1997-09-23AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 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
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO
PATTY GUTTORMSON ....................................... 3261
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not ~ ~ ~s can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
*4. CONSENT AGENDA:
*A.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1997,
REGULAR MEETING ................................. 3262-3269
*B. CASE #97-40:
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DECK, TOM KELLY,
1733 GULL LANE, LOT 9, BLOCK 14,
DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 13 0016 .......... 3270-3280
*C. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(SUGGESTED DATE:
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
UNPAID MOWING CHARGES
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES ............. 3281-3285
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING PROGRAM ...... 3286
SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
OCTOBER 14, 1997)
e
MAJOR SUBDIVISION, M. E. MUELLER,
2240 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE,
KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND,
PID 13-117-24 33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041
(SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1997)
3258
o
o
o
o
*D.
*E.
*F.
*G.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, 5201 PIPER
ROAD, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE,
PID 25-117-24 21 0156
(SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1997)
e
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LARSON PRINTING, 2316
COMMERCE BLVD., LOT 4, SOUTH 29 3/10 FT OF LOT 4,
MCNAUGHT'S ADDITION TO MOUND,
PID 13-117-24 33 0047
(SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1997)
AFTER-THE-FACT PUBLIC LAND PERMIT, TOM STUEVE,
1737 CANARY LANE .................................. 3287-3300
JAMES KRENIK "AFTER THE FACT" VARIANCE REQUEST 5240 PIKE
ROAD, ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437 OF THE CITY CODE
RELATING TO DOCKS BY ADDING SECTION 437:16, EXCEPTIONS . . 3301-3313
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR
KOENIG & SCHWERT, 2305 COMMERCE BLVD ............... 3314-3315
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER OR FINANCE
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND SIGN SUB-GRANT AGREEMENTS
AND AMENDMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MOUND
(This is required by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Act) with
regard to expenses incurred due to the July 17, 1997, storm damage.) ........ 3316
*It.
RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHT FOR
DUNDEE PARK ...................................... 3317-3320
*I. PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................. 3321-3332
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ADDITION TO
SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WESTONKA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS. (THIS HEARING SHOULD BE CONTINUED UNTIL
DECEMBER 9, 1997, DUE TO PROPOSED REFERENDUM ON
RENOVATION OF THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER.)
PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE, 2610 COMMERCE BLVD, LOTS 1-3, &
S 1/2 OF 47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9, PID 23-117-24 14 0043 & 0050 ............. 3333-3354
CASE #96-62: VARIANCE REQUEST, SCOTT AND LINDA MACK,
4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, LOT
15, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0086 ...................... 3355-3393
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
3259
10.
11.
12.
Ae
CONDEMNATION AWARD - RICHARD JOHNSON PROPERTY
(AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT).
B. RESPONSE TO WOODLAND POINT SUMMONS.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A REFERENDUM ON THE PROPOSED
RENOVATION OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER ................ 3394-3402
DISCUSSION: 612 AREA CODE CHANGES ........................ 3403-3411
INFORMATION & MISCELLANEOUS
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of
September 11, 1997 .................................... 3412-3415
B. Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 1997 ................ 3416-3427
Ce
Economic Development Commission Minutes of
August 21, 1997 ...................................... 3428-3429
Financial Report for August 1997, as prepared by Gino Businaro,
Finance Director ...................................... 3430-3431
Notice of Rule B Task Force Meeting for Mayor Polston
which is scheduled to Tuesday, September 23, 1997,
3:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. at MCWD Offices ...................... 3432-3435
REMINDER: Congressman Jim Ramstad will be holding a
Town Meeting, Monday, September 22, 1997, at Mound
City Hall, 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M ............................ 3436-3437
Ge
REMINDER:
Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday,
September 30, 2997, 7:30 P.M., City Hall.
Ho
Notice of Meeting with State Board of Innovation & Cooperation,
Monday, September 28, 1997, Shorewood City Hall,
7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M .................................. 3438-3439
I. Note regarding donation to Sorbo Park by Kathy Arbogast ............... 3440
Letter from Toro RE: Closing of Mound facility. I have left messages with
Toro representatives, Senator Gen Olson and Commissioner Penny Steele. I
don't know if there is anything we can do, but I thought we should try to
see if the State, County or City should intervene in some way. I will keep
you posted .............................................
3441
3260
CERTIFICATE OF
RECOGNITION
WHEREAS,
on September 12, 1997, Patty Guttormson, Wiser
Insurance Agency, was named Business Person of the
Year by the Westonka Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS,
Ms. Guttormson has been a member of the Westonka
Chamber of Commerce for 15 years; and
WHEREAS,
during this time her enthusiasm and commitment has
always contributed to a successful Chamber event, and
WHEREAS,
in addition to her Chamber endeavors, Ms. Guttormson
should be recognized for her many contributions to the
community through her association with the following
groups:
1. Westonka Senior Foundation
3.
4.
5.
Southwestern Suburban Charities
Muscular Dystrophy Association
Westonka Intervention
Northwest Tonka Lions Club.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ANDREA AHRENS, by virtue of the authority
vested in me as Acting Mayor, and on behalf of the entire City Council and all
our citizens, do hereby tender to Patty Guttormson, this Certificate of Public
Recognition, extending to her our deep appreciation for her distinguished
service, and our best wishes for continued success in all her future endeavors.
Adopted by the Mound City Council September 23, 1997.
Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens
Councilmember Mark Hanus
Councilmember Liz Jensen
Councimember Leah Weycker
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, September 9, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen
and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City
Attorney John Dean, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Planner Loren Gordon, City
Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Acting City Clerk Linda Strong and
the following interested citizens: Mark Saliterman, Bil Hawks, Ron Fenney, Lyn Hexum, Mitch
Knutson, Sandy Wing, Tami Logelin, Helen Eiss, Terri Bingham, Heidi Petty, Cathy Bailey,
Linda Dreyer, Marke Thiede, Craig Jacks, Robert Lien, Marie Johnson, Vince Forsman, Mike
Aspelin, Don Petsersn and Karen Cole.
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 Com~cihnember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
fi'om the Consent Agemla and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA
At this time items can be a&led to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed
firm the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Hanus removed item B, Payment of the Bills, from the agenda. He was concerned
with an item concerning research for a public pier and the funds coming from the Dock Fund. He
thought the funds should come from the General Fund. Councilmember Weycker stated the request
had come from Mr. Hopkins of the Docks Commission. City Manager Shukle stated the fund could
be changed to the General Fund to pay this item.
The City Manager stated there would be an Add - On item to set a Public Hearing date.
" 1
Minutes - Mound City Council
September 9, 1997
*1.1
'1.2
'1.3
1.4
APPROVE TIlE MINUTES OF TilE AUGUST 26, 1997 REGULAR MEETING.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT, 1997 SEALCOATING, ALLIED BLACKTOP.
MOTION by ltmms, seconded by Jensen, to approve the amended agenda, the
payment of bills as corrected and to approve the request for payment for the 1997
Sealcoating. A roll call vote was called, motion carried unanimously.
ADD-ON
SET PUBLIC IIEARING DATE TO REVIEW THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE, 2620 COMMERCE BLVD.
SUGGESTED DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to set
Tuesday, September 23, 1997, 7:30 pm for a Public Hearing to review the
Condilional Use Permit for Meyer's Mound Service.
1.5 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOVq TIlE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH EARLY
CItlLDHOOD FAMILY EDUCATION (E.C.F.E.) LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1
ZONING DISTRICT AT 5241 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL
VACATED ALLEY & PARKING AREA AND PARK, BLOCK 1, PID//13-117-24
34 0072, P & Z 97-38.
City Manager Ecl Shukle introduced Loren Gordon, City Planner, from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
Loren Gordon summarized this item. The Westonka School District wants to establish their Early
Childhood Family Education Center at 5241 Shoreline Drive, in the Jubilee Shopping Center where
the old Headliner's used to be. A Conditional Use Permit is required to do this in the B-1 Business
District. The proposed office space consists of 6,708 square feet which included the space of
Headliner's and Larson Printing. The building space will have three public entry/exit doors, one in
the front of the shopping center, and two in the rear of the building along Eden Road. The School
District intends to conduct the following functions: a preschool, an early childhood family education
and an early special education center. The facility will serve approximately 88 children with 10 staff
persons.
Mayor Polston introduced Mark Thiede, Architect for the school district, from TSP/EOS. Mr. Thiede
stated that to provide for the safety of the children at the front of the building, a fence type railing with
Minutes - Mound City Council September 9, 1997
spindles will be added between the columns so children can not run out onto the parking lot. The entry
will be open to the parking lot. The building owner is receptive to the plan and the Planning
Commission recommended approval. The building does not contain a fire sprinkler system, it is not
required if the walls are a two hour parting wall. The building does comply with ADA standards.
Mayor Polston was concerned that there was no fire sprinkler system. He hoped that in the haste to
accommodate the situation, that it would not be detrimental to the children. He was also concerned
that the CUP of this nature would be a conflict within an retail location.
Mayor Polston opened the public hearing.
Bil Hawks, 3465 County Road 44, spoke against the Conditional Use Permit for the school district.
Sandy Wing, Director of E.C.F.E., spoke in favor of the Conditional Use Permit. She stated that
several parents will be with their children while at the facility. The two busiest times would be about
9 am and then again around 3 pm. This is not a busy time for the shopping center. The building that
the ECFE was now using is not suitable for staff and children. There are issues of health, safety, and
mold.
Mayor Polston stated he was sympathetic and asked if there had been any effort to work with the
churches in the area? Ms. Wing stated they had tried, but there was no area that could provide
dedicated space for their needs.
Mark Saliterman, owner of the shopping center, spoke regarding the use of the space to be only
temporary, around 2 years.
Being there was no one else to comment, Mayor Polston closed the public hearing and returned the
item to the Council for discussion.
Councihnember Jensen was concerned with condition gl regarding the non retail and commercial use
at the same location. She commented on the proposed stop signs that would be located at the entry to
the facility and a crosswalk. She commented that she has little faith in crosswalks.
Consensus of the Council was to amend the resolution to include the following conditions:
1. A review of the CUP one year after Council approval.
2. The addition of a railing with spindles to be installed between the columns that currently exist.
The following amended resolution was moved by Jensen, seconded by Weycker:
Minutes - Mound City Council
September 9, 1997
RESOLUTION #97-84
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PER.MIT TO
ALLOW AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE B-1
BUSINESS DISTRICT, AT 5241 SHORELINE BOULEVARD, LOTS
7-20 & 26-35 & ALL VAC. ALLEY & PARKING AREA & PARK,
BLOCK 1, PID 13-117-24 34 0072.
The motion passed 4-1, Polston opposed.
Comments from the Council included: not a good way to spend tax payer dollars, only temporary, the
option to review in one year gave the Council the ability to review the health, safety and welfare of
the program being located within a commercial arena.
1.6 CASE #97-46: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE AND ADDITION, MITCHELL KNUTSON,
6547 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 18, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID #22-117-24 44 0037
THIS CASE WILL BE AT THE PLANNING COM~/IISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER
8, 1997..
Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed this case. He stated this case had been before the Planning
Commission the night before the Council meeting. The applicant is seek_ing a building permit and
variance to allow the construction of an attached garage and bedroom addition that is nonconforming
to the required side yard setback of 10 feet. The City Planner had stated that the ideal situation would
be the removal of the undersized home (rental unit) and the combination of the two parcels to return
the property to one contiguous parcel. The parcels were combined and became no longer lots of
record. Therefore, the side yard setback is 10 feet, the applicant is requesting a 4 foot side yard
setback. The new proposed garage and addition match the architecture of the dwelling and the
positioning of the existing dwelling make it difficult to locate an addition that allows for adequate area
or suitable entry into the dwelling without a major impact to the existing architecture. The larger
garage also provides for additional storage for the lake shore property. The topography of the existing
lot and the lake side limits the available buildable footprint when coupled with the existing location of
the home.
The staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. The deck and encroaching shed located on the accessory structure on the street side shall be
removed prior to the building permit issuance.
2. The detached accessory structure on the street side shall not be used as a dwelling or rental unit
and/or permanent residence.
The Planning Commission recommends approval on a 5-1 vote, with Weiland opposed. The
Commission added a condition that the gravel driveway to the small structure be removed.
Minutes - Mound City Council September 9, 1997
Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution as
amended:
RESOLUTION//97-85
The resolution passed 5-0.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR GARAGE AND
ADDITION AT 6547 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, LOT 18,
HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID 22-117-24 44 0037.
1.7 DISCUSSION: RESPONSE TO WOODLAND POINT SUMMONS.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated the City had 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.
He continued saying the City had until October 3, 1997 to respond. John Dean, City Attorney,
introduced Karen Cole,attorney from Kennedy & Graven who has been hired by the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
At 8:40 pm the Council adjourned to Executive Session to discuss this item. Councilmember Leah
Weycker removed herself from the executive session. The Council returned from Executive Session
and resumed the regular meeting at 9:20 pm.
Mayor Polston stated that the Council has until October 3, 1997 to respond and that the City's lega,
advisors were working on preparing a response.
Mayor Polston asked if there were comments from the people in attendance.
Bil Hawks, 3465 County Road 44. He commented on the City's membership to the LMCD. He
suggested they not rejoin and make payment as he was concerned with how the LMCD was being
operated. He suggested the Council recommend that the LMCD televise their meetings so people can
be informed of their actions. Councilmember Hanus agreed and also that the City's LMCD
representative should and will be attending Council meetings with updates.
Mike Aspelin, 1604 Eagle Lane. He stated he was angry with the City in the lawsuit participation.
Mayor Polston stated the Woodland Point group had asked for a declaratory judgement and this
involved the City as the City does own property in the Woodland Point area. The issue could have
been handled through the previous mediation sessions.
Vince Forystek, 1672 Finch Lane. He stated the LMCD should televise their meetings.
Councilmember Ahrens agreed. The Council will ask the City's representative to convey to the LMCD
to televise their meetings.
5
Minutes - Mound City Council September 9, 1997
Craig Jacks, 1575 Eagle Lane. He stated he was a late comer in the Woodland Point case. He felt
that if the City did not act wisely and quickly, there would be a division in the neighborhood.
1.8
1.9
PERMIT FOR JAYCEES'S AI_,UMNI DANCE
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve a dance permit, set up permit
and beer permit for the Jaycees for the Homecoming Dance to be held on Friday,
October 3, pending proper documentation being received, i.e. insurance. The
motion carried unanimously.
CO~{ENTS ANrD SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were nolqe.
1.10 UPDATE ON SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated the City is undergoing a sump pump inspection program in the effort
to discontinue the discharge of storm water into the sanitary system. Some people have not responded
to the letters mailed regarding inspections. The next phase of the plan, per the resolution of the
Council, is to place a $100 surcharge on water bills for those that have not responded.
Council consensus was to enforCe this portion of the resolution, to add the surcharge of $100 to the
residents water bill, and to label the envelope so the recipient does not toss it out.
1.11 PRESENTATION OF 1998 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY.
Mayor Polston moved, Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-86 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1998 PRELI},IINARY GENERAL
FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,776,950; SETTING THE
PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $1,921,480 LESS THE HOMESTEAD
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF $492,040, RESULTING IN
A PRELIMINARY CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,429,440; APPROVING
TItE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1998; AND
SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES.
The vote unanimously passed.
" 6
Minutes - Mound City Council September 9, 1997
1.12
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
.MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF CITY OF
MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1998.
Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-87
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF
OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469,
OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1998.
The resolution passed unanimously.
1.13
DISCUSSION: PROPOSED RESOLUTION //97- RESOLUTION REQUESTINC
COUNTY ASSISTANCE IN THE OVERSIGHT OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSH ED DISTRICT.
City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed this item. He stated there had been concern from other cities and
they had contacted the MCWD Steering Committee regarding the action of Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. The Steering Committee is requesting the cities in the MCWD pass the resolution
and send the approved resolutions to Hennepin County. The resolution asks Hennepin County to
investigate the activities of the MCWD. The resolution was prepared by legal counsel for the city of
Richfield.
Councilmember Ahrens moved and Mayor Polston seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//97-88
RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY ASSISTANCE IN THE
OVERSIGHT OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED
DISTRICT.
The resolution passed unanimously.
1.14
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR AUGUST 1997.
B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR AUGUST 1997.
Minutes - Mound City Council
September 9, 199'/
City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Mr. Reese's term expires the end of 1997. Mayor Polston
suggested that the next appointment to the LMCD should be a Councilmember.
C. DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 21,
1997.
D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 1997.
E. REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING HAS BEEN
RESCHEDULED TO TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, 7:30 P.M.
F. REMINDER: JOINT CITY COUNCILS' MEETING WITH MINNETRISTA,
MOUND AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL BOARD IS SCHEDULED FOR
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1997, 7:00 P.M., MINNETRISTA CITY HALL
G. INVITATION FROM WESTONKA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RE:
ANNUAL BUSINESS PERSON OF THE YEAR AWARD DINNER SCHEDULED
FOR FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1997 AT BURL OAKS GOLF CLUB. IF
INTERESTED 1N ATTENDING, PLEASE CONTACT THE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE TO REGISTER.
MOTION by Ahrens, secouded by Jensen and carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 10:05 pm.
Edward J. Shukle, City Manager
Attest:
8
September 23, 1997
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ID7-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE
TO BUILD A NON CONFORMING DECK AT
1733 GULL LANE, BLOCK 14, LOT 9,
DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 13 0016
P&Z CASE g97-40
WHEREAS, the applicants, Tom and Leanne Kelly are requesting a variance to allow
construction of a nonconforming 10 x 15 foot deck on the west side of the existing dwelling;
and,
WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-lA zoning district which requires a
minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 40 feet, a front yard setback
of 20 feet, a side yard setback of 6 feet for lots or record, a rear yard setback of 15 feet (ten
for a deck) and a minimum lot dept of 80 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the required setback for the deck in the rear yard is 10 feet and the
proposed setback is 6 feet, resulting in a variance of 4 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the existing property has very intensive use of the space and does not meet
several standards or ordinance criteria in addition to the front yard and other encroachments as
noted on survey; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed deck is reasonable. Enhances the use and function of the
property with a minimal encroachment and the removal of the encroachments results in some
improvement to the property; and,
WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is:
Block 14, lot 9, Dreamwood, PID 13-117-24 13 0016
WHEREAS, staff recommends approval and the Planning Commission recommended
approval on a 7-2 vote, with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mound, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, hereby approves a rear yard setback variance of 4 feet to allow construction
of a nonconforming deck with the following conditions:
The existing concrete landing, steps and slab that is encroaching into the commons shall
be removed prior to construction of the deck.
September 23, 1997
Proposed Resolution
1733 Gull Lane
Page 2
A new landing and stairs (landing up to a maximum of 32 square feet) may be
constructed up to the property line as noted on the survey dated August 7, 1997. No
encroachment beyond the southerly property line is permitted.
It is determined that the liveability 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 nonconforming 10 x 15 deck
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 9, Block 14, Dreamwood
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hermepin 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
seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest:
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 9-8-97
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
Tom and Leanne Kelly
97-40
1733 Gull Lane
R-lA Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a
nonconforming 10x15 foot deck on the west side of the existing dwelling. The required
setback for the deck in the rear yard for the R-lA zone is 10 feet. The proposed setback is
6 feet, resulting in a variance request of 4 feet. The existing property has very intensive use
of the space, and does not meet several of the standards or ordinance criteria in addition to
the front yard and other encroachments as noted on the attached survey.
This property is located within the R-lA zoning district which requires a minimum lot area
of 6,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 40 feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, a side
yard setback of 6 feet for lots of record, a rear yard setback of 15 feet (ten feet for a deck),
and a minimum lot depth of 80 feet.
Comments: This case does not meet the typical criteria in the ordinance for a variance
however the deck in this situation could be viewed as a reasonable use of the property. The
deck location follows the existing line of the garage and does not encroach any further, the
deck is also minimally sized. There is the encroaching concrete landing and steps and slab
that are in need of repair that could be required to be removed. The landing could be
reconstructed with no encroachments and this would be an improvement to the existing
situation.
printed on recycled paper
PZ 97-40
1733 Gull Lane
Page 2
Staff RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with
minimal additional encroachment and with conditions as listed below results in some
improvement to the nonconforming situation of the property.
1 ) The Existing concrete landing, steps, and slab that is encroaching into the commons shall
be removed prior to construction of the deck.
2) A new landing and stairs (landing up to a maximum of 32 square feet) may be
constructed up to the property line as noted on the survey dated Aug. 7, 1997. No
encroachment beyond the property line is permitted.
e abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 23, 1997.
(FOR
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
53/~)~'~"7 "City Planner
t, '~City Engineer
~ ' ~Public Works
¥
/gq/
Case No.
'~DNR
Other
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
Address / .'7~ 5 G,,,~ I ·fO
Lot C~
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Name -']'- 0 Ir~
Address I-'[ "~3
Subdivision .[")(e&,,v.,,
ZONING DISTRICT R-1
Phone (H)
R-2 R-3 B-1
Name
Address
Phone (H) (W)
Block
Plat #
B-2 B-3
(M).
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, 4,~ 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.):
~l~ (Rev..Ill4/97)
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~)~ If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS'
REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
· ,-.,/
( N S ~w ) ~O ~ ~. ff ~ ~../~_ ~o'~. o'
( N~E w ) '~l~' ~. '/7~ ft.
( N S E W ) ~ ff. .~0& ff. ~ ff.
(NS~) /~' ~. b ~. q ft.
ft.
sq ff
sq ff
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
fro
sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located.'? Yes (), No ~). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
Please
too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
'940.'too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
describe: _/~, f2.~_ I c._ ~la_~C tS. Ct .(~ft~.~we~.3llZ t~%~_ a>~
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 (), NoJ~. If yes, explain:
o
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
No (). If yes, explain: ~-~
l
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
Date
Date
The Home Depot #2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE, PLYMOUTH, MN 55441,
Mon Aug 11 13:53:43 1997
The materials in this deck will cost $1008.54
File saved as: C:\cqdesign\PROJECTS\DECKS\RECTATT\10xl0ra.dek
View
RECEIVED
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
i
CITY OF MOUND
HARDI;0VE]:I CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE}
;PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA ~.~. SQ.. FT. X 443%
LOT AREA SQ.. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) .............. J
= (for Lots of Rocor(:+) .......
= (far detached buildings only) . .
//~-$. z
· Existing Lots of Record may have ,,~0 percent coverage provided that techniaues are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Secson 350: 1225,$ubd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submi~ed
and a0proved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WI~TH SC FT
HOUS~ ~ ~ X gC, 3 = 7/3 ~ 6
X --
DETACHED BL.D G-
(GARAGE,,'SHE~)
X =
TOTAL DETACHED ~LDGS .................
DRIVE,NAY, PARK:NG /~ X '~ '~ =
ARE, S. S D WAL :S. /, X ? =
ETC. X =
DECKS Open decks
no~ counted as ha~cover
OTHER
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
c~,¢, £D~/~x = /~3, z_
TOTAL DEC~ ..........................
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
"
UNDER (indicaTe. differ~ncelo ...................... ~ .......
AIH)R -ESS: .
CH'Y OF MOUND - ZONIN(
I,O'I OF FIF.(~OFIi)? YF.S I NO
IHRECTION
NS E W
N(~ E W
YARD
FRONT
SIDE
RFAR
INFORMATION SIIEET
I.AKI~
TOP OF FII,IIFF
NS E W
NS E W
(;ARAGF,. $11F, I! ..... I)I~I'^CIIF. D mIII.DIN(;S
FRONt N S E W
FR( )N F
SIDE
SIDE
FIEAFI
I.AKE
TOP OF BI,ltl:f:
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
RZ 2~oooZGo nl %500/0
~, ~a -~,0%'~4~'x ~2 2o.ooo/eo
~' e,ooo-6~/i~ .3 lO,GOO/SO
R2 14,000/80
R3 ~E~ ORD. Zl 30,000/100
REQUIRED [ EXISTINGIPROPOSED
IIARIX:OVI~R
('ONFORMIN(;? YES I NO
15'
N $ E W
NS E W
50'
10' OR 30'
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
NS E W 4'
NS E w 50'
I0' OR 30'
30'~, Or 40%
7 lilY: I DATED:
EXISTING LOT SIZE:, - [
LoT WIOI'H: .,~
LOF DEli'H: ~ ~ [
VAmANCE
COMMON
'fl~iqPlanninltZonin~l)eparlmrntlnfo, mariOnal 472-lN~410.Sheet o~dy. aumlnatizes a portion of Ute requirements outlined in d,e Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HE~RIMG
ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS AND
UNPAID MOWING BILLS
UNPAID TREE RREMOVAL BILLS
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 P.M. on October 14, 1997, to
hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any,
to the proposed assessment on the following parcels of land for:
UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR
PROPERTY
IDENTIFICATION #
AMOUNT
12-117-24-43-0038
12-117-24-43-0052
13-117-24 21 0089
13-117-24 12 0123
13-117-24 12 0042
12-117-24 43 0019
12-117-24 43 0053
13-117-24 12 0189
12-117-24 43 0001
13-117-24 12 0009
13-117-24 12 0014
13-117-24 12 0006
13-117-24 11 0131
13-117-24 11 0054
13-117-24 12 0231
13-117-24 14 0037
13-117-24-14 0029
13-117-24 12 0083
13-117-24 11-0077
18-117-23 23 0004
18-117-23 23 0012
13-117-24 11 0122
13-117-24 11 0047
13-117-24-12-0075
13-117-24 22 0246
14-117-24 42 0082
14-117-24-13-0004
14-117-24 42 0110
14-117-24-41 0042
14-117-24-42 0117
14-117-24 42 0077
14-117-24 42 0016
14-117-24 42 0028
14-117-24 42 0041
335.85
232.81
151.13
121.25
176.33
269.62
333.71
33.35
304.96
602.17
161.82
296.49
289.94
289.39
370.48
177.71
419.93
180.30
300.59
387.47
401.24
386.77
158.77
350.74
306.93
204.08
436.39
498.93
379.10
182.00
168.16
676.82
675.95
387.54
.1
14-117-24 31 0031
14-117-24 32 0032
14-117-24 32 0026
14-117-24 34 0041
14-117-24 34 0020
14-117-24 44 0032
14-117-24 44 0031
14-117-24 42 0023
14-117-24 31 0046
13-117-24 32 0044
13-117-24 32 0057
13-117-24 32 0066
13-117-24 31 0077
13-117-24 31 0018
13-117-24 31 0075
13-117-24 32 0108
13-117-24 32 0102
13-117-24 32 0107
13-117-24 32 0115
13-117-24 32 0155
13-117-24 32 0152
13-117-24 31 0052
13-117-24-34-0014
13-117-24 43 0072
13-117-24 43 0086
24-117-24 12 0055
13-117-24-43 0121
13-117-24 41 0042
13-117-24-41 0012
13-117-24 42 0014
13-117-24 43 0118
13-117-24 44 0081
18-117-23 33 0027
13-117-24 44 0095
24-117-24 23 0024
23-117-24 14 0013
23-117-24 13 0012
23-117-24 13 0016
23-117-24 42 0005
23-117-24 32 0026
22-117-24 44 0030
22-117-24 44 0031
23-117-24 41 0018
23-117-24 41 0021
23-117-24 42 0073
23-117-24 41 0020
23-117-24 42 0088
23-117-24 42 0018
23-117-24 42 0020
23-117-24 42 0045
23-117-24 42 0034
23-117-24 43 0008
23-117-24 34 0086
23-117-24 34 0036
23-117-24 31 0041
560.66
148.80
219.60
264.30
517.66
257.46
513.83
415.55
237.47
297.54
449.55
794.43
525.34
160.22
342.86
375.87
372.67
246.58
191.27
272.17
199.70
246.55
245.53
251.60
287.26
255.26
35.48
321.10
788.92
265.17
121.66
684.30
288.38
353.47
129.16
354.45
395.38
69.22
307.34
267.29
277.60
258.18
397.86
282.71
340.69
289.91
352.53
257.74
546.43
187.98
330.60
400.81
328.59
225.96
327.58
~2
23-117-24 34 0102
23-117-24 24 0013
23-117-24 23 0005
23-117-24 24 0008
23-117-24 31 0054
23-117-24 34 0066
23-117-24 23 0001
23-117-24 23 0095
23-117-24 23 0056
23-117-24 32 0043
23-117-24 32 0050
23-117-24 31 0066
23-117-24 32 0063
23-117-24 23 0108
23-117-24 13-0055
23-117-24 24 0058
23-117-24 13 0071
23-117-24 13 0046
13-117-24 22 0251
24-117-24-22 0001
23-117-24-11 0006
24-117-24 22 0022
13-117-24 34 0036
13-117-24 43 0022
24-117-24 12 0016
24-117-24 13-0009
24-117-24 12 0020
13-117-24 44 0041
19-117-23 23 0093
19-117-23 23 0135
19-117-23 23 0131
19-117-23 23 0082
19-117-23 24 0091
19-117-23 24 0016
19-117-23 31 0026
19-117-23 32 0015
19-117-23 32 0064
19-117-23 32 0159
19-117-23 23 0108
19-117-23 32 0164
19-117-23 23 0159
24-117-24 14 0049
19-117-23 24 0024
19-117-23 32 0033
19-117-23 32 0031
24-117-24 41 0042
24-117-24 41 0157
19-117-23 32.0119
19-117-23 31 0062
19-117-23 31 0101
19-117-23 32 0076
19-117-23 32 0077
19-117-23 32 0082
24-117-24 41 0162
19-117-23 31 0128
155.11
269.68
315.45
220.20
353.76
290.77
140.43
341.47
203.74
253.38
501.95
346.11
330.20
220.93
137.36
497.55
158.32
337.46
362.91
198.65
185.22
342.65
147.24
229.32
275.32
197.09
130.07
938.88
382.47
393.33
226.61
410.82
164.34
180.93
224.13
157.86
268.70
843.76
145.00
225.24
276.07
209.27
642.56
383.27
189.81
337.03
126.75
198.73
411.77
402.74
490.09
392.95
411.14
348.54
352.98
19-117-23 34 0064
25-117-24 21 0043
19-117-23 33 0172
19-117-23 33 0026
19-117-23 33 0051
25-117-24 11 0133
25-117-24 11 0068
24-117-24 44 0051
25-117-24 11 0078
24-117-24 43 0079
19-117-23 33 0196
19-117-23 32 0210
24-117-24 44 0021
19-117-23 34 0122
19-117-23 34 0036
19-117-23 34 0044
19-117-23 34 0043
19-117-23 33 0010
19-117-23 33 0235
19-117-23 33 0075
19-117-23 33 0189
19-117-23 33 0081
19-117-23 33 0184
19-117-23 33 0232
19-117-23 33 0129
24-117-24 44 0041
24-117-24 44 0043
24-117-24 44 0187
24-117-24 44 0060
24-117-24 44 0061
24-117-24 44 0062
24-117-24 44 0176
24-117-24 44 0111
24-117-24 44 0182
24-117-24 44 0073
24-117-24 44 0027
24-117-24 41 0022
24-117-24 41 0097
24-117-24 41 0058
24-117-24 41 0102
24-117-24 42 0007
24-117-24 43 0015
24-117-24 43 0019
24-117-24 41 0175
25-117-24 12 0125
25-117-24 12-0113
25-117-24 21 0025
25-117-24 21 0029
25-117-24 12 0062
30-117-23 22 0034
30-117-23 22 0036
25-117-24 11 0070
25-117-24 11 0023
30-117-23 21 0001
30-117-23 22 0049
694.61
225.04
322.04
192.51
316.89
706.28
277.48
272.16
212.81
207.12
458.98
348.40
460.96
234.46
216.84
438.02
446.70
359.03
473.57
193.91
394.49
299.23
226.78
270.58
594.34
573.98
164.43
284.72
424.24
366.64
292.98
275.17
339.46
344.60
453.19
293.23
132.65
193.06
247.41
322.36
423.76
517.96
189.02
269.77
155.35
331.25
265.94
155.52
208.48
316.96
151.79
320.86
435.05
491.16
604.62
~4
25-117-24 11 0035
25-117-24 11 0043
25-117-24 11 0116
25-117-24 21 0106
25-117-24 12 0134
25-117-24-21 0007
25-117-24 21 0080
13-117-24 44 0051
13-117-24 33 0057
13-117-24 44 0014
13-117-24 33 0014
255.52
144.12
237.37
379.89
422.61
477.30
266.45
265.41
223.98
146.24
232.49
UNPAID MOWING BILLS: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR
13-117-24 32 0069
205.00
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL BILL: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR
13-117-24 22 0011
1,835.50
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all
property lying within the above described limits and benefiting
therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment is
on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written
or oral objections will be considered at the hearing, but the
Council may consider any objections to the amount of the proposed
individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further
notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal
upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the city within 30 days after the
adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District
Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific
parcel of land may be made unless the owner has either filed a
signed written objection to that assessment with the City Clerk
prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the
presiding officer at the hearing.
The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by
Minnesota Statutes 435.193 to 435.195, a resolution (#89-77)
containing standards and guidelines for deferring the assessments
for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the
payments on homestead property. The standards and guidelines are
on file with the City Clerk for your inspection.
Francene C. Clark, city Clerk
Publish in The Laker September 27, 1997.
~5
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT:
CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1996-97
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin
County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Rd., at 7:30 P.M.
on October 14, 1997, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any, to the
proposed assessment. The general nature of the improvements to be assessed are as follows:
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1997 - Area within
the following boundaries proposed to be assessed:
Belmont Lane on the East
Lynwood Boulevard to the North
700 feet West of Commerce Boulevard
700 feet South of Shoreline Drive
Total Cost to be Assessed
$9,534.49
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, alt property lying within the above
described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment
is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be
considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the
proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days
after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made
unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City
Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the
hearing.
The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193
to 435.195, a resolution (//89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the
assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on
homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your
inspection.
Publish in The Laker September 27, 1997.
Fran Clark, CMC
City Clerk
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY/
MINUTES
August 21, 1997
Fackler stated this is an after-the-fact permit. The applicant is
seeking a permit to replace trees cut and removed without
authorization by the city. Staff is recommending approval with
certain conditions. Tom Stueve, 1737'~anar¥ Lane stated he didn't
cut any trees down but trimmed them. He stated the compromise is
agreeable to all parties involved. He stated four trees being
planted will help replace trees which fell during a storm.
Ahrens asked if trees were trimmed for a better view. Stueve
stated he trimmed low lying brush to allow thicker growth.
Fackler stated staff was called to the site by a complaint from a
nearby resident. He stated he worked with Stueve and the City
Attorney to develop a plan that would be agreeable to all involved.
Stueve explained where the trees will be planted on the site.
Ahrens asked for clarification of the complaint which Fackler
explained.
Go!dberg asked if the main issue is that he didn't get approval
ahead of time. Fackler stated it would be a benefit to accept the
compromise proposed. He stated it is always hard with an after-
the-fact, because you don't know exactly what was there before.
Anrens stated he recognized residents should come before the City
with their plans to trim, but they should also be allowed to do
proper trimming when needed.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens to accept staff's
recommendation. Motion carried unanimously.
Ahrens asked who would be doing the work. Stueve stated he would be
doing the planting but will contract out the trimming.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY1NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-16E
(812) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
MEETING
DATES:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
August 7, 1997
August 21, 1997 Dock and Commons Commission
September 9, 1997 City Council
Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant
Sutherland, Building Official ~ .
Jori
SUBJECT:
After the Fact Public Lands Permit Application from
Thomas Stueve
1737 Canary Lane
Dock Site//13300
Wiota Common
Background/Comments. The applicant is seeking an after the fact permit as described in the
attached narrative in order to replace trees cut and removed without authorization by the city.
The agreement is as approved by the Parks Director and the City Attorney Craig Mertz.
Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a permit with the following conditions:
1. The replacemem plantings and related work shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Parks Director.
2. In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved as agreed, the Parks Director
shall refer the matter back to the City Attorney for prosecution.
JS.'kl
The abutting property owners have been notified of this request.
pnntet~ on recycled paper
Rev. 4/97
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
' Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
DISTRIBUTION:
BUILDING OFFICIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
DNR
MCWD
PUBLIC WORKS
DATE RECEIVED
DOCK MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE
~eheck one):
I
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new consmcrioa. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT I-IOUSE$ OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code
Section 320, Subd. l).
PUBLIC LAND MAIIWrENANCE PERSflT - t~ allow repairs m aa existing sm~cmre (City Code Section
320, Sub& 3).
I
CONTIN ATION OF STRUCTURE. m allow an exis~g encroachxaent to remain ia aa 'as is' condition
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
LAND ALTERATION - change ia ~horeliae, draLuage, slope, ~ees, vegetation, fill, em. (Ci~ Code Section 320.
Subd. 4).
The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc.
are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the Cit~ to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those
structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and
are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
~ermit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
Phone (hOme) HT~-&55~ (work) ~0-~0~
Legal Lot LOT& lO-/k Block
Description Subd. ~(5~ ~¢~
Property Dock Site % }~3~ Shoreline
Contractor Name ~ ~ ~~ I~
Address
Phone
VALUATIOn/PROPOSED COST OF PROIECT ~NCLUDING LABOR & MATER/ALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST a PURPOSE: S~'~-- ~r77;%C~O0 5r~r~'r~ ~7-
Signature of Applicant
Dat~
Public Land Permit Application
APPLICATION REQ~MENT$:
Certificate of Survey:
Per my agreement with ~Iames Fackler, Park Director, and Craig Menz, City Prosecutor, no
survey is required. --
2. ~Scaled drawing~ and specifications of proposed improvement;
See attached exhibit it 1.
3. ,Proposed cost of Proiect:
Cost of 4 new trees (2 Maples, 2 Ash)
(1 ¼" to 1 ~" in baskets ~ $65)
Labor -Delivery & Planting of trees
Labor - Trimming/cutting of existing trees
Miscellaneous expenses
$ 260.00
150.00
150.00
50.00
Total Projected Cost
4. Photoeraphs of affected are,:
See attached exhibit # 2.
Statement of purpose for proposed chan~e:
I am filing this "after the fact" public land permit based upon an agreement between myself,
James Faclder, Park Director, and Craig Mertz, City Prosecutor. This agreement provides for
the planting of four replacement trees on Wiota common adjacent to the property located on
1737 Canary Lane. The replacement trees would be planted during the month of September
and would be trees ora trunk diameter of approximately 1 1¼" to 1 ½". As part of my
agreement, lames Faclder, met with me at my house to assist me with developing a plan which
would comply with City Ordinances. During this onsite meeting, I was advised that I could
trim-up some of the existing mature trees in order to allow for the planting of new trees and to
maintain my view of the lake, as allowed under the City Code, Shoreline Management,
Section 350:1225, Subd. 4. A.2.b. I am also requesting permission to cut down three small
maple trees that have grown into the base of one o£the large mature Oak trees. I am
concerned that these small maples will cause damage or potentially shorten the life of the large
Oak tree.
In summar-,7, I ~n requesting permission to do the following changes to the bluff's located on
Wiota common adjacent to 1737 C~n~'y Lane:
l)
2)
3)
Plant four new trees.
Trim existing rr~ture trees.
Cut down three small maples that have grown into the base of' a large Oak tree.
Erosion control plan,:
Per my agreement with James Faclder, Park Director, and Craig Mertz, City Prosecutor, no
erosion control plan was required. However, the planting of four new trees will prevent
future erosion in the areas where they are planted on the bluff. I will also monitor the bluffs
for falling branches and will remove them to allow for the underlying brush to grow, thus
developing a good root system to combat erosion.
?~a+. o£
/
'11
O7/U~/g7 'l'Ug 07:UZ ~'AA ~iZ 33U 473~ GAANU ~g'l' '1'AA ~007
~ uu~
TOt
CITY OF MOUND - COMI'L~ FORNI
TAKEN B¥~
.!
!
!
!
!
LOC]%TION/ADDRESS OF COMPLAINTU
OWNER' S ADDRESS ,~-'/z~Q~.~
OWNER'S PHONE
TENANT
TENANT'S PHONE
COMPLAINT ISSUED BY
ADDRESS
DAY PHONE
RELATED CODE SECTIONS
bubd. 4. ~horeland Alteration-~. Alterations of vegetation and topography will be regulated to prevent'erosion
into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and
protect fish and wildlife habitat.
A. Veaetation Alteration.~.
Removal of vegetation necessary for the construction of structures and the construction nf
roads and parking areas regulated by Section 350:1225, Subd. 5 of this ordinance is ex¢
from the vegetation alteration standards that follow.
Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as
regulated in Sections 350:1225, Subd. 7 B. and C., is allowed subject to the following
standards:
·
Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep
slopes is prohibited. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another
use outside of these areas is allowable as a conditional use if an erosion control and
sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation
district in which the property is located.
ELEVATIONS
LAKE MINNETONKA
DUTCH LAKE
LAKE LANGDON
In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes on private property, limited clearing
of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide
a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement
of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access
areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that:
(1)
(2)
The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the
water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced.
The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or
branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards.
Flood Elevation
931.5 (MCWD)
942
935 i
Ordinary High Water
929.4
939.2
932.1
Lowest Floor Eievatic
933
942
937
s~ ~'$ Ca,~ ~ r'y'
q-rd-
CRAIG M. MERTZ LAW OFFICE
P.O. Box 652/600 W. 79th St., Suite 210
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 934-0419
Fax: (612) 975-9963
June 27, 1997
Thomas Allen Stueve
1737 Canary Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Re:
Vegetation Cutting on Wiota
Common
Dear Mr. Stueve:
I am writing to you in my capacity as prosecutor for the
City of Mound. This letter is intended as a memorandum of the
conclusions which were reached at our meeting at Mound City Hall
on June 10, 1997. The attendees at that meeting were you, Mr.
Fackler from the City of Mound and me. It was agreed that you
would apply for an "after the fact" permit for a shore land
alteration. The application will provide for the planting of 7
or 8 replacement trees on Wiota Common adjacent to your home.
These trees would be planted sometime next September and would be
trees of a trunk diameter of approximately 1 1/4" to 1 1/2". Mr
Fackler agreed that the City would supply you with a load of wood
chips to be used as mulch under the replacement trees.
It was agreed that the application would be filed at City
Hall no later than July 9, 1997, that your application would be
put before the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission at it s July
17, 1997, meeting and that it would come before the City Council
at it's August 12, 1997, meeting. Mr. Fackler indicated that he
was willing to meet with you on the property and assist you with
developing a plan which would comply with the City Ordinances.
If this does not correctly reflect our discussions as you recall
them, please contact me as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
CMM:cg Craig M. Mertz
cc:.~ Shukle, Mound City Manager James Fackler, Parks Director
$3oo
OI~I~ANCE NO. 89-1997
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 437 OF TI-IE CITY CODE
RELATING DOCKS BY ADDING SECTION
437:16, EXCEPTIONS
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section 437:26 is hereby added to the City Code to read as follows:
437:16.
Exceptions. The City Code may grant exceptions to the provision of Section
437:15 in instances where the Council finds that the exception is necessitated
due to unusual circumstances; and if granted, would not have a detrimental
impact on the public safety or welfare. The City Council may condition any
exception upon such conditions as the Council shall in its sole discretion, deem
appropriate. The exception and any conditions imposed on its granting will be
shown on the dock license. Any violation of the conditions imposed shall
result in the revocation or non-renewal of such license.
The Council may refer any request for exception to the Dock and Commons
Advisory Commission for review and comment prior to taking action.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council
Published in The Official Newspaper, The Laker,
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 3370300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
RECEIVED SEP_ 4
JOHN B. DEAN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9207
September 3, 1997
Fran Clark
City Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55634-1687
BY FAX AND U.S. MAIl,
Re: James Krenik "/fter-the-Fact Variance Request" (5240 Pike Road)
Dear Fram
You will recall that following a review of ~e Mound City Code, we deterrn/ned that there was
no procedure in place whereby the council could grant Mr. Krenik's request.
Enclosed you will find a draft form as amendment to the Code which would permit to ~he council
to grant exceptions to the construction and location provisions contained in Section 437.15 of the
Code.
The language is somewhat general on purpose. The intent would be to give the council
flexibility in determining when and under what conditions exceptions would be allowed.
I have not used the term "variance" because I do not want this approval confused with the
variances which have their own set of procedures and legal authority regarding their issuance.
I have not included a provision which would require a fee for the exception request. I would be
glad to do so if requested.
cc: J. Fackler
JBD129267
MU200-1
City Council Minutes - August 12, 1997
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:
1. Granting an exception (variance) for ten years.
The Council discussed the
2. Whether the dock is a permanent structure.
It has since been determined that the dock is not a permanent structure.
3. 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:
a. 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.
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 17, 1997
JAMES KRENIK, 5240 PIKE ROAD
Fackler reviewed the request for an after-the-fact variance from
City Code relating to a dock design. The dock exceeds the width by
2 feet. He recommended the dock conform to the Code requirement.
He stated there is a question how the LMCD would look at this. If
deemed to be a permanent dock, an LMCD permit would be required.
He recommended this be referred to them.
James Krenik, 5240 Pike Road explained why the dock is configured
the way it is. He stated there is no way a regular dock can be
walked on. He noted it is in the exact location as the old dock.
He discussed the dock construction and how the measurement was
calculated. He explained the wood posts were used for safety
concerns. He discussed compromises to adjust the dock size.
Bev Botko, neighbor stated the dock is more stable now and she
supported the new dock. '
Ahrens asked if the dock would be removed at the end of the season.
Krenik stated he would like to keep it in year round.
Ahrens asked why this should be taken to the LMCD. Fackler stated
there is a question about the permanency of the dock.
Ahrens asked if a permit has been issued yet. Fackler noted one
has not. Krenik discussed his concerns about safety. He didn't
believe this area is being congested any more than it already is.
Ahrens asked for clarification of how the width is determined.
McCaffrey stated the width is considered to be the platform.
In response to a question from the audience, Fackler noted it is
the LMCD's determination what constitutes a permanent dock vs. one
that stays in all winter.
Goldberg asked if the silt situation is a significant reason to
approve the dock. McCaffrey agreed docks in silt are less stable.
Ahrens asked what provisions are in the Code now to approve a
variance to dock widths. Fackler stated it is up to the DCAC to
make a recommendation. The other docks must also be considered.
Goldberg didn't believe this is a problem if there is justification
and there is a consensus the silt/safety issue is a problem.
Fackler suggested putting a limitation on the dock itself, and if
the configuration changes, the reduction would have to come into
compliance.
Ahrens stated the spacing between the docks is 30' and this dock
is at 31'. '
Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
july 17, 1997
Page 3
Tulberg stated he would defer it to the LMCD. Fackler stated the
applicant has indicated the dock is removable.
Hopkins stated a legal dock would be just as stable. He asked if
it could be approved if there were a "T" on the end. McCaffrey
stated it wouldn't matter.
Goldberg suggested a condition be placed that the dock be limited
to a straight dock.
Hopkins asked how long the posts will last. Krenik stated they
should last ten years.
Goldberg suggested the width be brought back to four feet when the
dock is replaced.
Motion by Goldberg, seconded by Tulberg given the safety
concerns of docks in that amount of silt, an increased
structural dock makes sense, and given that neighborhood,
there isn't a major space problem; therefore, motion to
recommend approval of the after-the-fact variance to remain at
six feet in width with the following conditions: ~) toward
satisfying the principal of not increasing congestion, limit
the dock to a straight dock; 2) towards eventually conforming
to the ordinance when the posts rot out, bring the dock back
down to four feet. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
July 3, 1997
TO: DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARK DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF DOCK DESIGN SITE #22600
A request has been received for a after-the-fact variance
to Mound city Code, Section 437:15 ~Maximum Dimensions,
Prohibited Design of Docks'.
The applicant is Mr. James Krenik, who has a abutting home
at 5240 Pike Road, on Waterside Common.
The dock that was installed exceeds in the width by two
feet. As you will note on the attached exert from Mound City
Code 'Docks for which a license is required by this Section
437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in
width...'. To aid in keeping people informed on these
limitations information is sent with every renewal dock
application. This information is addressed on the City of
Mound Dock Program Information sheet and the Cover Letter,
of which copies are attached.
Staffs recommendation is to follow City Code based on
principle that the limitations of the dock dimensions reduce
the congestion of multiple city docks.
Mound City Code
Section 437:15
Section 437:15. Maximum Dimensions, Prohibited Desien of Dock.,;. Docks for which
a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in
width with the exception that one 72' x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks
provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall
not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where
necessary to reach a water depth of 48", using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.40 feet
above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel
to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more than 72" in width. The length shall be
lirrfited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site.
Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock
boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and
specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built or placed with the
longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be
permitted in accordance with the conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1,
1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or
modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged,
destroyed, or deter/orated. (ORD.//38-1989 - 1-2-90) (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) (ORD. #66-
1993- 12-27-93)
CITY OF MOLl/ND DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION
'he City of Mound is licensed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District {LMCD) to operate
~Droxi~ately 400 multiple docks. To be eligible to lease one of these sites, you must be
il~ermanent or summer resident of Mound. Applications are available at City Hall on the
~st working day of the year for new applicants, and are mailed to licensee's from prior
year during December each year. See dock application for current fees. These fees are due
~ith the completed application by February. 28th. The following priorities govern the
issuance of dock licenses per the Mound City Code.
aa. Last Priority. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable
lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands.
a. First Priorit~ An abutting owner has first priority for a City designated location
within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in
accordance with the dock location map.
b. Second Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock license,
the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the preceding year, has second
priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location held by the licensee the
immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations
where a first priority license is in effect.
c. Thir4 Priorit¥~ A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant
after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed
time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in
the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority where the first and
second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private lakeshore within ~he City
which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on
public, lands.
d. Administration of Priorit?~ The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the
applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and
Council approval.
Ail applications received after February 28th shall be subject to a minimum late fee of
$20.00, and will be placed in a third priority category. There will be no late fee charged
new residents who apply after February 28th of the calendar year in which the resident
es to the City. Residents of the City of Mound, 65 years of age or older, shall pay 50%
the required license fee for a dock.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(PORTION OF CITY CODE SECTION 437)
Subd. 1. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file in the City Hall a drawing
of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations
of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shoreland under the control
of the City.
Subd. 2. Annual Review of MaD~ Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained
by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission at least
once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between
September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may
be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall
contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and
recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the
dock location map and the number of dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the
Dock Inspector, reviewed by the Park Commission and Approved by the City Council.
Subd. 3. Dock Inspector to Review Application. The Dock Inspector shall determine and
approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the approved dock
location map.
Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance. Licensed docks shall be erected and
maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same.
Subd. 5. Suspension of Eliqible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock location
where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably
interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property owners abutting
.treets or public commons.
on public at_ o~ a
~rm ach resident family. An apartment building or
itted for e .......... ..~ ..... s He or she is entitled to apply :or
~ot apply for dock licenses :or hzs ren=er~ ur ~=~=== ·
an individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the
City.
Subd. 7. Construction Materials; Use of Car Tires. All private docks shall be constructed
cf materials specified by the Building Inspector a~d the Dock Inspector and in accordance
with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and
neral welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved licensed private
ck shall result in docks being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or
create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached on dock posts, dock
poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shoreland under the control of
the City. (ORD. #40-1990, 1-29-90)
Subd. 8. ~ns -~e - License Revocation. The Dock Inspector
or such other officer ~s may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may at
any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or
abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any
such dock has not been constructed or the area surrounding the dock site is not being
maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the
plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it appear that
condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance such dock is in a
or other ordinances
of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by him, shall
forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock
does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days
to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the
terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event
such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply with
the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall
be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing
to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer
designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to .the City
Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her
~consideration.
~Subd. 9. Notice of Revocation. All notices herein required shall be in writing by
~certified mail, directed to the l~censee at the address given in the application.
~ Subd. 10. Dock~ No person shall store, leave or abandon any dock, dock section,
dock poles or dock hardware on any public road, street park or Commons except for winter
storage in approved areas. '
"~d. ll. Removal Deadline. Ail private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or
· nmons must be removed from The waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no later
~ ,nat November 1 of the license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown on
the master dock map.
ubd. 12. ~ockinq of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee
Ks not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours]
Section 437:15. Maximum Dimensions, Prohibited Design of Docks. Docks for which a license
is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width
with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided
that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall
not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where
necessary to reach a water depth of 48", using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.49
feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed
parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more that 72" in width. The
length ~hall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on
an ad. -:ent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail c '
of e~..al height above the dock bo -a- --~ _ _ onstruc~lon. ~ock posts shall be
constructed to com~l,- to st--~ .... ~'~ ..... .~ha~l b, at least two rail construction and
~ ~ ~u~u~ an~ specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. Ail
docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the
shorelzne unless varzatzons otherwzse may be permitted in accordance with the topographical
conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into
compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or modification is requested,
or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated.
(ORD. #38-1989 - 1-2-90)
Section 437:20. Penalties. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions
or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any
criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any
dock erected without a license as required by this Section 437, or where any license has been
revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to
comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person
convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for
e present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth
.~ this Section 437.
NOTE: The use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is not recommended on city property.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
December 31, 1996
Dear Dock License Applicant:
Enclosed is your 1997 Dock License Appiica~ion Form. The dock fees for 1997 have
remained the same as 1996. Following are some general rules relating to your dock license.
Permits will not be issued to any non-resident of Mound. Proof of residency or proof
of boat ownership must be furnished if requested. Any false information given or
violations of Dock Ordinance 437 shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit.
[The Dock Ordinance is available for viewing at City Hall.)
2. DUE DATE:
All 1997 Dock License Applications must be received by FEBRUARY 28, 1997,
(must be postmarked by a U.S. Post Office by February 28, 1997).
Applications received on March 1, 1997 and before April 1 are subject to a
minimum late fee of $20.00 and are placed in the third (3rd) priority category.
FEES:
Application renewals for non-abutting residents not received BY MARCH 31 st
will not retain a second (2nd) priority status, and will be placed in a third (3rd)
priority category.
,~:-',~o,,,~,,~o abutting the commons who have not submi~ed their renevvai
application by FEBRUARY 28, 1997 will be subject to a minimum late fee of
$20.00 and will be placed in a third (3rd) priority category if fee is not paid by
March 31.
The base fee is based on the shape of your dock and ranges from $150.00 to
$235.00. Interpretation of the type of dock installed and applicable fee may
need to be determined by the Dock Inspector or Park Commission.
L.M.C.D. Fees. The City of Mound is required to pay to the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District
Letter to ',Applicant
Page 2
Senior citizens are eligible for reduced rates. Senior Citizens (65 years or older
at time of application) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they
desire. Senior citizens sharing a dock, with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base
permit fee for the type of dock they desire. The non-senior sharing a dock with
a senior pays 3/4 the base permit fee, plus the $30.00 share fee.
WATERCRAFT LICENSES REQUIRED. A copy of the Minnesota Watercraft License
is required to be submitted for each boat or watercraft to be stored at your dock,
including boats of shared dock holders. A DOCK LICENSE WILL NOT BE ISSUED
WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION.
No dock can be installed until a dock location site is granted by the Dock Inspector
Licenses and permits are Non-Transferable. Dock licenses issuea Dy t~e City are
personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their
households. No dock licensed by the City or located on public streets, roads, parks,
or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or
corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner
charges or receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall
be revoked.
7. CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS.
YOUR
A permit is required for construction of any kind on any public lands, or the
alteration of the natural contour of any public lands, such as: stairways,
retaining walls, trimming of trees, etc.
No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands
without first receiving a special Maintenance Permit from the City, in
accordance with Section 320 of the City Code. Applications for remodeling,
maintaining or repairing existing boathouses, retaining walls, stonework, decks,
landscaping, trimming of trees or brush, or other types of improvements on
public lands may be obtained from the Building Department.'
RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOCK LICENSE HOLDER
materials.
Install your own dock that meets City specifications for safety, size and
be
Maintain the cleanliness of the area by your site, including grass cutting and
weed trimming. Aquatic plants that are protected by law require permits prior
to removal. Remove Eurasian Water Milfoil from the shoreline around your
dock.
Ce
Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other materials cannot be stored on
public land during the boating season, and must be removed by June 1.
48 inch ~nxtmum width.
PLANK CONSTRUCTION
2/90
L, T, or U Docks
One 72" x 72" section
is allowed provided
required setbacks to
adjoining docks sites
are maintained.
2 - RAIL CONSTRUCTION
3 - RAIL REQUIRED IF
WALKING SURFACE IS
OVER 30 INCHES WIDE.
MAXIMUM 8 FEET
APART.
POLE ~.i G'R'r
HUST BE
CONSIST~2Cf
ABOVE WALKK
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR
KOENIG & SCHWERT, 2305 COMMERCE BLVD.
WHEREAS, on July 20, 1984, Koenig & Schwert, a partnership consisting of
Richard M. Schwert and William R. Koenig, obtained a loan from the Downtown Loan Fund
to improve the appearance of their building at 2305 Commerce Blvd. legally described as
follows:
"That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, which lies Northerly of the following described line: Commencing
at the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence north along the West line of said
Lot 3 a distance of 17.4 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence easterly deflecting right 90 degrees 08 minutes 14 seconds a
distance of 109.00 feet; thence easterly to a point on the East line of said Lot
3 distant 1.12 feet north, as measured along said East line, from the southeast
corner of said Lot 3 and said line there ending."
WHEREAS, this mortgage was filed in Hennepin County on July 23, 1984, as
Document Number 4929595; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 1997, Koenig & Schwert paid this mortgage off
and are now requesting a Satisfaction of Mortgage.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Satisfaction of Mortgage for
Koenig & Schwert, a partnership consisting of Richard M. Schwert and William R. Koenig,
2305 Commerce Blvd.
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE
Form No. 51- M
Miller-Davis Co.. Minneapoii.~ I 10-3-86}
Minne~Ot~ Uniform Convcyan~:in~ Bl&nks 11986)
By Corporation or Partnersl~ip
Satisfaction Of Mortgage
Date: september 23, ,19 97
(reserved for recording data)
THAT CERTAIN MORTGAGE ownedby the undersigned, a Minnesota Mun]¢]0a] Corpnratinn
under the laws of THE STATE OF MINNESOTA ,dated .lilLy _'20 ,1984-,
executedby BOB POLSTON, MAYOR AND J0N ELAM. CITY MANAK, FR
CITY OF MOUND , as Mortgagor, to
KEONIG & SCHWERT, a partnership consisting of Richard M. ~rhwmrf mhd Wi!!iam R. Keenig
for 2305 Commerce Blvd., Mound, MN. , as Mortgagee,
and filed for record July 23, ,1984 , as Document Number 4929595
(or in Book of Page ), in the Office of the (County Recorder)
(Registrar of Titles) of Hennep i n County, Minnesota, is, with the indebtedness thereby
secured, fully paid and satisfied.
CITY OF MOUND
By
Its ACTING MAYOR
By
Its CITY MANAGER
STATE OF MINNESOTA t ~'
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23RD day of
by ANDR[A AHRENS and EDWARD 3..~HIIKI F=
the ACTING MAYOR .and- CITY MANAF, FR
of TH[ CITY OF MOUND
under the laws of STAT[ OF MINNESOTA , on behalf of the
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAPT~:D BY (NAME AND ADDRESSk
FRANCENE C. CLARK/LEISINGER
SEPTEMBER ,1997 ,
,1R ,
,a MN MIINI£1P~I C0~O0PiTIaN
CITY OF MOIIN5
CITY CLERK SiGNATUREOFPE~ONTAKINGACKNOW~DGMENT
CITY OF MOUND
5341MAYW00D ROAD NO~^~^~S?^M~O~SE^~(O~O~E~O~
MOUND, MN. 55364
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR
FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AND SIGN SUB-GRANT
AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MOUND
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mound, Minnesota, enters into a Sub-grant
Agreement with the Division of Emergency Management in the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety for the program entitled Infrastructure Program for FEMA 1187-DR-
MINNESOTA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby authorize City Manager, Edward J. Shukle, Jr. or Finance Director,
Gino Businaro to execute and sign such Sub-grant Agreements and amendments as are
necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Mound.
I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, on September 23, 1997.
SIGNED:
WITNESSSETH:
(Signature)
(Signature)
(Title)
(Title)
(Date)
(Date)
August 26, 1997
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF A
STREET LIGHT ON DUNDEE ROAD NEAR DUNDEE PARK
WHEREAS, the City received a request to install a street light on Dundee Road
near Dundee Park; and
WHEREAS, the request was researched by the Staff and was found to be a
legitimate request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize Northern States Power to install a street light on
Dundee Road on the power pole between 3041 and 3057, near Dundeee Park.
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
Chief Harrel~7~o'
Officer Ewa~
Street light request for Dundee Park
I checked the lighting in the area of Dundee Park on three occasions over the last week and have
witnessed that several children in the area do utilize the park during the day and evening. The
park is very dark and is one of the few parks that has no street light in the area.
I did not witness teenagers congregating in the park during the night time hours as several of the
neighbors have stated, however, I believe it may be occurring.
I contacted several of the fourteen people who have signed the petition who are very concerned
about the safety of their children in the park area, especially in the fall and winter when it gets
dark earlier. Of the eight people who were not at home at the time of the signing of the petition I
was able to contact four of them. These four individuals were in favor of a light in the park area
also for the security of the children and to eliminate the vandalism.
I believe that the street light is necessary and would not only ease the concerns of the residents in
the area, but would add security to the those playing in the park and the park itself. I would
suggest that the street light be put on an existing power pole located on the east side of Dundee
Park, which will create a well lit park and better lighting for Dundee Lane which currently has
no street lights in that area.
Ken & Germaine Persing
Mound, MN 55364
Monday, August 25, 1997
City Of Mound
C/O Joyce
5341 Maywood Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
Dear City of Mound,
We, the residents of Dundee Lane, have a great concern for the safety of our neighborhood and
respectfully request that a street light be installed at Dundee Park. There is only one light on the
North end of the street, .near Donald.
There have been increasing incidents of vandalism occurring over the summer. Juveniles
between the ages of 13 and 16, have been seen in the park smoking and drinking in the park after
dark, nuts removed from the park equipment, cars have been egged. Most recently, a vehicle
parked on the street directly across from the park, was severely vandalized, and nearly stolen.
We believe that a light on the telephone poll in front of the park would help to minimize the
possibility of crimes increasing in the immediate area.
We, the undersigned residents of Dundee Lane, support the installation of a street light. Thank
you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely yours,
Name . Sign. ature Address Date
BILLS-
........ September 23, 1997
BATCH 7092
Total Bills
$141,596.04
$141,596.04
: I I
I I
~3 ,,..I
o~
~JZ
i~iQ~
~ .-.,)
:IX
.-IZ
4.1
o
..
Z
.I
Z
Z
~Z
I T
0
n-.jj
.~Z
?
Z
.~-4 ,--4
°
! I I I
-J Z
::3
Z
']
ooo~
x
IIIII
0oo0o
I I I I I
z
F
U
LU ?'
September 23, 1997
RESOLUTION g97-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF
RESOLUTION//96-69, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS
FOR MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE
LOCATED IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
LOTS 1, 2, 3 & s 1/2 OF 47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9,
PID'S 23-117-24 14 0043 & 0050
P&Z CASE//96-26
WHEREAS, Richard R & Connie L Meyer, owners of Meyer's Mound Service, have
applied for an extension to their Conditional Use Permit to allow an Auto Repair Business, that
was granted on July 9, 1996 by Resolution #96-69, and;
WHEREAS, Mound Zoning Ordinance Section 350:640 allows Minor Auto Repair
Businesses in the B-1 Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit, and;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the owners to comply with the conditions as listed in
Resolution #96-69, however the scheduling of contractors needed to complete the project, has
led to delays in finishing conditions a. and b. as stated below; and,
WHEREAS, it has been agreed upon between the owners, Building Official and
recommended unanimously for approval by the Planning Commission, to extend the time of
completion of the below listed conditions until December 1, 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City Council does hereby approve an extension until December 1, 1997, of
Resolution #96-69, granting a conditional use permit for Meyer's Mound Service as a
Minor Automobile Repair facility subject to the following conditions:
a. Overnight outdoor storage of vehicles on the site shall be limited to the area north
of the structure. All vehicles stored on the site shall have current vehicle license
tabs. The sale of vehicles on the property is prohibited.
b. The outdoor storage lot on the north side of the building shall be improved
consistent with City ordinance requirements. Said improvement shall include but
not be limited to bituminous surfacing and construction of required fencing.
c. All trash and parts storage shall be screened. The applicant shall prepare and
submit a screening plan for review and approval by the Mound Building Official.
d. Any future changes in signage for the business shall comply with the Mound Sign
Ordinance.
Proposed Meyer's Resolution
September 23, 1997
Page 2
o
o
e. All vehicle repair activities shall occur inside the building.
f. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed one year from the
date of City Council approval at no cost to the applicant.
g. Tax parcels 23-117-24 14 0043 and 23-117-24 14 0050 shall be required to be
under one ownership and if either parcel is sold or transferred, this Conditional
Use Permit shall immediately become null and void and the new owner or owners
shall be required to reapply for a new Conditional Use Permit.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 1, 2, 3, and the South half of 47, 48, and 49, Block 9,
Mound Bay Park, PID 23-117-24 14 0043 and 0050.
This Conditional Use Permit 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.
o
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
seconded by Councilmember
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest:
Mayor
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 8, 1997
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review
OWNER: Richard and Connie Meyer - 2620 Commerce Blvd.
CASE NUMBER: 96-26
HKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5cc
LOCATION: 2620 Commerce Blvd.
EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-l)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business
BACKGROUND: This item has been placed in the Planning Commission and City Council agendas
as a part of the yearly review condition of the conditional use request approved in July of 1996. To
supplement this yearly review the Planning Report and approved Council Resolution are included in
your packets. In the Planning report is a chronology of events on the site.
COMMENT: As you will notice upon visiting the site, there has been little in the way of progress
in meeting the conditions of the previously approved permit. The conditions as approved by Council
are spelled out in the Resolution included in your packet. To date, it does not appear that any of the
conditions have been satisfied. Parking on-site continues to occur in the front and sides of the
building. Parking in the rear has not occurred largely because the underground tanks have disrupted
the area. This has also prevented the installation of screening along the east and north sides of the
property. Additionally, on numerous occasions, the Building Official has observed vehicle repair
outside the building.
In a recent conversation with the owner, he stated that the reason for the lack of compliance with the
parking and screening conditions was the removal of the underground tanks and scheduling a
contractor to complete the retaining walls. If the tanks had not needed removal, the work would be
completed. The owner also discussed the difficulty of parking cars in the rear. It is a regular
occurrence for cars to be dropped off in the evening after work hours when business is closed. The
owner stated that he fully intends to comply with the conditions except the vehicle parking which he
feels he is entitled to because it is a part of any automotive repair business. When asked how long it
will take for the parking lot and screening to be completed, the owner stated the contractor was the
holdup at this point and everything else is ready to move forward. It was agreed that the work could
probably be completed by December 1 of this year.
P. 2
Meyer Conditional Use Permit Review
As indicated by Mr. Meyer, he fully intends to comply with all of the conditions of the permit except
for the issue of parking cars in the front and sides of the building. Mr. Meyer feels it is common for
other auto repair businesses to park cars in the front. There are a couple of approaches Council could
take on this issue. If the parking is a condition that should not be compromised, enforcement action
could be stepped up to cite parking violations. A second approach would be to require the majority
of parking in the rear but allow a small number of parking spaces out front for drop-off purposes.
This approach would help with promoting a certain level of attention to the inventory of cars at least
in front of the building.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the previous conditions as stated in the resolution be
upheld and that all conditions be satisfied by December 1, 1997. Staff would also recommend Council
discuss the parking issue in front of the building with the applicant. If the conditions are not satisfied
by this time, the City could then proceed with appropriate legal action to remedy the situation.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 9, 1996
1.1
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATI N OF A CONDITI NAL USE PERMIT T
ALLOW A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS FOR MEYER'S MOUND SERVICe;
.~_O_C_ATED IN THE B-1 CENIRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AT 2610 COMM~;RCI,i
LVD., PID//23-117-24 14 0043 & 0050. -
City Planner Mark Koegler stated the owners had applied for an amendment to their Conditional Use
Permit to allow an Auto Repair Business in the B-1 District. He reviewed the conditions with the
Council and stated staff and Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval.
Councilmember Jensen questioned the actual number of vehicles allowed to be parked overnight on the
lot. Discussion revolved around there not being a limited number of vehicles, rather keeping the
parked vehicles within the north lot.
Mayor Polston opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to comment
either for or against this item. Mr. Meyer was present and stated that he did not want a limit on the
vehicles as vehicles will be coming and going frequently. Weather conditions often dictate the count
of vehicles as his business was AAA authorized. Also, he had agreed, as the Planning Commission had
requested, to not have any overnight parking on the south side of the property along Bartlett Boulevard.
Then Mr. Meyer questioned item 'g' in the conditions regarding the two parcels being combined. He
stated he could not do this as the north lot was on a contract for deed and not paid off yet. He would
like to have that portion of the resolution removed. Council discussed this and the City Attorney
reworded item 'g' to read: Tax parcels 23-11%23 14 0043 and 23-117-24 14 0050 shall be required
to be under one ownership and if either parcel is sold or transferred, this Conditional Use Permit shall
immediately become null and void and the new owner or owners shall be required to reapply for a new
Conditional Use Permit.' Mr. Meyer was in agreement. City Manager Ed Shukle read a letter from
a neighboring resident, Mr. Tom Reese, that stated his agreement with the business proposal.
Being no more comments for or against, Mayor Polston closed the public hearing.
Mayor Polston was concerned with the possibility of complaints of too many vehicles and if the
resolution did not state an actual count, what guidelines did the City have to enforce over parking?
Councilmember Jensen suggested changing the word 'parking' to 'storage' of vehicles. Mayor Polston
stated that if the resolution was not defined clearly, a precedence could be established. Consensus was
to let the area in use be the definition.
Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the amended resolution:
RESOLUTION//96-69 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS
FOR 3v[EYER'S MOUND SERVICE LOCATED IN TFiE B-.I
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOTS 1, 2, 3, & S. 1/2 OF
47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9, PID'S 23-117-24 14 0043 AND 0050. PZ
//96-26.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 1996
CASE 96-26: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- MEYER'S MOUND SERVICE (PUBLIC
HEARING). RICHARD & CONNIE MEYER, 2620 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 1, 2, 3 &
S. 1/2 OF 47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9, PID 23-117-24 14 0043 & 0050
Mark Koegler, City Planner, reviewed the Planning Report. As a result of complaints
received about the overall appearance of the property and the number of vehicles
parked on the site, the Building Official determined that the use of the property has
changed substantially over the years without any update or modification of the
conditional use permit. A chronology of the site was reviewed.
The gas pumps have been removed and sale of gasoline has discontinued. It is
assumed that the underground gas tanks are still in place.
It is important that Meyer's Mound Service have a conditional use permit that
accurately reflects the business that is conducted on the site. Since the business has
continued to grow and evolve over the past 15 years without updating the permit,
there are now a number of ordinance requirements that apply to the property. Issues
that need to be addressed in updating the conditional use permit include:
Use of the property. The existing special use permit allows only transmission
repair on the site. Based upon the application, materials submitted, it appears
that the facility qualifies as a minor automobile repair business.
Planning Commission Minutes ~'01
June 10, 1996
On-site parking. The special use permit which has never been updated limits
parking to one vehicle. The applicant has requested parking for 25 vehicles.
Based on the capacity of the off-street parking area, it seems that limiting
parking to 15 vehicles is consistent with the conditions placed on Shoreline
Automotive is reasonable.
Parking lot. The parking area currently has a gravel surface. The Zoning Code
requires that all parking areas and access drives serving commercial property
be paved with bituminous or concrete surfacing. The code also states that
parking lots cannot be located closer than 5 feet from an adjacent lot zoned or
used for residential purposes.
The code also requires fencing along the east side of the parking lot. That
provision requires that "a fence of adequate design, not over five (5) feet in
height nor less than four (4) feet in height shall be erected along the Residential
District property line."
Trash and parts storage. City Code requires the screening of all dumpster
enclosures. The original special use permit prohibited outside storage of parts,
material and other equipment. The existing dumpster as well as all parts
storage needs to be screened.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a
conditional use permit for Meyer's Mound Service as a Minor Automobile Repair
facility subject to the following conditions:
Parking on the site shall be limited to a total of 15 vehicles. All vehicles parked
on the site shall have current vehicle license tabs. The sale of vehicles on the
property is prohibited.
The parking lot on the north side of the building shall be improved consistent
with City ordinance requirements. Said improvement shall include but not be
limited to bituminous surfacing and construction of required fencing.
All trash and parts storage shall be screened. The applicant shall prepare and
submit a screening plan for review and approval by the Mound Building Official.
Any future changes in signage for the business shall comply with the Mound
Sign Ordinance.
5. All vehicle repair activities shall occur inside the building.
Mueller confirmed that other similar businesses used for comparison are Shoreline
Automotive, Mound Collision and the old Arco (now Glass Plus).
202
Planning Commission Minutes
June I0, 1996
C
Koegler confirmed that within the B-1 zone, minor auto repair is allowed by conditional
use permit, and commented that the applicant can address what nature of repairs are
done on-site, but believes it is consistent with the definition of minor auto repair.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Steve Kladstrup, owner of 5668 Bartlett Blvd. which is located two houses to the east
expressed a concern about future expansion of the business. Koegler noted that the
surrounding property is zoned residential and this type of use is not allowed in a
residential zone.
Kladstrup noted that Meyer's repaired a broken timing belt on his car two weeks ago
and noted that this is the type of work tl~ey do.
Kladstrup stated that when the wind comes from the west trash from Meyer's blows
into his property, and he has a collection of this trash to prove it. He feels that
expansion of the business would have a detrimental affect on the neighborhood.
Tom Reese, owner of 5641 Bartlett Blvd., stated that he feels the station provides a
service to the community and it deserves to remain, but that it should be maintained
so it is a benefit to Mound. He agrees with the planning report, however, feels 15
cars is a bit strong. He would suggest ten cars, otherwise he supports the rest of the
report. He is also concerned about the signage as it is out of date. there is a concern
in the neighborhood that this business be updated and made current.
Richard Meyer, owner of the station, stated that when the complaint about the
number of cars was received by the City was when it was very cold weather. He
would like the Planning Commission to consider his request for 25 cars. Today they
had 16 cars parked outside and there was room for more. In the winter he needs to
be able to park more cars.
Relating to condition #5, he stated that he would like the flexibility to allow quick
repairs outdoors, such as replacing a fuse or a tire. He has no other concerns with the
report.
Relating to parking, he emphasized that he has four employees and himself, so five of
the cars parked outside are the employee's vehicles which would only allow for ten
customer vehicles. He stated that they rarely have more than five or ten cars parked
overnight on the lot as most people drop off their vehicles a leave them during the day
while they go to work.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
Mueller agreed that incidental repairs, such as replacing a fuse or a tire outside should
not be a problem. He would be concerned about engine work being done outside.
Planning Commission Minutes
203
June 10, 1996
Mueller asked Mr. Meyer if he is okay with the condition relating to bituminous
surfacing. Meyer said this condition is okay, however, expressed a concern about
hardcover requirements. Koegler noted that this property is clearly in the shoreland
district, and the property is limited to 30% hardcover, however, th~ current use
existed in its current form since the early 80's, and gravel is viewed the same as
bituminous by ordinance, so it would not be considered a change.
Meyer confirmed that when the fuel tanks are removed, the island will also be
removed.
Voss asked what will happen if they violate this conditional use permit, and noted that
the property has been in violation for the last 10 years. Sutherland noted that after
they have been through this process, he will have a better relationship with the
owners,
Mueller questioned if there should be screening abutting 110. Voss suggested that
screening may promote theft and vandalism. Koegler confirmed that screening is
required only on the east side where it abuts residentially "zoned" property, and
agreed that a fence on the street side may be more obtrusive than seeing a neatly
organized parking lot. Clapsaddle noted that fences just get dilapidated.
Voss suggested they could limit the number of vehicles stored on the property at
night. Hanus agreed that this could be done and stated that the Council approved
three vehicles to be parked outside at Glass Plus overnight. Koegler noted that the
Council had also required a one year review period for Glass Plus and this could be
done for Meyer's.
Weiland asked if there is a law that states when the gas tanks have to be removed
once gas sales have discontinued. Sutherland noted that this would be a PCA or Fire
Code, he thinks it is one year, but he can check. Meyer stated that he will take out
the tanks this September and that the tanks are now empty.
Meyer stated that he could easily park 25 cars on the north side of the building. He
confirmed that repairs are done strictly on automobiles, there are no boat motor or
snowmobile repairs done at the station.
Weiland suggested they could limit parking to the north side of the building only.
Voss expressed a concern about being consistent with what has been approved for
other similar stations. Hanus commented that they also need to be careful not to
restrict the growth of a business.
Clapsaddle reviewed his concerns. Michael clarified with staff that there have been
only about three complaints on this property in 13 years. Michael asked Mr. Kladstrup
about the type of trash he finds on his property from Meyer's. Mr. Kladstrup clarified
that he finds receipts, repair tags, tire labels, lawn boy sale tags, oil change stickers,
Planning Commission Minutes
June I0, I996
etc. in his yard. Mueller stated the fence would help prevent garbage from blowing
that way. Mueller asked if the fence would be placed on the top of the slope, and
asked where is the property line is in relationship to the slope? Koegler stated that
fortunately Meyer also owns the adjacent property, so he could put the fence on top
of the slope if it is not on the gas station property.
MOTION made by Mueller to recommend to the City Council that staff
recommendation be approved with the conditions, including the following
modifications:
Overniqht parkinq on the site shall be limited to the area
PC. k'n~ ',hc : ~ .~,, ~.~
of the "'
north structure, r :~.,~- - .....................
-- - -~'-' -~ 15 ._,=_,.A Ail vehicles parked on the site
shall have current vehicle license tabs. The sale of vehicles
on the property is prohibited.
This conditional use permit shall be reviewed one year from
the date of City Council approval at no cost to the
applicant.
Motion seconded by Voss. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 9, 1996.
33¥3
RESOLUTION
July 9, 1996
RKSO~UTI. O~ ~N~T._O. AP_PROVE A CONDITIONAL
~o AL,L~W A MINOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESq
Fog Yn ,s MOU, ro SE/raCE
LOCATED IN THE B.! CENTRAL BUSINESS
00,0
Wt/EREAS, Richard R. & Connie L. Meyer, Owners of Meyer's Mound Service, have
applied for an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit to allow an Auto Repair Business,
and;
WHEREAS, Mound Zoning Ordinance Section 350:640 allows Minor Auto Repair
Businesses in the B-1 Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit, and;
WHEREAS, Resolution//79-427 approved a special (conditional) use permit for this
property that allowed the operation of an automobile transmission repair facility with conditions
that included no outside storage of parts, material and equipment; limited lighting; and no more
than one car stored outside, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested parking for 25 vehicles, and;
WHEREAS, complaints have been received about the overall appearance of the property
and the number of vehicles parked on the site, the Building Official determined that the use of
the property has changed substantially over the years without any update or modification of the
conditional use permit, and;
WHEREAS, in December of 1985, the Meyers purchased the residential property to the
north of the auto service facility which is currently vacant and used for vehicle parking, and;
WHEREAS, the gas pumps have been removed and sale of gasoline has discontinued,
WHEREAS, the parking area currently has a gravel surface. The Zoning Code requires
that all parking areas and access drives serving commercial property be paved with bituminous
or concrete surfacing. The code also states that parking lots cannot be located closer than 5 feet
from an adjacent lot zoned or used for residential purposes, and;
WHEREAS, the code requires fencing along the east side of the parking lot. That
provision requires that "a fence of adequate design, not over five (5) feet in height nor less than
four (4) feet in height shall be erected along the Residential District property line,' and;
WHEREAS, City Code requires the screening of all dumpster enclosures. The original
special use permit prohibited outside storage'of parts, material and other equipment. The
existing dumpster as well as all parts storage needs to be screened, and;
WH~REAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval, with the conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City Council does hereby approve a conditional use permit for Meyer's Mound
Service as a Minor Automobile Repair facility subject to the following conditions:
. o <
Overnight outdoor storage of vehicles on the site shall be limited to the area north
of the structure. All vehicles stored on the site shall have current vehicle license
tabs. The sale of vehicles on the property is prohibited.
The outdoor storage lot on the north side of the building shall be improved
consistent with City ordinance requirements. Said improvement shall include but
not be limited to bituminous surfacing and construction of required fencing.
All trash and parts storage shall be screened. The applicant shall prepare and
submit a screening plan for review and approval by the Mound Building Official.
Any future changes in signage for the business shall comply with the Mound Sign
Ordinance.
e. All vehicle repair activities shall occur inside the building.
This conditional use permit shall be reviewed one year from the
date of City Council approval at no cost to the applicant.
Tax parcels 23-117-24 14 0043 and 23-117-24 14 0050 shall be required to be
under one ownership and if either parcel is sold or transferred, this Conditional
Use Permit shall immediately become null and void and the new owner or owners
shall be required to reapply for a new Conditional Use Permit.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property:
Lots 1, 2, 3, and the South half of 47, 48, and 49, Block 9, PID
23-117-24 14 0043 and 0050. '
This Conditional Use Permit 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 pi~oof of recording has been fried with the City
Clerk.
Rev. 3-6-96
APplication for
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364,
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date: ~~ 7,
Distribut ion:
HAY 13~
V4 'IO
Conditional Use Permit Fee:~
City Engineer
Public Works:
Other:
II
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject Address~
,.PO. MAT,ON /¥~ V~__~___~
Name of Business
LEGAL Lot /, ~, ~ .~D S~ ~7z ~, ~ Block ~ Plat,
DESCRIPTION ~~
Subdivision ~ PID~
APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner other:
N~me
OWNER
{if other lh~n Address
spplic~nfl
Phone (N). (W).
Name
ARCHITECT,
SURV~OR, OR Address
ENGINEE~
Phone (H)
ZONING Circle: 8-1 R- l A 8-2 8-3
DISTRICT
USE
Conditional Use Permit Application
Page 2
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in
the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking,
and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts.
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing
reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated
Development Cost of the Project: $ --~2D --
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.
9er o?d.
Date
Date
ADDRESS:
.¢
SURVEY ON FILE?
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH:
ZONE:
REQ. LOT AREA:
sQ FT
LOT OF RECORD? YES
EXIST. LOT AREA:
sQ FT
EXISTING LOT WIDTH:
REQUIRED SETBACKS
EXISTING LOT DEPTH:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSF /
FRONT: N S E W ~
.FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 1
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W 15'
LAKESHORE: 50' Cmeas red frgm O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF: I
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' Imeasured from O,H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
E. XISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSF
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: LAKESHORE:
this ~r~] Zoning Informatioh Sheet Gnlv summarize~n nt t~ ~n,',~.---[ ~
,: ..... v. . . ~ .~ .~,, u, ~.~ ,cqu~men[s OU[iRea in the
Ordinance. For further mformat~on, contact the C~ty of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600
O
~CES~;QRY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
c-.~0
o
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FILE! YES
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZF../WIDTH:
Ri 10,000/60 ~
RI& 6,000/40
R2 6,000/40 B3 ~0,OO0/60
R2 14,0OO/80
R3 StE ORD. I1 30,000/100
OF RECORt E~
REQUIR
YARI)
lll)lJ.~g .........
W ~
FRONT
FRONT N S E ~
IDB E W -----------
W ----.----'---
'.AR N S{ -------------
N S E W $0' ~
I0' OR 30'
'OP OF BLUFF
NO
LO' WIDTH:
GARAGE, SUED .....
OR OTHER DETACHED BUILDINGS ._______.--
N s E W ~ -------------
~RoNT
-------'------' N $ E W .____.__.__.~ ~
N S
IDE
;IDE N S E W ~rOR
REAR N S
----'--'-----"
NS E W
LAKE
--'-'-----'- 10' OR
TOP OF BLUFF ____________- ---------------"
ARDCOVER
DATED:
ONFORMINO? year
" I [
February 14, 1996
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOO ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Mr. Richard Meyer
2620 Commerce Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT: MEYER'S PEOPLES PLUS SERVICE
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Thank you for your time on the phone the other day discussing your business
operation and the application of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that was issued in
1979. Our conversation was generated due to a recent complaint referring to an
excessive number of vehicles parked on the site. As we discussed, the CUP was
issued to the previous owner and you have been conducting your auto repair business
without significant change for about 15 years. The only change that I am aware of
is the removal of gas pumps sometime in 1995 and this has allowed you a little extra
parking space. Your current business is minor auto repair which is a conditional use
in the B-1 Zone.
The attached copy of the CUP issued in 1979 is not applicable today as it only allows
for one vehicle to be stored outside, therefore, you must update the permit to
accurately reflect your present use. The CUP process is outlined in the enclosed
application. Our City Planner will prepare a staff report, which will be reviewed by the
Planning Commission, then they will make a recommendation to the City Council who
will take final action.
Please contact myself or Peggy James of this department if you would like to go over
the application. Note, the application deadline of March 21, 1996 that we discussed.
Respectfu!ly, ..... ~
jdn S u-the~and
Building Official
JS:pj
Enclosures
'IT¥ of MOc; ND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
tvlOUND, MINNE$O1A ',C:.;,;.;
(612) 472-1iS5
February 27, 1985
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Meyer
2620 Commerce Boulevard
Mound, MN. 55364
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Meyer:
I am writing you to remind you of our conversation regarding your
business operation conditional use permit restrictions for your prop-
erty at 2620 Commerce Boulevard. On January 14, 1985, we met to go
over the procedure for filing an amended conditional use permit to
allow some revisions to your current business operation.
To date, I have not received an application to resolve the sale and
repair of snowmobiles, the exterior storage on the site, and certain
site limitations. We need to clarify the present use within the next
few weeks. The next Planning Commission Board of Appeals meeti.ng is
April 8, 1985. I will need the application, site plan, fee and prop-
erty owners' list submitted to my office by March 20, 1985. I have
enclosed, 'for your convenience, the application and the zoning ordi-
nance provisions of the B-1 district (Pages 41 & 42 with Pages 25
through 28, the Conditional Use Pe?it explanations).
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
10/85
cc: Jon Elam
Encl.
459
October 9, 1979
Councilmember Withhart moved the folJowing resolution,
RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 427
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANTING OF A SPECIAL
USE PERMIT WITH THE STIPULATIONS RECOMMENDED BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION & NO OUTSIDE STORAGE OF
PARTS, MATERIALS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT BE ALLOWED.
WHEREAS, owner of property described as Lots 1, 2 and W 1/2 of Lot 3, Block 9,
Mound Bay Park, has applied for a Special Use Permit for an Automobile
Transmission Repair in a Limited Commercial zone, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and Planning Commission indicated approval
same with stipulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That Council does hereby grant the Special Use Permit as requested
with the following stipulations:
No outside storage of parts, material and other equipment
Lights and signs to be limited and no more than one car ~ ....
stores outside.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted JJ
in favor thereof; Lovaasen, Swenson, Polston and Wtihhart, the following voted
against the same; none, with Ulrick being absent; whereupon said resolution was
declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by
the City Clerk.
Atte~t:~ cMc City Clerk
ADDRESS: ¢/.-) ~
SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
YARD ~=~RECTION
HOUSE .........
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R1 10,000/60~
R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
~ e, ooo/¢o a~ ~o,ooo/eo
~2 ~4,ooo/~o ·
~3 S''ORD. ZX 30.000/~00
~----~-~'~D~G/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WID'i'H:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
FRONT
FRONT
SiDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAGE, SllED .....
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
itARDCOVER
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
NS E W
N S E W
CONFORMING? YES I N~'
DETACHED BUILDINGS
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
N S E W
30% OR 40~
15'
50'
10' OR 30'
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
50'
10' OR 30'
This Zoning Information Sheet ~ a portion of ~he requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
Plnnning Department at 472-0600. J
.!
,,
~'t~'~ .~ z .: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ..,:.,;:.: ....
r,t,l:¢ l,J,I;t, l' tr, ol, ..,
C. TT Iht ~/f~ . r~ '- ~'~', - - ~
. , ~C0,R0,9 ~5~ ._ ~ -~.
too too I ~oo / 'to~ I '~-~ ~'.--'loo.'-o ~_ ,~
' $ / .t . zo-.-. ,.-:.. j ~
Sep. 18,' 19~7 Z' MCGOMBS ~RANK ROOS
'No. 8766
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue No~, Plyrnoulh, Mirlne$ota 55447-4739
Telephone
612/,~76-6010
~o~ 2./476-8532. FAX
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mound City Council
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
DATE:
September 18, 1997
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Variance Request - Scott and Linda Mack
Cast ~96-62
MFRA gl 1782
At the request of the City Manager and adjacent property owners, I revisited the subject property
on September 17, 1997 accompanied by C. rreg Skinner. We specifically looked at the City skeet,
Island View Drive and the storm sewer system. I also visited with the new resident at 4649 Island
View Drive (Lot 14), because she had called me on Tuesday, September 16, 1997 following a
fairly hard rainstorm. She was concerned that most of the runoff from the common driveway
ending up in their yard and did not drain sufficiently to the lake and that the garage construction
would add to the problem. We discussed some options they had that possibly could help the
situation. The increased hard cover area resulting from the garage consmaction that ~ill drain
towards Lot 14 is approximately 160 square feet, which should not appreciably increase the
runoff.
G-reg and I also looked at the condition of the existing storm sewer system and street. The outlet
at the lake was not visible and needs to be exposed to make sure it is not restricted. The catch
basin in Island View Drive appears to be functioning properly. There was quite a bit of silt that
had washed do-ua the street and was deposited at the inlet. This particular catch basin may need
more frequent maintenance than other locations in the City. The City Building Inspector and
Planner were at this location near the end of the rainstorm on Tuesday and indicated they thought
the storm sewer was functioning adequately. There is no curb along the high side opposite the
catch basin which could allow the street to overflow quicker in a larger rainstorm. This is not to
say that this street could not use work as most City streets of this age need constant maintenance.
Without doing a complete study of this drainage area, it is virtually impossible to determine the
capacity required in a system such as this for a normal $ or l0 year storm.
An Equal OpponuN~ Employer
Sep. 18.1997 2'07PM
Mound City Council
September 18, 1997
MCCOMBS FRANK RO0$
No. 8758
P,
The neighbor on Lot 16, Mr. Mark Smith, has expressed concerns about the survey and proposed
design of the swale not being adequate. I/and when an application is submitted for a building
permit for the garage, the City wouId normally add conditions requiting items such as; silt fence,
bale ditch check, tuffrestoration, etc. He also asked about a drawing (cross section) of the
proposed swale. Since this swale is only one foot deep, we did not feel it was necessary to
provide a detailed drawing but this could also be a condition of the permit.
e:haaaln:\l l?~2\memog-I 8
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
M~EMORANDIYM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
City Council Agenda of 9-9-97
City Council, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~.
Variance Request, Case//96-62
4657 Island View Drive, Lot 15,
Block 1, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086
This case was heard for the second time at the June 9, 1997 Planning Commission (PC) Meeting
where Staff had again recommended approval of a variance to construct a garage that is conforming
to setbacks, the PC also recommended approval with the conditions as listed below. The staff
report, PC recommendation, and the related miniutes are attached.
1. The revised survey and a revised drainage plan that would be submitted to the City Engineer
for review and comments.
Comment: The revised survey has been submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer who
recommending approval with conditions, note the attached memo dated August 21, 1997.
2. Impervious surface is to be limited to 40%.
Comment: The applicant is willing to remove some of the existing poly under the landscaping
and meet the 40% limit, a new calculation sheet has also been submitted by the contractor and
is included in the packet. There is also the adjacent commons green space that reduces the
impact of hardcover on the site, the site is considered conforming at 40 %.
3. The deck be modified to 10 feet where it does not meet the 50 foot setback to the lake.
Comment: The applicant has submitted a permit application to modify the deck as suggested,
and will completly remove all portions fron~ the easement, note the revised survey dated
6-19-97.
printed on recycled paper
Mack Report
September 17,
Page 2
1997
4. Slightly modify the easement.
o
Comment: The easement does not need to be modified due to the modification of the proposed
modification of the deck.
The fence is not permitted to be in the easement, it needs to be reviewed.
Comment: After reviewing the policy of numerous other cities, it was found to be the normal
practice that fences are permitted within an easement and are not considered an encroachment.
The split rail fence has a minimal impact to the easement and can easely be removed if the need
arises. If the commission or council feel an agreement is necessary, one has been prepared
and is included your packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with the conditions as
listed below;
1) The encroaching deck be removed from the easement. Double fees will be assessed for
all after the fact construction as is the normal process (including the fence).
2) The building permits and grading plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Engineer.
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November
12, 1996.
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The al3plicant is: ~__.owner ~contractor ~tenant
DESCRIPTION Subdivision - ~")j~'-t~O ~ PID ~
Address
Phone {H} {W) (M}
ARCHITECT Name
&IOR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
DESCRIBE WORK:
o ALUATION
F WORK
VALUE APPROVED
BY INSPECTOR
SEPARATE ~EAMITS ARE qE~.UIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING. HEATING. VENTILATING OR AIR ;0NDITIONING. PERMITS ~ECOME NULL AND VOl0 IF WORK C~ ;ON~RUCT:CN
A~T~C~;~E; S '~CT ;~MMENCED wiTHIN 180 DAYS, OR [F CONSTRUCTION 0R WORK ;$ SUSPENOE~ 0R ABANDONED FOR A PERIC~ OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TiM~ AFT~ N;AK :S
T~ME UMIT~ 0N ~UiLg~N~ ~OMPL~ION. ALL WORK TO ~E PERFORME~ ~URSUANT T0 A ~UJL~ING ~RM1T OBTAINED FO~ N~N ~0N~TRU~TICN, REPAIRS, ~EMO~EL~NG. AN~ ~LTERAT ON~
~ m: :.t, =~m~m3 ~r ANY 5DtL~IN~ OR STRUGTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHA~ aE ~CMPL~EO WITHIN ONE (1) Y~R FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ',SSUA~:Cl. THE 3EAS~N
CCUNC:L MAY ~TEN0 THE TIME FOR C0MPL~tON UPON WRI~EN REQUEST CF THE PErMiSEt. E~ABLiSMING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE :;Tv C0UNC:L THAT
NOT ~E~5 THAN T;~IRTY i30} aUSINES$ ~AYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 0NE-Y~R PERIOD.
~ESUME TO GiVE AUTHORITY TO VIO~TE 3R CANCEL THE
TRUE AUD~RECT.
A F'EP~:)~-S NOT
~A~RE
....... = ~ ,.~.3~. ,,a.~ ~1= ~'r3MpI [ED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NCT TH~
~RINT A~LICA~Y'S NAME'
(OFFICE USE ONLY) ~ITIO~
DATE
mzON,NG
~ uN,ts YES / NO PUBUC WORKS
~ECEIVED SY .' DATE: ~NS CHECKED BY: A~ROVED BY I DATE: ~ ASSESSING
35/..O
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY~
SCOTT MACK
OF LOT 15, BLOCK 1, DEVON
HENNEPIN .COUN'
(949.1)
(~4~.5) ·
.. (940.3)
~IPTION OJ: PREMISF..~.:
Lot 15, Block 1, DEVON
o : denpt~a iron marker '
(959.4): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
~: denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum
* : denotes distance as shown on the plat of DEVON
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
gorane there-- ~ ~x~sting house, and the proposed Io .... uu~rlDeo property, ( ~ ~.~[
= ~-. ~ ooes not purnort to ~ ...... ~uon or o P[gposed ~ ~'
I ~reby cer if), thai t~is surve{, '&as -re .... 4 L"" I. , ~. , .
~,Smn, and Ihal I am a duly registered Civil En-~- .. er,my d~red super.
, ~ reCane Lane Su~eyor under
tne Jaws of Ihe State of Minnesota. '
Mark S~rg M~se N~ ,r 12~55 ' . '
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
~ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The applicant is: _~wne~' ~contractor ~tenant
/
DESCRIPTION Subdivision
PID#
Phone (H) ,
CONTRACTOR Company Name License
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (Mi
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
WORK:
WORK
VALUE APPROVED
BY INSPECTOR
SEPARATE ==_=[MITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING, HEATING. VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID iF WORK OR .'ONSTRUCTID,N
AUT~-C-';[~'.E" :$ ',lOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION DR WORK ;S SUSPENmED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOn OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK
COMMENCED
BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING P=RMIT OBTAINED FOR NEoN CONSTRUCTION. REPAIRS. REMODELING. AND ALTERATIONS
TIME L:MITS CN BUILDING COMPLETION, ALLWORK TO , -
7Q Tm: :.~, :.~,~,~ ~r ANY 5UILDIN~' OR ~RUCTURE iN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHA~ ~E COMPLIED WITHIN ONE (1) Y~R FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT tSSUA~:C~. THE
OBTAINING THE =ERMIT ANO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHA~ BE RESPONS;BLE FOR COMPL~ION. A VIO~TION OF THIS OROINANCE iS A MISOEMEANCR OFF'SE. T~E
C;RC;MSTANCE$ BEYON~ THE CONTROL OF THE PERMI~EE PR~ENTED COMPL~ION CF THE W~K FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SNA~ ~E
NOT LESS 'NAN THIRTY {303 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE ~O OF THE ONE-Y~R
(OFFtC~ USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS:
CONSTrUCTiON TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP I OIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED
I ZONING
I%DGS;7.E (SC ~T) ~ STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? I C~ ENGINEER
' ~TS YES / NO ~ PUBLIC WORKS
RECEIVED 5Y .' DATE; ~NS CHECKED BY: ' APPROVED BY / DATE: ~ ASSESSING
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of the
1997 by and between the CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA,
corporation ("Grantor") and Scott and Linda Mack ("Grantees").
day of
Minnesota municipal
BACKGROUND
1. Grantees are the owners of real property ("Property") located in the City of
Mound having a street address of 4657 Island View Drive and legally described as follows,
to wit: "
Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, Hennepin County, Minnesota
2. The Property is subject to an easement in favor of the 'City over, under, across
and through the westerly 5.0 feet of the Property; and recorded on July 21, 1987 as document
1852901 in the office of the Registrar of Titles.
3. The Grantees are desirous of maintaining a fence on the area of the property
which is subject to the easement; and the Grantor is willing to permit a fence to be maintained
thereon provided the Grantees enter into this agreement.
RECITALS
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained,
the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. .Consent. The City hereby consents to allow the Grantee to maintain, install and
reinstall the fence within the easement area.
2. Right to Remove. Grantees hereby agree that Grantor shall have the right to
remove the fence located in the easement areas in order to construct, reconstruct, maintain or
repair utilities installed or to be installed within the easement area. Grantee hereby releases
Grantor, its officers, agents and employees from any claim or cause of action arising out of or
occasioned by removal of or damage or destruction to the fence by Grantor pursuant to its rights
hereunder.
3. No Other Approvals Presumed. The Grantor's consent hereunder shall not be
deemed to relieve Grantee from complying with all governmental regulations relating to the
installation, location and maintenance of fences.
4. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the
benefit of the parties herein and to their respective successors and assigns.
Agreement
Page 2
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and
year first above written.
GRANTEES
CITY OF MOUND
BY:
Its:
BY:
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ,
1997, by Bob Polston and Edward J. Shukle, Jr., the Mayor and City Manager, respectively,
on behalf of the City of Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instmmem was
,1997, by
Grantees named above.
acknowledged before me this
and
day of
Notary Public
02/03/1994
OG: 81
G129418197 DURABILT ASSOC INC PAGE
Ci~ ~)~ Zip Code
Scale
.~~ ... , ~!.-~ io~ao .... i ....... .. '
· ~~-'" '..'...!.'~.~.~'..~ .......... t".'.'". ......... ' .... ~ ............. ~ ...... , ' ....
. i '
73*3 ANN COURT * EDEN I~RAIRIE, MINNE,~OTA S~348 , 9389350
Date
81
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone Engineers
612/476-6010 Planners
61 2/476-8532 FAX Surveyors
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mound City Council
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
DATE:
August21,1997
SUBJECT: City of Mound
Variance Request - Scott & Linda Mark
Case #96-62
MFRA # 11782
I have reviewed the most recent survey dated June 19, 1997 as well as the Planning Commission
Q m
inutes and conditions contained in their motion of approval from the June 9, 1997 meeting and have
the following comments and recommendations regarding conditions 1 and 4:
Item #1' The revised grading plan shows a swale to be constructed between the proposed garage
and the westerly lot line. This swale should carry the normal runoff from the northerly
portion of lot 15 and the area of the proposed garage to a point approximately half way to
the existing house, which is past the home on Lot 16. At this location, the natural
drainageway swings westerly onto the adjacent property (lot 16) and continues southerly
to the lake. Most of this drainageway on lot 16 is covered by an easement for the storm
sewer pipe which hms from the catchbasin in Island View Drive to the lake. (Document
#915553.) This easement is not shown on the survey for lot 15 because it evidently was
only recorded against lot 16. The 5 foot wide utility easement shown on lot 15 as
document #1852901 was recorded in 1987, evidently when the house was built. Field
observation indicates that the in-place storm sewer pipe on lot 16, may not be located
within the recorded easement. We are recommending approval of the grading plan.
Item #4: As originally recommended, the 15 foot wide easement for access to the lift station needs
to be expanded southerly, approximately 5 feet. This will not solve the problem of the
existing deck and stairs encroaching into the present easement. To correct that situation, a
portion of the existing easement would need to be vacated, which will require further
action by the City. It would be in the best interest of both the City and homeowner to
correct the encroachment problem. ..
eSmain:\11782~memo821
An Equal Opportunity Ernp~oyer
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Eo
CASE #96-62: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, SCOTT & LINDA MACK,
4657 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, LOT 15,
BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID #30-117-23 22 0086.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, passed out photos he had received from the neighbors to the
west, as the neighbor was concerned about the water runoff.
Sutherland reviewed his report. On October 28, 1996 the Planning Commission tabled this case
requesting the applicant to provide the specific information as listed below. The applicant has
submitted the requested information and the staff comments are listed after each item. He
referred to the original staff report dated 10-28-96 for further reference.
An updated survey including: Ail existing and proposed structures including
decks, the joint driveway shall be delineated, existing and proposed elevations,
and a drainage and grading plan.
Staff comments: The survey has been updated and now shows the lakeside deck is set back
43 feet to the lake. A 50 foot setback is required and this results in a 7 foot variance request.
The deck is also encroaching onto the city easements.
The encroachment can be resolved by expanding the easement to the south as required by the
City Public Works Director and the City Engineer. Both the Engineer and the Public Works
Director have reviewed the case, visited the site, and are comfortable with a simple 5-6 foot
expansion of the easement. The applicant must prepare the easement document for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Attorney,..and the document must be recorded prior to
82
33/./.
Minutes- Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
building permit issuance.
The joint driveway, existing and proposed elevations and a drainage plan are noted on the
revised survey. One option discussed with the owner and contractor is to move the proposed
garage to the north (about three feet away from the entry stairway), in order to save the existing
clump of birch trees. This issue can be accomplished prior to the building permit issuance, and
has a positive impact on drainage with the additional green space between the garage and the
lake.
2. The floor elevation of the proposed garage in relation to the driveway shall be
clarified.
Staff Comments: The floor elevation has been clarified and could be modified slightly if the
garage is moved further to the north as suggested by staff. Three feet was discussed
3. Location of off-site easements on adjacent properties shall be clarified.
Staff Comments: The location of the easements has been clarified and is not affected by the
proposal. (Note: the applicants proposed garage and the adjacent owners garage are about equal
distances to the property line and both will have about the same difficulty with access).
They will both have the same issue.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: The proposed garage will have a minor effect and slightly increase
the runoff/drainage on this and the adjacent properties. Directing stormwater around the west
side is preferred due to the additional green space on this side. The commons property between
this site and the lake minimizes the excess of impervious surface and improves the stormwater
infiltration. The impervious surface is conforming at less than 40%.
The pictures handed out show and exceptional occasion with the storm runoff, this is not a
normal rainfall runoff. The catch basin could have been blocked. The catch basin could not
handle a 50 year rainfall.
The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully conforming, and the site is
limited by the utility easements on the lakeside. A portion of the deck, however, is located over
the utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is needed to maintain the lift
station on the southwest coruer of the property.
Sutherland stated this is not the perfect situation, but it is manageable. Comments from the city
engineer stated the applicant should propose a drainage plan prepared by a registered land
surveyor. The City Engineer and the building official could meet with the owner on site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request to allow the existing nonconforming deck (after the fact) in
83
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
order to allow the construction of a detached garage that is conforming to the setbacks. The
proposed garage will enhance the use and function of the property. The deck has a minimal
encroachment and is a reasonable use of the riparian property. Approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1)
2)
3)
The encroachment of the deck into the easement be resolved by expanding the easement
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Superintendent.
The building permit for the garage and deck shall not be issued until proof of the
recording of the easement document has been filed with the City Clerk.
The survey to be submitted with the building permit is subject to the review and approval
of the City Engineer and the Building Official.
Staff feels the garage is a reasonable use of the property. The site is limited due to the utility
easements on the lakeside. That has been an issue on other variance requests. The deck is not
conforming and no permit was taken. This can be corrected, by sliding the easement down.
He emphasized condition//3, to get additional and total review.
Hanus stated he was concerned with expanding the easement, he would rather see moving of
the easement. The expansion doesn't remove the encroachment into the easement, whereas
moving it would. Also, with the expansion to the south, there is big tree where the two
easements intersect. By expanding to the south, the tree is in the middle and it looks like a
truck could get between the easement and the tree. The easement might have to stay in the area.
Hanus commented about the fence on the west side. What had staff found? Sutherland stated
he did not think the fence on the west was permitted. Staff will check.
Hanus commented on the stairway by the south side of the house and there is landscaping that
is going on there. There has been a tree planted in the turning radius for a truck. He also
mentioned looking at the hardcover calculation, and it is in error. He calculated from the survey
and came up with over 40 %. There are many other areas that should be added to the hardcover
calculation. The house is 1228, not 1196 square feet. The driveway itself came up to about
1740 square feet. Also, a large area missed in the hardcover calculation is all around the house
where there is rock placed over plastic, which is exposed, to about 780 +/- feet and that was
on the east, west and south side. Hanus had not calculated the patio and areas on the north side.
He calculated 4284 square feet and he felt it more than that, instead of 3440. The permissable
amount is 4167 sq. ft.
Sutherland stated the poly under the rock could be modified.
Hanus commented regarding the deck on the lakeside. This deck needs to be viewed as new
proposed construction. He wondered if a deck permit would have been issued that is more
84
Minutes- MouM ?lanning Commission
Jun~ ~, I~7
than 10 feet wide and encroaching onto the easement, if a permit could be obtained. He didn't
think it would have happened. He also commented that there are two decks encroaching the
easement.
Chair Michael commented on the required drainage plan. Sutherland stated the drainage on the
neighbors property to the west and the east is going to be worse based on the proposal.
Drainage could be better if the applicant could create other options. However, the site
topography is difficult. The hardcover could be modified and held at 40 %, and the garage could
be conforming, the drainage could be more natural to the contour.
Burma stated a previous issue of the shared driveways, and with a new garage, could the
property to the east have good use of the driveways. Sutherland stated the neighbor has the
same distance issue and the new garage would be the same. If a conflict were to arise, it would
be up to the neighbors to negotiate a solution. The new garage could be guttered and runoff
could be more directional towards the catch basin.
Hanus commented on the pitch of the roof of the proposed garage.
Sutherland stated if the roof gable is running north and south, then half of the water would go
to the east and half to the west, and it could be guttered. The area to the east is hardcover. It
would be better to be guttered over green space. Runoff goes from the applicant's properly to
the west slightly and then wraps around a large tree. The elevations are less than the neighbor's
house. Jon stated that the Commission could ask for more specific review comments by the City
Engineer if they were concerned with the drainage issues. This information could either be
provided by the applicant or further review by the engineer.
Burma commented on the door on the second story of the garage that did not have stairs or sky
rail to the house. Sutherland stated there were no plans at this time to connect to the house, or
the applicant would have provided them. Often there is storage space above, accessed by a
ladder.
Weiland asked if the garage could be attached to the house by way of catwalk. Sutherland stated
it could, it is conforming. Weiland commented on the foundation, Sutherland stated it was a
building permit issue. Mack stated he had no plans to connect the garage to the house.
Chair Michael commented about the deck on the lakeside, had it been there when the house was
built? Mack stated it was supposed to be arranged by the contractor. Sutherland stated there
was no permit for the decks. Mack stated the lower deck was added onto the house as it was
built.
Hanus stated that by the drawing of the original house, in the packet, the lower deck was not
drawn in at all, only the upper deck was drawn on.
85
Minutes- Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Weiland asked about what the law is when something has been built without a permit, do we
make them remove it?
Sutherland stated if they cannot get a building permit, it can be removed. He stated that if it
does not get a building permit, it will be removed.
Weiland suggested that this could be talked about at a workshop meeting.
Hanus stated they were being asked to recognize the non-permitted decks to approve the garage.
Sutherland stated the request for the garage raises the issue of the decks that are not conforming
and do not have a permit history. A permit could be issued, or the deck removed. Part of the
application is to approve the decks as they are, and that would allow an after the fact permit to
be issued according to the current code.
Hanus stated the intention to approve the permitting of the decks. Sutherland stated if the
Council does not approve the after the fact permits, the decks would be removed.
Weiland was opposed to approving the variance for the garage by including approval of the
decks as part of the agreement. If this happened, the non conforming decks could then remain
as is.
Chair Michael stated his major concern is the drainage. But, he doesn't want to see the
applicant not be able to build a garage. He would like to see some plan from the city engineer
or someone to assure him that this will not flood out the neighbors.
Sutherland referred to the Staff report, item #3, and that a survey is to be submitted with the
building permit application subject to the review and approval of City Engineer and Building
Official. If the Commission would like a revised survey prior, or, if the Commission is not
satisfied, this could be requested of the applicant. The City Engineer technically rejected this
survey, but said it is close. We could request the applicant to revise the survey. A drainage
tile system could be dug in the applicant's property could be required, it was an option. It
would have negative affects on the trees. A drain tile on the east side would have to go through
concrete.
Sutherland continued stating this plan is not consistent with the Shoreland Management
Ordinance, as the SMO doesn't want drainage to run over drain tile, it wants the runoff to be
filtered over green space. Perhaps, the solution would be to table this item until the applicant
revises the survey.
Hanus mentioned a small swail at the west end of the garage. With the swail, would it improve
the runoff, what would that envision?
3 70
8~
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Sutherland stated the review process from the city included both properties, the neighbors need
to work together to accommodate the drainage. The runoff issue in the photos is not a normal
event. These two properties get the drainage from the whole neighborhood. The City could
build a new costly storm sewer and assess the neighbors, or we could encourage the neighbors
to work together. Mr. Smith's property could have his house foundation built up more. The
area of the property is uphill and the drainage from Mr. Smith's house only goes to one side.
There is no existing drainage easement that extends on both sides of the property. Sutherland
referred to new housing developments, that are designed with drainage easements on both sides
of the property. Mr. Smith, by virtue of topography, gets most of the water.
Glister commented on the 50 year rainfall calculation. This rain fall issue could happen any
time.
Mark Smith, 4665 Island View Drive. He is the neighbor to the applicant and stated he had no
problem with the new garage. He wanted a tangible plan regarding runoff. Engineers and
specialists were not willing to put anything in writing what would happen. Maybe, the other
residents in the neighborhood need to be directed to maintain their yards so there is not as much
runoff and erosion that plugs the storm drain.
Joyce Agnew, 4649 Island View Drive. She asked how far the garage was going to be set back,
would there be a turn around? She stated the Mack's currently have a two car garage right now.
Chair Michael stated when anyone in Mound wants to construct something, they should call the
city and inquire as to a building permit.
Jon Sutherland was requested to measure the distance of the garage from driveway.
Sutherland again stated the Commission could direct the applicant to submit a revised and more
complete survey for review by the engineer to address the concerns of the issue. This revised
survey could show the impervious surface limited to 40%, have the revised survey clarify
specifically all of the issues discussed. Also, submit the information to the abutting neighbors
and give them a chance to respond.
Weiland stated they had still not addressed the decks.
Sutherland stated the deck is 43 feet to the lot line, the dimension of the deck is 8' on the west
end, with a 12' bubble. Typically a 10' deck has been acceptable. Perhaps the deck does not
need to encroach into the easement. However, it would still be an encroachment into the
easement. This has been done before. Sutherland suggested meeting Mr. Hanus, Greg Skinner
and himself at the site to discuss the easement. Sutherland stated that changing the easement and
eliminating pan of it, would require a public hearing. Hanus stated granting a permit for the
deck and stairway in the easement would not get approval either as it would set a precedence.
87
Minutes - Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Chair Michael asked for a motion to extend the work rules. An extension is needed to continue
the meeting beyond 11 pm. Agreement was to extend until 11:15 pm
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Weiland, and carried unanimously to extend the
meeting until 11:15 PM.
Mark Smith stated he would like it in writing and be able to understand the stormwater runoff
situation.
Chair Michael assured him that the drainage report that would be prepared by the city engineer
would be the one that the City will follow, if it is legal, it will be approved.
Hanus asked Smith if he would be willing to share the property where the swail is now? Smith
commented that it is shared now.
Sutherland stated changing the easement issue was subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer. The easement proposal, revised survey, revised drainage plan, accurate hardcover
specifications, needs to come from the applicant then the city will review it. The engineer and
attorney will comment.
The applicant, Scott Mack, thought the issues were provided in October. Sutherland stated the
information he provided, is not enough. The survey does not show where the water is going,
there is no documented evidence on the plan where the water is going. Maybe, you could get
a different surveyor. We have worked hard on this issue. The survey is still lacking much
needed information. The hardcover sheet is inaccurate, it needs to be addressed and corrected.
Sutherland further stated that the neighbor, Smith, could raise the grade of his property.
However, that would be much to ask of the neighbor to raise his grade to accommodate you.
Mr. Mack did not understand what to do for a plan.
Mark Koegler, City Planner, stated he could work with a civil engineer for example to do some
calculations and come up with the amount of stormwater that is coming through there now, the
amount that is coming off of the new roof, depending which way it is directed. That plan could
contain existing and proposed spot elevations and contours that would show the drainage pattern
and where it is going. John Cameron, City Engineer, may want to look at some of their
computations as to how much water is coming through there. That is the only way they can
assess how much is going into Mr. Smith's property and how much will go on your property.
Minutes- Mound Planning Commission
June 9, 1997
Chair Michael made the following motion to approve the variance request pending
the satisfactory completion by the applicant of the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
The revised survey and a revised drainage plan that would be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and comments.
There would be an impervious surface limit to 40%
The deck would be modified to 10' where it did not meet the 50' setback
fromthe.~en~nm. U~.~ ~17'~o~
Slightly modify the easement
The fence is not permitted to be in the easement, it needs to be reviewed.
Chair Michael moved, seconded by Glister.
Hanus questioned the motion as to it was to table the item until the issues are dealt with, or the
motion to approve subject to those conditions being corrected?
Michael would like motion be approve subject to the conditions. If the reports come to the
Building Official and Engineer and they approve them, it is fine with Michael.
Weiland, asked if the conditions were not met, it would come back to the Planning Commission?
Koegler stated yes.
Burma asked if they approve the request, are they revising the deck, to the 10'. Hanus stated
yes, but it still encroaches.
The vote was called, the vote carried 5-0.
This goes to the Council on June 24, 1997. Sutherland said if the information gets to staff in
time, and approved by staff, copies will go to the neighbors also.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Glister and carried by all to adjourn. The vote
was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 pm
Chaff
Attest
August 1995
View from/~.E, corner of our
home. Island View Dr.
located behind fence. ~Vater
run-off coming from storm
drain/street area.
WATER
View from East side of our house.
Fence is located on
property line.
August 1995
WATER
View from East side of house.
Fence is located on
property line.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
UPDATED STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of 6-9-97
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jori Sutherland, Building Official ~[~,,~,
Variance Request (after the fact nonconforming lake setback)
Scott and Linda Mack
96-62
4657 Island View Drive, Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, PID 30-117-2322 0086
R-lA Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: On October 28, 1996 the Planning Commission tabled this case requesting
the applicant to provide the specific information as listed below. The applicant has submitted
the requested information and the staff comments are listed after each item. Please refer to
the original staff report dated 10-28-96 for further reference.
1. An updated survey including: all existing and proposed structures including
decks, the joint driveway shall be delineated, existing and proposed elevations, and
a drainage and grading plan.
STAFF COMMENTS: The survey has been updated and now shows the lakeside deck is
setback 43 feet to the lake. A 50 foot setback is required and this results in a 7 foot
variance request. The deck is also encroaching onto the city easements.
The encroachment can be resolved by expanding the easement to the south as required by
the City Public Works Director and the City Engineer. Both the Engineer and the Public
Works Director have reviewed the case, visited the site, and are comfortable with a simple
5-6 foot expansion of the easement. The applicant must prepare the easement document
for review and approval by the City Engineer and Attorney, and the document must be
recorded prior to building permit issuance.
The joint driveway, existing and proposed elevations and a drainage plan are noted on the
revised survey. One option discussed with the owner and contractor is to move the
.,. proposed garage to the north (about three feet away from the entry stairway), in order to
save the existing clump of birch trees. This issue can be accomplished prior to the building
permit issuance, and has a positive impact on drainage with the additional green space
between the garage and the lake.
The floor elevation of the proposed garage in relation to the driveway shall be
clarified.
STAFF COMMENTS: The floor elevation has been clarified and could be modified slightly
if the garage is moved further to the north as suggested by staff.
3. Location of off-site easements on adjacent properties shall be clarified.
STAFF COMMENTS: The location of the easements has been clarified and is not affected
by the proposal. (Note: the applicants proposed garage and the adjacent owners garage are
about equal distances to the property line and both will have about the same difficulty with
access)
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: The proposed garage will have a minor effect and slightly increase
the runoff/drainage on this and the adjacent properties. Directing stormwater around the
west side is preferred due to the additional green space on this side. The commons property
between this site and the lake minimizes the excess of impervious surface and improves the
stormwater infiltration. The impervious surface is conforming at less than 40%.
The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully conforming, and the site is
limited by the utility easements on the lakeside. A portion of the deck, however, is located
over the utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is needed to maintain the
lift station on the southwest corner of the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request to allow the existing nonconforming deck (after the fact)
in order to allow the construction of a detached garage that is conforming to setbacks. The
proposed garage will enhance the use and function of the property. The deck has a minimal
encroachment and is a reasonable use of the riparian property. Approval is subject to the
following conditions.
1) The encroachment of the deck into the easement be resolved by expanding the
easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Superintendent.
2) The building permit for the garage and deck shall not be issued until proof of recording
of the easement document has been filed with the City Clerk
The survey to be submitted with the ..building permit is subject to the review and
approval of the City Engineer and Building Official.
3)
FLAGSHIP MEMBERSHIP Fax:612-82g-2651 ]un 4 '97 2:2? P. 02/06
~Sa~n
by CAPELL¢~
MIArurEs OF A MI ETING OF
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 28, 1996
CASE 96-62: FARIANCE FOR DETACHED G~RAGE, SCOTT & LINDA MACK, 4657
ISLA~-~ ~i~.'w DRi¥~., LOT 15, BLOCK 1, DEVONr 30-117-23 22 008¢
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This
property is located in the R-IA zoning district which requires a
minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20
feet, 6 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback to the
commons, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water.
The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a
conforming 22' x 24' detached garage as shown on the survey. This
property is conforming with the exception of the deck on the
lakeside of the dwelling that was apparently constructed without a
permit. The deck is setback about 45 feet to the ordinary high
water resulting in a variance request of 5 feet.
The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully
conforming, and the site is limited by the utility easements on the
lakeside. A portion of the deck however is located over the
utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is
needed to maintain the lift station on the southwest corner of the
property.
The City Engineer has requested a copy of easement documents for
this property. Sutherland, reviewed the easements surrounding the
subject property and adjacent properties. The Engineer wants to
verify if the easements are also for drainage purposes.
Sutherland confirmed that a double fee for the building permit for
the existing deck will apply.
Sutherland reviewed a letter received from the applicant's
neighbor, Mark Smith, and how each concern can be addressed, as
follows:
"Drainage. We moved into our house June of 1995; in August of
· 95 Mound experienced a substantial storm. The storm drain on
Island View Drive could not handle rain run-off as it should
have, which caused a river of water to flow between our house
and the Mack's house. During that episode we took photos to
document this.drainage flow problem. This situation causes me
some concern if left as is. Moreover, when a new structure is
proposed to be built in that natural run-off area, it causes
me some very real concern. I see the run-off being redirected
toward my house.,,
..
Planning Commission Hinutes
October 28, 1996
Sutherland commented, the City will need a grading and
drainage plan in order to address the drainage concerns.
2. ,,Culvert. Looking lakeside, I can see a Culvert coming out
from the rip-rapped shoreline. Where is the origin of that
culvert? Is this culvert coming from the storm drain on
Island View Drive if so how could this proposed structure
impact that? Is there an easement to facilitate the
maintenance of this culvert?"
Sutherland, commented there are easements to facilitate the
maintenance of the culvert. The proposed garage has a
conforming setback and should not affect the operation or
maintenance of the culvert.
3. ,Power/Telephone Lines. In front of my house there is a sewer
lift station. This equipment requires both power and
telephone line connections. Where is that in reference to
this structure? Is there an easement to facilitate the
maintenance of this equipment?"
Sutherland commented there is an easement to facilitate the
maintenance of this equipment, city staff is working to
maintain the easements and remove encroachments.
4. ,,Survey. Are you looking at a current survey of the property
as it is today or a proposed survey for a house to be built?"
Sutherland confirmed the survey submitted is not a current
survey and he has discussed this with the applicant who is
getting a revised survey that will show the existing
structures and setbacks and a grading and drainage plan with
elevations.
5. "Commons Area. How does the City plan to access on a timely
manner the commons area in front of our home with heavy
equipment to maintain the sewer station, trees or shoreline?"
Sutherland noted the options in the staff report which
suggests that it is possible the easement could be expanded to
the south around the deck in order to accommodate access to
the sewer station, or the encroachments into the easement
could be removed.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
variance request as it enhances the use and function of the
property with the condition that the encroachment of the deck into
the easement be resolved, this encroachment could be resolved by
one of the following options.
1) The encroaching portion of the deck could be removed prior to
the issuance of the building permit for the garage.
4
Planning Commission Hinutes October 28, 1996
2)
The easement could be expanded to the south to allow for
vehicle access, as agproved by the City Attorney and the City
Engineer.
If approval is recommended, it is recommended by staff that the
survey be revised to show all utility easements and all existing
structures.
Weiland stated that the decks are not shown properly on the survey
and asked who drew them on the survey. The secretary indicated
that the applicant,s contractor, Tom from Durabilt, drew the decks
on the survey.
Gina Anderson, neighbor at 4665 Island View, handed out copies of
photographs taken of their property during the storm of 1995 and
stated they moved in their house in June and have drainage
concerns. She stated she is submitting the photos to document how
substantial the run-off is between their two property lines when
the storm drain backs-up. She indicated you can see from the
photos that the garage will redirect the run-off towards their
basement and there are two windows in that location.
Hanus commented he would like to specifically see the following
items addressed if this request is tabled.
- Ail easements be shown on the survey.
Ail buildings/structures be shown, including the deck to the
north of the house.
Elevations need to be corrected and clarified. He is
concerned about the slope of the driveway as it comes into the
proposed garage.
- Hanus highlighted a concern of Commissioner Mueller's which
was received in writing (he was not present) regarding the
turning radius and if they will have to cross onto the
neighbors property in order to exit from the garage.
- Hanus noted there are fences located in the easements and
asked if there were permits issued.
Joyce Agnew neighbor at 4649 Island View Drive stated that they
share their driveway with the Macks in that the pavement meets at
the property line, and she does have concern with how he will be
able to turn out of the driveway without continually crossing over
the line. Mr. Mack stated that the Agnew's use his driveway when
they exit their property.
Sutherland stated that the fence along the east side does have a
permit. The applicant confirmed that the fence on the west side
does belong to him. Sutherland stated that staff will verify if a
permit was obtained for the fence on the west line.
5
Planning commission Hinuces
October 28, 1996
Clapsaddle suggested that the two neighbors cooperate and
together and do some grading to solve the drainage issue.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the
request pending the receipt of further information from
the applicant, including=
An updated survey includlng: all existin~
~o~ed structures including decks, the
r----~ .... · · ' d
driveway shall be delineated, exlstxng an
proposed elevations, and a drainage and
grading plan.
The floor elevation of the proposed garage in
relation to the driveway shall be clarified.
Location of off-site easements on adjacent
properties shall be clarified.
work
MOTION carried unanimously.
Chair Michael requested the secretary include Commissioner
Mueller's comments which were received in writing, as follows:
"The applicant already has a garage.
Drainage from Island View Drive is terrible and therefore how will
this property contain and divert water so as not to affect the
adjacent property owners with snow melt run-off and heavy rains.
Putting a building up definitely changes current water flow. Huge
need for a drainage plan which shows there is no detrimental affect
on the adjacent neighbors.
If there is no agreement with the property owner to the east, it is
nearly impossible to access this garage without infringing on the
neighbors rights of quiet enjoyment of their property. I also
understand the applicant has a concern with snow plowing the
driveway to the east. Get an agreement or show its possible to put
the garage in and turning an 18' vehicle into the garage without
encroaching on the neighbor."
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 10-28-96
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jori Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
Scott and Linda Mack
96-62
4657 Island View Drive, Lot 15, Block 1, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0086
R-lA Single Family Residential
.BACKGROUND: This property is located in the R-lA zoning district which requires a minimum
lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, 6 foot side yard setbacks, a
15 foot rear yard setback to the commons, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high
water.
The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a conforming 22' x 24' detached
garage as shown on the survey. This property is conforming with exception of the deck on
the lakeside of the dwelling that was apparently constructed without a permit. The deck is
setback 45 feet to the ordinary high water resulting in a variance request of 5 feet.
The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully conforming, and the site is
limited by the utility easements on the lakeside. A portion of the deck however is located
over the utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is needed to maintain the
lift station on the southwest corner of the property.
..STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with the
condition that the encroachment of the deck into the easement be resolved, this
encroachment could be resolved by one of the following options.
Staff Report
Mack
P, 2
1) The encroaching portion of the deck could be removed prior to the issuance of the
building permit for the garage.
2) The easement could be expanded to the south to allow for vehicle access, as
approved by the City Attorney and the City Engineer.
If approval is recommended, it is recommended by staff that the survey be revised to show
the utility easement that is located along the west side property line from the road to the
City's lift station. This easement accommodates the electrical service for the lift station.
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council
on November 12, 1996.
Michael & Mo Muel let 612 4724~96 P.81
To the Planning Commission
from Michael Mueller
RE: Meeting of October 2g, 1996
Comments & Concerns with cases.
96-61 ·
96-62:
Everyone needs a garage - this one is a small one!
Items that need to be resolved:
96-63:
Thc applicant already has a garage.
Drainage from Islandview Drive is terrible and therefore how will this property contain
and divert water so as not to affect the adjacent property owners with snow melt rml-off
and heavy rains. Putting a building up definitely changes current water flow. Huge need
for a drainage plan which shows thare is no detrimental affect on the adjacent neighbors.
If there is no agreement with the propexty owner to the east, it is nearly impossible to
access this garage without infringing on the neighbors rights of quiet enjoyment of her
property. I also tmderstand the applicant has a concern with s~lowplowing the driveway to
the east. Get an agreement or show its possible to put the garage in and turning an 18'
vehicle into the garage without encroaching on the neighbor.
I agree with staff report that this issue needs to be resolved in total and not piece-meal
fixes.
I regret that I will not be able to attend this evening's meeting about downtown redevelopment.
Let's not forget that the conununity center may not be there soon and we need to include this area
in our downtown plan.
Thanks for allowing me this input,
Sincerely,
Michael Mueller
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee:
$50.00 ..
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
DNR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Address
Lot
Subdivision
PID#
Block /
Plat #
B-2 B-3
(M)
Address
Phone (H).
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
(Rev. 12/8/95)
Variance Application, P. 2 Case No.
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located.'? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
S~: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( m S E W ) ,~-~Ot ft. ~t. ,'~ "~ ft.
· (NSEW) -- ft. "'-'ft. - ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: sq ff sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq fl sq ft sq ff
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow
( ) too small
( ) too shallow
Please describe:
( ) topography
( ) drainage
( ) shape
( ) soil
( ) existing situation
( ) other: specify
(Rev. '22/8/95)
...... Case bio.
Variance Application, P. 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:
/5/0
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.
application by any authorized of~.ai of
maintaining and removing such/f/ti 7s
Owner's Signature ~/~f~ /~
· '2/8/95)
I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
the Cit~.pof Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
required by law.
Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATION~
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERA(~E)
ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X :30%
LOT AREA_iO~[~) SQ. FT. X 40%
(for all lots) ..............
(for Lots of Record')
HOUSE
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. '
LEN~GTH WIDTH SQ FT
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
TOTAL HOUSE
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ..... . .
x
X
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC
X
X
X
TOTAL DECK
TOTAL OTHER
= ZYO
X =
X
? 'OTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~1~~ OVER (indicate dif.f~rence, . ....../
__ - _..._....~, .,..y · },;:r...h~h,..7 ...................
Certificate of Survey
for Scott J. Mack
of Lot 15, Block 1~ Devon
Hennepin Co6nty, Minnesota
i-o4
':1 'IS, 5~'dL_
:9-~ 0 ....
q O°[o
,3o
:,*',s'r t3~O
,~6.0
I hereby certify that thi~ is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 15,
Block l, Devon, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles
in and for said County, the Location of an existing encroaching driveway aod the proposed location of a
proposed house. It does not purport to show any other i~orovements or encroachments.
COFFIN & GRONDERG, INC.
Scale: 1" = 20' t.lark $. 6ronb~rg ~n. Li~
o : Iron marker Engineers, Land Surveyors. Planners
~ ' Spot elevation Long Lake, ~innesota
· : Mea~ Sea Level~ ~
O
DRESS:
~URVEY ON FI
LOT OF RECORD?
YARD
HOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
;IDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAGE, SI1ED .....
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
~D VIE~ DR
NO
DIRECTION
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
B1 7,500/0
B2 20,000/80
'1~"~----'"~'7000/40 sa 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
[ R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
IEXIb-i lNG/PROPOSED
REQUIRED
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
I (
EW
I N S E,
N W
E W
30'
/-'t-
OR OTHER DETACIIED
NS E W
N S E
NS E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
BUILDINGS
4' OR 6'
4'
50'
I0' OR 30'
--~ARDCOVER
CONFORMING? YES
This Znning Informistion Sheet only summarizes is portion of the
Planning Department at 472-0600.
~N__ I'Y'~vl~''~ '~'
[ 30% ~
,'"~xl . t. t_ .<" ! .', ! ''"'
FNO~, ? ~_ IBy:J~/ DATED:
~ -- requ~rem{~nts outlinisd in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
'.2r. 2
IlY OF
MOUND
-- 0
0
o
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY PERFORMED BY
DECISION RESOURCES, INC. AND SUPPORTING A REFERENDUM TO OBTAIN
VOTER APPROVAL IN THE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF RENOVATING THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER AND
WORKING WITH THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE WESTONKA SCHOOL
BOARD TO JOINTLY PROMOTE AND MARKET A REFERENDUM TO
ACCOMPLISH SUCH A PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been working jointly with the City of Minnetrista and
the Westonka School Board to study the feasibility of preserving the Westonka Community Center;
and
WHEREAS, the feasibility study included a preliminary design and cost estimate for the
renovation of the existing community center; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound determined, with the City of Minnetrista and the Westonka
School Board, that a professional survey be conducted to gauge the level of interest in a possible
renovation of the existing community center and to gauge the level of interest in conducting a
referendum for the purposes of getting voter approval to issue general obligation bonds to finance
such a renovation project; and
WHEREAS, a survey was conducted and the results of the survey, a copy of which is
attached and made a part hereof, indicates that of those persons surveyed, there appears to be
knowledge that such a project is being considered but that there are some misperceptions as to the
nature of the project; and
WHEREAS, Decision Resources, Inc., has concluded that a "financially prudent bond
referendum, requiring a property tax increase of no more than $50.00 per year on the average
household, would have an excellent chance of passage"; and
WHEREAS, the professional survey, conducted by Decision Resources, Inc., attached hereto
and made a part hereof, has indicated that "the Cities and School District face a major information
campaign to dispel misperceptions and that a key component will be a clear and consistent
presentation of the proposal, its costs, its components-and what is NOT included"; and
WHEREAS, the survey concluded that "even with these very positive atmospherics, the
bond referendum campaign will require a full-scale information and voter mobilization effort to pass
and that apathy is the 'enemy' facing this proposal, once the information base is in place"; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Mound and Minnetrista and the Westonka School Board have
reviewed the survey results and believe that a bond referendum be pursued.
THEREFORE NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby
accepts the results of a professional survey conducted by Decision Resources, Inc., and supports the
use of a referendm to obtain voter approval school district wide to renovate the existing Westonka
Community Center and to take the necessary steps to jointly promote and market, with the City of
Minnetfista and the Westonka School Board, a referendum to accomplish such a project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Mound will assist the Westonka School
District in the actual carrying out of the referendum election through the use of employees, voting
machine equipment and other types of assistance required to conduct a referendum for the purposes
so stated above.
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
Decision
Resources Ltd.
157
P02
Methodology:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I~estonka Communities Survey
Survey of 336 randomly selected residents of the Cities of Mound, Minae~sta, and
Spring Park.
Average interview time of eleven minutes.
Telephone interviews completed between Augu~ 20 and 27, 1.997.
Resuks projectable t~ their respective universe within + 5.5 percent in 95 out of 100
cases.
Residential Demograph ics:
Median longevity ia the city of I 1.3 year~.
Twenty-seven percent residents for five yea~s or less.
Twenty-six percent residents for over twenty yeats.
The median adult age of residents was found t~ be 45.8 years old.
Twenty percent posted ages less than 35 years old.
Twenty percent posted ages over 64 years old.
Twenty-one percent of households contained senior citizens.
Th/try percent of households contained school-aged children.
Of these, seventy-eight percent attended Westonka Public Schools.
Eleven percent of households contained pre-schoolers.
Eighty-one percent owned their present residences.
The median current value of residential property was $ I30,000.00.
Women and men were equally represented in the sample.
City representation was re-weighted reflect population.
Fifty-two percent resided in the City of Mound.
Twenty-seven percent lived in the City of Spring Park.
Twenty-one percent lived in City of Minnetfista
Inn , Minnesota 55416
920,0,-337,...0 ....Fax
DECISION RESOURSES 159 POI SEP 19 '9? 11:56
Westonka Communities
1997 Community Center Study
Awareness of the Westonka Community Center Issue:
· Seventy-six percent recalled seeing or heating something about the Community Center.
· Thirty-three percent remembered "several construction possibilities."
· "Remodeling of facility" was recalled by sixteen percent.
· "Tearing down old facility" was mentioned by six-teen percent.
· "High cost of project" was posted by five percent.
· Among those recalling information, thirty percent were favorable toward the project.
· Twenty-five percent were unfavorable toward the project.
· Seventeen percent had mixed opinions.
· Twenty-eight percent were uncertain about their feelings toward the project.
· Twenty-six percent felt the Center was "worth remodeling."
· Thirteen percent thought "people deserve a community center."
· Twelve percent reported the "cost was too high."
· Ten percent felt the "current location is a good location."
· Eight percent would support it if the "cost was acceptable."
· Eight percent wanted to preserve the "historical landmark."
· Seven percent supported "a new building."
· Only twelve percent felt current plans called for the Community Center's conversion into
a full-service Recreation Center.
· Sixty-one percent accurately reported that current plans do not have this feature.
Reactions to Current Plans:
· Majorities supported each of the main aspects of the current Community Center proposal.
· By an 82%-11% judgment, residents supported extensive remodeling and renovation of
the Community Center to comply with codes and ADA requirements.
· By a 72%-14% verdict, they supported modernizing office and classroom space for
greater efficiency and flexibility of uses.
· By a 66%-14% judgment, respondents favored upgrading and enlarging the senior center
area for beuer space efficiency and accessibility.
· By a 64%-20% margin, respondents supported the creation of interior courtyards in the
"pod area" to simplify finding ones way around the building and to promote better roof
drainage.
Page 2
DECISION RESOURSES 157 P04 SEP 19 '9? 11:56
Y/estonka Communities
1997 Community Center Study
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
By a 62%-20% result, residents supported retaining one of the two gymnasium spaces for
community use, while converting the second gyran~ium into a community performing
arts facility.
By a 61%-23% judgment, residents supported additional parking space at the facility.
By a 58%-17% verdict, residents favored remodeling of the locker rooms to provide
updated recreational support space.
Seventy-four percent reported they supported the renovation and remodeling of the
Community Center along the lines d.iscussed in the survey.
Only thirteen percent opposed the project, while thirteen percent were undecided.
Twenty-five percent reported that "remodeIing was needed."
Nineteen percent said "people deserve it."
Eighteen percent felt it was "good for the future of the community."
Thirteen percent would base their opinion upon "cost figures."
Six percent felt the project "cost too much."
Five percent wanted to "construct a new center."
Five percent supported the "present good location."
The typical Westonka Communities resident supported a property tax increase of $6.08
per month to fund community center construction.
Eighteen percent would oppose any tax increase.
Fifty-six percent would support a $4.00 monthly property tax increase.
Conclusions:
A financially prudent bond referendum, requiting a property tax increase of no more than
$$0.00 per year on the average household, would have an excellent chance of passage.
The Cities and School district face a major information campaign to dispel
misperceptions. A key component will be a clear and consistent presentation of the
proposal, its costs, its components -- and what is NOT included.
Even with these very positive atmospherics, the bond referendum campaign will require a
full-scale information and voter mobilization effort to pass. Apathy is the "enemy" facing
this proposal, once the information base is in place.
Pa£e3
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
3~ DEAN COURT
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CITIES OF MOUND AND
MINNETRISTA
FINg-L VERSION
Yello, I'm calling on behalf of
[IF CITY OF MOUND SAY:] the City of Mound and the Westonka School
District.
[IF CITY OF MINNETRISTA SAY:] the City of Minnetrista and the
westonka School District.
[IF CITY OF SPRING PARK SAY;] ~he Westonka School District.
We are speaking with a random sample of residents about issues
facing the area. I wang to assure you that all individual re-
sponses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the
entire sample will be reported.
Approximately how many years have
you lived in the Westonka Area?
LESS THAN ONE YEAR .....
ONE OR TWO YEARS .......
THREE TO FIVE YEARS...15%
SIX TO TEN YEARS ...... 17%
ELEVEN - TWENTY YRS...20%
OVER TWENTY YEARS ..... 36%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .....
There have been discussions lately about the Westonka Community
Center located at the old High School Building in Mound.
2. Do you recall hearing or seeing YES ................... 76%
anything about the Community NO .................... 20%
Center? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .....
IF "YES," ASK: (N=257)
3. What do you recall seeing or hearing about the Communi-
ty center?
DON'T KNOW, 2%; READ SOMETHING, 3%; HEARSAY, 7%;
REMODEL, 16%; UP FOR SALE, 8%; TEAR DOWN, 16%;
CONSTRUCT NEW, 3%; MOVE TO NEW LOCATION, 5%; SEVERAL
CONSTRUCTION POSSIBILITIES, 33%; N~ED TO BE BROUGHT UP
TO CODE, 2%; COST OF PROJECT, 5%; SCATTERED, 1%.
4. Do you generally feel favor- FAVORABLE ............. 30%
able or unfavorable about the UNFAVOR3%BLE ........... 25%
project based upon what you MIXED ................. !7%
have heard or read? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 28%
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=186)
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 150 POG/05 SEP 18 '97 10:50
5. Why do you feel that way?
DON'T KNOW, 2%; WORTH REMODELING, 26%; WANT NEW
BUILDING, 7%; COST TOO MUCH, 12%; DECISION NEEDS
TO BE MADE, 5%; GOOD LOCATION, 10%; PEOPLE
DESERVE IT, 13%; IF COST IS ACCEPTABLE, 8%; GOOD
PROGRAMS/SERVICES, 4%; HISTORICAL LANDMARK, 8%;
SCATTERED, 6%.
As you may recall, there have been discussions about remodeling
and renovating the Community Cenzer.
o
From what you have seen or heard
recently, do current plans call
for the Community Center's
conversion into a full-service
Recreational Center, similar to
a health club?
YES ................... 12%
NO .................... 61%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 27%
In fact, the current proposal does not call for that type of
conversion, at all.
Let's talk about the current Westonka Community Center. As you
may know, it houses School District Administration Offices,
Community Education Program Offices, the Early Childhood and
Family Education Program, the Youth Center, the Senior Center,
the Adult Basic Education Program, the Head Start Program, the
Westonka Community Action Network, and the TRI-AX Public Access
Cable Television Production Studios, in addition to gymnasium
space. The intent of the current proposal is to remodel and
renovate this facility to better serve the needs of its users.
Now, I would like to read you a list of specific proposals con-
cerning the renovation and remodeling of the current Westonka
Community Center in Mound. For each one, please tell me if you
would strongly support it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or
strongly oppose it. If you have no opinion, just say so.
(ROTATE)
Extensive remodeling and renovation
of the Community Center to comply
with life-safety, and fire codes, as
well as promote better handicapped
accessibility.
Modernizing office and classroom
spaces for greater efficiency and
flexibility of uses.
Upgrading and enlarging the senior
center area for better space effici-
ency and accessibility.
2
STS SMS SMO STO DKR
56% 26% 6% 5% 7%
34% 38% 8% 6% 14%
36% 30% 7% 7% 21%
::]"1] ..... 150 P04/05 SEP 18 '97 10:51
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
10. Retaining of one of the two gym-
~asium spaces for community, use,
while converting the second gym-
nasium space into a community
performing arts facility for band
or choir concerts and community or
school district theater productions.
11. Creation of interior courtyards in
the ,'pod area" to simplify finding
ones way around the building and to
promote better roof drainage.
12. Remodeling or the locker rooms to
provide updated recreational support
space.
13.
STS SMS SMO STO DKR
39% 29% 12% B% 13%
32% 32% 10% I0% 17%
24% 34% 10% 7% 25%
Additional parking space at the
facility. 32% 29% 14% 9% 16%
If the current Community Center were renovated and remodeled
along the lines we have discussed ....
14.
STRONGLY SUPPORT ...... 36%
SUPPORT ............... 38%
OPPOSE ................. 7%
STRONGLY OPPOSE ........
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 13%
would you support or oppose the
renovation and remodeling of the
current facility? (WAIT FOR RE-
SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that
way?
IF A POSITION IS TAKEN, ASK: (N=294)
15. could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
DON'T KNOW, 1%; REMODELING NEED, 25%; IF COST IS
ACCEPTABLE, 13%; DON'T RAISE TAXES, 2%; PEOPLE DE-
SERVE IT, 19%; GOOD FOR FUTURE OF COMMUNITY, 18%;
CONSTRUCT NEW CENTER, 5%; GOOD LOCATION, 5%; COST TOO
MUCH, 6%; HISTORICAL LANDMARK, 5%; SCATTERED, 1%.
The remodeling and renovation of the Community Center would
require the issuance of municipal bonds. In order to finance the
cons=ruction costs, an increase in residential and commercial
property taxes would be required.
16. How much would you be willing to NOTHING ............... 18%
pay in additional property taxes $2.00 .................. 6%
to fund the renovation and re- $4.00 ..................
modeling of the Westonka Community $6.00 ................. 14%
Center? (START AT RANDOMLY SELECT- $8.00 ..................
ED LEVEL) Let's say, would you be $10.00 ................ 25%
willing to pay S___per month? DON'T KNOW ............ 19%
(MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RE- REFUSED ................ 1%
SPONSE) How about $ . per month?
$129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 158 PO5x05 SEP 18 '97 10:51
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes .....
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start with the oldest.
17. Pirst, persons 65 or over? 0 ..................... 79%
1 ..................... 14%
2 OR MORE .............. 7%
18. School-aged children?
20.
21.
0 ..................... 71%
1 ..................... 15%
2 ..................... 10%
3 OR MORE .............. 5%
IP SCHOOL-AGED CEILDR~N ARE PRESENT, ASK: (N=98)
19. Do they attend public schools WESTONKA PUBLIC ....... 78%
in this district, public
schools in another district,
parochial schools, private
schools, or home school?
Pre-schoolers?
Do you own or rent your present
residence?
OTHER PUBLIC ........... 6%
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS ...... 9%
PRIVATE SCHOOLS ........ 5%
HOME SCHOOL ............ 1%
COMBINATION (VOL.) ..... 1%
REFUSED ................ 0%
0 ..................... 89%
1 ......................
2 OR MORE ..............
OWN ................... 81%
RENT .................. 19%
REFUSED ................ 0%
IF "OWN," ASK: (N=273)
23.
24.
22.
What is the current value of
your residential property --
under $75,000, $75,000-
$125,000, $125,000-$175,000,
or over $175,0007
What is your age, please?
(READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED)
Gender (DO NOT ASK)
25. REGION (FROM LIST):
UNDER $75,000 .......... 6%
$75,000-$125,000 ...... 35%
$125,001-$175,000 ..... 25%
OVeR $175,000 ......... 30%
DON'T ~NOW ............. 4%
REFUSED ................ 1%
18-24 .................. 3%
25-34 ................. 17%
35-44 ................. 27%
45-54 ................. 20%
55-64 ................. 13%
65 AND OVER ........... 20%
REFUSED ................ 0%
MALE .................. 48%
PEMAL~. ................ 52 %
MOUND ................. 52%
SPRING PARK ........... 27%
MINNETRISTA ........... 21%
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City Mana~,ers/Administrators/Delegacs
Jim Strommen, Kennedy & C-raven
August 22, 1997
612 Area Code Split--Discussion and Action Items
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVII.EGE/WORK PRODUCT
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum follows the PUC's decision to defer a fLu,al plan on the 612 area code change
until October, with thc likelihood that one of t~'o geographic splits will be adopted. (map
attached)..Each of thc geographic splits Mil split suburbs because the wire 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, Cn'eg Scott, will be participating irt
the final decision in October. Disagreement over the type of geogxaphic split among the
Commissioners may cause Commission Chair, Oarvey, 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 SRA options at this point and suggests actions by SRA members.
DISCUSSION
L_eeal Posture.
The PUC imends 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 SR_a, that boundaries not nm v,'khin
municipalities. The DPS is requesting that U S We,st explain the technical feasibility of re-
drawing wire center boundaries along municipal l~undaries for purposes of the area code 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 lo avoid municipal splits. Unofficially, the DPS seems
receptive to examining a Minneapolis-St Paul area code and suburban area code, along municipal
boundaries. I will pursue this closely.
The SRA, like any party, should be free to make add/tional 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 techn/cal feasibility and cost and ti'mt SRA cmn 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 d/vis/on within municipal/ties is a sufficientIy
important policy consideration to warrant reconfiguration of the existing geographic split plans.
R__elevant PUC Factors.
At the August 20 deliberation, the members of thc PUC each articulated factors that were
important to them in deciding the proper area code plan. Generally, the interests of business-end
users were of significant importance, especially small businesses. Com'enience 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 thc 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, fairness
to all ~oups, specifically competitors, understandability and retention of one's existing telephone
number and seven di~t 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 ciD- would
be hampered. In other words, that city. councils had opposed splitting murdcipal boundaries and,
therefore, favored the River split, did not seem to be an important factor to the Commissioners
in and of itself.
SRA Member Discussion.
The SPA does not meet until October 16, 1997. This will be too late for any formal action of
this SCOl~ 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 thc SRA. must
be supported by something more than a city council resolution opposing it. Tan~ble, reaMife
or compelling possible scenarios must be included in any argument or city action to move this
Commission to cons/der a potentially costly re-drawing of wire center boundaries along municipal
boundaries.
Most every inner-ting suburban municipality will be split in some way by one or both of the
geographic sph[ proposals. What is critical for me to 'know is thc importance of' this issue to the
affected cities and the SRA, as a whole. I have heard from and met wkh 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 down community, or otherwise c:~use negative consequences. The
general public has not been particularly vocal to the PUC on the matter of neighborhood splits.
This Commission v,411 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 fi.om the
public that a geographic split within their neighborhoods is something they can't adjust to?"
Cities need one or more the following three t'ypes of responses:
One or two overriding public po[icy 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 withir! 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 DP$ and U $ West.
The SPA Executive Committee is empowered to act between meetings. If I need formal action
from the Executive Committee, I will call a special meeting with thc formalities of open meeting
notices preceding it. We rnay 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.
Mpls-St. Paul
,.TMSZ2 ~?;4
S~160-31
3. Positions on whether a geo~aphic split along .municipal boundari .es wi~
would be acceptable or preferable to the overlay. Or whether a split along
municipal boundaries but with some suburbs with/n the Mpls-St. PauI area code would be
acceptable.
4. Poi1 )'our bus/ness community regarding the overlay proposal. It is my
und~din§ that it is strongly opposed by the business commun/ty. If cities favor it, they may
alienate local business.
5. Cit/¢s should also let their legislative representatives know about the city's
position on the municipal split issue.
My number is 337-9233, fax is $37-9310 and e-marl is ....
I]
.'.
.-.
geographically, and it recom-
mended two plans for further
study before-a final decision is
made in October.
When it met Wednesday, the
PUC was deadlocked on whether
to choose the more traditional
method of dividing the citrrent
612 calling area in half or to try a
new approach and let all the 612
numbers get used up before over-
laying a new area code.
~3v~rtay. l.'ne ~'UL, normatly
five members, but a resignafio~
earlier this year left the 'pane
with only four members.
Edward Garvey, PUC chairmai
and a proponent of an overla~:
said Thursday that he was willin.,.
to change his mind if telephon,
traffic patterns indicate mos:
people make most calls wkhin ~
fairly small geographic area.
Turn to AREA CODES on A1.1.
New .area code contenders
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is studying two plans to a~ a ne~
area code to t. he Twin Cities area. Which areas would retain the 612code
has not been decided.
The ~ core of the Twin Cities would
have ~ ~ ~ard~e s~-
~ areas wood rove amther.
The three-way split.'
The metro area would be divided
into three area codes.
~'¢~. ~, Stiltwater
~ , "x--....x .., ·
. '~.. 7 ';.:. ' :';-." ...
S~ Trbune graphic
RECEIVED
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 ("DPS")
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 SRA has submitted comments asking the PUC to preserve municipal boundaries
wherever possible, opposing the Doughnut Split. On July 16 there was no SRA 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 SRA'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 pref'~es 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 tour city
may have. This matter will be argued before the PUC sometime this fall Note that thins
~loe's not affect rates or local calling areas. It affects only telephone numbers and
quantity of numbers one must dial for a local call (10 v. 7). potentially the
JMS12£155
SU160-32
J
135W
Docket Nos. P999/M-97-506
Analyst assigned: Gregory J. Doyle
Page 12
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIc: 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 ow 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 I code areas.
The Department's recommendation meets the seven objectives e: t~merated earlier in
these comments. It both minimizes customer disruption to the e ,'tent that is possible,
and requires that the inconvenience of the decision be shared in t:.'t equitable manner by
everyone. The geographic identity of the state's area codes will 1 ~: preserved, as will
seven-digit dialing for all calls originating and terminating withJ: a single area code.
Competitive and technological neutrality are preserved in that ~ ireless and wireline
providers will be required to accommodate introduction of the n .'w code depending
upon central office prefix location and not on the basis of when., ~rvices are introduced
to the market-place. Thus, certain providers are not required to ~ i~proportionately bear
the costs of this expansion.
Finally, the only alternatives that produce a reasonable balancin;; 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 iv: 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 ely impacted by this
decision. Area code exhaust will reoccur in the foreseeable futu~ E if telephone numbers
and central office codes are not used efficiently. The Depart-men- recommends that the
Commission adopt all procedures to ensure the efficient utilizati .~n of prefixes and
telephone numbers in the course of this proceeding.
Docket Nos. P999/M-97-506
Analyst assigned: Gregory I. Doyle
Page 12
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLI~: 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 possibl~, of the cities of
Minneapolis and St. Paul, preserving a strong geographic identit ~. 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 ~. 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: tumerated earlier in
these comments. It both minimizes customer disruption to the e trent that is possible,
and requires that the inconvenience of the decision be shared in ~:x equitable manner by
everyone. The geographic identity of the state's area codes will 1,: preserved, as will
seven-digit dialing for all calls originating and terminating withi - a single area code.
Competitive and technological neutrality are preserved in that ,a ireless and wi,reline
providers will be required to accommodate introduction of the n ,.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 isproportionately bear
the costs of this expansion.
Finally, the only alternatives that produce a reasonable balancinl; of central office codes
between areas are those incorporating an center circle and outer .'~g. 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 ely impacted by this
decision. Area code exhaust will reoccur in the foreseeable futu~ e if telephone numbers
and central office codes are not used efficiently. The Departmen: recommends that the
Commission adopt all procedures to ensure the effident utilizati :n of prefixes and
telephone numbers in the course of this proceeding.
/il
DRAFT- PO$C Minutes 9-11-97
PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 11, 1997
Present were: Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Rita Pederson, Tom Casey,
City Council Representative Leah Weycker, Parks Director Jim
Fackler, and Secretary Clare Link. Those absent and excused were:
Marilyn Byrnes. The following interested citizens were present:
Ralph Bauer, Stacy & Sue Cathers.
MINUTES
Motion made by Botko, seconded by Pederson to approve the
minutes of the July 10, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission
meeting as written. Motion carrie4 unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were no changes to the agenda.
~UBLIC LANDS PERMIT: RALPH BAUER, 1774 HERON LAN~;
Fackler stated the applicant is seeking an after-the-fact permit to
alter and improve the existing landscape after the removal of trees
by the City. He reviewed the proposed landscaping plan. The City
will provide mulch for the tree planting area. He recommended
approval of the permit with certain conditions as noted in report.
Casey asked what was actually cut in violation of the ordinance.
Fackler stated there were about six maple and basswood trees cut.
Meyer stated he is concerned whether the area near Sparrow Road
will be too steep for wood chips. Fackler stated it is not too
steep for wood chips and they were to be placed only around the
trees. Bauer stated he could put in edging if required.
Casey asked if the wood chips would serve a function or if the area
should be allowed to reseed itself. Fackler stated undergrowth
would eventually dominate and the woodchips were only to help
retain water.
Ralph Bauer, 1774 Heron Lann gave a background on the permit
request. He reviewed pictures of the site. He stated he would
like to be allowed to prune and maintain the existing wild plum
trees between Area A and Area B.
Casey asked where the trees removed were located in Area A. Bauer
showed a photograph which noted the location of the trees. In
response to a question from Casey, Bauer explained why native
plants are proposed for Area B. He stated woodland plants would be
much more labor intensive.
Meyer stated he was concerned about the urbanization of the area.
Casey was concerned about the kind of landscaping proposed.
DRAFT - PO$C Minutes 9-11-97
Meyer agreed with staff's recommendation but was not in favor of
the wood chips. Fackler stated they are only proposed around the
trees.
Weycker asked if wood chips are proposed for Area B. Bauer replied
they are not. He proposed Area B as a prototype for the
reintroduction of prairie areas in the city.
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Pederson to extend discussion
of this item. Motion carried unanimously.
Bauer discussed proposed plantings but was open to any
recommendations.
Casey stated efforts should be made to the restore the area to
woodland native plants. Pederson agreed but stated the overall
plan should not be ignored.
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Botko to recommend approval of
the plan with the intent of using as many native plants,
because there are enough selections there, in Area A and as
proposed in Area B. Motion carried unanimously.
SUE CATHERS AND YOUTH GROUP CONCESSION SALES AT MOUND BAY PAR~
Sue Cather~ discussed concession sales at Mound Bay Park. They
would like to try it again in 1998. She stated staffing was a
problem and will be discussed.
Weycker asked what the profits were. Cathers stated it was $25.
Signage was discussed for next year. Casey suggested selling the
food on the beach.
FUTURE USE OF ISLAND PARK HAL~
Commissioners discussed repairs needed at Island Park Hall and the
lack of parking. Other uses for the hall were suggested. Fackler
noted the park vehicles are located at this site, salt is,at times,
stored in the winter, and the impounded vehicles are located here
as well.
Weycker was concerned why the building can remain in its current
condition. Casey asked if it is a high maintenance building.
Fackler stated the heating system is not good, and it is only used
for elections. He stated there is water damage inside the
building.
Weycker suggested the Building official take a look at the building
and identify what needs to be done.
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Meyer to recommend the Building
official view the building and give the POSC an estimate of
what needs to be done to bring the building up to par. Motion
carried unanimously.
Casey suggested residents be surveyed to suggest uses for the
DRAFT-PO$CMinut~ ~11~7
building. Weycker suggested we hear what the Building Official
finds out first.
REPLY FROM JON SUTHERLAND, REFERENCING DEPOT REPAI~
Fackler discussed a memo frOm the Building Official regarding
needed repairs and what will need to brought up to code and meet
ADA requirements.
Pederson asked if it could be recommended not to do the bathrooms.
Fackler discussed proposed remodeling which could be done first.
He stated he would review his proposal with the POSC before the
work begins.
PARK DEDICATION FEE
This item will be discussed at the October meeting.
~ONG TERM GOALS
Commissioners discussed how to become more effective at doing their
job.
Weycker discussed the job duties of the POSC.
Commissioners discussed purchasing tax forfeiture parcels when they
become available. Fackler discussed current procedures the city
uses to make staff aware of forfeitures. He stated the City Clerk
can prepare a memo which identifies the procedure for the POSC.
Weycker discussed the effectiveness of the POSC. She suggested
members visit other cities' meetings to see how their meetings are
run. She also suggested they become members of a park
organization.
Casey suggested long term planning and visioning sessions.
Commissioners discussed developing goals. Weycker suggested this
be done between this meeting and the next for discussion at the
October meeting.
Fackler suggested the POSC look at the Comprehensive Plan and
identify what needs to be done in the parks.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Meyer to request the city planner
to update the POSC on the Comprehensive Plan process and they
can become more involved. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Meyer, seconded by Casey to extend discussion of
this item. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioners discussed attending other cities' Park Board meetings
and assigned attendance to see what they are working on how often
they meet, etc. '
OCTOBER POSC AGENDA
Fackler discussed
items on the October meeting agenda.
3
DRAFT- PO$C Minutes 9-11-97
Commissioners discussed having a worksession on goal setting. The
meeting was scheduled for October 23 at 7:30 p.m.
REPORTS
Weycker discussed the Sorbo Park dedication.
park activities.
Fackler discussed
ADJOURN
Motion by We¥cker, seconded by Botko to adjourn the Park and
Open Space commission Meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
MINUTES OF A MEETING
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Bill
Voss, Michael Mueller, Gerald Reifschneider and Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent
and excused: Becky Glister and Jerry Clapsaddle. Also present: Building Official Jon
Sutherland, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Attendance: Mitch Knutson, Merritt Geyen, Peter Jacobson, Tom Kelly, Richard
& Connie Meyer, Bill Johnsen, Nancy Cambell, Eric Berglund, Ron DeVinney, Dorothy
Netka, William Netka, Paul Larson, Sid Levin.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 25, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Reifschneider had one change, on page 1, change Burma to Reifschneider.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma to approve the Minutes of the August
25, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS'
Chairman Michael stated procedures for the three public hearing cases.
Mueller excused himself from the commission panel.
#97-37: PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR SUBDIVISION, 2240 COMMERCE BLVD, ME
MUELLER, LOTS 40-41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID 13-117-
24-33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041.
Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon reviewed the case.
Mueller/Lansing Properties have request to combine lots 41 through 46 and a portion
of 40 of "Koehler's Addition to Mound" and then split them into two parcels. The
property is located at the corner of Lynwood and Commerce Blvd and is in the B-1
Central Business District.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the subdivision as requested with the following conditions:
o
The western parcel remain in the ownership of the applicant until the
building the eastern parcel is removed bye the County Road 1 5 project or by the
undertaking of the owners.
The western parcel remain undeveloped and used for parking as long as the
building is standing.
A parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure
its function will remain. When the building is removed, the easement can be
removed from the property.
4. An encroachment easement be placed over that portion of the building
encroaching onto the western parcel. When the building is removed, the
easement can be removed from the property.
All required documentation be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the
City Attorney for approval.
Commissioners Comments/Questions:
Weiland questioned if the building would be taken down or just a portion of it if the
County Road 1 5 realignment went through. Mueller stated that the building would be
condemned and demolished if the project progressed.
There was discussion on where the proposed new road access would be if the
construction of County Road 15. There was also discussion on if a easement was
needed.
Hanus questioned the legality of item #1. Gordon explained that if the parcels were
divided, the parcel would not be able to meet the zoning requirements for parking
spaces.
Chairman Michael opened the public hearing.
Applicant to speak, Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road, lived in Mound all of his
life. Has been on the planning commission for 7 years. They want to be able to
maintain ownership of their property in the downtown area. They want to combine
the north 40 feet with the rest of parcel b then subdivide parcel a and b. In order to
maintain ownership of their land, the applicants need to do something before they lose
their ownership of the property. They feel that the redevelopment plan is inevitable
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
and want to be a part of it. They don't know where the access road is going to be.
They want to work with the city to make this project a successful one. Addressing
item #1, applicant stated they would be willing to agree not to sell the two parcels to
separate people. This could be done through a deed restriction. They feel they have
good tenants and don't want to keep it that way. They expressed concerns with
items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Item #1 could be dealt with by using the deed restriction. Item
#2, 3, 4 deals with the not allowing building on parcel A as long as parcel b has a
building on it. There would be a problem with that because there would be no place
to put their tenants if the current building would be condemned and demolished. The
business could not afford to be out of business that long. They would like to be able
to build a building on parcel A so they have someplace to move if the existing building
does get demolished. Item #2 could be left undeveloped until the County Road 15
project is decided and the access road is decided upon. Item #3 There are many
business in Mound that don't have adequate parking. They feel it is unjust to require
this building to have parking while other business in town don't. Item #4 They don't
have a problem with an easement. On parcel A there would be a building
encroachment.
Reifschneider asked applicant why they wanted to do all of this before they know
what is going to happen with the downtown development because it would mean that
parcel a would have a variance on it. Applicant stated that if the property was
condemned they could no longer subdivide their property and they want to maintain
ownership.
The applicant will be willing to work with different options of where an easement
should go. Gordon stated that B-1 doesn't have a lot setback requirement. There
would be no need for a variance at this time. Mueller explained what an
encroachment easement was, Sutherland and Gordon commented an easement would
be needed for building code compliance.
Mueller stated that the property meets all the requirements except for the
encroachment.
Chairman Michael closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff recommendations
as stated.
Discussion'
Hanus discussed the conditions listed and would like some other options.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
Discussion was made to what would happen to the current business during the
transition period.
Gordon stated its a tough issue on the transition of old business going along with the
new business building going in. The planners intent was to maintain parking for the
area businesses.
There was concern that there would be a lag time where the current businesses would
not have a place for their businesses.
Burma suggested a rewording for item# 3. It should read, "A parking and circulation
easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its function will remain. When
the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined indicating the removal of building on
parcel B, the easement can be removed from the property."
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff recommendation
with the exception of removing item #2, revision of item #3 to read, "A
parking and circulation easement be placed on the western parcel to ensure its
function will remain. When the rerouting of County Road 15 is determined
indicating the removal of building on parcel B, the easement can be removed
from the property." The motion carried 6-0.
This case will go to City Council October 14, 1997.
#97-40: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DECK, 1733 GULL LANE, TOM KELLY, LOT 9,
BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, PID 13-117-24 13 0016.
Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the case.
Tom Kelly has applied for a variance of 4 feet to the required 16 foot rear yard setback
for a non conforming 10x15 foot deck on the west side of the existing dwelling.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property
with minimal additional encroachment and with conditions as listed below results in
some improvement to the conforming situation of the property.
1. The existing concrete landing, steps, and slab that is encroaching into the
commons shall be removed prior to construction of the deck.
2. A new landing and stairs (landing up to a maximum of 32 square feet) may be
constructed up to the property line as noted on the survey dated August 7,
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
1997. No encroachment beyond the property line is permitted.
Commissioner Questions:
Hanus asked whether the stairway would come down toward Gull. Sutherland stated
it would have a minimum 3 foot wide landing.
Mueller questioned item//2. It should read, "A new landing and stairs (landing up to
a maximum of 32 square feet) may be constructed up to the property line as noted on
the survey dated August 7, 1997. No encroachment beyond the southerly property
line is permitted."
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma, to recommend staff
recommendation with the revision to item #2 to read, "A new landing and stairs
(landing up to a maximum of 32 square feet) may be constructed up to the property
line as noted on the survey dated August 7, 1997. No encroachment beyond the
southerly property line is permitted."
Discussion:
Mueller questioned the fact the lot is undersized and overbuilt. Sutherland stated that
he has spoken to the city attorney and that every case is unique and stands on its
own merits. In addition we have had previous variance cases with a reduced setback
to the Commons.
Burma stated the encroachment on the commons would be eliminated and it would
not be increasing the variances as before.
Sutherland stated that the deck would not be any closer than 1.6' to the commons.
Hanus stated that decks are a reasonable use of the property, and it is an
improvement to existing conditions.
The motion carried 7-2. Mueller and Weiland opposed.
This case will go to City Council on September 23, 1997.
Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon reviewed this case and also Case //97-43 in
conjunction as they are related.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8. 1997
#97-42: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 5201 PIPER ROAD, AL &
ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID
25-117-24 21 0156
#97-43: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR REMODELLING, 5201 PIPER ROAD, AL & ALMA'S
SUPPER CLUB, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 8, LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, PID 25-117-
24 21 0156
The Geyen's have a applied for a conditional use permit for an expansion of their
restaurant. The restaurant is defined as a Class I (Traditional Restaurant) which is
allowed in the B-3 district as a conditional use. An update to the previous conditional
use permit is required because of the nature of the proposed improvements. The
seating area size will not change.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission recommend Council
approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions:
Deliveries continue to be handled on-site and not on the street.
The vacant lot south of the building remain as undeveloped and parking not be
allowed.
Any landscaping removed with the improvements be replaced.
All prior conditional use review decisions be upheld.
The Geyen's have also applied for a variance to construct an addition to the existing
restaurant. They are requesting the following:
existing
proposed required variance
1.7' 30' 28.3'
16.5' 30' 13.5'
Front Yard - 0.35'
into ROW
Side Yard 20'
(Tuxedo Blvd)
Side Yard 40'
50' 10'
Staff recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance as requested. The building has existed in the neighborhood
for a number of years with the current setbacks and will continue to function well into
the future with the planned improvements. Requiring the building to meet the required
setbacks would result in a practical difficu, lty.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
Commissioners Questions:
Reifschneider questioned if the area above the restaurant would be adding more
seating. Merritt Geyen said that there no extra seating for the proposed plan. It was
just the new design. The Building Official referred the Commission to the cross
section in the packet and confirmed there is no additional seating on the second floor.
Hanus questioned if there were any restrictions to cover the issue of no seating going
into that area. Sutherland stated that if the permit was approved, the Conditional Use
Permit would be granted on the plans submitted. No changes could be made without
an amended Conditional Use Permit.
Mueller questioned the access doors on the lower level on Piper Road. Sid Levin, Lake
Country Builders explained how the access doors would be positioned. They would
not be on Piper Road, it would be between Piper Road and Tuxedo Blvd. The deliveries
would remain the same as they are currently. They are done on the premises.
Chair Michael open the floOr to the public.
Ron DeVinney, 3214 Tuxedo BIvd, Understands that they want to improve their looks.
He has a problem with parking issues. He feels the City needs to take a better look at
the parking issues. On Drummond, traffic comes up and turns around in his driveway
and many of the neighbors driveways too. Cars are constantly parking on the streets
that are posted "No Parking"
Bill Johnson, 5300 Piper Road, The restaurant is a positive in the community. He also
feels that the traffic and parking is a significant load.
Merritt Geyen, Owner of Al & Alma's stated that there are "no parking" signs posted
on all the streets around the restaurant.
Mueller stated Mr DeVinney has been there longer than the boat business started.
There has been more traffic created since the boats have started.
Voss stated that if there is a problem with the parking, the police department needs
to be notified of the problem.
Mark Berglund, 5138 Hanover Road, Expressed concern with the parking issues. At
one time, there were 15 cars parked on the sidewalk and the police didn't do
anything. The Conditional Use Permits are not being followed by the applicant. The
public beach is overrun by the charter boat people. He stated that his children cannot
play at the park because there are too many drunk people.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
Chair Michael questioned how many complaints have been made. Sutherland stated
that the Planning department has received very few, but the Police department may
have received complaints.
Weiland questioned the ownership of the property just to the south. Merritt Geyen
stated they purchased the property two years ago.
Weiland questioned if Al & Alma's had adequate parking for their charter boat
business and their regular business.
Peter Jacobs, Lake Country Builders, stated he hardly heard any public complaints
regarding the remodelling of the building. It seems to be that the parking situation is
a city issue not Al & Alma's issue. Al & Alma's is not changing the use of the space
nor will the seating space be changed.
Loren Gordon stated that previous Conditional Use Permits will need to be reviewed
for the parking issues. Chair Michael stated that the city and the Geyens need to work
together on the parking issues. Sutherland stated that a Conditional Use Permit can
have a condition to be reviewed in one year.
Chair Michael stated that they are trying to negotiate a favorable solution for the
Geyen's, the City, and the area residents. Hanus explained how if a condition was put
on a Conditional Use Permit how it would be reviewed.
Voss suggested if the business has grown, the Conditional Use Permit could be
modified so that a security person could be added to help regulate parking.
Reifschneider questioned why they could not turn the property to the south into a
parking lot. Gordon stated that they were try to have a balance between green space
and buildings and be sensitive to the residential neighborhood. The lot south of the
restaurant is vacant and acts as a buffer zone between uses. This lot will remain
vacant because it does not meet the lot area requirements. It could however be
combined with another property or considered for a variance if it were to be built
upon.
Burma stated that even if the applicant is not putting an addition on the building, there
is still the issue of parking space. Possibly the Geyen's need to add security. He
suggested a meeting with the neighborhood and the Geyens to discuss the parking
issues.
Merritt Geyen stated they purchased Al & Alma's 15 years ago and parking spaces
have been taken away since that time due to concerns of the neighbors. Now parking
is not allowed on the streets. They do try to get people to come out to Al & Alma's
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
in buses and try to eliminate or reduce traffic. They are not asking for anything more
and have given up alot. They do not want a outdoor porch. Many of the area residents
use the park.
They have no intention of adding seating to the restaurant.
Mark Berglund, stated the reason why the neighborhoods have gone to no parking
streets is because of Al & Alma's
Chair Michael closed public hearing.
Discussion:
Hanus recommended a traffic study of the area.
Voss feels that the parking situation is a policing issue. Citizens should go to the
police department. Chief Harrell should be aware of the concerns of the neighbors to
Al & Alma's regarding parking.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to recommend approval of
Staff's recommendation with a one year review of the Conditional Use
Permit. The motion carried 6-0.
Variance: Case #97-43
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend Staff recommendation.
The motion carried 6-0.
Staff suggested these two cases go to City Council on October 14, 1997 and the
applicant agreed.
#97-44: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 2316 COMMERCE BLVD,
LARSON PRINTING, LOT 4, SOUTH 29 3/10 FT OF LOT 4, MCNAUGHT'S ADD. TO
MOUND, PID 13-117-24 33 0047
Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon reviewed this case.
Larson Printing has submitted a request for a conditional use permit. The request is
to relocate the printing and copying operations from their existing place of business,
Jubilee Shopping Center on Shoreline Drive, to this new location on Commerce Blvd.
The property is zoned B-1 which allows newspaper printing or publishing shops as
conditional use. A minimum of 6 parking spaces would be provided which meets
Zoning Code parking requirements.
Planning £ornrn/s$ion Minutes
September 8, 1997
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend I approval of the Conditional
Use Permit with the following condition:
Delivery trucks park along Auditors Road or in the parking area behind the
building.
Comments/Questions:
Hanus questioned the accessibility for trucks to travel on Auditors Road after the
construction has started. Gordon stated that could not be answered at this time. The
situation would have to be evaluated as the construction process proceeds.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Chair Michael closed open the public hearing.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff recommendation.
The motion carried 6-0.
This case will go to City Council on October 14, 1997.
#96-26: SPECIAL USE PERMIT: EXTENSION, 2610 COMMERCE BLVD, MEYER'S
MOUND SERVICE, LOTS 1-3, & S 1/2 OF 47, 48, 49, BLOCK 9, PID 23-117-24 14
0043 & 0050
Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon reviewed the case.
The previous Conditional Use Permit required a one year review and this case is
brought to the commission for their comments..
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the previous conditions as stated in the
resolution 96-26 be upheld and that all conditions be satisfied by December 1, 1997.
Staff would also recommend Council discuss the parking issue in front of the building
with the applicant. If the conditions are not satisfied by this time, the City could then
proceed with appropriate legal action to remedy the situation.
Overnight outdoor storage of vehicles on the site shall be limited to the area
north of the structure. All vehicles stored on the site shall have current vehicle
license tabs. The sale of vehicles on the property is prohibited.
The outdoor storage lot on the north side of the building shall be improved
consistent with City ordinance requirements. Said Improvement shall include
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
but not be limited to bituminous surfacing and construction of required fencing.
All trash and parts storage shall be screened. The applicant shall prepare and
submit screening plan for review and approval by the Mound Building Official.
Any future changes in signage for the business shall comply with the Mound
Sign Ordinance.
All vehicle repair activities shall occur inside the building.
This conditional use permit shall be reviewed one year from the date of City
Council approval at no cost to the applicant.
Tax parcels 23-117-24 14 0043 and 23-117-24 14 0050 shall be required to
be under one ownership and if either parcel is sold or transferred, this
Conditional Use Permit shall immediately become null and void and the new
owner or owners shall be required to reapply for a new Conditional Use Permit.
Comments/Questions:
Chair Michael questioned if the gas tanks were still in. Dick Meyer, owner, said the
tanks were removed in June 1997 and he was having problems with getting a
contractor to remove them.
Discussion:
Voss stated that he uncomfortable about the December 1, 1997 deadline.
Dick Meyer stated he really wants to meet the December 1, 1997 deadline, the
contractor has stated that the retaining wall will be put in along with the asphalt yet
this fall.
Sutherland discussed the situation of parking in front of building.
Dick Meyer expressed concern with the parking issue. The current set up is not
working for him. He's upset that he cannot park cars in front of his business in the
evening. He went out and bought adjacent land for parking to help the situation. He
can' t help that people drop their cars off in the middle of the night in front of the
building.
There was discussion of zoning code issues.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to affirm resolution 96-69. The motion
carried 6-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1997
This will go to City Council September 23, 1997.
Chair Michael asked for a extension of meeting to go over 11:00 pm deadline
Voss motioned, Weiland seconded.
#97-46: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION, 6547 BARTLEI I BOULEVARD,
MITCH KNUTSON, LOT 18, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID 22-117-24 44 0037.
Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the case.
Mitch and Asha Knutson have a applied for a side yard setback of 4' to build an
addition and attached garage to their home.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the planning commission recommend
approval of the variance request as proposed, with the conditions as follows'
1)
The deck and encroaching shed located on the accessory structure on the
street side shall be removed prior to the building permit issuance.
2)
The detached accessory structure on the street side shall not be used as a
dwelling or rental unit and or permit residence.
Comments
Reifschneider added to #1 under the recommendation that the gravel driveway to the
small dwelling be removed.
MOTION by Reifschneider, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of staff
recommendation with the addition to #1 for the gravel driveway to be removed.
The motion carried 5-1, Weiland opposed.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma and carried unanimously to adjourn
the meeting at 1 1:15 p.m.
Chair, Geoff Michael
Attest:
MINUTES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION-AUGUST 21, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m. Members Present: Meisel, Longpre, Brewer and
Pietrowski. Absent and excused: Jensen and Drahos. Also Present: Gino Businaro,
Finance Director; Sharon Cook; and Ed Shukle, City Manager.
Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Pietrowski and carried unanimously, the minutes of the July
17, 1997 meeting were approved.
Ed Shukle announced that Dave Willette is resigning from the EDC due to increase in workload of
his business. Shukle i~dicated that the vacancy could be filled later this year when commission
vacancies are advertised.
Lost Lake Improvement Project
Shukle reported on the status of this project. He indicated that the canal plans would be completed
by the end of October and the greenway plans by the end of the year. Permits have been approved
and will actually be received once the plans have been submitted and approved by the state.
Shukle reported that the City Council was looking at a development agreement between Northern
Hospitality, Inc., representing Country Suites by Carlson and the City. City Council action was
anticipated for the August 26, 1997 meeting. This project pertains to the Lost Lake Inn that could
be located on the Lost Lake site.
Auditor's Road Improvement Project
Shukle updated the EDC on its status. He explained that bids were being taken for demolition of
three of the buildings and that demolition would take place in mid-September.
,Update on Westonka Community Center
Shukle updated the EDC on its status. He indicated that the professional survey by Decision
Resources, Inc. is underway and the results would be available by mid-September. The results of
the survey would dictate whether a referendum would be held later this year on the renovation of the
Community Center.
Other Business
The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 1997, 7 a.m., City Hall. Sharon Cook
is scheduled to bring the rolls.
Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Longpre and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned
at8 a.m.
EDC Minutes
August 21, 1997
Page 2
City Manager
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
August 1997
66.67%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Transfem
from Other Funds
Charges to Other
Departments
August 1997 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
1,266,460 0
6,250 50
121,800 14,335
968,210 5,434
51,100 1,528
65,000 8,690
43,300 459
43,500 0
10,000 495
649,296 (617,164) 51.27%
4,042 (2,208) 64.67%
87,326 (34,474) 71.70%
529,880 (438,330) 54.73%
7,302 (43,798) 14.29%
77,999 12,999 120.00%
2,284 (41,016) 5.27%
0 (43,500) 0.00%
.8,115 H,885) 81.15%
TOTAL REVENUE
30.991 ~ (1.209.376) 53.05%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCKS FUND
336,020
108,320
1,525,000
430,000
88O,OO0
4,100
73,800
14,914 258,750 (77,270) 77.00%
' 20,723 92,569 (15,751) 85.46%
154,124 1,004,401 (520,599) 65.86%
44,802 280,577 (149,423) 65.25%
79,601 620,716 (259,284) 70.54%
350 1,795 (2,305) 43.78%
113 70,069 (3,731) 94.94%
09112~97
rev97
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
August 1997
August 1997 YTD
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE
VARIANCE
66.67%
PERCENT
EXPENDED
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
GENERALFUNDTOTAL
69,370
4,000
8OO
193,470
2,100
59,480
168,960
23,550
114,460
924,350
4,100
172.870
405 270
82 84O
148,550
36.200
20.000
161 ~90
2,591,76Q
1,961 53,684
0 4,000
0 325
13,849 126,253
19 1,857
60,841 61,218
11,640 107,606
707 13,194
8,733 60,878
67,189 573,316
479 1,361
16,152 112,931
30,009 278,158
6,451 47,738
15,339 98,818
0 0
863 20,165
12,869. 102,953
247,101. 1,664,455
15,686
0
475
67,217
243
(1,738)
61,354
10,356
53,582
351,034
2,739
59,939
127,112
35,102
49,732
36,200
(16S)
58,437
927 305
77.39%
100.00%
40.63%
65.26%
88.43%
102.92%
63.69%
56.03%
53.19%
62.O2%
33.20%
65.33%
68.64%
57.63%
66.52%
0.00%
100.83%
63.79%
64.22%
Area Fire
Service Fund
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Cemetery Fund
Docks Fund
336,020 16,392 183,456 152,564 54.60%
118,950 8,657 95,710 23,240 80.46%
211,920 14,658 142,887 69,033 67.42%
351,460 34,270 227,676 123,784 64.78%
903,140 93,435 759,252 143,888 84.07%
8,100 813 6,450 1,650 79.63%
68,440 3,216 31,062 37,378 45.39%
EXP~97 ......
09/12/97
G.B.
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471-0590
Fax: (612) 471-0682
Emaii'
admin@minnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www.minnehahacreek.org
Board of Managers:
.... ,1 E. Thomas
President
C. Woodrow Love
Vice President
Pamela G. Blixt
Treasurer
Monica Gross
Secretary
Thomas W. LaBounty
Thomas Maple, Jr.
Malcolm Reid
District Office:
Minnehaha Creek ershed District
Improving Qualitf of Water, Quality of Life
RECEJVED SEP ? 8 1997
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
September 16, 1997
Stormwater Task Force
Diane Lynch, District Administrator
Next meeting
Our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 23 from 3:30-_
.5.:QD..p..m. at our headquarters, located at the C'r~v Freshwater C:.~qtF,£,
located at 2500 Shadywood Road in Navarre (MA~ ATTACHED).
I have included an agenda and meeting summary as well.
Please let me know if you are unable to attend by calling me at
471-0590.
Thank you!
Diane P. Lynch
District Administrator
Printed on r~c~Cl~d paper conta n no
AGENDA
Stormwater Task Force
Tuesday, September 23, 1997
MCWD
3:30-5:00 p.m.
Introductions
Continue policy discussion
· Water quality goals
· Water quality standards for differing community needs
Next meeting
3'153
MEETING NOTES
STORMWATER TASK FORCF
September 2, 1997
(DRAFT)
Goals
2.
3.
4.
Non-degradation
Flexibility
Recognize ability/inability of water body to improve
Allow orderly redevelopment
Flexibility
2.
3.
4.
5.
Depends upon size
Depends upon residential or commercial development
New development areas versus urban and redevelopment
Should be looked at case-by-case
Criteria for flexibility: checklist and sequencing would
demonstrate commitment
Petition projects
Performance-based System
The system should be practical, understandable and legitimate. The
Solution should be predictable, effective, reliable and easily evaluated.
The system could include: wetlands lakes, streams, classification,
rate versus quality options.
Criteria for the upper watershed could be more stringent; lower
watershed could be more flexible. Main goal is to protect Lake
Minnetonka.
Parameters
·
·
·
·
·
·
Development versus redevelopment
Defensible criteria
Size (de minimus and $ commitment)
Type of project (i.e., streets, bridges, etc.)
Water body standards versus NURP Standards
Standards related to whether the water is going in or out of the
water body
JIM RAMSTAD
THIRD DISTRICT, MINNESOTA
WAYS AND MEANS
COMMITTEE
TRADE SUBCOMMITTEE
OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
September 12, 1997
tniteh tates
epreSentatibeS
20515-2303
KI:L i J YE J
WASHINGTON OFF&:
103 CANNON HOUSE OFFIC~ BUILDING
WASaWGTON. DC 20515
(202) 225-2871
DISTRICT OFFICE:
8120 PENN AVENUE SOUTH, #15'
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431
(812) 881-4600
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687
Dear Ed:
As a community leader, I wanted to let you know I will be holding a series of town meetings in
the Third Congressional District this fall. I would like to personally invite you to join me at any of
these town meetings to express your concerns and ideas.
Enclosed you will find a list of the town meetings. As you will notice, one of the town meetings
is in your area.
If your schedule permits, I sincerely hope you'll attend and let me know about your questions or
concerns. Please keep in touch.
~fSTAD
ember o Congress
JR:sh
3~3~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
NEWS FROM
Minnesota's 3rd District
1997 Fall Town Meetings
Monday, September 22
Mound
City Hall Council Chambers
5341 Maywood Road
7:00-8:00 p.m.
Monday, October 13
Minnetonka
City Hall Community Room
14600 Minnetonka Blvd.
7:00-8:00 p.m.
Monday, October 20
Savage
Knights of Columbus
6201 West 135th Street
7:00-8:00 p.m.
Monday, October 27
Zanewood Community Building
7200 Zane Avenue North
7:00-8:00 p.m.
For Further Information:
Call 881-4600
State of Minnesota
Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
Third Floor Centennial Building · E_G_~ Cedar Street · Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 · 612/282-2390 · Fax 612/296-$698
September 10, 1997
TO: All Elected and Senior Appointed Local Officials
FROM: Senators Edward Oliver and Gen Olson
Representatives Ron Abrams, Steve Smith and Barb Sykora
RE: Regional Forum For All Local Officials; Monday, September 29th, City of Shorewood
As state legislators, we recognize your responsibilities have become increasingly difficult in recent
years. While strong public sentiment has precluded state and local officials from approving general
increases, the demand for high quality public services continues to grow. In an effort to discuss tax
opportunities for addressing the fiscal challenges we face, we would like to invite you and your
colleagues to a public forum on Monday evening, September 29th. The public forum will be held
from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the South Shore Senior Community Center in Shorewood. The
Community Center is located on 5735 Country Club Road in Shorewood. (The Center is located in the
Shorewood City Hall complex.)
The purpose of our regional forum is to unite all elected and senior administrative officials from our
' .sc~he°,.,°~l;d,,~,~f~c,c,~s,~di_s_c.u_s,s our common g.oals. A portion of the ublic fo
~-r tleo ,~. ,,~Lc-~;uvc, mnen[m coooerati ~n. ,,,,,,,~. .... ,_ p . rum will
efficiency of our public services. We will discuss grants that are available through the Board of
, on ....,-,,*aoulauon as a means of tmproving the
Government Innovation and Cooperation to help fund pilot projects that may serve as models for more
efficient and effective public services. This forum will also give local officials an opportunity to let
us know what the state can do to assist you in your effort to improve the quality and efficiency of
the services you deliver.
The public forum will be facilitated by Jim Gelbmann, Executive Director of the Board of Government
hmovation ~nd r-~,,,~,.-,..,
. ,..uu~,,.,aao,. This ,ate Bo.,rd was created oy the i993 Legislature to promote
intergovernmental cooperation and innovation in the delivery of public services. Jim will be on hand to
inform local officials about the various programs of the Board - programs that can be used by local
officials to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the services they deliver.
The programs of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation are designed to empower local
officials to develop more efficient and effective ways to achieve desired public policy outcomes. For
example, the Board has a relatively simple process for waiving state administrative rules and procedural
laws that may impair the ability of local officials to administer their programs in the most effective and
efficient manner possible. Jim will share with us the results of several of the projects the Board has
sponsored in other areas of the state. If you have questions about the forum, please feel free to contact
Jim at (612) 282-2390.
We have enclosed an agenda for your review. Please extend this invitation to all elected and senior
administrative officials from your jurisdiction. We' look forward to seeing you on September 29th.
enclosures
Promoting Effective and Efficient Delivery of Public Services
State of Minnesota
Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
Third Floor Centennial Building · 658 Cedar Street * Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 $ 6121282-2390 * Fax 612/296-3698
7:00 P.M.
7:10 P.M.
7:15 P.M.
7:35 P.M.
8:10 P.M.
8:25 P.M.
8:50 P.M.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS' REGIONAL FORUM
South Shore Senior Community Center
5735 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota
Monday, September 29, 1997
7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Introduction By Legislators
Overview Of The Evening's Activities - Jim Gelbmann
The Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation: A Resource For Local Officials
Identification and Discussion Of Several Pilot Projects and Waivers
Description of Current Grant Program - Application Process
Panel Discussion Of Local Officials - One representative of each of the following
levels of government: County, City, and School Districts. (Representatives of
the Metropolitan Council will also be invited to participate in the panel discussion.)
"What is the current status of intergovernmental cooperation and innovation
within the region?" Issues to be addressed by the panel may include:
Are there any intergovernmental forums for discussing expanded opportunities for
intergovernmental cooperation and innovation? Identify specific intergovernmental
initiatives that are currently in progress. What other activities have been tried? Have there
been any notable successes? Have there been any initiatives that did not meet expectations?
How do citizens react to intergovernmental cooperation and other innovative initiatives? Is
there interest in pt:rsuing consolidations of one or more Ioca! governments w~-th;.n ~.e re,on?
What are some of the barriers to intergovernmental cooperation and innovation? How can
those barriers be eliminated or minimized? Can you identify specific opportunities for future
intergovernmental cooperation and innovation relative to the delivery of local government
services? Are there examples of duplication of effort that results in inefficient or ineffective
local government service delivery?
Break
What role can the State play in assisting local officials?
Participants will be asked to identify and discuss state policies that may impair
the ability of local officials to effectively and efficiently deliver essential public
services.
Where do we go from here? How do'we assure that there will be follow up to the day's
discussions.
Promoting Effective and Efficient Delivery of Public Services
3'.1 ¥~
September 19, 1997
The Tom Company
8111 Lyndale Avenue South. Bloomington, Minnesota 55420-1196
· 612/888-8801 · FAX 612/887-8258
Honorable Mayor Robert Polston
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364 RECEIVED
SEP 1 § lgg7
Dear Mayor Polston;
Thc following notice is provided you in accordance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WAP~N) Act.
The Toro Company, after careful review, regrets to announce that it will permanently cease all operations
at its Mound manufacturing facility located at 5330 Shoreline Blvd., Mound, MN, 55364.
Permanent separations are expected to be effected in accordance with the following schedule:
Co
The initial separations will occur on November 21, 1997.
It is anticipated that there will be a phased shutdown with several separations occurring after
November 21, 1997.
It is our intent to finalize our production schedule and staffing requirements within the next two
weeks and make available to you a detailed schedule of separations.
We anticipate that production will continue at some level through February 13, 1998 with final
separations occurring on February 13, 1998 or within 14 days thereafter.
Bumping rights do not apply.
All affected employees were provided notice today, September 19, 1997.
Any questions in regard to this matter should be referred to Karen Anderson, Human Resources Manager
in Mound at 491-6805 or directly to me at 887-8102.
Sincerely,
THE TORO COMPANY
Director, Human Resources
and Employee Relations