUSg ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE . SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF =~CTION NME W N S E W N S E W~.~ N S E W N S E W (IAI~OF.,, SIIEI] ..... DETACiIED BUILDINOS N S E W 10' OR 30' F-..xISTI NG I PROPOS I~D FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W BJBAR N S E w LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF r ' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40~ YES I NO ? Thl. Zontn~ Information Sheet ~ · portion or ~he requirements ouUined Planninl Dep~mnenl ·l 472-0600. /! ,, ~1 LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPFH: VARIANCE BLDG #5320 (11-16-79 BURNACB #1883 (6-21-91) DEMOLISH DET. GARAGE #9801 (9-4-92) WATER HEATER #2560 1-21-94 '6 August 21, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE , AT 4456 RADNOR ROAD, LOTS 12-15 & W 15' OF 11 & 15, BLOCK 15, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 34 0108, P & Z CASE g97-35 WHEREAS, the applicant, Patrick Buffington, has applied for a variance to build a 24 foot by 26 foot garage, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the propose g~arage is to be setback 18.0 feet from the front property line. A variance of 12 feet is requested, and: WHEREAS, the property currently does not have a garage and the proposed garage would maintain the same depth as the house, and; WHEREAS, the existing shed would be removed with the driveway improvements, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with the garage as proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance of 12 feet to allow construction of a nonconforming 24' x 26' 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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 24 x 26 foot nonconforming garage. Proposed Resolution August 21, 1997 4456 Radnor Road P. 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 12-15 & W' of 11 & 15, Block 15, Avalon. 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. The following Councilmembers voted in the affh'mative: and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1997 CASE # 97-35: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, PATRICK BUlk'lyING'tON, 4456 RADNOR ROAD, LOTS 12-15 & W 15' OF 11 & 15, BLOCK 15, AVALON, PID 19-117- 23 34 0108. Assistant City Planner, Loren Gordon, reviewed this case. BACKGROUND: The property owner at 4456 Radnor Rd. has submitted a variance application to a 24 feet by 26 feet two stall attached garage. Applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Existing Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 30.7' 18' 30' 12' Currently, there is not a garage on the property. The garage addition would maintain same depth as the house as well as roof line. The driveway would be relocated to accommodate the side entry arrangement of the garage. There is an existing shed which would be removed with the driveway improvements. CO1V[MENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Co Do That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Staff feels there is a practical difficulty with topography which limits the placement of a garage on the lot. The elevation drops approximately 12 feet from the comer of the back of the house to the rear lot line making construction in the rear yard d{fficult at best. The attached garage is a logical arrangement given the design of the house and its orientation on the lot. MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested. 0uestions of Commi.qsioners: Reifschneider asked if there were any variances on this property now. There are none. Gordon stated the variance is for the proposed garage. Gordon was asked about the existine shed. He stated his recommendation stands to what the Site Survey says. Sutherland spoke with City Engineer, John Cameron about the turnaround at the end of the street. He feels it is a minimal concern. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the requested setback variance for garage. The motion carried 8-0. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koe§Ier Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 11, 1997 SUBa-ECT: Garage Setback Variance Request APPLICANT: Patrick Buffington - Owner - 4456 Radnor Rd. CASE NUMBER: 97-35 RECEIVED HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5t LOCATION:4456 Radnor Rd. EXISTING ZONING: One Family Residential ('R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The property owner at 4456 Radnor Rd. has submitted a variance application to a 24 feet by 26 feet two stall attached garage. Applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Proposed ~ variance Front Yard 30.7' 18' 30' 12' Currently, there is not a garage on the property. The garage addition would maimain same depth as the house as well as roof line. The driveway would be relocated to accommodate the side entry arrangement of the garage. There is an existing shed which would be removed with the driveway improvements. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circtuns~ces apply to the propert7 which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 7300 Metro Boulevar.d, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax(612) 835-$160 &6, hO BRU 90d 6h~ ~BqBBO~ NOIBNISIOH 09~-S£8-~9 The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That thc special conditions or circumstances do not result fi'om the actions of the applicant. D. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any spec/al pr/vi]ege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of' other lands, structures or buildings in thc same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Staff does not feel a hardship or practical difficulty is present which merits the granting of a variance. The hardcover is a limiting factor on this property and exceeds both the 30 and 40 percent standards. It does not appear that there is any feasible manner in which to reduce the surface area below 40 percent while allowing a two stall garage design. The lot is currently above the 30 percent hardcover limit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance request. S2:£~ £6, ~.0 $~ SOd 6&~ ~B9gBON NOIgNISIOH 09~£-S£8-2~9 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 JUL 2 4 1997 CITY OFMou . Apphcauorr v . $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: ~-'//'~'~"~ Case N°' ~~/j~% City Council Date: ~' '~' ~ '" q ~7 Distribution: City Planner DNR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot/tll,~O(ot.; ~z,,~,,¥ ~,t~ i.,;/r';[/tr/c Dq,~ ½.- IJ,.,',,~,..~ -P~I,.A,. t~,Block { ~' LEGAL Subdivision ~t~o[x DESC. PID# ici _ l iq - 7.-za/,.--.N Plat # ZONING DISTRICT (-~ti/- I R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name '~r~,cc ~r ~,~e...cs~ Ibuv~'~t,~d OWNER Address ~q~'~ ~-~>taol~ ~--b Phone (H) 0Cf 2. - oeq~;5' (W) (M). APPLICANT Name (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. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 1114,97) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply wit~all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~ff, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) Front Yard: ' ( N S E W_ ) 2[0 ft. I $ ft. I 'z.. ft. 7',~"edo(~°)Sii~le Yard: ( N S E_(~) 2_0 ft. :~ ft. ft. Side Yard: (~)~) '~ ft. io.,4 ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( E W ) ,.5' ft. z//a ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. ' (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ?$. 4 ft. '7~f~ 'tt ft. ft. Lot Size: sq fl - '0 t , t4,._t sq ft sq ft Hardcover: 5o'7t sq fl ~a~7~ sq ft sq fi VARIANCE Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ~..~opography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (>/)~xisting situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 1/14/97) 305'5" Variance Applicatioa, P. 3 o 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 (.-)~f yes, explain: No(). Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? If yes, explain: Yes boW, o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~ No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature 3 ~~ (Rev. ll14/97) Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATION,~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE (GARAG E/~H~D') DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT x = X = · TOTAL HOUSE X IO; = /Od) TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................ X = DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.~'~.,~_~ opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. 2~ X / 7.5'" = ~3~ X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~~OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY "~d--"~'~~-~--.-~ - DATE I HARDCOVER WORKSHEET JOB 970727 House ~ Area 1 ~ 44.4' 26.4 1172 2! 6! 5 30 31 3! 5 15 4 24 4i Total HoUse 241 ] Sand Box with plastic 25~ Area 438 17.51 ITotal Sand Box with plastic 4381 Proposed Garage ~ 61 24 26I i Total Proposed Gara~le Area 624 ~Proposed Driveway [ Area I ~ 16 48 768 ~ 7 iTotalProposed DHveway 6241 ITOTAL HARDCOVER 7681 30711 TOTAL LOT AREA (to road esmt.) 104211 PERCENT OF LOT THAT MAY BE HARD 40% I ISQ. FT. OF ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER AREA OF H.C. UNDER + OR OV=~, - ORD. 4168'I 1o981 C; TO McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Engineers, Planners, Surveyors 15050 23rd Ave. N., Plymouth, MN 55447-4739 612/476-6010 Fax 612/476-8532 Leller o1 Trnll#lnillnl DATE ~" ~"'-- ~ JOB NO. ~ ATTENTION WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Undcr separatecovervia [] FedEx [] Mail [] [J~S '/Attached Messenger the following items: [] Shop Drawings [] Copy of letter [] Prints [] Change Order [] Specifications RECEIVED [] Plans [] Samples [] COPY TO _ SIGNED: ~0 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at onc~ POST STL ~. BRACKET ANCHOR TO POST t TOP SLEEPER 6/41 DECK BOARD TOP SLEEPER 3,/41' PL't'I~IOOD SHEATHING BOTTOM SLEEPER 2 X IO FLOOR JOIST X 12 TRIM BOARD I X SPACER X 12 TRIM BOARD END (~ FINIAL AT POSTS X /, TOP RAIL X 4 BALUSTER RAIL ;2 BALUSTER · 4" D.C. PER LOCAL CODE 4 BALUSTER RAIL GALV EDGE FLASHING - EXTEND 4' ma' ~X X X Design No. SOM-07040 THE LEXINGTON 2C-Q" FRONT STUD WALL FOR 2&' WIDE GARAGE REAR STUD WALL FOR 2~,' WIDE GARAGE 2~;'-5" Jf WALL STUD ELEVATIONS FOR 26' DEEP GARAGES : and Stair Installation and railings will be installed in exactly the thc Attached Option, except, on thc side 'age attaches to the house, there will be no II be consttnctcd in thc sallie manner as the rt ~g infi~rmation detailed in the Detached ~re the garage siding matches the siding Specifications Design Loads This structure is designed to withstand a live load of 40 pounds per sqnare foot (PS.E). Roof bearing capacity can be altered by changing the size aud spacing of the rafters. Check local building code for local requirements. The size of the footings shown is based on a soil bearing pressure of 2000 PS.F. Uplift has nnt been considered in the design of this building. All concrete must reach a minimum 28-day compres- sive strength of 3000 P.S.I. All lumber should be exterior grade with an allowable elasticity (e) of 1,400,000 RS.I. and Fiber Stress in Bending of 1150 RS.I. - Dimensions Written dimensions take precedence over scale dimensions. Plan drawings take precedence over written instructions. For questions Z 0 o 0 d z ~' O.C. L FRONT ELEVATION 3. If?ur garage needs more than one column of siding, make sure to install flashing between the top and lower panels. 4. Install trim on the corners of the building and where the siding meets the soffit. Lap Siding 1. Lap siding must go over sheathing. Follow manufacturer's instructions. 2. Begin at the bottom of the building, making sure the siding is level and straight. Usc a chalk line and level to check your work. The first row of siding must extend 1/2" below the sole plate. Installing the Stairs See Stair Detail K. Building codes for stairs and railings vary in different parts of the countr3: Check your local codes and with your building inspector before and during stair construc- tion. Also, get yourself a good reference book to supplement thc stair detail. Attached Option Framing the Attached Garage 1. See Section E - Attached Option. For the attached option, use the instruction steps outlined in the Detached Option fi)r framing and raising the three detacbed walls and installing the trim. To attach the garage walls and roof- ing joists to the house, follow the steps below. 2. See Detail B - New Wall to Existing House Detail. Remove any existing siding where the new front and rear wall frames will attach to the existing honse walls. See Detail F - Ledger Board Attachment to the House. Determine the location of the of the home's second floor rim beam (this information will be provided by the struc- tural engineer). The top of the decking will be located two inches below the top of the home's second floor rim beam. Measure down on the side of the home~ second floor rhn beam from the point where the top of the decking will be located; the combined thickness of the decking, the two sleepers, flashing, and the plywood sheathing. This will locate the top of the garage ledger board. The hnttom of the ledger will be the same height as the top of thc garage walls. Remove any siding that will interfere with the placement of the ledger board. Attach the ledger to the house using two lag bolts every 16" O.C. in a "W" fashion across the board. Also, there must be a 2" gap between thc top of the decking and the bottom of thc siding for drainage purpos- es. This area will be sealed with flashing, later. Frame, raise and plumb the three outside walls, as described in the instruction for thc Detached Option, and attach thc second top plate. Then, attach thc new walls to the existing house frame with five-5" lag bolts. Remember thc top of the walls must be level with the bottom of the ledger board. Ledger Board and Joist Support 1. See Sectio~ E and Detail F. This plan calls fi~r a 2x4 stud wall to be built directly under thc ledger bnard befine the roofing joists are installed to the ledger. This is to give the ledger and joists additional support as well as fi~undation for the %" Type X Gypsum Walt Board. O o ' Z z '~, Page .,/%~ r ' EXISTING HOU5E BEYOND ~ ~~/._ "3' ROUND WOOD SPHERE 2 X & WOOD TOP RAIL u') n n /' o ............ n . , , ,'r 2 X 2 IIIOOD BALUSTER ~- (~ ' ~ PER LOCAL CODE , I X I0 TRIM t~OAiiN I I I I LEFT SIDE ELEVATION P-.,I G H T SIDE EXISTING EDGE OF HOUSE ~ '"'~/ 3' ROUND WOOD SPHERE 2 X & WOOD TOP RAIL - SIMILAP-. FOF~ DETACHED :2 X 2 WOOD BALUSTER · 4" O.C.~ PER LOCAL CODE 4 X4 WOOD POST5 I X IO TRIM BOARD ' DOUBLE 5 LAP 51DING SERVICE DOOR I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I --I--I .... i--I. I I I F , ~,, IL 2XIO FRAMING ~STAIR LANDiI~G 2XI2 STAIR CARRIAGE 3 ThUS ? 2&'-O" ~MF:TAL JOIST HANGF:R5 ~/ II II II II II II II , II , , Il II II II II II II II II II.. II II II II I Ill Ill II Ill MICRO-LAM BFIAM Ii Ill II II Iii Ill ~ Ill Ill ~ Ill ~ ,~,~ ,o.~ll~..~.~ II Ill Ill ! Ill Ill il Ill Iii Ill II Ill Ill Ill i I , I~ II II ~ II I -I- II II II ~ II 2xlO FLOOR JOIST I~," O.C. __2XlO SOLID TYPICAL UJO( I LOCA BRIDGING 26' x 2/0' ROOF JOIST FRAMING TOP SLEEPER ;t ;'~ BOTTOH SLEEPER~ 24' UJIDE SLEEPER TEMPLATE 3. Once the top sleepers are set in place, screw several pieces of decking across thc sleepers to hold them in place until the railing posts are installed. 4. Determine the placement of the railing posts as indicated on thc Elevations page. Thc railing posts should be spaced no fi~rther than six feet apart. Check your local codes for accurate spacing distance. Install the railing posts to the rim beams and rim joists with carriage bolts as shown in Details L and M. For added post support, attach the posts to thc top sleepers with sturdy I. brackets, wherever possi- ble. Thc decking will cover most of the L bracket. $. Now, install thc fioal pieces of lx12 trim between each post (m the frnnt, rear, and upper edge of the garage. Nail thi~ t~ie, J.~. ~f' ti-ill1 into tilT' tod sleeper onlv. J)o Not n,ail Make sure you apply a roofing sealant where the post and the top lx]2 trim board meet the garage. This will prevent moisture from accumulating between the post, trim and the garage. When the posts are up, begin to install the decking boards on the top sleepers. Start on one side of the garage and lay the first row of decking parallel to that side of thc garage. See Deck Level Plan. Tip from the Pros: To give your deck that professional look, plan a pattern where the decking.joints will meet. Make sure decking joints meet equally over a sleeper and alternate the sleepers where the decking joints meet. Deck board~ 4,told ~pan ,at Ic,a~t three sleepers witbout 8. Install the decking with the prevent water from poolinI 9. Make sure the boards are., nails as spacers or detcrmin 10. Occasionally, check parallel to the minor a4justments in the s to correct any misalignmcnt. ll. To get a strai~ ~1 ~ decking, snap ~ ~ ends offwith a circular saw. UJOOD STAIR t RAILING PER LOCAL CODE DN I~; RISI f ................... 5/4 ttlOOD DECKING 3'-t." HIGN WOOD RAILING PER CODE SEE ELEVATION -- 5LOPE DOUJN ~ e I/8" PER FOOT ELASTOtlERIC RUBBER ROOFING TT EXISTING FRENCH DOORSi IDGING TYPICAL LEVEL P L_._A N ELIDE SLEEPEP-- TEHPLATE ng with the crown nr bark side up to thc wood. are spaced unifi)rmly. Use 16d (3-%") dctc'rmioc a spacing distance you prefer. tn make sure tile boards are running tigin .r the end -f thc deck. If not, make spacing of thc next several boards linc ~vhcn cutting off the ends of thc lc, and cut the No.for the Railings 1. The railing shown on this plan is one of a numerous v~iety of railing styles. Use your imagination or do a little research and develop a railing style that will personali?x your deck. 2. After all thc posts are installed, add the upper and lower baluster rails between the rail posts. Use metal anchors on the inside of the railing posts to install the baluster rails. This is much more secure than toe nailing. 3. Once the baluster rails have been installed, add the top rail. Top rail joints must meet over a post. Make a miter cut at any corner, and fasten the top rails to the posts with neils or screws. 4. Now, install the balusters by screwing them to the upper and lower baluster rails. Make sure the space between each r-I ........... cnnnds with the buildi' 1,, in your area. The Siding is Next... Tipf~ra the Pr~s: Thc siding option you choose deter- mines when you can install optional doors and windows. Follow the manufacturer's instructions when installing the siding of your choice· Stucco Board, Ply~od or Sheet Siding 1. Start installing the siding where yoo began thc framing lay- out. Make sure the first sheet you lay is plumb and square · . /. plate. to the building. Extend the s &ng : bdow thc sole 2. Make sure the joining edges of the siding laps half way onto the next smd. If the siding does not have overlapping joints, install a "batten" over tile joint to keep thc weather oot. UNEX COl, VER CO[ ,,, 5'-'4" ~2 - 8" '~ CONC PIERS TO FROST DEPTH 2~'-0" ,,,, 25'-4" t + + +1 I+ ~ -~-~ · + I I+ I ,, I I I I, I ~'-o' ~,'-o' J UNEXCAVATED j'~ -- J_ EXISTING HOUSE · LILIAL L + I _j , 2'-4,"x 2'-/--"x I'-O" J CONC. FTG..~/ a4 s /,- D.C. ED J J VERIFy *u/LOCAL I I CODES. i+ I I / OMIT TOP COURSE FILL CORES LUITH I / OF [ELK. AT DOOR / I / OPENINGS / CONC AT BEA~ING POST LOCATIONS 9'-4" ~ 9'-4" 2&'x 26' FTG. FND. PLAN 2. Once the sill plate (.40 pressure-treated 2x4~) locations are determined, start at one corner of the foundation and place a sill plate on top of the anchor bolts with the corners of the sill plates aligned. Tap the sill plate with a hammer to mark tbe positions of the anchor bolts on the wood. Drill the anchor boh holes in thc sole plate and lay in place. Repeat this process for each sill plate. Do not tighten the sill plates to thc foundation. SCALE I/4'=1'-0" See Framing Elevations. Assemble and erect wall frames nne side at a time. If you don't have many helpers, assemble larger walls in smaller sections. Starting with one of the side walls, cat the top plates to length and lay next to the sill plates. Make sure the joints of the top plates and the sill plates are staggered by at least four feet, and are located over the center of a wall stud. Now mark stud locations fi~r botb tbe top and sill plates. Consider window and door placement at tiffs time. Lay thc top and sill plates apart and on edge, parallel to each other, and place studs in between the plates where marked. Attach the sill and top plates to thc studs by nail- ing thrmtgh the plate into thc stud with 16d (3-%") nails. Do not nail studs where windows and doors are tn be placed. If fire blocks are required, install them 4' above the bottom of the sole plate in a staggered pattern. For door and window placement, check the manufacturer's rough opening dimensions and installation guidelines, and install rough openings now. 5. Install extra studs at one end where the wall frames meet. 'See Comer Detail A for the Detached Option. 6. Now is a good time to add a section of the second top plate over any joints on longer walls. This helps to make the wall frame more stable as it is raised. O1'11T TOP COURSE OF BLOt AT DO0~ 7. With the frame by measuring numbers arc let-in bracing. S 8. You can add si,, been raised. If v, of weight to thc lng the wall. Rr add strength front of th_.~ gar: 2(,'-O" 4" CONC SLAB --J,-2x'l I/ID STUDS 2xlO JOIST - I&" O.C. 4" CONC. SLAE~ w//.x& IO-IO HESFI q' x 7' O.N. D( 26' 2xlO JOIST · lb" O.C. EXISTING Fl(: I/IALL STL. COLUMN 5,/6" TYPE "X" G~. ltd 'iHS ,-2x4 IIID STUDS ~1' x q' O.h. DOOR x 26' FLOOR PLAN SCALE I/4"=1'-O THRESHOLD DOOI~ Sl..t BE SELF CLOSING rHT FITTING SOLID IUD. OR STL. DR. 20 tlIN FIRE RAT OR. NO GLAS! ALLOtlJED IN DOOR VERIFT ~J/ LOCAL C< DE5 till laying on its side, check for square ncr-to-corner diagm~ally. These measure- lual, if not, a4iust thc frame until the I. To keep thc frame square, install lx4 e Framing Detail. thing to thc wall now or after thc wall has u add thc sheathing now, it will add a lot vail, and you will need plenty of help rais- ~cmber to stagger thc sheathing joints to ~c wall Sheathing is recommended on the c. Let-in bracing is impractical because of pcning. the sill plate meets the foundation. 10. Raise the wall. For this step, get some helpers to aide you in "walking up~ the wall to its correct position. Brace the wall with 2x4 braces and check the wall for plumb, thc ends first, then the middle of the wall. Make any corrections by adjusting the braces. Secure the sill plate to tbe foundation by installing and tightening the nuts and washers to thc anchor bolts. 11. Finish and raise the other walls in the same manner. Important: Make sure the front and rear wall frames arc built with the three-2x4's in the middle of the wall to support the roof beam. Also, if you are using an internal support beam with the dimensions called for in this plan, you will have to cut a seat, %" deep and 3-'/:" ~de, in the first top plate directly over the wall's support column to receive the beam. If this is not done, the internal support beam will be %" higher than the roofing joists. 12. When eacb wall is aligned and square, secure the sill plates to the foundation by tightening thc nnts and washers to the anchor bolts. Check thc corners for phunb, then nail thc end walls into the corner posts as shown in Detail A. 13. Add thc second top plate to all walls. Make sure thc joints are staggered from the first top plate joints by at least 4'. Remember to overlap the second top plate at the corners, and leave a 1-%" gap on thc front and rear walls to accom- modate thc roof beam. This is shown in thc Wall Stw' Elevations. 14. Install the sheathing on the frames if you have not done so already. Start at one corner of the building and wurk your way around. Make sure the sheathing hangs below the sill plate by at least %." Continued to page CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET. HOUSE ......... ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Bi 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF ! N S N W N S E W N S E W 50' 10' OR 30' (;ARAGE, SllED ..... SIDE SIDE REAR OR OTIIER DETACtIED ;E W N S E N N S E W E W BUILDINGS ! / 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER I R2 14,000/80 ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXISTInG/PROPOSED VARIANCE R3 WIDTH: -- CONFORMING? YES / NO This Zoning Information Sheet, .Planning Department at 472-0600. a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinnnce. For further information, contact the City of Mound I --, £ 0~'" I C '--h~ 0 August 21, 1997 PROPOSED RESOLUTION g97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE , AT 5043 ENCHANTED LANE, LOT 6, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 12 0096, P & Z CASE//97-36 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mike Zygadlo , has applied for a variance to build a 26 foot by 28 foot attached garage and a conforming 10 feet by 10 feet storage shed, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and; WHEREAS, the proposed attached garage would conform to all applicable set backs, and; WHEREAS, the property currently has two nonconformities on the property. The lot area is 6,248 square feet and measures 50 feet in width and the house is nonconforming due to the 1.39 feet side yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the hardcover including the proposed shed is 1902 square feet, making it 32%, and; WHEREAS, the proposed deck would be built off the side entry and maintain the existing setback, and; WHEREAS, the Council policy is to allow a two stall garage to every residence, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with the approved modifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a side yard setback variance of 4.61 feet to allow construction of a conforming attached 26' x 28' garage subject the following conditions: a. All junk and debris be removed from the property $o7a- Proposed Resolution August 21, 1997 5043 Enchanted Road P. 2 b. Outdoor storage of the snowmobiles, boat and canoe and any other recreational equipment be limited to 4 items as per code. c. Automotive repair work to be done within Zoning Code ordinances. d. Recognize the side yard nonconformity but not allow additional structure to be built within the encroachment. o The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction Construction Construction of a 26 x 28 foot conforming garage. of a 10 x 10 storage shed. of a deck adjacent to the side entry. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 6, Block 20, 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, Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affu'mative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and seconded by MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1997 CASE iq 97-36: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARAGE, MIKE ZYGADLO, 5043 ENCHANTED ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 12 0096. Assistant City Planner, Loren Gordon, reviewed this case. BACKGROUND: The property owner at 5043 Enchanted Road has submitted a variance application to construct a 26 feet by 28 feet two stall attached garage and a 10 feet by 10 feet storage shed. Applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Existing Required Variance Side Yard 1.39' 6' 4.61' There are two existing nonconformities on the property. The property is zoned R-1 and does not meet the lot area or width requirements. The lot area is 6,248 square feet and measures 50 feet in width. The home is also considered nonconforming due to the 1.39 feet side yard setback. The hardcover surface as shown on the hardcover calculations sheet is incorrect. The driveway area should show 182 square feet. A recalculation would put the property at 1902 square feet of impervious surface after all proposed improvements are considered with the exception of the storage shed, which is right at the 30 percent hardcover limit. The 100 square feet shed would increase the hardcover to 32 percent. Currently, the property does not have a garage. The proposed garage would be designed to face Gull Lane. The driveway length would be 17 feet from the garage door to the curb making a tight fit for most cars. The proposed garage as shown would conform to all applicable setbacks. The proposed deck would be built off the side entry and would maintain the existing setback. As shown on the construction plans, it would be a wood construction. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since Minutes - PC 8-11-97 enactment of the ordinance have no control. Bo The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Do That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. During a visit to the property, it was noted the large amount of junk and miscellaneous automotive and appliance items being stored outside. Most of these items appeared to have been on the property for a long period of time. In addition to the 2 operable vehicles in the driveway during the visit, 2 other vehicles appeared to be in storage along with 3 snowmobiles, a boat, and a canoe. Based on Council policy to allow a two stall garage to every residence, Staff feels there is a practical difficulty present which would deprive the owner of a garage afforded to other similar properties. The garage could alleviate some of the outdoor storage of cars and recreational vehicles. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions. 1) All junk and debris be removed from the property. 2) The proposed 10 feet by 10 feet shed not be allowed. 3) Outdoor storage of the snowmobiles, boat and canoe and any other recreational equipment be limited to 4 items as per code. 4) Automotive repair work shall be completed within the garage and only to vehicles registered in the property owners name. 5) Recognize the side yard nonconformity but not allow additional structure to be built within the encroachment. Ouestions of Commissioners: Minutes - PC 8-11-97 Voss questioned #5 of the recommendation. Gordon stated that there is also a proposed deck. Voss wanted Junk and Debris defined. Sutherland stated there is a code for exterior storage of items. Voss does not like conditions 1, 3, and 4. Feels the proposed garage is too large for the property. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Reifschneider, to recommend staffs recommendation. Hanus would to have condition # 2 removed from the conditions. Voss feels Condition gl, 3, and 4 are issues that are enforcement issues and not planning issues. Clapsaddle agrees with strik~g g2 ia motion. Leave ia 1, 3, & 4. Sutherland suggested that # 4 should be amended to say that it stays within Zoning Code ordinances. Clapsaddle agreed to the amendment. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Reifschneider, to recommend items 1, 3, 4 with modifications, & 5. Leaving out item # 2. The motion carried 7-1. Voss opposed. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Cormnission and St~ff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 11, 1997 SUBJECT: Nonconforming Lot and Setback Variance APPLICANT: Mike Zygadlo - Owner - 5043 Enchanted Road CASE NUMBER: 97-36 HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5u LOCATION:5043 Enchanted Road EXISTING ZONING: One Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The property owner at 5043 Enchanted Road has submitted a variance application to construct a 26 feet by 28 feet two stall attached garage and a 10 feet by 10 feet storage shed. Applicable yard setbacks and variances include the following: Existing ~ ~ Side Yard 1.39' 6' 4.61' There are two existing nonconformities on the property. The property is zoned R-1 and does not meet the lot area or width requirements. The lot area is 6,248 square feet and measures 50 feet in width. The home is also considered nonconforming due to the 1.39 feet side yard setback. The hardcover surface as shown on the hardcover calculations sheet is incorrect. The driveway area should show 182 square feet. A recalculation would put the property at 1902 square feet of impervious surface after all proposed improvements are considered with the exception of the storage shed, which is right at the 30 percent hardcover limit. The 100 square feet shed would increase the hardcover to 32 percent. Currently, the property does not have a garage. The proposed garage would be designed to face Gull Lane. The driveway length would be 17 feet from the garage door to the curb making a tight fit for most cars. The proposed garage as shown would conform to all applicable setbacks. The proposed deck would be built off the side entry and would maintain the existing setback. As shown on the construction plans, it would be a wood construction. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis ora finding of hardship or practical difficulty. The Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 52:5, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835.9960 Fax-(612) $35-3160 9E:E~ L6, £0 BN~ 80d 6~E aB]BBO~ NOIgNISIOH following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstmlces apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in thc same zone or vicinity, and result from lot si2e or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. Thc variance would not be materially detrimental to thc purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. During a visit to the property, it was noted the large amount of junk and miscellaneous automotive and appliance items being stored outside. Most of these items appeared to have been on the property for a long period of time. In addition to the 2 operable vehicles in the driveway during the visit, 2 other vehicles appeared to be in storage along with 3 snowmobiles, a boat, and a canoe. Based on Council policy to allow a two stall garage to eve~' residence, Staff feels there is a practical difficulty present which would deprive thc owner of a garage afforded to other similar properties. The garage could alleviate some of the outdoor storage of cars and recreational vehicles. RECOMMENDATION: Staffr¢commends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested with the following conditions. 1) All junk and debris be removed from the property. 2) The proposed 10 feet by I0 feet shed not be allowed. 3) Outdoor storage of the snowmobiles, boat and canoe and any other recreational equipment be limited to 4 items as per code. 4) Automotive repair work shall be completed within the garage and only to vehicles registered in the property owners name. 5) Recognize the side yard nonconformity but not allow additional structure to be built within the encroachment. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Dc That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special l:n-ivilege that is denied by this Ordinance to ovmers of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Staff feels there is a practical difficulty with topography which limits the placement of a garage on the lot. The elevation drops approximately 12 feet from the comer of the back of the house to the r~mr tot line making construction in the rear yard difficult at best. The attached garage is a logical arrangement given the design of the house and its orientation on the lot. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested. ~33~30~ NOIBNISIOH 09I£-S£8-~I9 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: f-[/- ~ ~ Case No. City Council Date: ~7_ ~ (re- q 7 'Distribution: ~- ~ '~ City Plier DNR , ~ City Engineer ,, Public Works PROPERTY Lot ~ Block LEGAL Subdivision ~/p.Y'/ 2 2.~ DESC. PID~ Plat ZONING DISTRICT ~*~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name /g, ~ ~ ~ OW~R Address~ c,,~ c /~ ,~j~,. ~ ,: ~ .~ /~ Phone (H) :- -, ~ ~., (W). (M) APPLICA~ Name (ff OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,,(56' no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of propo~d construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ' . / . Variance Application, P. 2 I ,, Case NO. DO the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No 17,/.. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS' REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) Front Yard: ~S E~,,) '9 ~ ~5) ft. _3 ,~ ft. ~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E/W}) o ,., Side Yard: (N/$~) ' I ~' ft. ! v, ~ ft. ft. Rear Yard: (/',~E W ) "' i% ft' .! ft. 6" - ft. ft. 35 ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ,~.(~.:_~ ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: fosq ft sq ft ~7~o sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft VARIANCE Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (-~,, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted, in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( )drainage ( )existing situation too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 1114/97) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. 6) 7,3~ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No 4~ If yes, explain: Yes (), 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/~L. ~~, ~~ (Rev. 1/24/97) Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATION~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA ,~ LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE "~ ~ X ..~ r.~ = ~'~ /u'~-~ ~-~' ~ ~ x ~ ~ o = X = TOTAL HOUSE X = X DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ~ x /:7. ~ = Z~f(~ X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK X = TOTAL OTHER TOTAL ~:~COVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~.~o._~_- UNDER /~VER~/indicate difference) ....... ---- ........................ I PREPARED BY -- DATE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ..~" MIKE ZYGADLO ENCHANTED LANE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 6, Block 20, SHAD YWOOD POINT 0 0 Denotes iron monument X O00. O Denotes existing elev. (000.0) Denotes proposed elev, Total Lot Area: Total Hordcover: Percent of Lo( Coverage 6248 scl. ft. 1713 sq. ft. 27.4 ~ DEMARS-GABRIEI., IAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 Harbor Lone No. Plymouth, MN 55447 Phone: (612) 559-0908 I hereby certify that this is o true and correct representation of o survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of oll buildings, if any, thereon, and oil visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. ~'~' ' ~d E. Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 File No. 9574 Book-Page Scale 1"=30' i AU.LN~I aAva ItO/(INV ~119VO- d990 C) WALL AT GARA~ SLOPE GRADE AWAY FROM FOUNDATION 6" IN FIRST 10'-0" (TYR) '--, 4" X 2" CONT. KEY -- DOWELS @ 4'-0" 16" X 8" FTG. W/(2) ¢¢5 CONT. FILL TOP 2 COURSES W/GROUT AT BOLTS 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT -- 4" CONC. SLAB WI6 X 6 10/10 WWM 1/2" DIA. X 18" ANCHOR BOLTS @ 4' O.C. EMBEDDED PER LOCAL CODE ~---6 MIL VAPOR BARRIER 4" SAND CUSHION OR CRUSHED STONE #5 AT 4' O.C. FILL BLKS SOLID W/CONC. AT VERT. #5 8" C-90 CONC. BLK. (# OF COURSES DETERMINED BY FROST LINE) DETAIL C -- CONCRETE BLOCK STEM WALL DETA Design #: 886016 ~ ~/~/~ * * * Take this sheet to the Building Materials desk to purchase your materials. You have selected a 5' x 10' deck 5' off the ground. Green Treated Framing Material Vertical Decking 2"x 6" Stained Brown Treated Deck Boards 36" Spindle Railing 2"x 2" x 42" Stained Brown Treated Spindles 4"x 4"x 48" Stained Brown Treated Railing Posts Stained Brown Treated Lattice Poured Footings 8" Tube 3' deep Galvanized Spiral Nails 2"x 8" Joists 2"x 8" Beams deck load included For Building Material's use only: Selection Code: 0601200600210042209001~040360100000001 in design options:$800.46 Today's cost for materials estimated this with *The base price may include: 40 PSF deck load, horizontal decking, 2x6 green treated'tlecT boards, green treaed framing material, no stairs, 36" 2x4 roiling, green treated roiling posts, and galvanized box nails. * (BASE pti.): $278.~4 ADDRESS: L. I I'¥ 'L)I' ~DUN'~'~_ LL)NIN(S INFORMA~O~" $ttEETI IIOUSI~. ......... DIRECTION ] REQUIRED ZONINO DiSTRICF, LOT SIZE/WiDTH: _ lO,~l ~,SO0/O RIA 6,000/~['0~ B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 93 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 S~R ORD. Il 30,000/100 I ISTINO/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE:, LOc D~PIH: YARIANCE FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE N $~.~W REAR N S E w LAKE N S E W TOP OF RI.UFF I0' OR 30' GARAGE, $11ED ..... DETACllED BUILDINGS FRONT N $ E W FRONT N S E W SIDE SIDE R,~AR LAKE Yu~ OF EI.UFF HARDC'uYER I NO ? N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 30% OR 40~, IBY: 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' !0' OR 30' This Zoning Information Sheet only sununarizea a portion of thc requirements outlined in thc City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Plannlr~ Department at 472-0600. Date: August 17, 1997 To: ChiefHarrell//~ From: Officer Ewa~ Re: Street Light In reference to the street light request for the comer of Bedford Road and Cambridge Lane, I have talked with all those who signed the petition for the installation of a street light. I have also talked with Kathy and John Nelson, who reside at 4949 Bedford Road, Mark Jenks, who resides at 4932 Bedford Road, and Kim Edwards, who resides at 4955 Bedford Road. These residents who were not on the petition stated that they believe the street light is necessary for that end of the block as it is very dark in that area. I also talked with Vi Sollie, who resides at 2855 Cambridge Lane, who stated that she didn't believe a street light would add any security to the area, but that she would not oppose it. Vi Sollie is 90 years old and lives alone. Marilyn Byrnes, Wanda Martans, Jeanette Maas and Eileen Heitz also live alone. I have been in the area several times after dark and the area of Cambridge Lane and Bedford Road is extremely dark. I would recommend that a street light be placed in the area and suggest that it be mounted on an existing power pole located on the west side of Cambridge Lane in front of 2855 Cambridge Lane. SUPPORT/PROTECTIVE SERVICES Senior~ And [.a., Eni'orcement To§etl~er 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota 55364 · 612-491 $25.00 Day- Single Dance PAID $200.00 Yr.- Annual Dance AUG 1 5 1997 · : ' : !:. CiTY'OF MOUND LICENSE ?--/3-9'7 Date of Single Dance License Year Annual Dance Date CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD P~CEiv~D MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 .. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATIOI~0U/VDP}~/V~/~6.'" ~_ -7~.~,, .,~ o ADDRESS: c,,~ ~,~ ~ HOME PHONE #: {y ' ' (]: ..~/ . Department ApprOval/Denial (Submit memo if denied) Approved Police Dept. Adm. Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. . Denied PAID /, , , . Onl '~ ' · -.,,,,,,,,,,.a :: - CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN~, M]NNF_$OTA ,,,;OUND PLANt~if,~G & iNSP. _'tEmPOrARY ON-$A~ NON-~TTOX~CA'r~G MALT ~0UO~ · . Chairman ~/ rTitle: -J _ Phone No.: &- / ~' Home Phone: ¢--/~--- t Work Pho : S<tion 810.10, Subd. 2. Liability hsur~ce. (a) Phor to ~e iss~ce of ~y B~r license, ~e applic~t sh~l demonstrate pr~f of fm~ci~ res~ibility wi~ regard to liability impos~ by Mmesom Statutes S<tion 340A. 801 to the City Clerk ~d to ~e Commissioner of ~blic Safety ~ a condition of the is~ce or renewal of Ms license. Pr~fof fm~cial res~nsibility sh~l ~ given by filMg a ce~ificate ~at ~ere is M eff~t ~ ~su~ce ~licy or pool providMg ~e minimum coverages for d~m shop liability ~ r~uir~ by Mmesom Statutes, S<tion 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is ~e intent of tbs s<tion to r~uire ~e ~nimum Msur~ce coverages ~d amounm r~uk~ by Mi=esom law. Name of ~sur~ce Co.: ~0[]'~. ~~ Amount of Coverage:.~ ~, ~ ~ S<tion 810:10. Su~. 1. Application Fora. ~ ~e c~e of~y application for a Tem~r~ '~-Sale' license to allow ~le ~d consumption of ~r on public l~d or public ~h~l l~ds, ~e appli~t shall, p~or to iss~ce of such license, file the whtten con,at of the o~er of such l~ to such use of its l~ds. BILLS ........ August 26, 1997 Batch 7082 Total Bills $262,365.23 $262,365.23 Z ~ U~ ~J Z I I McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 August 21, 1997 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Telephone 612/476-6010 61 2/476-8532 FAX RECEIVED AUG 2 2 1997 Engineers Planners Surveyors SUBJECT: City of Mound Auditor' s Road Building Demolition MSAP 145-108-04 MFRA #9968 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received on Wednesday, August 20, 1997 for the building demolition on Auditor's Road. There were thirteen (13) plan holders but, only two bids were received with the Iow bid of $47,815.00 submitted by JME of Monticello, Inc. The other bid was for $63,395.10. The engineer's estimate for this project as submitted to State Aid was in the amount of $77,998.00. As you will note, both bids were substantially below our estimate. In discussions with some of the plan holders, it appears this type of work is very competitive at the present time, which may explain why we received such a good price. We have discussed the proposed project with JME and feel they will be able to meet all the requirements of the plans and specifications. They are presently under contract with Mn/DOT for three projects in Stillwater and one in St. Louis Park, all of which are demolition projects. We have discussed their performance with Mn/DOT personnel and are satisfied they should be capable of completing this project. Based on their work history and our discussion with them, we are recommending that JME of Monticello, Inc. be awarded a contract in the amount of $47,815.00. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure e:\main:\9968\jrcS-21 An Equal Opportunity Employer 00000000 ~ ' 00~00~0 00~0 00000000 i 00000000 0000~0~0 0~00 0 0000~00~ ~000000~ AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this __ day of ., 1997, by and between the City of Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and Northern Hospitality, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter "Northern"). RECITALS: First: Northern is interested in pursuing the development of that certain area of land which is a part of a tract of land described in the attached Exhibit A (hereinafter the "Development Area"); Second: Northern is proposing development within the Development Area of a hotel facility and related parking and which also may include restaurant and meeting facilities (hereinafter the "Development"); Third: The City wishes to cooperate with Northern's efforts with Development and is willing to proceed as described in this Agreement; Fourth: The parties acknowledge that Northern will expend substantial time and effort, and incur substantial expense in pursuing the Development; Fifth: Northern is willing to undertake the above describe activities with the reasonable assurance from the City that it will support and cooperate with Northern in its Development efforts. Sixth: The City and Northern have executed this Agreement to document their understanding with respect to the proposed Development. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual obligations of the parties contained herein, each of them does hereby represent, covenant and agree with the other as follows: 1. Statement of Intent. It is the intention of the parties that Northern will proceed with the development activities necessary to permit Development, in a manner, and on terms and conditions, which are mutually acceptable to Northern and the City. The parties acknowledge that in order for Development to be constructed, Northern may at some point need financial assistance from the City and/or the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority CHRA"). In addition, in the event Northern experiences extraordinary costs pursuant to its undertaking pursuant to Item 2 herein, Northern shall have the option of terminating this agreement or applying to the City for commitment for payment .of or reimbursement for such JBD127355 MU200-65 approval of such financial assistance, nor does it obligate the City to provide such assistance - or to secure such assistance from the HRA. Undertaking by Northern. Northern intends to undertake and pursue certain activities with respect to the Development. During the term of this Agreement, Northern will undertake market studies; formal discussions with the City and HRA regarding the terms for the relationships with Northern; preparation of architectural design drawings for the Development; formal negotiations with financing sources; and preparation of marketing and management plan. Upon execution of this Agreement, Northern shall promptly proceed to gather and analyze relevant data, and to prepare the various development and design studies needed to determine the feasibility of the specific development proposals for the Development. Northern will first undertake preliminary studies to: a) determine the nature of the market for the utilization of the Development Area; b) prepare a preliminary master plan of the Development Area showing the Development and other uses planned by the City in the Development Area; c) make a cost estimate of the Development; d) determine the nature and form of any assistance which Northern contemplates it may request from the City an/or HRA and the financial data supporting such request; and e) determine the feasibility of the proposals in the financial market place. City's Undertaking and Agreement. The City agrees to cooperate with Northern in Northern's undertakings, and specifically agree that during the term of this Agreement the City will not enter into an agreement or solicit proposals for the purchase of the Development Area. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of nine (9) months, provided that, either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other, in the event that: (a) the City determines, in good faith, that Northern is not diligently pursuing the Development, or (b) Northern determines, in good faith, that the Development is not feasible. The City may also terminate the Agreement for failure or Northern to meet its obligations under paragraphs 519, The parties may, by mutual JBD127355 MU200-65 written agreement extend this Agreement for such further periods as they shall determine to be appropriate from time to time. Any such notice shall be deemed delivered if either actually delivered, or if faxed and mailed to the parties at the following addresses: Northern Hospitality, Inc. Atto: Perry Platisha 18503 Design Drive Baxter, MN 55425 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attn: City Manager Phone: (612) 472-0600 Fax: (612) 472-0620 o Miscellaneous. JBD127355 MU200-65 This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relative to the proposed Development. Unless specifically described herein, no obligation shall be inferred or construed. Co As expansion of the foregoing, Northern understands that further and separate action, for which no obligation is created hereunder, will be required before the City and/or HRA are obligated to take various actions with respect to the Development. Those actions may include, without limitation: a) establishment of Project Area and Tax Increment District; b) agreement to provide tax increment or other financial assistance to the Development; c) zoning and subdivision approvals; d) agreement to sell the Development Property to Northern and the terms of such an agreement; and e) construction of public improvements to serve the Development. Northern further understands that many of the actions which the City may be called upon to take require the reasonable discretion and in some instances the legislative judgment of the City, such actions may be made only following established procedures; and it may not, by agreement, agree in advance to any specific decision in such matters. Do Northern hereby indemnifies, holds harmless and agrees to defend, the City, its officers agents and employees from any claim or cause of action of whatever nature occasioned by or arising out of this Agreement or the City's performance thereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the date and year first above written. CITY OF MOUND By: Its By: Its NORTHERN HOSPITALITY, INC. By: Its JBD12735~ MU200-65 4 August 22, 1997 Mayor Bob Polston and Mound City Council Members Mound, Mn 55364 Dear Mayor Polston and City Council Members, I will not deny that this is a very emotional appeal to all of you as overseers of the public good for the City of Mound. My love for the parks and open space of my community has been demonstrated through many years of involvement both in volunteering for a summer in running a recreation program for the children in my neighborhood Three Points Park and having served for seventeen years on our Parks and Open Space Commission. After arriving in Mound in 1966, I was mazed at the gif~ our predecessors gave to the community by platting so many miles of land on the lake to be used by inland property owners. Having worked with the Minneapolis Parks for many years I realized this amount of shoreline is the same as Lake Harriet, Lake of the Isles and Lake Calhoun combined. All of that for a community which had a population of a little over 5,000 citizens at that time! My children and my neighbors children used the commons as a natural playground, exploring the wooded areas to learn about nature, fishing, boating and swimming off our commons dock and swim raft. I have been accused of living in times past and I guess I do. Having seen the enjoyment of a neighborhood using land that was platted for our use nearly 90 years ago, I naturally assumed that my and my neighbors children and grandchildren would have this same opportunity forever. I don't have to go into detail about the lawsuit against the City of Mound several years ago in which many of us as Woodland Point residents testified in behalf of the City in our desire to have Mound continue to control this land under its dock program. Unfortunately, the loss of that suit has caused a tremendous change to our neighborhood. Not only do we have to walk up to five blocks to our docks, instead of being able to walk a few hundred feet to the Wauwanossa Commons, but it has caused the abutting residents of the Waurika Commons to become even more crowded with the influx of the disposed dock owners. A solution for the disposed docks made by the original litigents was to surround our only swimming beach with a multiple of eleven docks. As a past park commissioner and as a mother, it is not too difficult to see this as a loss and safety hazard to the neighborhood children who use this public beach. In desperation over what many of us in Woodland addition saw as a loss of what we felt were our historical deeded rights of access, we held many neighborhood meetings and eventually were advised to ask the courts to explain what exactly were our rights of access. This was difficult for everyone of us who joined in the petition for a declaratory judgment. First of all most of us had never ever hired an attorney and secondly, we are not a high income neighborhood. It was a long and difficult job getting out to people. Many people don't want to be involved in legal affairs and, of course, many just couldn't afford it. At last the papers have been served to all of the lot owners of Woodland Addition (and their mortgage companies) who were not petitioners. I have received many phone calls already from shocked residents who agree with the petition but never signed on as petitioners and don't know what to do. We had to let our attorney know that we could not afford to have him explain on our "buck" what the petition is about to 50 respondents and/or their mortgage companies. We are still attempting to raise the additional funds to just finish paying for costs of this petition to the courts. I am writing this letter of appeal to you as Mound Council Members to in some way help us with this process of retaining the rights of access for the future citizens of our community. Mound owns seventeen lots in our addition and was served as a respondent. I understand because it did not want to become involved in what they looked at as a private neighborhood conflict. We are not a private neighborhood, we are residents of the entire city of Mound. Not only have our children used the commons for all of these years, but so have hundreds of children from throughout the entire city. I definitely feel that this judgment will help the City with many hard decisions it will be faced with in the coming years either dealing with other commons issues, building permits or other commons neighborhood disputes. I am appealing to your minds and hearts and care for this community of Mound to consider ways that you could help us in standing up for what is right for the residents of Mound.. Several of my neighbors and I are planning to attend your meeting on Tuesday, August 26th when you discuss this issue. There is no other community so fortunate to have so much shoreline available for its citizens' use. The future of this wonderful asset our community is in jeopardy. As protectors of the community's welfare, I am urging you to remember that it is only a handful of people who have caused this hardship and almost 10,000 other citizens who will suffer. Thank you for you time in reading this lengthy and emotional appeal, but I felt that I needed to do this for my community. Sincerely, Cathy Bailey 472-4011 cc/Ed Shukle, John Dean, Curt Pearson Mr. Lyn E. Hexum 1543 Blue Bird Ln. Mound MN 55354 August 19, 1997 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: This is to formally follow up this morning's telephone conversation with you regarding the latest Woodland Point uprising. As you are aware, the city of Mound, I, and numerous other peace loving residents of Woodland Point were served with a summons which, I believe, is requesting a judge to define the rights of all Woodland Point residents as pertains to what is known as the Waurika and Wawonaissa Commons. This summons is asking for a declaratory judgement which, in the absence of any response from the respondents, could possibly be granted. The request for judqement does not mention the City or it's past, present, or future involvement with these properties. While I am sure there will be a response from (at least) a group of six people as pertains to Wawonaissa, I am not sure there will be a similar response from anyone as pertains to Waurika. I believe it is absolutely mandatory that the city of Mound respond to this summons as you have continued to administer Waurika under the City commons program. I do not believe that under the circumstances, I, any other Waurika abutter, or any non abutting Woodland Point resident has the ability to respond since we have no interest in Waurika Commons that is any different from that of any of the petitioners. What could my/our response possibly be? The City, on the other hand, since they have retained control and administration of Waurika Commons, has a duty to respond to insure that all Woodland Point residents' rights are considered and protected. I bought my property with full knowledge and understanding of the commons program. I was OK with it then and I am OK with it now. However, I do not want this property to go directly from City control to "anarchy" because the City failed to act responsibly on behalf of some of it's residents. In my simple minded way of thinking, this could happen if some judge decides that no one other than the general population of Woodland Point (or the city of Mound) has any rights, authority, or whatever over Waurika. Mr. Ed Shukle - City of Mound - August 19, 1997 There is a 20 day response period which, for me, ends September 7th (or 8th). I can not just sit and let that date pass without doing something. I think at the very least this summons should be addressed at the August 26th city council meeting so all interested parties can be assured that a few very active Woodland Point residents do not run amok with an issue that affects many. I also believe that I (and others) have a right to know what the City considers their responsibility in this matter to be. sincerely, 1543 Bluebird Lane Mound, MN 55364 472-2785 (H) 934-0460 (W) 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 CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT July 1997 July 1997 BUDGET REVENUE YTD REVENUE 1,266,460 149,996 649,296 6,250 0 3,992 121,800 19,964 72,991 968,210 14,799 524,446 51,100 866 5,774 65,000 8,646 69,309 43,300 561 1,825 43,500 0 0 10,000 1,065 7,620 58.33% PERCENT VARIANCE RECEIVED (617,164) 51.27% (2,258) 63.87% (48,809) 59.93% (443,764) 54.17% (45,326) 11.30% 4,309 106.63% (41,475) 4.21% (43,500) 0.00% (2,380) 76.20% TOTAL REVENUE 2.575.620 195.897 1.335.253 {1,240,367} 51.84% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 336,020 108,320 1,525,000 430,000 880,000 4,100 73,800 28,017 243,836 (92,184) 72.57% 5,232 71,846 (36,474) 66.33% 144,646 850,277 (674,723) 55.76% 41,102 235,775 (194,225) 54.83% 80,228 541,115 (338,885) 61.49% 0 1,445 (2,655) 35.24% 701 69,956 (3,844) 94.79% 08118~97 rev97 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT July 1997 58.33% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers July 1997 BUDGET EXPENSE 69,370 4,000 800 193 470 2 100 59 ~480 168.960 23 550 114 460 924 350 4 100 172 870 405 270 82 840 148 550 36 200 20 000 161,390 YTD EXPENSE VARIANCE 5,580 51,723 0 4,OOO 100 325 20,325 112,404 0 1,838 1 377 17,647 95,966 164 12,487 9,827 52,145 102,581 506,127 64 882 18,473 96,779 41,252 248,149 (361) 41,287 24,155 83,479 0 0 4,641 19,302 12,869 90,084 72 11 62 418 3 76 157 41 65 17,647 0 475 81,066 262 59 103 .994 =063 315 223 218 091 121 553 071 36 200 698 71,306 PERCENT EXPENDED 74.56% 100.00% 40.63% 58.10% 87.52% 0.63% 56.80% 53.02% 45.56% 54.75% 21.51% 55.98% 61.23% 49.84% 56.20% O.00% 96.51% 55.82% GENERALFUND TOTAL 2,591,760 257,318 1,417,354 1,174,406 54.69% 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 29,579 167,064 168,956 49.72% 17,345 87,053 31,897 73.18% 22,224 128,229 160,791 44.37% 25,748 193,406 235,894 45.05% 109,742 665,817 354,643 65.25% 1,125 5,637 2,463 69.59% 5,128 27,846 40,594 40.69% Exp-97 08/18~97 G.B. $117 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SRA City Managers/Administrators/Delegates Jim Strommen, Kennedy & Graven August 12, 1997 Department Public Service Area Code Split Proposal Enclosed is an excerpt from the proposal of the Department of Public Service CDPS") in the 612 area code docket currently before the Public Utilities Commission. The DPS is proposing a split similar to the "doughnut" approach that was rejected by the Task Force and opposed by the SRA. The SRA met on this matter on July 16, 1997. At that time the DPS had not submitted its proposal nor had it taken a position on the previously discussed alternatives, the River Split, the Doughnut Split or the Overlay. The SPA has submitted comments asking the PUC to preserve municipal boundaries wherever possible, opposing the Doughnut Split. On July 16 there was no SPA Board consensus on supporting the River Split or Overlay. The SRA did receive resolutions from some cities favoring the River Split, which was related to the PUC in the SPA's comments. Note in the attached summary that the DPS proposal would involve a new number for the Minneapolis-St. Paul and some portions of the surrounding suburbs. The primary rationale of the DPS is to balance the number prefixes. It states that the River Split and other diagonal or straight line splits create an imbalance in the number of prefixes available, thus shortening the relief period. Note that the DPS proposal would split into different area code cities such as: Edina, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Columbia Heights, Roseville, Maplewood and Woodbury. Please discuss this internally and contact me at 337-9233 with any position _your city may have. This matter will be argued before the PUC sometime this fail. Note that this does not affect rates or local calling areas. It affects only telephone numbers and potentially the quantity of numbers one must dial for a local call (10 v. 7). JMS128155 SU160-32 Docket Nos. P999/M-97-506 Analyst assigned: Gregory J. Doyle Page 12 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLI~ t SERVICE The Department recommends that the Commission embrace the: bjectives it has identified and order a split of the 612 area code by creating a cen :er circle and an outer ring. The center circle would be comprised, as nearly as possible, of the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, preserving a strong geographic identi! ~. The Department further recommends that the 612 designation remain with the ou t.-r ring. The more significant issues are the method by which area code relief is to t e. accomplished (split) and the size of the respective components. That is, it is importar t to reflect a relative balance in the number of prefixes in each of the newly configure ! code areas. The Department's recommendation meets the seven objectives e' these comments. It both minimizes customer disruption to the e and requires that the inconvenience of the decision be shared in everyone. The geographic identity of the state's area codes will seven-digit dialing for all calls originating and terminating withJ Competitive and technological neutrality are preserved in that ,a providers will be required to accommodate introduction of the n tumerated earlier in tent that is possible, .~ equitable manner by ,., preserved, as will a single area code. reless and wireline .~w code depending upon central office prefix location and not on the basis of when., ~rvices are introduced to the marketplace. Thus, certain providers are not required to ~ i~proportionately bear the costs of this expansion. Finally, the only alternatives that produce a reasonable balancinI; of central office codes between areas are those incorporating an center circle and outer ting. The Department proposes the alternative provided in Attachment N. It further p: oposes that the outer ring retain the 612 area code. The outer ring has a greater numb-::: of central office codes suggesting that fewer telephone numbers are likely to be negatix (..ly impacted by this decision. Area code exhaust will reoccur in the foreseeable futu~ ~ if telephone numbers and central office codes are not used efficiently. The Departmen: recommends that the Commission adopt all procedures to ensure the efficient utilizati ,,n of prefixes and telephone numbers in the course of this proceeding. /jl MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SRA. City. Managers/Administrators/Delegates Jim S~xornmen, Kennedy 8: Graven August 22, 1997 612 Area Code Split--Discussion and Action Items ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE/WORK PRODUCT INTRODUCTION This memorandum follows the PUC's decision to defer a final plan on the 612 area code change untiI October, with the likelihood that one of two geographic splits will be adopted. (map attached). Each of the geographic splits will split suburbs because the wixe center boundaries used to separate calling prefixes do not run along political boundaries. Also, as you have read in the paper and heard on the news, the overlay method is still a possibility. It is strongly supported by Commissioner Storm. A new Commissioner, Crreg Scott, will be participating in the final decision in October. Disagreement over the type of geographic split among the Commissioners may cause Commission Chair, Garvey, to support an overlay if the new member supports it. The River Split is dead because it cannot provide the needed relief' duration required by the Commission. This memorandum discusses the SPA options at this point and suggests actions by SPA members. DISCUSSION LeoaI Posture. The PUC intends to adopt a final plan in early October, to be implemented in 1998. I have been approached by the DPS regarding the concerns of the SPA that boundaries not nm within municipalities. The DPS is requesting that U S West explain the technical feasibility of re- drawing wire center boundaries along municipal boundaries for purposes of the area co'de split. I have made a similar request of U S West. I have also spoken with the DPS regarding the possibility of re-drawing its proposal to avoid municipal splits. Unofficially, the DPS seems receptive to examining a Minneapolis-St. Paul area code and suburban area code, along municipal boundaries. I ,,','ill pursue this closely. The SRA, like any party, should be free to make additional comments to the PUC prior to and at irs final hearing in October. Because the PUC has not made a final decision yet, a petition for reconsideration, at this point, is premature unless it asks that any geographic split not divide municipalities. That issue can be addressed in the interim with the information gathering I can obtain about technical feasibility and cost and that SRA. can gather during the next month and a half. If the PUC decides to adopt a geographic split of the 612 area code and that split divides municipalities, there is almost no chance that an appeal on a purely legal basis would prevail. The PUC will need to be convinced that avoiding division within municipalities is a sufficiently important policy consideration to warrant reconfiguration of the existing geographic split plans. R__elevant PUC Factors. At the August 20 deliberation, the members of the PUC each articulated factors that were important to them in decicting the proper area code plan. Generally, the interests of business-end users were of significant importance, especially small businesses. Convenience and lack of confusion to all customers was important_ Each Commissioner separately stated that he did not want to be revisiting this issue anytime in the near furore. They had recently completed the 320 area code matter and felt that they were placed in the 612 exhaust situation far sooner than earlier predictions. That factor probably was the single biggest reason that the River split was not seriously considered as a final plan by the Commissioners. Other factors included costs, fa/mess to all ~oups, specifically competitors, understandability and retention of one's existin~ telephone number and seven digit dialing, if at all possible. ~ While some Commissioners were concerned with neighborhoods being split by different area codes, none expressed the sentiment that the goals of city government in any given city would be hampered. In other words, that city. councils had opposed splitting municipal boundaries and, therefore, favored the River split, did not seem to be an important factor to the Commissioners in and of itself. SRA Member Disc~sion. The SRA does not meet until October 16, 1997. This will be too late for any formal action of this scope unless the PUC decision is scheduled for the second part of October, which it does not appear to be at this time. It is clear that the "division of community" argument of the SRA must be supported by something more than a city council resolution opposing it. Tangible, real-life or compelling possible scenarios must be included in any argument or ciD' action to move th/s Commission to cons/der a potentially costly re-&av~Sng of wire center boundaries along municipal boundaries. Most every inner-ring suburban municipality will be split in some way by one or both of the §eo~aphic split proposals. V~rhat is critical for me to 'know is the importance of this issue to the affected cities and the SRA as a whole. I have heard from and met with some city councils. They have expressed opposition to the split. Yet, to affect the PUC, the SKA response will need to be both widely held and supported by particular reasons that a split in area code numbers within in the city will break do,,,,,a community or otherwise cause negative consequences. The general public has not been particularly vocai to the PUC on the matter of nei~hborhood splits. This Commission will inevitably ask when the SRA. or any other city comes to the table "why would a different area code within your city cause you as a municipal government more than a temporary problem with confusion and inconvenience? We are not hearing from the public that a geographic split w/tkin their neighborhoods is something they can't adjust to?" Cities need one or more the following three types of responses: One or two overriding public policy concern adversely affected by an area code split within a community. A list of less compelling but cumulatively important tangible and intangible problems created by a split. Individual business and resident responses brought to a city describing the problems of a split within a city. .Action Items. I will press for information regarding the exact proposed boundaries and capabilities of area code divisions along municipal boundaries from the DPS and U S West The SPA Executive Committee is empowered to act between meetings. If I need formal action from the Executive Committee, I will emll a special meeting with the formalities of open meeting notices preceding it. We may even decide it is appropriate to move up the regular meeting of the SRA to early October to obtain formal action by the entire board. In the meantime, it is important for me to hear from each city regarding: The preference between overlay and geographic split, depending on whether the split can be on municipal boundaries or not. Specific reasons that intra-municipal boundaries harms city government and the people it serves. 3. Positions on whether a geograpkic split alon~ municipal boundaries with ~ would be acceptable or preferable to the overlay, Or whether a split along SET'r_6 0-31 mtmicipa[ boundaries but with some suburbs within the Mpls.$t. PauI area code would be acceptable. 4. Poll your business community regarding the overlay proposal. It is my understanding that it is strongly opposed by the business community.. If cities favor it. they may alienate loeaI business. ' 5. Cities should also let their legislative representatives know about the city's position on the municipal split issue. My number is 337-9233, fax is 337-9310 and e-mil is ...... . .{ §¢ographically. and it recom- mended two plans for fur[her study before-a final dec{sion is made in October. Wlnen i[ me{ Wednesday, the PU< was deadlocked on whether to choose thc more traditional me[hod of dividing {~he cdrren[ 612 callin~ area in half or ~o try a new approach and let al{ {he {312 numbers ge[ used up before over- laying a new area code. ovenay. ~.ne t-'ut~ normally lla. five members, but a res[gnado~ earlier this year left the 'para, with only four members. Edward Garvey, PUC chairma~ and a proponent of an overlax: said Thursday that he was willir~} to change his mind if telephon, traffic pa~terns indicate mos: people make most calls within ~ fairly small geographic area. Turn to AREA CODES on All New-area code contenders The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is studying two plans to add a new area code to The Twin Cities area. Which areas would retain the 612 'code has not been decided. The doughn~ spl'rt ! The three-way split. The imer core of the Twin CJl:~ would ' The metro area would be ~Vided ha~ one area code, and the sur-: into three area codes..':'~ rou-d~ areas woUd have a~other.' ~. ,~ge i Zim ~"'- · Sou~l~c.~~ ".. · .... ';...: ...... ... '""' ' '~'/.'"~'U'"'~' ';.'". 'rd'¥.'- ' .. ,'. ',..: <'..."i :i'....:'"'i:' Star Trbune graphic The City of Mound has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving the two commons in Woodland Point, Wawonaissa and Waurika. The purpose of the lawsuit is to determine who owns these commons and who has the right to use them. Mound is a party in the lawsuit because it owns land within the Woodland Point subdivision and because of the inclusion of the commons in Mound's public land programs for many years. ii. Mound intends to answer the suit and pursue claims regarding the rights of the general public to use and enjoy the commons. It is important that all those who have been named in the lawsuit understand that Mound will not be representing them in this litigation. In fact, Mound's efforts to claim a public ri~ht in the commons may run counter to claims which owners of property in Woodland Point may wish to pursue. This litigation does involve a determination of property rights in the Commons. Mound will only be involved in the litigation to protect the public interest. All other named defendants need to be prepared to provide their own defense if they want to have an influence in how the matter is resolved. Whether or not the named defendants chose to answer and participate in the lawsuit, the outcome of the case will affect their interest in the commons. FA X ¢ 0 VER SHEET CITY OF MOUND 5341 MA YWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 PHONE: 612-472-0600 FAX: 612-472-0620 TO: FAX: FROM: DATE: TOTAL PAGES PURPOSE: REMARKS: For your information _~_As you requested As we discussed For your apl:)rovai Take appropriate action Review and tatum Reply to sender Other (see remarks) The City of Mound has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving the two commons in Woodland Point, Wawonaissa and Waurika. The purpose of the lawsuit is to determine who owns these commons and who has the right to use them. Mound is a party in the lawsuit because it owns land within the Woodland Point subdivision and because of the inclusion of the commons in Mound's public land programs for many years. Mound intends to answer the suit and pursue claims regarding the ~,h,.tso~ ~.,n.era~ub~.~ too~. a~.~j?y th~.t~OmoT~n~,.O'~r'~'~~_~V! It is important that all those who have been named in the lawsuit understand that Mound will not be representing them in this litigation. In fact, Mound's efforts to claim a public right in the commons may run JBD128884 MU200-1 counter to claims which owners of property in Woodland Point may wish to pursue. This litigation does involve a determination of property rights in the Commons. Mound will only be involved in the litigation to protect the public interest. All other named defendants need to be prepared to provide their own defense if they want to have an influence in how the matter is resolved. Whether or not the named defendants chose to answer and participate in the lawsuit, the outcome of the case will affect their interest in the commons. JBD128884 MU200-1 IL,t I 13: Zt~ I~'AJk CITY Ub' )IUUi~U ~ uu~ *** ACTIVITY REPORT *** *************************** TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE TIME PAGES RESULT 1232 93379310 08/28 13:24 02'00 3 OK OY: Zt~ P'A-x- IJl'l'¥ Ui~' IIIUI, J~D ~ uu~ *** ACTIVITY REPORT *** *************************** TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE TIME PAGES RESULT 1068 93379310 08/14 09:17 09'23 13 OK FAX CO VERSHEET CITY OF MOUND 5341 MA YWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 PHONE: 612-472-0600 FAX: 612-472-0620 TO: FAX: FROM: DATE: TOTAL PAGES PURPOSE: REMARKS: For your information As you requested As we discussed For your approval Take appropriate action Review and return Reply to sender Other (see remarks) CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. Blaine Bailey and Molly Bailey; Douglas Briggs; Martin T. Johnson and Marie T. Johnson; Carol E. Doyle; Raymond Richter; Richard M. Bailey and Catherine M. Bailey; Michael Porter and Marcia Porter; Kenneth G. Reich and Mary. A. Lintner; Lyle G. Ash and Elaine L. Ash; Marty Ray Austinson; Paul A. Erickson and Virginia L. Erickson; Ronald M. Chase and Geraldine A. Chase; Donald L. Petersen; George E. Haugh and Rolayne Burton f/k/a Rolayne C. Haugh; Glen A. Lemmerman and Keri Jo Lemmerman; Mary Ellen Storlien; Thomas G. Gyllen and Heidi A. Gyllen; Keith E. Abrahamson and Karlene A. Johnson; Thomas Vitey and Elva E. Vitey; Helen Eiss; Michael Aspelin and Julie Aspelin; Rodney C. Hein; Bjom L. Strand and Gladys O. Strand; Douglas M. L. Robert; Carol A. Jacobs; Carrie A. Jacobs; Rosemarie E. Espiritu; Nancy L. Piela and David F. Piela; Craig A. Jacks and Kathleen M. Jacks; David Beahen and Angela S. A. Beahen; John H. Beahen and Victoria Beahen; Russell T. Myers and Kimberly L. Evans; Scott D. Carlson; Leroy J. Poetz; Eric B. Iverson and Cheryl D. Iverson; Norrine P. Forrest; Lester J. Clark and Harriet M. Clark; Richard J. Johnson and Marion Johnson; Mary A. Schaible; Steve Borgman; Ralph E. McFall; David D. Fenner and Marlyss M. Fenner; Shannon Bailey and Ross Jenson; Marlene D. Howell; John D. Eccles and Betty Ann Eccles; Jon J. Novitsky and Doreen Novitsky; Joseph W. Swanholm and Tara L. LaClare, SUMMONS Petitioners, Robert M. Lien and Carol L. Lien; Leader Federal Savings & Loan Association; The Prudential Home Mortgage Company, Inc.; Marquette Bank Mound; Dennis G. Flack and Shirley K. Flack; First Minnesota Savings Bank, F.S.B.; NationBanc Mortgage Corp.; Margaret Alice Gaudette; Theodore O. Metz and Mary Jeanette Metz; TCF Mortgage Corporation; Michael S. Gardner and Judy M. Gardner; Firstar Bank of Minnesota, N.A. successor by merger to Investors Savings Bank, F.S.B.; TCF Bank Savings, F.S.B.; Olen J. Peterson; Anchor Mortgage Service, Inc.; GMAC Mortgage Corporation of Iowa; Robert J. Kilby and Ruth O. Kilby; State Bank of Mound; Home Savings of America, NA; John A. Korlath, Jr. and Sandra A. Korlath; The Lomas & Nettleton Company; Temple-Inland Mortgage Corporation; Robert M. Abbott a/k/a Robert Mark Abbott and Beverly M. Abbott; Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Association; Norwest Bank Minnesota; Bradley M. Bristol and Janice M. Bristol, J. I. Kislak Mortgage Corporation; Gerald A. Aman; Marquette Bank Mound; First Bank of South Dakota, N.A.; Jefferson Charles Bishop and Marie DuFrench Bishop; Jeffrey E. Fruin; Marjorie Fruin and Scott A. Fruin; Wilbur Karl Swanson and Janet K. Swanson; Norwest Mortgage, Inc.; Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.; Ronald Motyka and Mary M. Motyka; TCF Mortgage Corporation; Lyndon E. Hexum, Trustee Under Lyndon E. Hexum Trust Agreement; Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.; Norwest Mortgage, Inc.; David C. Kunz and Bonnie Pechtel; Homestead Mortgage Corporation; Norwest Mortgage, Inc.; Willard H. Hillier and Myrtle C. Hillier; Jeffrey Allan Olson; Charles C. Champine and Joanne C. Champine; F.B.S. Mortgage Corporation; First Bank of South Dakota; Elvira Frahm; Marvyl O. Mcleod; David L. Bolick; Diane -2- J. Watson; Family Bank, fsb; Fleet Mortgage Corporation; Capsted, Inc.; Daniel C. Strot and Sanda L. Strot; The Farmers and Mechanics Savings Bank of Minneapolis; The Prudential Insurance Company of America; Mike Riley; Sharon L. Erickson; Jack M. Palmer and Luanne J. Palmer; City County Federal Credit Union; Donald M. Frankie and Naida C. Frankie; Oommen Simon; Mary Jane Strommer; Michael E. Freeman; FGB Realty Advisors, Inc.; John K. Culley a/k/a John Kenneth Cully; Irene Byers; Paul Kaster and Mary Ellen Kaster; Leslie J. Renner; Christopher Alvarez and Brenda Ann Bedell; Scott J. Brown and Donna J. Brown; Michael L. Blackstone and Jennifer A. Blackstone; Dean Duncan; Phillip K. Allen and Susan L. Allen; Gregory J. Kohl and Linda D. Kohl; Daniel J. Kittok; Donald F. Heffner and Antoinette Georgia Heffner; Elizabeth A. Luther; Brian R. Wehmoff; Robert Doetsch; Kenneth C. Weber and Janice L. Weber; John K. Martin; Mark T. Lilledahl and Julie L. Lilledahl; Donald B. Anderson; William A. Hibbs; The Administration of Veterans Affairs, an officer of the United States of America; City of Mound; Elizabeth A. Vicinovich-Johnson and Keith O. Johnson; Marketplace Home Mortgage; State of Minnesota; Mary Jane Steere; Steve Michael Steere and Amy Jane Steere; Francis Hayden and Lavonne Hayden; David John Clark and Lucille Marie Podany; Dieter Oertwig and Dawn M.- Oertwig; Leonard B. Frahm and Elvira M. Frahm; Scott D. Koehnen and Terry L. Koehnen; Lennart J. Ferm and Jean E. Ferm; Donald A. Perry and Dell M. Perry; Walter C. Walker; David J. Curry; David C. Curry; Everett Thompson; Ross A. Jensen and Shannon K. Bailey; Gregory J. Cote and Linda S. Russeth; Teresa M. Smith; Douglas A. Marketon and Arthur T. Marketon; Virginia M. Schliesman; Lloyd A. Winter; John P. Dennis and Evy C. Dennis; William G. Bigley; First Fidelity Mortgage Company; -3- Robert E. Kilby and Phyllis P. Kilby; Standard Federal Bank; Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee for Vendee Mortgage Trust 1992-2; Daniel Gene Brethorst, Respondents. STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENTS: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon petitioners' attorneys an Answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Date: BEST & FLANAGAN Professional Limited Liability Partnership John R. Carroll, Registration'No. 15362 Paul E. Kaminski, Registration No. 171839 Sarah C. Madison, Registration No. 223074 4000 First Bank Place 601 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402-4331 (612) 339-7121 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS 82211 -4- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Blaine Bailey and Molly Bailey; Douglas Briggs; Martin T. Johnson and Marie T. Johnson; Carol E. Doyle; Raymond Richter; Richard M. Bailey and Catherine M. Bailey; Michael Porter and Marcia Porter; Kenneth G. Reich and Mary A. Lintner; Lyle G. Ash and Elaine L. Ash; Marty Ray Austinson; Paul A. Erickson and Virginia L. Erickson; Ronald M. Chase and Geraldine A. Chase; Donald L. Petersen; George E. Haugh and Rolayne Burton f/k/a Rolayne C. Haugh; Glen A. Lemmerman and Keri Jo Lemmerman; Mary Ellen Storlien; Thomas G. Gyllen and Heidi A. Gyllen; Keith E. Abrahamson and Karlene A. Johnson; Thomas Vitey and Elva E. Vitey; Helen Eiss; Michael Aspelin and Julie Aspelin; Rodney C. Hein; Bjorn L. Strand and Gladys O. Strand; Douglas M. L. Robert; Carol A. Jacobs; Carrie A. Jacobs; Rosemarie E. Espiritu; Nancy L. Piela and David F. Piela; Craig A. Jacks and Kathleen M. Jacks; David Beahen and Angela S. A. Beahen; John H. Beahen and Victoria Beahen; Russell T. Myers and Kimberly L. Evans; Scott D. Carlson; Leroy J. Poetz; Eric B. Iverson and Cheryl D. Iverson; Norrine P. Forrest; Lester J. Clark and Harriet M. Clark; Richard J. Johnson and Marion Johnson; Mary A. Schaible; Steve Borgman; Ralph E. McFall; David D. Fenner and Marlyss M. Fenner; Shannon Bailey and Ross Jenson; Marlene D. Howell; John D. Eccles and Betty Ann Eccles; Jon J. Novitsky and Doreen Novitsky; Joseph W. Swanholm and Tara L. LaClare, Petitioners, CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. COMPLAINT Robert M. Lien and Carol L. Lien; Leader Federal Savings & Loan Association; The Prudential Home Mortgage Company, Inc.; Marquette Bank Mound; Dennis G. Flack and Shirley K. Flack; First Minnesota Savings Bank, F.S.B.; NationBanc Mortgage Corp.; Margaret Alice Gaudette; Theodore O. Metz and Mary Jeanette Metz; TCF Mortgage Corporation; Michael S. Gardner and Judy M. Gardner; Firstar Bank of Minnesota, N.A. successor by merger to Investors Savings Bank, F.S.B.; TCF Bank Savings, F.S.B.; Olen J. Peterson; Anchor Mortgage Service, Inc.; GMAC Mortgage Corporation of Iowa; Robert J. Kilby and Ruth O. Kilby; State Bank of Mound; Home Savings of America, NA; John A. Korlath, Jr. and Sandra A. Korlath; The Lomas & Nettleton Company; Temple-Inland Mortgage Corporation; Robert M. Abbott a/k/a Robert Mark Abbott and Beverly M. Abbott; Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Association; Norwest Bank Minnesota; Bradley M. Bristol and Janice M. Bristol, J. I. Kislak Mortgage Corporation; Gerald A. Aman; Marquette Bank Mound; First Bank of South Dakota, N.A.; Jefferson Charles Bishop and Marie DuFrench Bishop; Jeffrey E. Fruin; Marjorie Fruin and Scott A. Fruin; Wilbur Karl Swanson and Janet K. Swanson; Norwest Mortgage, Inc.; Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.; Ronald Motyka and Mary M. Motyka; TCF Mortgage Corporation; Lyndon E. Hexum, Trustee Under Lyndon E. Hexum Trust Agreement; Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.; Norwest Mortgage, Inc.; David C. Kurtz and Bonnie Pechtel; Homestead Mortgage Corporation; Norwest Mortgage, Inc.; Willard H. Hillier and Myrtle C. Hillier; Jeffrey Allan Olson; Charles C. Champine and Joanne C. Champine; F.B.S. Mortgage Corporation; First Bank of South Dakota; Elvira Frahm; Marvyl O. Mcleod; David L. Bolick; Diane -2- I. Watson; Family Bank, fsb; Fleet Mortgage Corporation; Capsted, Inc.; Daniel C. Strot and Sanda L. Strot; The Farmers and Mechanics Savings Bank of Minneapolis; The Prudential Insurance Company of America; Mike Riley; Sharon L. Erickson; Jack M. Palmer and Luanne J. Palmer; City County Federal Credit Union; Donald M. Frankie and Naida C. Frankie; Oommen Simon; Mary Jane Strommer; Michael E. Freeman; FGB Realty Advisors, Inc.; John K. Culley a/k/a John Kenneth Cully; Irene Byers; Paul Kaster and Mary Ellen Kaster; Leslie J. Renner; Christopher Alvarez and Brenda Aim Bedell; Scott J. Brown and Donna J. Brown; Michael L. Blackstone and Jennifer A. Blackstone; Dean Duncan; Phillip K. Allen and Susan L. Allen; Gregory J. Kohl and Linda D. Kohl; Daniel J. Kittok; Donald F. Heffner and Antoinette Georgia Heffner; Elizabeth A. Luther; Brian R. Wehmoff; Robert Doetsch; Kenneth C. Weber and Janice L. Weber; John K. Martin; Mark T. Lilledahl and Julie L. Lilledahl; Donald B. Anderson; William A. Hibbs; The Administration of Veterans Affairs, an officer of the United States of America; City of Mound; Elizabeth A. Vicinovich-Johnson and Keith O. Johnson; Marketplace Home Mortgage; State of Minnesota; Mary Jane Steere; Steve Michael Steere and Amy Jane Steere; Francis Hayden and Lavonne Hayden; David John Clark and Lucille Marie Podany; Dieter Oertwig and Dawn M. Oertwig; Leonard B. Frahm and Elvira M. Frahm; Scott D. Koehnen and Terry L. Koehnen; Lennart J. Ferm and Jean E. Ferm; Donald A. Perry and Dell M. Perry; Walter C. Walker; David J. Curry; David C. Curry; Everett Thompson; Ross A. Jensen and Shannon K. Bailey; Gregory J. Cote and Linda S. Russeth; Teresa M. Smith; Douglas A. Marketon and Arthur T. Marketon; Virginia M. Schliesman; Lloyd A. Winter; John P. Dennis and Evy C. Dennis; William G. Bigley; First Fidelity Mortgage Company; -3- Robert E. Kilby and Phyllis P. Kilby; Standard Federal Bank; Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee for Vendee Mortgage Trust 1992-2; Daniel Gene Brethorst, Respondents. The above named Petitioners ("Petitioners") by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this action for a declaratory judgment and other relief as the Court might feel appropriate in order to determine adverse claims between Petitioners and the above named Respondents ("Respondents"), and Petitioners for their complaint, state and allege as follows: 1. Petitioners are owners of property located in the Plat of Woodland Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Plat", Exhibit A). 2. Respondents are all remaining owners of property located in the Plat as well as encumbrances for those properties in the Plat which abut Wawonaissa Commons and Waurika Commons, as shown on the Plat. The non-individual Respondents have encumbrances or liens on parcel(s) of property owned by the individual Respondents. For ease of reference, these non-individual Respondents are listed in the caption immediately after the owners of the parcels in which they have an interest. 3. On June 19, 1906, the land in the Plat was platted by John D. Chipman and Jessie Chipman, husband and wife (the "Chipmans"). 4. In the dedication clause of the Plat, the Chipmans made a dedication as follows: "We hereby dedicate to the owners of the lots as shown on the annexed plat, forever, all the Streets or Avenues thereon shown." 5. While no "Streets or Avenues" are shown on the drawing of the Plat, the drawing does contain six lanes, one road and the Commons. 6. All of the lots in the Plat were conveyed by the Chipmans into the Petitioners' and Respondents' chains of title. Upon information and belief, deeds from Chipman, and all subsequent deeds to lots in the Plat adjoining the Commons, did not contain a reservation of "streets" or "avenues" nor expressions of intent not to include them with the conveyances of said lots. -4- 7. John D. Chipman and Jessie Chipman are deceased, there has been no probate of their estates in Minnesota and they have no known heirs. 8. The Commons have served the owners of lots in the Plat both as a recreational area and as a foot path for access to the lake. 9. The Commons have largely become lawn. The areas around docks are cared for by inland and abutting lot owners, as required under city ordinances. Adjacent waters have been treated for aquatic weeds through contributions of inland and abutting lot owners. 10. The City of Mound, wherein the Plat is located, adopted Ordinance Number 94 in 1960 and Ordinance Number 332 in 1975, which said ordinances regulate docks and boathouses located on publicly and privately dedicated commons. 11. The City of Mound requires owners of property located in the Plat, includin~ owners of lots adiacent to the Commons, to obtain permits prior to constructing improvements on the Commons. 12. The City of Mound has contributed materials and services to the maintenance of the Commons. 13. Using the above facts, among others, this Court in Dennis G. Flack, et. al. v. City of Mound, et. al., Hennepin County District Court File No. 93-15728 ("Flack Case"), referred the case to the Examiner of Titles, Richard Edblom, who found the dedication by the Chipmans in the Plat includes the lanes, the road and the Commons shown on the Plat and said dedication was private, i.e., the dedication was to the owners of the lots in the Plat and not to the public. 14. The Court in the Flack case concluded that all lot owners in the Plat had an interest in the Commons, but the exact nature of said interest could not be ascertained without joining all lot owners in the Plat in an action. 15. All Plat lot owners took title pursuant to a conveyance which made reference to the Plat and were, therefore, as a matter of law, deemed to have notice of everything appearing on the Plat. 16. In-land lot owners in the Plat, as a matter of law, have the right to rely upon dedications in the Plat and to use said dedications accordingly. 17. The dedication of Commons, which said Commons are located on the shore of Lake Minnetonka, gives to all Plat lot owners the right to use the Commons and associated riparian rights. Plat lot owners purchase their property relying upon the right to access and use the Commons. 18. Subject to restrictions lawfully imposed by governmental units with jurisdiction and subject to any binding agreements lawfully entered into by all Plat lot owners, all Plat lot -5- owners have the right to use the Commons and adjacent lakeshore for riparian activities, in¢lu6ing fishing, boating, hunting, swimming and the right to construct docks and other improvements associated with said activities. 19. Certain Plat lot owners whose lots are adjacent to the Commons have denied riparian rights to the Commons to nonadjacent lot owners. Said denial of riparian rights has harmed in-land lot owners (both economically and in terms of use enjoyment) and result in an economic windfall to the few lot owners who are adjacent to the Commons. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 20. Petitioners reallege and reincorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 20 as though set forth fully herein. 21. A justiciable controversy exists concerning the nature of the interest granted to all owners of lots within the Plat as a result of the Commons dedication. 22. Petitioners are entitled to a declaration setting forth the scope of the easement rights to the Commons. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that the Court: 1. Enter a judgment declaring that: ao The dedicated Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons are for the benefit of all lot owners in the Woodland Point Plat. bo The Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons give to all Woodland Point Plat lot owners the right to use said Commons and to use the adjacent shoreline and lake bed for riparian activities including fishing, hunting, boating and swimming. Lot owners within the Woodland Point Plat have the right to construct docks and other improvements normally associated with riparian activities. The rights of lot owners to use and construct improvements in the Commons are subject to regulation by governmental bodies and agreements legally entered into by all the lot owners in Woodland Point Plat. 2. Grant Petitioners such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. -6- Date: BEST & FLANAGAN Professional Limited Liability Partnership By~~~~~~~- John R. Carroll, Registration No. 15362 Paul E. Kaminski, Registration No. 171839 Sarah C. Madison, Registration No. 223074 4000 First Bank Place 601 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402-4331 (612) 339-7121 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.21, Subd. 2, to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted. Sarah C. Madison 8~ 1.CMP/ H:~DOCS\PUBL\PEK\67784_I .CMP -7- ~ Ill, ~ i 1, J Iii C) C) 0 Platted Property in Mir '~VO 0 B LANB ? OINT · I \,fa v.! E: W, \- EXHIBIT A KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 4"/0 PILLSBURY CENTER ~x~a~ocxs, ran $s402 (612) 357-9300 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This fax contains confidential information which is legally privileged- Thc information is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) listed beloW. Distribution or disclosure to any individuals not so listed is strictly prohibited. Our File No.: MU200-66 Date: August 26, 1997 Number of pages including cover sheet: TO: FRAN CLARK FAX #: 472-0620 FROM: JOHN B. DEAN Direct Dial #: (612) 337-9207 coMMENTS: The City of Mound has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving the two commons in Woodland Point, Wawonaissa and Waurika. The purpose of the lawsuit is to determine who owns these commons and who has the right to use them. Mound is a party in the lawsuit because it owns land within the Woodland Point subdivision and because of the inclusion of the commons in Mound's public land programs for many years. Mound intends to answer the suit and pursue claims regarding the ri~ts of the general public to use and enjoy the commons. It is important that all those who have been named in the lawsuit understand that Mound will not be representing them in this litigation. In fact, Mound's efforts to claim a public ri~ht in the commons may mn counter to claims which owners of property in Woodland Point may wish to pursue. This litigation does involve a determination of property rights in the Commons. Mound will only be involved in the litigation to protect the public interest. All other named defendants need to be prepared to provide their own defense if they want to have an influence in how the matter is resolved. Whether or not the named defendants chose to answer and participate in the lawsuit, the outcome of the case will affect their interest in the commons. REC. EIVEQ AUG Z 5 1997 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 27, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall PUBLIC HEARING Warren and Julie McNeil, 19860 Cottagewood Road Carsons Bay, Deephaven Consideration of an application amending a previously approved variance for dock length and adjusted dock use area. Wayzata Yacht Club (site 2), Consideration of a variance application from LMCD side setback requirements to allow for a make-ready dock. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock - 9/3/97 Workshop/Planning 6 PM Freshwater Center READING OF MINUTES - 7/23/97 Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. 1. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE *A. Minutes from 8/8~97 meeting; B. 8/8/97 meeting report; C. 1997 EWM Harvest Season Final Report; D. Ordinance Amendment, first reading of an ordinance relating special events on Lake Minnetonka; amending Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code Section 3.09; *E. Staff recommendation to approve uniform allowance for crew members and reimbursement for business lunch meeting as outlined in 8~5~97 memo. F. Additional Business; 2m e 4m WATER STRUCTURES A. McNeil, Discussion of Public Hearing for an application amending previously approved variance for dock length and adjusted dock use area. Be Wayzata Yacht Club (site 2), Discussion of Public Hearing for a variance application from Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 2 from LMCD site setback requirements; *C. Willow Woods, refund check; D. Additional Business; LAKE USE & RECREATION *A. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report (handout); Bm Ordinance Amendment, second reading of an ordinance relating to the size of boats on Lake Minnetonka; amending Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code Section 3.01, Subdivision 22 and adding Section 3.07, Subdivision 10; Gm Ordinance Amendment, first reading of an ordinance relating to the age of boat and personal watercraft operators; amending Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code Section ??, Subdivision ?? and. adding Section ??, Subdivision ??; D. Steve Fames letter, discussion on request to place no wake buoys 150 feet from shore around Deering Island as outlined in 8/8/97 memo; E. Carol & Gene Dahlin, discussion on 7/18/97 memo regarding safety concerns on St. Albans Bay. F. High Water Emergency Declaration, Review of LMCD Code Section 3.021; *G. Holiday Fair, Inc., staff recommends the refund of $500. For preliminary investigation for intoxicating malt liquor and wine licenses; H. Additional Business; FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment; - 811/97 - 8/31197 B. July financial summary & balance sheet; C. Additional Business; e 8. 9. 10. SAVE THE LAKE ADMINISTRATION A. Discussion of Draft Communication Policy; B. C. Discussion of LMCD Computers, need for software upgrade. Approval of staff recommendations for compensation Briner. D. Additional Business; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT adjustment for Jan RECEIYEEI AU6 Z 5 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERYATION DISTRICT EWM]~O~CS TASK FORCE DRAFT g:30 a.m., Friday, August g, 1997 Gray's Freshwater Center, Suite 19, Navarre, MN Herb Suerth, Chair; Tom Reese, LMCD Board; Craig Nelson, LMCD Board; Chip Welling, MN DNR; Dr. Ray Newman, U of M Fisheries; John Batten, Hennepin Parks; Mike Brandt, Hennepin County; Dick Picard, LICA; Gene Strommen, EWM Project Manager; Todd Grams, EWM Project Supervisor; Nancy Randall, LMCD Administrative Technician; Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director. Minutes The minutes from the 6/13/97 meeting were accepted as submitted. 1997 zebra mussel spraydown pro_m'am update Suerth asked for an update from Nybeck on this program. Nybeck reported that: * Mixed success has been accomplished for this program in 1997. * 150 boats were inspected and/or washed for the Forest Wood Open, 15 boats were washed for a M-16 Invitational Sailboat Regatta, and 1 boat was washed for the Dennis Green Invitational. * No other boats have been washed for all other special events on Lake Minnetonka in 1997. He noted this can probably be attributed to the boats complying with the conditions of the ordinance, the participants not taidng the ordinance seriously, or a combination of the two. * A final assessment would be done by staff in the near future. * The Board directed LMCD counsel to prepare a code amendment for the 8/27/97 Board meeting that would require special events to receive a permit from the LMCD in addition to the Water Patrol. Suerth questioned those present if there is any other proactive efforts that could be taken? Reese stated he believed there needs to be more consequences for those who do not want to comply with this ordinance. Strommen stated it appears as though the majority of participants in special events are complying with the honor system established in the ordinance, lie added the main concern appears to be the minority who do not comply with the ordinance and what potential impact they may have on the lake with regards to introducing zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka. Welling outlined that 20 percent of those stopped in road checks are violating the law and transporting some kind of vegetation, lie added although this is in the minority, it has an accumulative effect when added up. He noted if LMCD efforts are stepped with regards to boat washing, that special event participants may feel they are being singled out. He recommended that the LMCD work with msporters who transfer boats from thc Mississippi~River to Lake Minnetonka. ~' ~ "~ EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 8181~F/, PAGE 2 Nybeck noted there has been preliminary discussion regarding working with local marina owners to establish literature for distribution from the marinas to those who transport boats. Update on 1997 EWM Harvest Pro_~'am Strommen reported on the following: * The last week of operation is planned for 8/11 through 8/15. He added re-harvesting of Phelps Bay is planned early in that week. He noted the harvesters are planned to be removed from the lake on 8/14 for cleaning and transporting back to the Hennepin County Transportation facility. * The growth of milfoil has been effected by the high-water status on Lake Minnetonka. He noted milfoil growth is generally between 18" and 24" below the water surface. * An aerial survey was done 8/7/97 to get an overall evaluation of the harvesting season. He reported he was encouraged by thc aerial observations in that the harvesting was weU organized with wide-cutting channels. * Reviewed a harvester and truck loads summary sheet for 6/17 thru 7/31. He pointed out that a perceived discrepancy in harvester loads per truck loads on a daily basis may vary depending based on whether tracks are full when they leave for the compost site. He noted Grams would be attending later and may be able to expand further on this. Suerth asked Strommen about the status of a GPS in the future with the milfoil crew? Strommen suggested there may be a need for one in the future. He noted if this is done, one operator may want to locate areas to be harvested using a GPS, buOy these areas accordingly, and harvest them. He added he is trying to coordinate the use of Hennepin Parks GPS system yet this year to experiment with it. Reese stated he was disappointed this could not be coordinated during the harvesting season. He noted funds are available and that the LMCD may want to go ahead and purchase one. The committee discussed in detail the need for accuracy and costs associated with the purchase. Suerth recommended that Strommen establish a scope of work with regards to the purchase of a GPS by 1/1/98 to be presented to the Board. Grams reported on the harvesting summary sheet previously reported by Strommen. He noted track loads when sent out are not always full. He added coordination in when to send them on depends on how full the harvesters are and how far the compost site is from the off-load site. Aeenc¥ Report~ Batten reported on the following: * During recent inspections, no milfoil was found in Stecger; however, milfoil was found in Auburn, Zumbra, and Stone. * They are gearing up for Fall treatment at public accesses. Welling reported on the following: * Calls with regards to milfoil have been relatively quiet lately. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 818197, PAGE * A television interview on WCCO had recently been aired on WCCO from Maxwell Bay. He noted the focus of the interview was the inspection of a boat. * There has been an increase in road checks from previous years. Although there has been a limited number of citations issued, he reported it leaves an impression on them. He noted Highway 10 in Anoka by the Wayside Station and Highway 71 in the Brainerd area are two common locations for these road checks. Newman reported on the following: * The milfoil in Smiths Bay is variable and there is a fair amount of weevil activity. * The milfoil in Lake Auburn is incredibly dense. * The city lakes have had significant milfoil activity. * WebPage is under construction with emphasis on education. Brandt reported on the following: * Spring Park access has been cleaned frequently over the Summer depending on the direction of the wind. * Expressed concern with damage to the channels during the high-water status and the disregard of a large number of boaters. Area wide lake association reports Picard reported on the following: * Milfoil on Lake Independence is lower in some areas of the lake and about the same in others. * The association is interested in exploring a high water contingency program. He questioned how to get the process started. * Questioned who to contact to get new milfoil signs up at the public accesses. * Noted that the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol indicated that Hennepin Parks Rangers may be able to assist in enforcing laws on Lake Independence. Brandt noted he would meet with Picard to assist him in getting the process started with regards to establishing a high water contingency program. Old Business There was no old business. New Business There was no new business. Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Gregory S. Nybeck Executive Director RECEIVED AUG 2 5 1 7_ L,4LK MINNETONKt CONSER¥/t/ION' DISTRICT ?:00 P.M., Wednesday, July 23, 199~/ Tonka Bay City Ha~ .CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Members present: Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Tom Reese, Mound; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Deephaven. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Nancy Randall, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Kent Da/den, Minnetonka Beach; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Orono, Victoria, and Minnetonka have no appointed members. There were no chair announcements. ..READING OF ~ MINUTEq Reese moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the June 25, 1997 Regular Board meeting with the following amendments: * Reese noted on page 3, he believed that the Board "tabled the remainder of this item" under the City of Wayzata discussion. * Babcock clarified on page 1, that participation by Orono on the Board is due to "have a positive" impact to Lake Minnetonka and is time well spent. * Babcock clarified on page 1, that the Board would be happy to respond in writing to Orono's request in writing. Motion carried unanimously. _PUBLIC COMME~ There were no public comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA -~ There was no action taken because staff had not received a Significant Activity Report. 1. WATER STRUCTURES A. City of Deephaven, consideration of request to amend public launch ramp license approved at 4/23/97 Board meeting. Babcock reviewed the request from the City of Deephaven. He noted they are proposing amending their previously' approved public launch ramp license by extending the make-ready dock along Minnetonka Boulevard from 48' to 80' and not constructing the second make- ready dock on the north side of the facility. MOTION: VOTE: Gilman moved, Reese seconded to approve the request from Deephaven to amend their public launch ramp license to allow them to extend the existing make-ready dock from 48' to 80', subject to it not blocking navigation to the back channel, and to eliminate the second make-ready dock on the north side of the facility. Motion carried unanimously. lake ~innetonk~ Conservation District July 23, 1997 Page 2 City of Wayzata, consideration of new public launch ramp license application for improvements of the Wayzata Bay public launch ramp, continuation from 6/11/~7 and 6/2~/9q Board meetings. Babcock questioned whether the proposed code amendment that would allow for adjusting of side setbacks by mutual consent is the correct procedure to consider the make-ready dock at this facih't7. He stated he believed the best procedure is to require an application from Way'rata Yacht Club, Site 2, that specified where the proposed make-ready dock is located at this site and to consider it aa a public amenity. LeFevere stated in order to approve the tmyposed make-ready dock, either a variance would need to be approved or a code amendment would need to be adopted by the Board. Raacop stated he preferred approving a variance application rather than a Code amendment. Babcock concurred with Rascop. The consensus of the Board was to have staff contact Wayzata Yacht Club and require them to submit both a variance application and a new multiple dock, with minor change, application for Site 2. The Board concurred that fees should be waived for both applications. MOTION: Rascop moved, Reese seconded to waive fees for both applications to be received from Wayzata Yacht Club. VOTE: Ayes (6), Abstained (1, Foster); Motion carried. Ordinance Amendment, f'wst reading of an ordinance relating to adjustment of authorized dock use areas, amending LMCD Code Section 2.01, Subd. 3 c). No action was taken. Dm Sailors World Marina, diso,~on on 4/27~88 Variance Order which will require the removal of 10 slips after the 1997 boating season. Nybeck stated prior to 1988, Sailors World had two separate facilities. This included a 57 BSU multiple dock facility and a 20 unit District Mooring Area (DMA). He noted in 1988, the Board approved a two side setback variances to convert the 20 unit DMA to slips on the multiple dock facility. He added a condition in the variance order was a ten year sunset clause that requires the removal of the 10 slips in the setback area between 100' and 200' from shore. He concluded the letter sent to Mr. DeSanfis notified him that these 10 slips neea__ to be removed before the 1998 boating season and to allow him to respond to it. Babcock stated there are no pending applications at this time, no BOard action is necessary. He noted the owner is present and encouraged his feedback. Foster explained how they were given such a generous sunset clause. Walter Baker, attorney representing Sailors World stated hc intends to meet with staff to discuss details. He discussed the background of the marina ownership noting the current owner, Gary DeSantis, sold the marina on contract for. deed in 1986. He added Mr. DeSantis received the marina back in 1992 after bankruptcy and foreclosure on the property. He expressed concern in that the conversion of the DMA ~n,. at i time when his client was not in control of the marina. He stated he wo~fl~.T&'~e-f~ staff t~ review me Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Rentier Board Meeting ,July 23, 1997 files to help resolve the issues. Page Babcock asked if the reconfiguration was allowed under the contract for deed? l cr stated he lievetl it was. Gilman how he believed the owner has gained financially from the agreement approved due to the difference in income from a mooring to a slip. There was no additional business. 5 FINANCIAL REPORT A. Audit of vouchers for payment 7/1/97 - 7/30/97 B® Nelson reviewed the vouchers for payment. MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment for the period beginning 7/1/97 and ending 7/30/97. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. June f'mancial summary and balance sheet Nelson reviewed the financial summary and balance sheet. MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to accept the June financial summary and balance sheet. Ce VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Discussion of 1998 LMCD Budget Public Hearing Nelson suggested the idea of projecting LMCD budgets for three to five years in advance. Rascop suggested the possibility of developing a capital improvements program budget. MOTION: Partyka moved, Rascop seconded to verify that nothing in the budget has changed to warrant recerfification. De VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Additional Business There was no additional business. ® EURASIAN WATER MIHvOIL/EXOTICS TASK FORCE B. Update on 1997 EWM Harvest Season Randall outlined a han, esting summary dala sheet which ~~est~cl, location, l.~ke ~]nnetonka Conservation District Re~dnr Board Meeting .July 23, 1997 Page 4 harvester loads, truck loads, and acres harvested. She noted this data is documented to assist in further decisions. She added new dam collection sheets have been collected for each Reese complimented Randall on her effo~ noting he had been looking for this data for yea~. He recommended that Randall include a breakdown of harvester loads per truck loads on a daily basis. C. Additional Business Nelson stated he observed the off-loader for the harvesting crew was parked on the hunching ramp overnight while harvesting in that area. He suggested this may irritate some of the public and that other options may need to be considered. e B. USE AND RECREATION Ordinance Amendment, ru~t reading of an ordinance relating to the s~e of boats on lake IVllnnetollka, amending Lake Minnetollka Conservation District Code Section 3.01, Subdivision 22 and adding Section 3.07, Subdivision 10. Babcock introduced this agenda item noting he had done an informal survey on whether larger charter boats should be allowed on Lake Minnetonka. He added the general opinion of those he spoke with was that they did not believe bigger charter boats are needed. Board members discussed traffic patterns and traffic on the lake and whether or not larger boats should be allowed. Reese suggested a public hearing be held to get input from residents and business owners. MOTION: Gilman moved, Reese seconded to approve the first reading of the ordinance. Ce VOTE: Ayes (4); Nays (3, Rascop, Partyka, and Babcock). Motion carried. Additional Business There was no additional business. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discussion. ADMINISTRATION A. Discussion of Draft Communication Policy Babcock suggested minor changes to the communication policy. Board members reviewed the policy. Reese suggested intemet be included under section 1.2. The consensus of the board was to have Babcock make the suggested changes and bring it back before Board. MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to table action on the policy. VOTE: Ayes (6); Nays (1, Babcock); Motion carried 5~ ~-~;.'. ~'~ Lake ]Vlinnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meetin~ July 23, 1997 Se 10. B. Discussion of Draft RFP for Records Retention Plan Page Nybeck discussed the need to soticit RFP's to develop a records retention plan for submittal to the Minnesota Department of Administration. He noted staff has received five contacts who may submit a quote. Ce Board members discussed the scope of work involved in the RFP. Rcese recommended more detail in the ~ needs to be included such as the scope of ,work, the cubic feet of Review of staff outline on potential links to Web Page Randall reviewed links that staff is recommending to put on the Web Page. Board members discussed other potential links to the Web Page. Randall asked Board members to forward other additional links to the office. De Additional Business There was no additional business. EXEC~ DIRECTOR REPORT N_vbeck reported on the following: · A quarterly Newsletter was forwarded to the City Managers * ~ohn Dale's letter regarding transporting fish for fishing tournaments · Meetings in August. The meeting on August 13th will be cancelled A planning session was tentatively set for Wednesday, September 3 at the Fresh Water Foundation at 6:00 p.m. * Current Ia_ke elevation is 929.74. Partyka discussed recent Minnetrista City Council action on the Bil Hawks issue. He noted Mr. Hawks had requested the city council to write a letter to the LMCD encouraging the grandfathering of his houseboat. He added this was request was denied unanimously. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:36 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Bert Foster, Secretary