Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1984-09-25
MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1984 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Approve Minutes of August 28, 1984, Regular Meeting Pg. 265B-2660 10. PUBLIC.HEARING: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Townhouses in 1700 Block of Commerce Blvd., Perma Built, Inc., "Port Harrison Townhouses" PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Wetlands Permit for Lots 11-22, Block 14, Wychwood, Michael J. Banicki CA~E ~84-357: Robert & Margaret Hanson, 5425 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 27, The Bartlett Place, Upper Lake Minnetonka Request: Recognize the Existing Nonconforming Lot Width and Setbacks to Sideyard. CASE #84-358:. Scott Miles, 2235 Commerce Blvd, Request: Sign Permit CASE $8~-359: James C. Hill, 12700 Wayzata Blvd., Minnetonka (5045 Bartlett Blvd.), Request: Fence Height Variance & Setback Variance CASE $84-361: Peter W. & Klm S. Johnson, 2305 Commerce Blvd. (3140 Priest Lane), Lot 4, Block 2, Highland Shores Addition Request: Front Yard & Lakeshore Setback Variance Grading Permit - Anthony Vandersteeg, 1861 Commerce Blvd. PUBLIC HEARING; Central Business District Parking Maintenence Assessment Role for 1984 PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills for Sept. Pg. 2661-2680 Pg. 2681-2693 Pg. 2694-2700 Pg. 2701-2709 Pg. 2710-2717 Pg. 2718-2725 Pg. 2726-273! Pg. 2740-274 Pg. 2745 11. Application for a Public Display Fireworks Permit American Fir,work's Display, 450 - 3rd St., Excelsior for beach at MOund Bay Park 12. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Pg. 2746 13. Payment of Bills Pg. 2747 Page 2651 ~. INFORmATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Report on Metropolitan Council Chair's Regional Meeting B. Letter from City Insurance Co. C. Minutes of Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dist. D. Planning Assistance News E. MWCC "Outfall" F. City of Mound - 1984 Summer Recreation Program G. Report from Police Chief on Tuxedo Blvd./County Road 125 Intersection H. Planning Commission Minutes Pg. 2748-2753 Pg. 2754 Pg. 27 §§--2773 Pg. 277 4-2775 Pg. 2776-2779 Pg. 27 80-27 84 Pg. 2785 Pg. 27 86-27 91 Page 2652 171 August 28, 1984 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on August 28, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen. Councilmember Peterson was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and the following interested citizens: Allan Furst, Jon Albinson, H. F. Reinitz, Dr. Mark Brewer, and Carl Hanson. Mayor Polston opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the July 24, resubmitted for consideration. 1984, Regular Meeting were Charon moved and Jessen seconded a motion %o approve the Minutes of the July 24, 198~, ~ Regular Meetin§, as resubmitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Minutes of the August 14, 1984, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the August 1~, 198~, Regular Meeting as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: DELINOUENT UTILITY BILLS FOR AUGHST The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Council about a delinquent utility bill. There was no one. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-125 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINOUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,069.13 AND-'AUTHOR'IZING THE STAFF TO SHUT-OFF WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 172 · August 28, 1984 CASE ~8~-346: MT, OLIVE. LUTHERAN CHURCH, ~218 BARTLETT BLVD, SIG.~ VARIANCE PERMIT, PID #~4-117-2~ 21 0015 The City Manager explained that Mt. Olive Lutheran Church is asking to be allowed to place a new free standing bulletin board type sign, 3 feet by 4 feet (similar to the one they already have), on Wilshire Blvd. street frontage. This will replace the present sign on Bartlett Blvd. They have also asked the variance fee be waived. The Planning Commission has recommended approval. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-126 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE PERMIT FOR MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH, 5218 BARTLETT BLVD., PID ~24-117-2q 21 0015, AND ALSO WAIVE THE FEE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. .CASE JEFF J. S.OULE, 2~1~ COMMERCE BLVD., S, 29 3/10 FT. OF LOT 4, MCNAUGHT'S ADDN. TO MOUND, SIGN VARIANCE PERMIT, PID.. ~13-117-24 33 0047 The City Manager .explained that this proposal meets the new proposed sign ordinance requirements. Mr. Soule would erect a sign which is 34 square feet in area. The Planning Commission' recommended approval. RESOLUTION ~8q-127 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR JEFFREY J. SOULE, D.D.S., 2316 COMMERCE BLVD., PID ~13-117- 24 33 0047 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE d8~-349: ALLAN N, FURST, 1932. SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 9 & LOT 8, EXCEPT N.W. 1~ FT., BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, ~. FOOT SIDEYARD VARIANCE~ PID ~18-t17-23 23 0069 The City Manager explained that Mr. Furst has applied for a variance in setback to recognize an existing nonconforming setback of an accessory"*building (boathouse) in order to construct a detached 28 by 30 foot garage with conforming setbacks to the property lines. The zoning ordinance requires a 4 foot side yard setback for accessory buildings. The Staff recommended that the structure be moved to within 4 feet of the lakeshore and the side yard property lines or provide a one hour 173 August 28, 198~ fire resistive wall assembly parallel to the side lot line. Currently the boathouse is within one foot of the side property line. The Planning Commission recommended approving the construction of the garage and recognizing the nonconforming setback of the boathouse. The Council discussed adding the condition that the owner provide a one hour fire resistent wall on the westerly wall of the boathouse and decided to add the condition to approval. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-128 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FOR LOT 9 AND LOT 8, EXCEPT NWLY. 15 FEET., BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT (PID ~18-117-23 23 0069, WITH CONDITION The vote was ~rr in favor with Councilmember Jessen voting nay. Motion carried. CASE DR. MARK BREWER, ~)81 SHORELINE BLED,, LOT 8, AUDITOR'S SUBD. ~170, SIGN PERMIT The City Manager explained that Dr. Brewer is asking to be allowed to install a free standing, 2 sided sign, 15 square feet and 50 inches high. The J & J Printing sign will be removed from the property. The proposed sign meets the requirements of the proposed new sign code. The Planning Commission has recommended approval. Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #84-129 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVEA SIGN VARIANCE FOR DR. MARK E. BREWER - PID ~13-117-2~ 33 0015 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: 11-22, BLOCK 1~, WYC.HWOOD PROPOSED WETLANDS PERMIT FOR LOTS Charon mo~ed and Jessen~seeonded a motion to set September 18, 1984, as the date for a public hearinE on a proposed wetlands permit for Lots 11-22, Block 14, Wychwood, PID #19- 117-23 32 0001. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 174 August 28, 1984 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TOWNHOUSES IN 1700 BLOCK OF COMMERCE BLYD, -, PID #13- 117-24 22 0252 Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set September 18, 198~, as the date for a public hearing on an application for a Conditional Use Permit for townhouses in the 1700 block of Commerce Blvd. - PID ~1B-117-24 22 0252. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. .CASE ~84-353; CARL R. HANSON, ~9~2 BEACH,WOOD ROAD~ N 1/2 OF WEST 40 FT, OF LOT 47, AUDITOR'S SUBD, ~1~8, VARIANCE IN HOUSE SIZE~ LOT SIZE & SETBACK - PID 923-117-2~ 1~ 0024 The City Manager explained that Mr. Hanson is asking to be allowed to do structural modifications and repairs to a nonconforming house located at 5932 Beachwood Road. Mr. Hanson stated that in trying to determine what necessary repairs needed to be made to put the structure in livable condition, it was found that the house needed structural repairs. The Building Inspector noted that the home is undersized. It is approximately 453.6 square feet. The lot is also undersized because it extends into the lake. The Council discussed the'accessibility issue and if Mr. Hanson could make 2 conforming lots with access to a public right-of- way. Mr. Hanson stated that he has contacted Mr. Lassen and is- working to try to acquire some of his property for accessibility for the North 1/2 of Lot 47. Mayor Polston stated that if the Council approved this variance in house size and setback that it would be making a mockery of the Zoning Ordinance and would make it very difficult to deny any other request that might come in similar to this one. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the variance request and have the Staff prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact. Mayor Polston asked Mr. Hanson if he would prefer to have the Council table the issue and give him a chance to try to make a legal size lot. Mr. Hanson stated yes he would like the opportunity. Councilmember Jessen withdrew her second and Councilmember Paulsen withdrew his motion. Paulsen moved and Jess~'h' seconded a motion to table this'item until Mr. Hanson feels he is ready to proceed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 175 August 28, 1984 POLICY ON PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS The City Manager explained that the six month trial period allowing the Planning Commission to also hold public hearings before the items come to the Council for the formal hearing is up and the recommendation of the Planning Commission is to continue this policy. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~'130 RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALSO HOLD PUBLIC }{EARINGS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENT.,S.,,& SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from any of the citizens present. There were none. Councilmember Charon stated that she feels the Council should have a policy on absenses of members of the Park and Planning Commissions. The Council agreed and she will work with the Staff to develop one. Councilmember Charon also stated that she did not feel the appointment of a prosecuting attorney should have been done without first interviewing some of the other attorneys that expressed interest in the position. She stated that she does not consider the issue final. JOINT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY RE: COMMUNITY DEYELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS {CDBG FUNDS} The City Manager explained that in order to remain entitled to receive community development block grants for the next three years this agreement needs to be approved. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-131 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WIT}{ HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CDBG FUNDS The vote was unanimously iQ...favor. Motion carried. QUOTATIONS TO UPGRADE LIFT STATION AT SPRUCE ~ WATERSIDE Two quotations were received by the City for an upgard to the lift station at Spruce and Waterside. They were as follows: 176 August 28, 1984 Waldor pump Tri-State Pump $9,485.00 $9,585.00 This item was approved in the 1984 Budget and the Staff is recommending the Waldor Pump quotation of $9,485.00 be approved. Polston moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the quotation of Waldor Pump in the amount of $9,~85.00 for the upgrade in the lift station at Spruce and Waterside. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ..SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON SIDEWALK REPAIRS The City Attorney stated that the Council does ~ have to hold a public hearing to assess properties for repairs on sidewalks and various other items accord%ng to Section 27.10 of the City Code. No action was taken. SET DATE FOR 198) BUDGET HEARINGS Jessen moved and Charon seconded a motion to set Monday, September 17, 1984, and Wednesday, September 19, 1984, at 7:00 P.M. as the dates for the 1985 Proposed Budget Hearings. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $94,267.55, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET. DATE FOR PROPOSED ASSESSMENT HEARINGS Charon moved and Jessen seconded a motion to set September 25, 1984, as the date for public hearings on CBD Parking Maintenance Assessment and Delinquent Utility Bills Assessment. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. .GARBAGE &. REFUSE COLLECTION LICENSE Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of a Garbage ~..Refuse Collection License to Richard B. Van Tassel, dba Village Sanitation, Inc. License period now to February 28, 1985, The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 177 August 28, 1984 SET-UP LICENSE, - MOUND BOWLING ALLEY Polston moved and Jessen seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of a Set-Up License to Charles E. Carlson, dba Mound Bowling Alley. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried CORRECTION OF RESOLUTION ~79-333 The City Manager explained that when Resolution ~79-333 was typed in 1979 the descriptions of the subdivided parcels were in error. It must now be corrected. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 184-132 RESOLUTION CORRECTING RESOLUTION ~79-333 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR A STREET LIGHT - WEST END OF WATERBURY ROAD The City Manager explained that he has received a petition asking that a street light be installed at the West end of Waterbury Road. There is a light pole already there. The Staff recommended approval. Jessen moved and Charon seconded a motion to authorize NSP to install a street light on the West end of Waterbury Road as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Planning Commisson Minutes of August 13, 1984. B. Metropolitan Council Review of August 10, 1984. Ce Westonka Seniors, Inc. "Hi-Notes" - September, 1984. Councilmember Jessen suggested that these not be included in 'future packets because each Councilmember receives one at home. De Letter from Hennepin County regarding the closing of County Road 110 while it is under construction. Ee Letter from City of Miq.noetrista thanking Mound for supporting Minnetrista in their opposition of Site M as a landfill site. Fe Letter from League of Minnesota Cities regarding the appointment of Legislative Study Committee. G. Letter from LMCD to the Surfside regarding there docks. 28, 1 984 H. Twin Cities Labor Market Information for August, 198~. I. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minutes of July 19, 1984. J. Discussion Paper from Forum on Solid Waste Initiatives. K. Paper Re: Tonka Dislocated Worker Project. L. Memo from St. Louis Park Newsletter regarding weeds. The City Manager brought the Council up-to-date on the the construction at the Black Lake Bridge. He also stated that one of the next agendas will probably have some citizens from that area on it to talk about their concerns about speeding, fishermen, litter and parking when the bridge opens. Councilmember Jessen asked"about how the County Road 15 project was coming. The City Manager stated that the City has submitted all our information but the County has not submitted it to the State of Minnesota yet requesting the variance. He stated that he will keep the Council informed as things develop. Paulsen moved and Polston seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk Dlllb ..... ~UbU~l £0, lyON Air Comm All Star Electric Holly Bostrom Burlington Northern Bill Clark Standard Continental Telephone Cash Register Sales Don's Sod Service W.S. Darley& Co. Jon Elam Feed-Rite Controls First Natl Bank-St. Paul John Henry Foster G.F.O.A. Ganz~l Signs General Repair Serv Eugene Hickok & Assoc Instrumentation Services J & R Refrigeration Island Park Skelly Kool Kube Ice Kendall Plastics LOGIS Lyman Lumber McCombs-Knutson Minnegasco Mound Super Valu Wm Mueller & Sons MN Dept Public Safety Minnesota Playground Jackie Meyer Mpls Star & Trib Mpls Oxygen Co. Mound Opticians N.S.P. NW Bell Telephone Neitge Construction Popham, Haik Poucher Printing Pitney Bowes Credit ReYnolds & Reynolds Radio Shack Ruffridge-Johnson City of Richfield Suburban Community Services Don Streicher Guns Marj Stutsman Uniforms Unlimited 164.00 581.87 153.00 533.33 1,183.42 1,148.87 43.19 89.10 61.82 19.34 26.54 13,942.50 71.66 4O.OO 55.OO 73.00 1,828.70 340.00 65.49 135.OO 263.70 87.49 2,051.50 195.55 3,702.50 153.38 121.10 3,414.O5 4o.oo 520.83 114.68 81.60 15.50 42.00 4,861.03 270.05 110.00 2,878.02 645.00 26.00 122.48 35.95 319.75 160.O0 898.25 17.20 20.00 59.OO Widmer Bros. Westonka Community Ser¥. R.L. Youngdahl Ziegler, Inc. Bill Clark Oil Commissioner of Revenue Commissioner of Revenue Dept of Property Taxation Griggs, Cooper Johnson Bros. Liquor Robert E. Johnson Information Publishers Joel Kr un~n Maple Plain Vol Fire Mound Postmaster Ed Phillips & Sons Quality Wine P.D.Q. Dell Rudolph Howard Simar Street Survival Seminar John Taffe Tonka Corp. Peggy Wheel er Western Tree Service Tom Jacobs TOTAL BILLS 2, O47.25 4,516.45 3,511.OO 136.42 790.23 3,484.93 6,054.64 5.27 1,966.84 1,330.85 709.88 177.3O 21.17 15.OO 108.48 1,616.62 1,288.84 1,375. OO 427.5O 522.50 65.o0 330.00 20,972.44 80.OO 854. oo 77.5O 94,267.55 OF M OU Ne, D · ~ ~ Y o~ JUL 2 7 1984 D NING COMMISSION information) Blvd. Mound Street Address of Property Mn Fee' Pa i d.,,, .~ ~. ~ Date Filed Legal Description of Property: Addition Owner's Name Perma Built I~c. Lot Legal Description Attached Block Day Phone No.45~6613/'.920-1450 'Address 6009 Ashcroft Ave. So 'Edina, Mn 55424' Applicant (if other than owner): Name 'James t{.~--Nordb7~ A"$ent Day Phone No. 9j8-1900 Address Edina Realty Inc. 146-17'Hw~°7 , Mtka, Mn 55345 5.' Type of Request: (~) Variance (~,,~ ConditiOnal Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If Qther, specify: ~sent Zoning District B2,'Com~ercial and/or Multifam~y/ Condominium. 7. Existing Use(s) of Property Vacant Land Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or · other zoning procedure for this. property? Yes. If sb, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Was permitted for 4 Luxury Townhomes in 1981 Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. 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, mainta~_'ng~_~ r~ving such notices as may be required by l~? // ~.~ /~ · Signature of Applicant ~~.//'"/,~/~-'~ ~/'~2Y~'~/-~/"~- ~r"~//~/~~Date' Planning Commission Recomme)(dation: / Date ( cil Action: R~solution No. Date~ 4/82 .¸2 I guaranty Title, inc. does hereby ~nlfy: ... .~ ~,,/~T,' that'lhis abstract covers certiJiclte of title fiG. ~ 6~2372 / amd of lilies of hennepin county, minne~ola; that according to said certificate, the property is registered in The tollowlng nam,eT: Charles B. t~oward (The record indicates al: tile time the Certificate the fee o~"ner was married to Dorothy Howard). thetthaawnar'lduplicateceftilicateoffitlais on file in the of tics of the ReB:l. strsr of Tic:].es. thai the land described in said certificate of title is'as follows: That parc 6f Lot 27, and that pitt of the adjoining Coq~ty Road, all in Lafayette ; Park, Lake Mlnnetonka, described as beginning at a point on the West line of .; -_ Government Lot ~, Section 13, Township 117, Range 24, dis:ant 1099.71 feet South from the Northwest corner of said Covernment Lot 4; thence SouSE said IJest line 245.67 feet; thence South 84 degrees 40 m/nu:es East (assure/nE sa/d line as bearing Nor:h and South), 138.94 feet; thence South 65 degrees 04 md~u£es East, 100 feet; thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes East, 51.9 feet; thence 85 degrees 16 minu:es 40 seconds East, 101.41 feet; thence North 1 degree 21 minutes East, 25 feet; thence North 88 degrees 39 minutes West, 101.72 feet to an intersection with a line dro~n parallel with and 275 feet East, measured al: right angles, from the West line of said Government Lot 4; thence North along said paxallel line 305.72 feet to an intersection with a line dra~n East at right angles to the West line of said ..Government Lq: 4, from the point of beginning; thence West along the last described line 275 feet to the point of beginning. The North line of said tract is marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16'849. '~ t~ · This ~3tra:t of Titl.- is a E=:ory of tl'.~ Record T~e of th-~ property de'<rDcd hor~h aM does not represent that tie title h good :.~d marketaSle. . 7ch May 19 82 dated this day of' containing 3 pages. b~~ OF MINNESOTA '. page .. at ]sOO o'clock im. and ..- Pmocedure for Conditional Use Permit (2) Cas.e Locat[on of: Signs; easements, underground utilities, etc. Indicate North .compass direction. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable SbctJons. of the Zoning Ordinance. Iil Request for a Conditional Use A. All infJrmation requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion'. of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1. Cogditional Use (sPecify): .4 Attached L..~ Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound B2~ commercial or Multifamily Condominiums. Ce Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall'be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for ~he completion of the proposed development. 2. Estimate of cost of the project: $ 440.00.00 Density (for residential developments only): 1. Number of structures: 'l.B'Uild~n~ 2. Dwelling Units Per Structure: a. 3. Lot area per dwelling unit: 4. Total lot area: .85 AC~¢ IV. Effects of the Proposed Use 4 Units Number of type: Efficiency --0- 1 Bedroom ~ ~--'- 2 Bedroom plus IBR-'ex~n. 2 Units3 Bedroom. plus 1BR ~xFan: 2 Units .215Aqres'.,.~=-lunit. = f,~ ~'-.~.~ , ~ A.. List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in- .cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. TraJlfic ingres's'and~egress onto Commerce will be minimal. '~--'' m Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~Y~) No (' ) If "no", specify each nOn-conforming.use: Do the existing structures comp]y with a]l area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in ~hich i't is.located? Yes ( ) No ' ( ) If '~no", specify each non-conforming use: No ~t~uctures oh property Which unique physical Characteristics ~f the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district? (..~) ·Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil (x) Too small ( ) Drainage (' ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ). Shape -. ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having . prope[ty interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( X)- No ( ). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? H. What is the "minimum" modification '(variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using. maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) .... I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? COEfO~m~EC~. R~qu~t for Zonin~ Variance A seperate requ~t for a Condi~cional Use P~rmit is b~ng pr~ent~d for ~ same property. It x~ also here_by requited that p~mission bE granted £o erect a temporary sales 'sign on the property of 32 sq. ft. total. Thi~ conforms to the size lim~a~o~ current~ under consid~a~cion §y the C,~y of Mound. t]ilhlE] EHAH'A CREEK MATERSHED DISTRICT '.0. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 )ARD OF MANAGERS: tvid H. ~h~ P~s. * Alhfl L. Lehmon · John E. Thomss · Birhrl R. Oudmundso~ · Michlel i. ~ll ~e~m&= A~[&ce~io~ ~o= 82-68 Date: May 20 , 1983 .Applicant: William Niccum 2895 West Edge Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 Location: City of Mound, Sec. 13BC, Harrison Bay, Lake Minnetonka ,Purpose: Approach channel .dredging and sheet pile shoreline improvements At'the regularly scheduled May 19, 1983 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed along with the following exhibits: Permit file 82-68. Swale detail and wall opening detail prepared by the applicant received May 6, 1983 and revised May 19, 1983 The Board approved a requested modification to the permit to allow a wall opening to drain an existing drainage swale located on the applicant's property. The proposed wall opening will have an invert elevation of 929.88+. This document is your'permit from the MCWD. It is %alid for one (1) year. If construction is not complete within one (1) year, an extension must be requested. Please contact the District at 473-4224 when the project is about to commence so an inspector may view the work in progress. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES · Engineers fpr t~e..Dis~rict Michael A. Panzer, P.2~. cc: Board G. Macomber City of Mound May 19 , 1983 Dat'e of Issue bt ENO. DSTATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 2~-7523 RESO,URCES 55106 FILE NO November 10, 1983 blr. William E. Niccum 2895 West Edge Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: PERMIT EXTENSION, 83-6030, RETAINING WALL Dear Mr. Niccum: As you requested in your letter dated November 3, 1983, we have extended the termination date of permit 83-6030 to November 30, 1984. All other terms and conditions of the permit shall remain in full force and effect. Sincerely, Kent Lok~esmoe, Regional Hydrologist Metro Region Division of Waters KL/JB:ch cc: Teri Alberico,.USCOE Hennepin County SWCD Minnehaha Creek WSD LMCD City of Mound Jim Konrad, C.O. St. Paul Waters Lake Minnetonka file EnClosure AN EOUAL OPPOPlTIINIT'V' I=MPI~VI::~ ~'~'~ 2 RESOLUTION NO. 84- PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE ND. 84-351 & 84-352 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT, TOWNHOUSE MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IN THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2) ZONE IN THE 1700 BLOCK OF COMMERCE BOULEVARD, PID # 13-117-24 22 0252 WHEREAS, Perma Built, Inc., owner of a B-2 lot has requested conditional use permit approval to construct a four unit townhouse structure, and WHEREAS, Section 23.630.3 of the Mound Zoning Code requires conditional use permits for the construction of multiple family dwellings in the General Business (B-2) zone, and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and approved it subject to stated conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Council does hereby approve the conditional use permit for the construction of four townhouse units in the 1700 block of Commerce Boulevard subject to the following conditions: (PID #13-117-24 22 025 1. Sideyard variances of 4 and 8.5 feet from the B-2 residential setback standards of Section 23.630.5(3) are appropriate and necessary to permit maximum utilization of the property since they exceed the 20 foot minimum setback standards established in Section 23.620.7(d). 2. A .......... lat consistent with all applicable ordinances and requirements shall be filed with and approved by the City of Mound prior to the transfer of ownership of individual units. A variance is hereby approved for a temporary for sale sign to be placed in the center of the western property line and that such sign shall be removed immediately upon the sale of the units or when the sign is in a state of disrepair. 4. All grading and construction activities shall occur above the ~ high water elevation. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TOWNHOUSES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 25, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. at th6'Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the City Council will hold a hearing on the application for a Conditional Use Permit for Townhouses at 1700 Block on Commerce Boulevard, parcel legally described as: "That part of Lot 27 described as beginning at a point on West line of Northwest 1/4 of Section 13 distant 1224.71 feet South from Northwest corner thereof than South 120.67 feet than. South 84 degrees 40 minutes East distant 138.94 feet than South 65 degrees 04 minutes East distant 100 feet than South 62 degrees 26 minutes East distant 51.9 feet than South 85 degrees 16 minutes 40 seconds East distant 101.41 feet than North O1 degrees 21 minutes East distant 25 feet than North 88 degrees 39 minutes West distant 101.72 feet than North 180.72 feet than West distant 275 feet to beginning except road, all in Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka" PID #13-117-24 22 0252 All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor- tunlty to be heard. 'Francene C. Clark, City Clerk' 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Cbn~nission an~ Staff FROM: Mark Foegler, City Planner DATE: August 8, 1984 SUBJECt: fbnditional Use Permit an~ Variance - RDrt Harrison Townhouse Proposal APPLICANT: Perma Built, Inc. -James H. NDrdby, AGent LOC3tTION: 1700 Block of Cbn~erce ~oulevard (see attached map) EXISTING ZONING: B-2 CCMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Oon~nercial PROPOSAL: Perma Built is proposing to construct ~)ur attached townhDuse units serve9 by one driveway access off ODn~nerce B~ulevard. As shDwn on the plans, two units will have two bedrooms and two will ~Dntain three bedrooms. The construction of tDwnhouse units in the B-2 district requires a corditional use permit. ~dditionally, the applicant has applied fDr a variance to erect a temp~ra~ 32 square fDot sale sign on the property. SITE CHARACTERI~ICS: Tne site consists of approximately 39,550 square feet, 36,560 square feet of which are outside of the waterline of Lake Minnetonka. The property slopes from an elevation of 934 in the rorthwest corner ~D an elevation of approximately 929 in the southeast corner. Vegetation consists of scattered shrubs and a small area of overstory trees along the eastern property line. Single family homes exist on both the north ard south sides of the property. The building has been p~sitioned with the front of the units facinG northwest in order to maximize rear views.~,..a, rd to access Lake Minnetonka. The proI~osal does not contain any provisions Ur private docks or improvements along the shoreline area. A single entry driveway will provide vehicular access to the units, and all parking will be accommDdated in the driveway areas in front of individual garage stalls. ; f'; ~ CITY OFI MINNETRISTA CITY OF MOl/ND 0 pot :['~0,' I - (~) ,, i Port o! Lot 25 _i~"' I E---I HO , ~ I I I I ~2 .N( Site Location'...-"" ~, ~.~. · / '.,~'~ ' :'.. · /:. Z:. (.~'-.:....' :~,. ~. . -. ~1:~: Z". ' ~/', ,~' NORT~T%~ Planning O~ission ard Staff Page August 8, 1984 COMMENTS: The subject proposal meets the definitional requirements fDr the multiple family dwelli~ ard, therefore, is permitted as a c~nditional use in the B-2 zone. Section 23.620.5 of the Mour~ Zoning CDde contains perfDrmance standards fDr townbouses. These star~ards are sunm~rized as fDllows: Proposal Ordinance Requirement Height 36 feet 35 feet (V) Se tbac ks: front 118.5 feet B-2 30 feet side 21.5 ar~ 26 feet B-2 30 feet rear 25 feet (deck) B-2 30 feet 33 feet (structure) (v) Park lng: 2 garage and driveway 2 per unit The progDsed plan conforms tD all the performance standards with the exception of building height. The highest uDint of the building is scaled off at 36 feet which is 1 foot above the maximum height requirement. If this scale dimension is accurate, the proposal will require a 1-foot height variance. The townhouse performance standards require a 20-foot sideyard setback, however, B-2 zoning requires a 30-foot sideyard setback. As a result, approval of the propDsed plan will require variances of 8.5 and 4 feet fDr the sideyard areas. The review of this proposal should consider the following items: O~r~itional Use .Permit Construction of ~DwnPouses in the B-2 zone requires the approval and issuance of a conditional use permit which allows the Planning Commission ~D attach any reasonable cor~ition that it deems appropriate. In the case of this proposal, such conditions may include language related ~D dockage on Lake Minne~Dnka ard inclusion of the final site plan as approve~ by the City. Drainage ard Utilities The propose~ develot~nent is easily serviced with municipal water and sanitary sewer from facilities existing in County Road 110. The proposed drainage system includes a small pond ing area in the s~uthwest corner of the property which will receive stormwater runoff from the driveway area. As proposed on the plans, this pond will outle~.-.0into a swale along the sDuthern property line which will channel the water to .Lake Minnetonka. A detailed review of the utility ard drain-age plan should be cor~ucte~ by the City Engineer's office. Planning (bamission an~ Staff Page Three August 8, 1984 Lard scaping The site plan cr)ntains prouDse~ landscaping improvements which call fDr the installation of plant materials surrourding the building an~ at key locations throughput the yard area. Although the variety of species skown is very limited, the sizes of the material portrayed on the planting schedule should immediately enhance the attractiveness of the building. PlattiD.g If the proposed townhouse units are intenffed tD be individually s~ld, a oondominiun plat will be necessary. Such a plat ~uld have to meet all the requirements of Chapter 22 of the City Gode. 3dditionally, all applicable articles of in. oorporation, association bylaws or other covenants will have to be approved by the City fbuncil. Signage The applicant has requesto~ a variance to construct a temporary 32 square frx)t sale sign on the property. The proposed sign is consistent with mDst of the provisions of the sign ordinance draft. Variances As indicated earlier in 'this report, sideyard variances an~ a height variance will be 'required fDr approval of this request. The B-2 zoning requirements mandate a 30-foot sideyard area, and the townhouse performance standards require 20 feet for sideyards. Since the underlying district is the B-2 zone, the 30-foot setback is the requirement in this case. Fowever, since the 20-foot standard could be considered as an absolute minimum, it may be appropriate to Grant sideyard variances for the proposed townhouse units. Staff does not consider the Granting of the sideyard variance in this case to be arbitrary since it can be relateJ to the perfDrmance standards. Ideally, the 30-foot requirement is designed to protect the proposed site from UDssible future commercial uses since the land immediately north arrl south of the subject Uroperty is z~ned conmercial. ~igh Water Elevation The ordinary high water mark fDr Lake Minnetonka has been established at an elevation of 929.5. City ordinances require that minimum floor elevations be at least 4 feet above the ordinary high water mark which establishes grade at a minimum elevation of 933.5. The proposed townhouse plans depict a garage elevation of 933.35 which is .15 feet below the City's minimum requirements. ShDuld a conditional use permit be approved fi~r the subject proposal, the Grading plan s~ould be mDd ifie~ to set the minimun Garage floor elevation at or above 933.5. Planning Cb~ission and Staff Page Four August 8, 1984 ~ ~'~/ -30-/ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit, a height variance, sideya~d setback variances and a signage variance for the RDrt Harrison townh~use development subject to the fDllowing (D~itions: The grading plan be n~dified to establish the garage elevation at or above the City's minimum requirement of 933.5 feet. e The proposed sideyard and height variances are appropriate a~d necessary to permit maximum utilization of the property. A variance for the erection of a temporary sale sign sho~,ld be approved since the size of the sign is consistent with the sign ordinance draft. Such a sign should be placed in the center of the western property line to minimize impact on adjacent residential properties ar~ should be removed immediately upon the sale of the units. A condominium plat consistent with all applicable ordinances and requirements must be filed prior to the transfer of ownership of ind iv]dual units. e That the conditional use permit include the final site plan by reference and that no dockage be permitted on Lake Minnetonka without future modification of said permit. The final grading, drainage and utility plans should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A site plan containing all grading and drainage information should be submitted tD and approved by the Watershed District. Grading and construction activities shall occur above the 929.5 high water elevation. COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE[RS I LAND SURVEYORS ! PLANNERS August 10, 1984 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Ms. 3an Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Haywood Road Mound, MN 55361 SUBOECT: Plan Review - Port Harrison Townhouse Rroposal Case #84-351 & 352 # 7305 Dear gan: .. As requested we have reviewed the plans submitted on the above project for a conditional use permit and zoning variance. Plans were previously submitted in 1981 for this same site and after reviewing that file and the new plans we offer the following comments and recommendations. Grading and Drainage The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District issued a permit for this parcel in 1981 subject to certain conditions. The applicant will need to resubmit these plans for their approval and probably will be required to meet the same conditions set forth at that time. The grading plan needs to show temporary methods of controlling erosion during construction and maintain it until permanent turf has been established. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain In the time since plans were first submitted in 1981 for this parcel plans were also received and approved by the City for developing the parcel directly east. These plans for the easterly parcel, identified as Hinnetonka . Condominiums, called for extending the 8" sanitary sewer and 6" watermain from the existing stubs at the County Road 110 R/W, north and then easterly along the northerly property line of the Port Harrison project now requesting approval, i Since the only way the east parcel can be served with gravity sewer and a looped watermain is from the utilities in County Road 110, we would recommend that provisions for this future connection be considered in approving the Port Harrison project. One way this could be accomplished is by extending the proposed sewer and water shown on the Port Harrison project to an easement on the north property line. Then at a later date both utilities could be extended to serve the easterly parcel. If theses utilities are extended to serve the parcel to the east, they should be public and therefore would need to be located within an easement across the Port Harrison project. We would recommend that the proposed water service shown as 2" be increased to 6" and at least one fire hydrant with gate valve be located near the proposed townhouse unit. These plans should also be reviewed by the fire department. Hs. 3an Bertrand August lC, 1984 Page Two Site Improvements When County Road llO was improved in 1981 a driveway apron was installed for this parcel. It appears the proposed plan is utilizing this existing apron. A survey signed by a registered land surveyor will be required. At the time final plans are submitted, details will need to be included for miscellaneous items such as curb, storm sewer structures and the outlet from the ponding area. If you have any questions or require additional information, we would be pleased to discuss the project with you. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Ooh~~n Cameron~~ 3C:cah Planning Commission Hinutes August 13, 198h - Page 5 7. ~ase NumbeYs 84-351 ~ 8h-352, Conditional Use Permit and Variances for Town- house Proposalat 1700 Block of Commerce Boulevard; Part of Lot 27, Lafayette Park - PID #13~lly-2h 220252 The following persons were present regardlng..thls proposal: Jlm Ro~in, Attorney for Perma Built,'~.lnc.; Gary Quam, President of Parma Built, .lac-,' Seneca Seaman, Architect, and Jla Norby,.Real Estate Agent. The .City Planner.reviewed the-proposal.stantJng wlth. the proposed construction of ~.townhouse units.in the'liB-2 zoning district which .requires.a conditional use perm)'t. Applicant. has also. requested a variance to.erect a. teraporary 32 square foot "for 'sale" sign.on the property. The proposal may.require a ~ar.i- of 1 :foot of height of s.tructuKes and in the B-2 zoni.ng, sideyard variances would be.required .(30. foot sideyard, seZback 'required).of 8.5'fee.t on one side and ~.feet on the other,. He reviewe8 his recommendations for. the conditional use permi't, whlch.'inc)uOed the vari'ance~ and signage ' The City Engineeres'. r~con~nendations rela~j'~e'to.gradlng, drainage, sanitary sewe~ and-watermain were ~utli:ned i'n his letter dated .August 10,. l~8~'.~hen, final plans are sub-' m~tted, they. should tn~lude.de~ai~l.s fqr'such items, as curb, storm'sewer struc- tures and outlet from.t, he ponding area. : 'The Chairman asked for. a. moti'on before' preceding, with discussion, and comments from 'tEe audi'ence, · Byrnes n~yed.~ mQ[ton to approve, the/conditional use p~rm~t and variances for the Port Harri'son..townhouses pe¢ the. Staff'.recommendations.. oo Jim ~obln Stated that they've..'disc~ss~d the situation-of: changing the gJrage elevation' wi'th the .archi'tact,. Pr~sen~ plans call for a"933.33 foot elevation which'is only a fe~i'nches 8J'fference..'~here wi]l be no di~iculty'.in chang- ing the e'levation to..conform.wIth ~he 'f)'rst"condition, -They had an opportuni- ty to Peview the Planner's letter, thanks'.to the Building Official,'and basi- cally they have no objections to any of the proposed conditions whatsoever. Subject of dockage, was brought up. Reese.commented he can't believe that ~he¥'re 9oi'ng to sell ~ high priced townhouses without any dockage. Robin stated thi"s particular parcel is not suitable for any kind of dock construc-' tion; There has been a.lagoon dredged and sea wail constructed with the. DNR, · LMCD and Ci~y..authorization and'any dockage-that wl)l take place for residents would be'~w.~th)n that lagoon and would be more or )ess secured to the interior edge'of the lagoon. Depth of water is 3½ feet at sea wall, Mooring boats . against sea wall was discussed. CitylManager stated they'd have )08 feet~inland d~th to moor boats agai'nst the sea wall. Chairman asked if there were any comments from the audience. Dave Logelin, property owner at )800 Commerce Boulevard, had questions about the trees along §outh'line of this property and his home and also asked about elevations.for drainage. The City Manager asked Jim Robin to meet with the people before the City Council meeting so they can see a plan with everything on it. There were no other comments.from persons in the audience. iCity Engineer arrived at 8:50 p.m. The motion was seconded by Michael. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The date for. the Public Hearing will be set by the City Coun'cil on August 28, 1984. I - I '~ I~ gigs. NO. DSTATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 2~5-7523 RESOURCES 55106 FILE NO. November 10, 1983 Mr. William E. Niccum 2895 West Edge Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: PERMIT EXTENSION, 83-6030, RETAINING WALL Dear Mr. Niccum: As you requested in your letter dated November 3, 1983, we have extended the termination date of permit 83-6030 to November 30, 1984. All other terms and conditions of the permit shall remain in full force and effect. Sincerely, Kent Lok~esmoe, Regional Hydrologist Metro Region Division of Waters KL/JB:ch cc: Teri Alberico,.USCOE Hennepin County SWCD Minnehaha Creek WSD LMCD City of Mound Jim Konrad, C.O. St. Paul Waters Lake Minnetonka file EnClosure RESOLUTION NO. 84- PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-351 & 84-352 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT, TOWNHOUSE MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IN THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2) ZONE IN THE 1700 BLOCK OF COMMERCE BOULEVARD, PID # 13-117-24 22 0252 WHEREAS, Perma Built, Inc., owner of a B-2 lot has requested conditional use permit approval to construct a four unit townhouse structure, and WHEREAS, Section 23.630.3 of the Mound Zoning Code requires conditional use permits for the construction of multiple family dwellings in the General Business (B-2) zone, and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and approved it subject to stated conditions.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Council does hereby approve the conditional use permit for the construction of four townhouse units in the 17OO block of Commerce Boulevard subject to the following conditions: (PID #13-I17-24 22 025 1. Sideyard variances of 4 and 8.5 feet from the B-2 residential setback standards of Section 23.630.5(3) are appropriate and necessary to permit maximum utilization of th~ property since they exceed the 20 foot minimum setback standards established in ~_gtio~.23.620.7(d). 2. A~ondomi-ni'ttm)plat consistent with all applicable ordinances and requirements shall be filed with and approved by the City of Mound prior to the transfer of ownership of individual units. A variance is hereby approved for a temporary for sale sign to be placed in the center of the western property line and that such sign shall be removed immediately upon the sale of the units or when the sign is in a state of disrepair. All grading and construction activities shall occur above the .(~/~ 929.5 high water elevation. ~ CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED WETLANDS PERMIT FOR SITE LEGALLY DES- CRIBED AS LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22, Block 14, WYCHWOOD - PID # 19-117-23 32 0001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 25, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held by the City Council on the application for a Wetlands Permit for the site legally described as follows: Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Block 14,'Wychwood; PID 19-117-23 32 0001 (Property west of 4760 Bedford Road) All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Cle~-k CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of Aug. 13, 1984: Board of Appeals Case No. 84-350 Location: 4760 Bedford Road Legal Disc. Lots 11 thru 22, Block 14, Wychwood Request: wetland permit and Zoning Ordinance Board of Appeals approval for exterior storage screening Zoning District: R-1 Applicant: Michael J. Banicki 4760 Bedford Road Mound, MN, 55364 Phone: 472-4327 The applicant has filled into the disignated wetland which he owns to the west of his home at 4760 Bedford Road. He is requesting that he be allowed to leave the fill as he has placed it and to do additional grading of his property. He is also requesting that the exterof storage on his vacant property be allowed to remain as well as the storage in the public unimproved right-of-way designated as Bedford Road as platted. The Zoning Ordinance Section 23.702 states "In residential districts, all materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as hoc to be visible from'adjoining properties,u Section 23.704 states "paragraph 4-screening required in this section may consist of a fence, trees, shrubs and berms not less than five (5) feet high but shall not extend within (15) feet of any street or driveway." The Zoning Ordinance Section 23.1130 sets standards for filling in the Wetland under "A" Comments: The City Engineer has been asked to submit a report regarding the filling and dredging of the wetland from the applicants information submitted. I discussed with the applicant two years ago some of his plans to do grading and mentioned at that time not to grade where the vegetation changed from aquatic to predominately terrestrial and that an ordinance was being established to protect the wetland.(summer of 82) The on site storage of materials as listed in my letter-to Mr. Banecki dated July 5, 1984 is attached. The site is visible to the neighbors to the south of his property and most of the storage has been orderly piled in the unimproved public right-of- way platted as Bedford. The shed/tool building has been removed as July 24, 1984. Recommend: Staff recommends the removal of the fill placed in the wetland without permit approval or the City will remove the fill and assess the cost to the property owner. The on site exterior storage should be removed from public property and placed in an enclosed structure or an area fenced with a 5 foot high enclosure to remove the exterior storage from adjoining properties.view. This will be referred to the City Council on Aug. 28, 1984. Public hearing notification has been sent to abutting owners within '~"~'350 feet. ..~ P]ann~ng Commission M~nutes August 13, ]984 Case No. 84-350 Wetlands Permit and Request for Approval for Exterior Storage on property adjacent to 4760 Bedford Road; Lots 11 thru 22, Block 14, Wych~ood Michael J. Banicki was present. The Building Official explained that Mr. Banicki was before the Planning Commis- sion for a couple of items. Her recommendation has to do with the request for the exterior storage. This evening's handout from McCombs Knutson had to do with · the filling of the designated wetlands and map. The Building Official talked to Mr. Banicki.back in 1982 and this was j6st before the Wet]ands Ordinance was adopted and he was talking of dolng.so~ae grading at the time. The appl'icant has filled into the designated wetlands west of his home and he is requesting he be'allowed to leave the fil~ and to do additional grading of his property; also he wants the exterior storage on his vacant property to be ' allowed to remain as, well as the storage on the unimproved right-of-way. She Planning Comm[S~iqn Minutes August '13, 1.984 - Page 4 reviewed his survey and thewetlands map, area filled the filling and grading he'd like to do, retaining wall, etc. The Engineer has recommended that the fill be Roved.or another area dredged to keep the capacity of the wetlands the same and also the City'is asking that he tell us where the excavated material would be going and erosion cgntrol is needed to prevent materia! from washing into the ponds until turf has been established on disturbed areas. These items would be listed on any wetlands permit. -' MiChael questioned why Cameron's preference for removing th~ fill. The Building O~f.i~ial commented it was put there without obtaining a permit. The applicant s{ated that he never would have bought the land if he'd known all this; land was nothing but a dump; he'S been hauling snowmobile frames, bedsprings, mattresses and debris out of the swamp. Meyer stated it looks like he's tr~/ing to make it look nice and asked If Commlsslon could give him some guidance so its legal. The Chairman asked if anyone present had any comments. Lynn Ru~ca of 4750 Bed- ford stated Banicki was doing everything right; not trying to destroy the wetlands; was cleaning them up. Mr. Banicki stated he wants to make it suitable so he can mow it; the stagnant:water stinks in'the summer time and, in future years, he may apply, fora dredging permit and put an aerator in with some fish. Discussed that 931 is the line of.vegetation and that.it was hard to determine amount of fill ~. added; most of it's north of the retaining wall Byrnes moved a motion to'disallOw the fill and asked the remOval of fill in accordance with the Engineer's recommendation. Michael stated here we have someone trying to do. something with property that ob- viously had a problem and thinks we should work with him on it. The Building Official stated he'd ~ave to have a plan; it is very difficult to dredge an equal a~ount, particularly if inexperienced. It was questioned if this would come under any other permit and if it is-wide spread.' Banicki said.he thought his area was not big'enough to be concerned with when he started filling..Also noted that the City dumped street fillings at Richmond and BradfOrd and were they going to remove that? No fill has been dumped there since the Wetlands Ordinance was adopted. Reese thought that the'Commission should grandfather this in providing there is no fu'rther filling, soil erosion is controlled per the Engineer's recommendation, etc. The Building Official stated we shoUld know where the excess cubic'yards of fill that is to be removed is going. There was no second for Byrnes motion, so he withdrew the motion. Reese moved and Michael seconded a motion to recognize what's there, but not make him remove it providing there is no more extension of it, erosion is controlled per Engineer's recommendation and Banicki's letter is incorporated into permit. The vote on the motion was: B~[nes opposed; all others in favor. Motion carried. The Building Official also exPlained Mr. Banicki is asking for an interpretation; he feels his site is isolated enough regarding the exterior storage that the natural screening should be enough; not put the storage in a fence or inside a building; he wants to leave it as it is. Reese stated he doesn't feel it is the Planning Commission's position to make an exception. Storage should be screened per the existing ordinance. The City Council will set the Public Hearing on this Wetlands Permit on August 28, 1984. 0 U ND CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Case No.. Fee Pald¢/~O,~ Date Filed Street Address of Property -~ ~_-~¢_,-,-[,.~.~144-¢.F- Legal Descr~t~on of Property: Lot ~;~¢n Ig. '~,~:%~i¢ il~.. Block Addit,on ~nmL~,v~./ ~L~¢~ IV, ~¢.~,,2, r~.~. PlO No. !~--//~--~8'~ Owner's Name ~l.C ).'. ' ~Fx~ ~. ~c~i('.~ Day Phone No. Address ~0 ~~or~ ~. ~u,~ ~ ~..~.~ 4. Applicant !if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address Type of Request: ( ) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (~) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other resent Zoning District /\_<=~_~ ;(ff/en-j4~t~_/_. Existing Use(s) of Property /~I O lk~." '- Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? /¥0 If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. 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 p~sting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by )~/w~ // " // Planning Commission Recommendation: Date cil Action: Resolution No. Date i CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD I,&OUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 July 5, 1984 Mr. Michael Banecki 4760 Bedford Road Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Mr. Banecki, A stop work tag was posted on your shed/tool accessory building by the Building Inspection Department on July 3, 1984. The structure does not meet the State Building Code requirements such as, but not limited to, wiring, overspanned floor joists, rafters, untreated or preservative type lumber for the deck, frost footing/anchoring supports, wood stove, etc. I must require that the building be removed within 30 days as well as the property has debris in the yard such as, but not limited .to, drain tile pipe, plumbing vents, bath tub, corragated metal, PVC 8in. duct pipe, plywood, lumber, planks, etc. in violation of City Code 60.02. I am enclosing copies of the Zoning Ordinance Section 23.702 and 23.704 for your convenience. It requires in residential districts that all materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties. If you chose t~o go with a privacy fence, a permit will be required. You must apply for a wetland permit under the provisions of City Code Section 23.1100. You have filled into the designated wetland adjoining the shed/tool accessory building and constructed a retaining wall in violation of the wetland provisions unless variance approval is obtained from the Planning Commission and City Council. I have enclosed an application for a variance to the wetland provisions. The application must be received by July 25, 1984 with all of the necessary information. If you have any questions..? need assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, Jan Bertrand Building Official encl. 4/84 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS [] PLANNERS August 10, 1984 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 {612) 559-3700 Ms. 3an Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 553(>4 SUBOECT: Wetlands Permit Application Case #84-350 Lots 11-22, Block 14, Wychwood Michael Bansiki Property #7297 Dear 3an: We have reviewed the revised plan for subject property received 8-8-84 and have the following co~ents and recommendations. Using the proposed elevations shown on the plan our computations indicate an excess of approximately 280 C.Y. of excavation. The applicant needs to show where this material is to be disposed of. Additional erosion control, such as staked straw bales, is needed at the toe of the slope created by the excavation on Lots 14, 15 and 16 to prevent material from washing into the ponds. This erosion control needs to be maintained until turf has been'established on the disturbed areas. From an early visit to the site and the information contained on the plan, it is very apparent.that filling of the wet lands has already occured, particularly in the area of the log retaining wall on Lots 17 and 18. The ordinary high water elevation for this wet lands is 931.00. It is possible that some filling was also done below the 931.00 contour on the northerly portion of Lots 19 and 20. It is very difficult to determine the exact limits of the wet lands prior to the work. It would be our recommendation that the applicant be required to either:. l) remove the fill from the area that has obviously been filled or 2) provide an area of equal volume in a different location - adjacent to the existing ponds. We would prefer he remove the fill. We would be pleased to discuss this application further with you if you have any questions. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3C:cah 47 '16 !g 17 96/ , . ~8 Z9 5('~ CUMBERLAND ...... , i' .:, ,., [:ql'. '-. I i,,, h ~¥~,~J ~/~ ,¢> ,fl~ ¢('" *~ .t~",~¢~".,~ ..... ¢.' ' E ~ ~2 43,,].~,~,A4'-q. 5')46 47 48..49 '5C ',,:,~ ' L .' ":15.~ .'/ .' ,,' ~- ' "~ ~".~. '// '::;- , ,. ,,,, ,.,, .,,....,~.:,. -. .. . , . t"x~<.. '. I. ~i%v :' ^~ . ? ~' '..¢,' /'"' "-,,,' ','.t'r.., I~--"~':"-~' .", . - _: / ~"'- ' ' l /~., .'/ 26?_5 -?.4 23 22 21' .2(~9 k.,/ lB 't." 16 15 14 ~5-12 II . :, .~.,; .. .,,/~. . .... , ;~. · .. .~-', -,-,. .~, ;~l~ ~ · . ,~, ,,, ~ -,~,:L~,~.,,, .,. -..,., .- . YJL' ~ ./' ., ,. ._ , ,/,"~ ~ , o __ ,, ,, _ _ · · ' "' ' "" 'Fl': _ · ' . · .,. 2 HAMPTON ...... ROAD I' ~ . ,,,., ~ ~ ~.,.,, [.4( PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-350 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE WETLANDS PERMIT FOR MICHAEL J. BANICKI - PID #19-117-23 32 O001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr, Michael J. Banicki of 4760 Bedford Road, has applied for a Wetlands Permit for the property described as: Lots 11 through 22, Block 14, Wychwood, PID # 19-117-23 32 OOO1, is requesting approval to place fill below the 931. elevation of the OHW mark as shown on the designated wetland map, and WHEREAS, Section 23.1115 of the Mound Zoning Ordinance requires Wetlands Permits to place fill below elevation of 931. for Block 14, Wychwood, Wetlands, and WHEREAS, the Mound Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of the planned filling of the area as shown on Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA does hereby approve the Wetlands Permit for Mr. Michael J. Banicki, PID #19-117-23 32 O001, LOts 11 thru 22, Block 14, Wychwood Addn. as shown on Exhibit "A" upon the following conditions: ]. That erosion control be maintained by staking of straw bales during the grading of lots. 2. The applicant indicates where the excess fill from grading will be transported to. 3. That there be no more extension of any filling in the area other than what has been approved by this permit. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR MICHAEL d. BANICKI ' OF LOTS 11-22, BLOCK 14, WYCHWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot~ 11,12,13,2J4,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, ~d 2E, Block 1~, WYCt~OOD, Hen~ept~ County, Minnesota. O0~ON R. CO~I~ C0., I~C. o c ~en m~ker ~ L~i~ ~elOtl CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of September 10, 1984: CASE NO. 84-357 Board of Appeals Applicant Case No. 84-357 Robert B. and Margaret Hanson Location: 5425 Bartlett Boulevard 5425 Bartlett Boulevard Legal Desc.: Lot 27, The Bartlett Place, Mound, Minnesota 55364 Upper Lake Minnetonka Phone: 696-0671 or 871-3300 Request: Recognize the existing non-conforming lot width and setbacks to sideyard Zoning Dist.: R-1 The applicant is requesting to build a 24 by 23 foot attached garage with the required setbacks to the side lot lines of ten feet and 6 feet for lots of record. The Zoning Code requires a 60 foot lot width for the R-1 Zoning District at the building setback line. The lot h~s a width of 40 feet. The existing structure has a setback of 2.7 feet to the lot line. on the east side and 4.6 feet to the 1.or line on the west side. The applicant received approval to put an addition on the South side of the house in 1972 which is attached. RecOmmendation: TMe Staff would consider approving the requested 2~ by 23 foot attached garage and recognizing the existing non-~onforming structure setbacks and lot Width. · The abutting property owners have been notified. Council Agenda for September 25, 1984. This item will be on the City 2. Case No'. 84-357 Recognizing the'existing non-conforming lot width and setbacks to sideyard for 5425 Bartlett Boulevard Lot 27, The. Bartlett. Boulevard~ Upper Lake.Minnetonka Robert and Margaret Hanson were present. The Building Official explained that the applicants would like to build a 24 by 23 foot attached garage to their home. The R-I Zoning District requires IO foot sideyards, bu~ for lots of record, one of the sideYards .can be reduced to 6 feet due to the lot'width. The R-1 Zon. ing District .requires a 60 foot lot width and they have a 42.73 foot lot width. The existing lot is over the 10,000 foot requirement for )or area. The existing structure has a 2.7 foot and 4.6 foot sideyard to th~'i']ot line"which are also nonconforming, in 1972, they were granted a variance to put an addition~onto the rear of their home which was to'the south of the house. The Staff recon~nends~approving the.24 by 23 foot attached garage recognizing the existing nonconforming structure setbacks'and lot width and that'the.new addition be conforming with IO foot and 6 foot side yard setbacks and 30 foot front yard setback. densen moved and Vargo seconded a motion to approve. The vote was unani- mously in favor. Motion carried. ~ ~ rl~v ~,,nri~) ~nr the September 25, 1984 agenda. · · .. .... , ......... : .,. - ....... 8 72 -. ' .· I J. : ::' : . "..'.'~:o · ..:'.':'- ' · .. · ' · , ..' ' ' '~" -'.': "' ' ' -- - ' ' -J: -" . . · - '.' ' - ' q' ,Ir ..... ., .' '(,,;. . .'.-.,.,' ;.: ..... . .. '. ..... .~ '.' .. · ' ........ ~.-.. ,.~' .-: :..,.... -'.:'~.:.,...~ ' · ...' .- . .. ...- .,.., . .~ . , . .,..,... ................ ~ ' ~ " ' . ,::".' ."~ ', '-" ',''I,' '" " ' · '.'L.'": ;' ".:.".,. ':: ' '."'J~' ~;~ ' ·' .'/ · .. .-; .,. : · ,~)- . .'::. . . j.. ,s'. :i: ' ' ...... '" ',*"-' · :',: ..... ' ' ' ' ' · .' ~ · ,.. ,~ ,.'. : 'r,~.'~,'! ~ '". ' :-~ . '. ~ . . '.. '. . .-.; :. · o- *.. · ~. :: .... ' /. -,'~. ~ ,~ '. '~i .:. ', ' ' .' : '. . .. .. . . - . - .-' RESOLUTION NO. 72- .'. ::.:~.'.~ .... :..... (....;... ~'~ ~: '!' :'.;' .-: ... . ..... :..-.. · ,."' :.-:-~' -:.! RESOLUTION ~RANTINO SIDE-YARD '-'"'. ' ../. . (Lot 27, ~he Bartlett Pl. aoe) "' · WT~m~A3.~ the owner of Lot 27, The Bartlett Place (Plat 61~10, Parcel ~O0) ~'::' ::.: .,.". . has requested per~:l, ssion to extend the present ..-... :, ' ~uilding to the south with an 18 x 22 addition, and -... .:'..'i -'.' %' i' . -... :.. [..'~ '.:.-~:-., .... -..:- . :'.:..'.>: .'-: Wl:r~'JtS, the present 'building is 2.9 foot from the east side of I.,ot~ 27, ~t~l. -,'"... · · [.- ~, - j,.., ' o. ~.~ · . . · ""-...~'.. -..~-.:.' · ~-~,8~ tbs ?lann:l.n~ ¢onmission Ires recommended that the req. ue~t 1~ . .-..~.. ,I' :"-'-~.h'~':.'~:.'...: .:'. conditions affeotin~ the p~operty are such that the strict .f. ': ~...... '.~..: . -: . ~.. ...... · .'... ': ..... · application of the side. yard provisions of the ordinance woul~ .'...' ~' -'. d. ve the applicant of reasonable rs. of the Z nd, · .. o.... · , '.;: NOW, Tw~mEWORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, ' · :"?;..~'.i.;~,,t-'!.'/-:.'~;'- - : .... '-;."... ' . ' :. .'~ ;. ~,"· :;'.T "'.'. ' · -'i' .'.. .Y" · ' :.:..' .... - ...-, .::.~ .' .~'.- That permission be. granted to extend the present non-oonforming :~:..--'~.'. .... '.--: .... :.:~ ~uilding to the south ~y an 18x22 addition .with a v~iazu3~ of ' .," :,.. .; .'¥.:, ~ :..:' · .,. ,?.. . ,::.~;~:~',~%::.-....',3~i ~.4 foot from the zequired lO-foot eid~ ya~, :. ... ,. . ...~-:. :.. · , -. _ :'- ?:':-,' :' - ,',".', · · · ."'..".! :: .': ..... ' - "· · ',-.'-'- .... ,' · .......f.~.:.~..:.,:.? -.. . ;~ ..' .j: .. f.[ .. . ~: ..... . ., -.: ....., ,.... . -~,,.-.~ · . . . , :.. '....:[ :,;..,..- . . ..'~ . . .f .... · . -. · ~. ",,,'..,' . .' [ o ..: ,,. . ...... ; . :. o .'.· .: . . . · ~,.;: :~. /~, .... .. . . ,~,. . · ..... . . j ;. , ",,'. . .; .'.-,. ,. :'..'..- ..~ .' ...-,. ...: .. , ...,;~; ' ." . ' . ':? ." ~ .o e '~",' . ":' '~'~ "' ·i" · 'f' ' . ~ '-' -'.:':.'. '..'." "'' ,- . ' '" ~.~:-.;..!-::;.:: 'i ldoptecl ~ of Fe'oruary · 1~72,.:..'-.'.:~:'.".' '"'-'..: · :.-,..; , , ¢ ..... ,~ . · . ....- . ~ · , . :. . . :. :.: ~ ~.. : . -. '.. - . · ¢~.,:. · . · '..-:..' ..." '. · . "'. ' ..'..;.,~..' i ..". .':"!., -~'' '· '.: ,, '.'- ' ' . ." '~.'T; ; "' .:..., '::'. .-,... · ..:,~:,.~.. - ,: .... ...'.-. %.:.: ~:,: ....- ..: :... . · .:'.; ....,.. . . .. . ..'... .;%;. . .' .~.....-.. ..~.. .... '..:... . . .~ %-. : :-:: .'.: ).. :. '.. ".'; '.. '~.'~f' ' '"'f; .;i:i. ...... -':;.:'.' ,¥.~:. :. . .. ;,,/.? · .....,j j..,'--:.. . .'."-' .. ,.:. - : . '.' ;. · ' . - ..' .,;.':,i . "..:..f ," CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Fee ?aid ~. ~ o Date Filed ~-~ _~.~ 1. Street Address of Property, ~.C~ ~_~ ~:~{-_~-~\~_~- ~\X,..~ 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot. C:~-~ . . Block The Bartlett P (~Plat ,61510 Addition ~t~?~'~ L ~'La/~'~'/~ , arc~, ~$OO)"' PID No.24-117-24 23 0027 3. Owner's Name ~o%~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~SO~ Day Phone Address ~~ ~~k~ ~ I ~ ~ 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name ~~ Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: (X) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wet]and Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( )'Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: Pr. esent Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zonlng,'variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~---~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. 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. Signature of Applicant ,' ate ~'~ ! Planning Commission Recommendation: Date 9-10-84 Council Action: Resolution No. Date Request' for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill. Request for a Zonln9 Variance AJ All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. Does the present use of the property conform to ~l.l use regulations for the zone district in which it is 1. ocated? Yes (~[) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in wh.ich it is located? Yes (X) No ( ) If I'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? I/~I Too narrow ()Topography ()Soil Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests p the land after.the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ()~) If yes, explain: I' G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No /f no, how many other properties are similarly affected? H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk re ations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) - I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrime~ta} to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? m ?7 ~os~uu!7~ 'i%u--ncO uld~uu~H uosu~l{ '~ l~qod =oj N b PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-357 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUEST TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SET- BACKS OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND THE LOT WIDTH FOR LOTS 27, THE BARTLETT PLACE UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA PID # 24-117-24-23 0027 WHEREAS, Robert B. and Margaret Hanson, the owners of property described as Lot 27, The Bartlett Place, Upper Lake Minnetonka, PID # 24-117-24 23 0027 "5425 Bartlett Boulevard" have applied for variance in setback to sideyard for an existing building and lot width to construct a 24 X 23 foot attached.garage with the required setbacks to the side lot lines of l0 feet and 6 feet for lots of record; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 60 foot lot width for an R-1 Zoning District and 10 foot and 6 foot sideyards for the existing building; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recom- mend approval to afford the owners reasonable use of their property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNE- SOTA does hereby approve the variance request to recognize the existing non- conforming sideyard of 2.7 feet and 4.6 feet for the existing structure and a lot width of 40 feet for Lot 27, The Bartlett Place, Upper Lake Minnetonka PID #24-117-24 23 0027 "5425 Bartlett Boulevard". 2 4 !98 (! OF MOUND CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid_. d-o. o ~ Date Filed· APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMHISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property.~.~ ~¢r~r~d~d¢¢ ~[~/~ Legal Description of Property: Lot N. 22.5 ft. of S. 24 ft of W. 1ogBlock of Lot 45 Addition Koehler's Addn. to Mound PID No. 1~-117-24 ~ 0046 Plat 61650 Parcel Owner!s Name [~!J~ ~~ Day Phone No. Address Applicant (if other than owner): Address r~:2-3 ~ Type of Request: Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) A~dment ('~f-) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: Zoning District f~- Existing Use(s)of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional ~se permit or other zoning procedure for this property? If so, list ~ate(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in a~¥ required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent t~ 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 require~y,,~._law~ ~ Si~nat'ure of AppJicant ~C~/~~ . _ Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Date :il Action: Resolution No. Date :: ./P 2 APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT Street-Number SIGN LOCATION ~,,~"~, LOT City ' Zip -- / BLOCK ADD IT I (~/N ~ ~ PLAT PARCEL PID # Il) -gl PLEASE DESCRIBE REQUEST AND REASON FOR REQUEST LENGTH OF TIME SIGN TO BE ERECTED: PERMANENT ~ " TEMPORARY (Temporary sign not to be for period in excess of two months) TYPE OF SIGN: WALL MOUNT PYLON FREE STANDING PORTABLE OTHER ~,~,~ Does it conform to al~ setback and other requirements relating to the Zoning Ordinance? Is sign for a community organization and does it meet all the standards(Ord. 440)? 'If additional information is attached, please 'submit 8½" X Il" maximum sized drawings.. Recommendation: Approved: .7' .'.' City Manager ILSAM ;~:s RD PARK:' H 'RD LYNWOOD BLVD PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-358 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO~Ili~l~l~ A SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR SCOTT MILES PID #13-117-24 33 0046 WHEREAS, Mound Sta-Safe Lock Company has requested a sign variance; and WHEREAS, said sign would be erected as a roof mounted 9.4 square foot sign with the remainder to be a wall mounted sign as a roof mounted sign and bordered by a wooden scroll; and WHEREAS, said sign would identify the location of Sta-Safe Lock Company at 2236 Commerce Boulevard described as the North 22.5 feet of the South 24 feet of West 100 feet of Lot 45, Koehler's Addition to Mound, PID #13-117-24 33 0046; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissi'on has reviewed the request and does not recommend approval unless the sign is modified to meet the sign code draft. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA would recommend that the sign be approved upon the condition that it meet the sign code draft as proposed by the City 'f' 1 n~j~-~i.~'1~1~Td~;~T~rb=--Lq~--r~.i~'~--~-~and install wall sign as described on Exhibit "A" for 2236 Commerce Boulevard PID # 13-117-24 33 0046. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 P~ REPO~3~ TO: Planning Om~nission ard Staff FROM: Mark Foegler, City Planner Ii~TE: September 5,' 1984 SUBJ: Sign Variance ~CANT: Scott Miles - Mour~ Sta-Safe Lock ODmpany If)CkTIC~: 2236 ODn~nerce Boulevard ZONING: B-1 PROPOSAL: The Mound Sta-Safe Lock ODmpany recently mDved from a stDrefront next tD the House of Moy Restaurant tD the basement of the bakery building. The applicant ha~ t%D wall signs at the old location. One wall sign consisted of an internally lit, plastic sign containing a blinking yellow sphere with a black key on it. ODnnected to the sphere was a white rectangular area with the %Drds "Sta-Safe" in red letters and "Lock Smith" in blue. The entire sign structure, which totals 9.4 square feet per side, projected out from the building. The secord wall sign containe~ the same information in letters which were xounted on the building and bordered by a ~oden scroll. The secord wall sign occupied approximately one-third of the total front wall area of the business. City records indicate that no permit was ever issued fDr either sign. Upon moving tD the new location, the applicant installed the plastic, lighted sign on top of the front portion of the bakery building. After being infDrmed by the building inspector that the installation of the existing sign was illegal without a permit, Sta-Safe filed a sign permit application. Accozding to the application, the applicant is seeking permission to legitimize the installation of the 9.4 square foot roof sign and tm aSd signage around the entrance door. The signage a~Dund the door consists of a bmtal of 16 square feet. Planning Con~aission ar~ Staff Page September 5, 1984 ~ ;'%' COMMENTS: Sta-Safe has approximately 600 square feet of front w~ll area. Accordin~ ~D the sign ordinance draft, establishments in the B-1 zone are permitted to have 15 percent of the wall area in signage uD %o a maximum of 175 square feet. The proposed wall signage of 16 square feet is well within the o~dinance limitations. B~of signs are prohibited in the B-1 district unless they are "an integral part of the architecture of the building." The proposed (existing) roof sign does not meet this definition. ~dditionally, the ordinance draft prohibits blinkir~ signs. ~ION: Staff recommends approval of the signage a~our~ the door area as proposed by the applicant ar~ denial of a permit for the existing rooftop sign. It is further recommended that the roof sign be removed immediately since it was installed illegally. If the applicant feels that the door sign is insufficient i~entification for his business, staff suggests that the applicant resubmit a permit request for signage that is consistent with the sign ordinance draft. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1984 Case No. 84-358 Sign Permit Variance for Mound Sta-Safe Lock Company, 2236 Commerce Boulevard N. 22.5 Ft. of S. 24 Ft. of W~ 100 Ft. of Lot 45, Koehler's Addn. to Mound Scott Miles was present. The Planner reviewed his report on this sign variance request. The Lock Company moved recently to the basement of the bakery building next to the Anderson building. Upon moving.to that location, they installed the sign they had at the previous building which was a free standing roof/wall sign and was the plastic sign 'internally lit and has a flashing sphere.at the top of it. Total area is about 9.4 .square feet. They did file a sign permit appli- cation after being informed by the Building Official that installation of sign without a permit was illegal. They are also proposing to add so~ signage .a.round the door (per sketch) which would consist of some identification let'- tering and are requesting to legitimize the installation of what was put in as a roof sign. The new location has about 600 square feet of wall area which wi'Il, under the new sign draft,.allow signage of a total of ~O square feet. The sign they are proposing is approximately 16 square feet - well within the ordinance. The problem on.this one-comes with the roof .si.gn which is pro- hibited in all areas of the City unless they are "an integral part of the architecture of the building"..Also the ordinance draft prohibits blinking signs. Reese.moved and Charon seconded a'motion.for approval .based on-the modifi- cation p.roposed by the Staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager asked the Chairman to make sure the applicant understands what the motion..means. After discussion,. Miles asked where he can.put the sign; cost was $~00. and he doesn't want to just throw it away. The Planner stated that there may.be a way to take sign and.retrofit ~t as a wa!~ sign;.than it would.be legal sign if the blinker was taken out of Sign. It can't be mounted as a roof sign; but it may be possible to use the sign. This will be referred to the City Council for the September 25, !~84 meeting. CASE NO. 84-359 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of September 10, 1984: Board of Appeals Applicant: Case No. 84-359 James C. Hill Location: 5045 Bartlett Boulevard 12700 Wayzata Boulevard Legal Desc.: SWly 10 feet of Lot 3, All of Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Lots 4, 5 & 29 & SWly 50 feet Phone: 546-7447 of Lot 30, Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit B Request: Fence height variance & setback variance Zoning Dist.: R-1 The applicant is requesting to place a 6 foot high fence in his front yard from the Avon frontage. The above gropnd swimming pool is indicated to be placed 23 feet at the closest point to the lot line and the surrounding deck of the above ground pool to be 12 feet at the closest point to the lot line. The swimming pool is 16 by 40 feet and the deck surrounding the pool is 4 feet width around the perimeter of the pool and then connecting to the house to the North. The Zoning Code Section 23.604.4 requires a minimum of a 5 foot fence to enclose a pool with the required front yard being 30 feet for the R-1 Zoning District to the front property line. The Zoning Code Section 23.1415 for fencing requires a maximum 48 inch height in the front yard location. The Zoning Code Section 23.408.3(c) requires that decks attached to the principal building above the elevation of the ground floor may be placed within 20 feet of the property line as required for accessory building setbacks.for through lots. Comments: This site has a double frontage lot from the Avon right-of-way and the Bartlett right-of-way; fronting on both streets. The angle of the lot to the right-of-way of Avon indicates a 121~,within 18 feet, a 30 foot setback to the deck surrounding the pool. The applicant is requesting that the fence be placed at the top of the hill which is a wooded area and would not obstruct visibility from the right-of-way. Recommendation: The Staff recommends that the variances be granted due to the shape of the lot, upon the condition that the homeowner submit a land survey of the site indicating the property lines. Attached also are coPies of the adjoining neighbors'signatures. The abutting neighbors have been notified of the meeting. This item will be on the City Council Agenda for September 25, 1984. ~an Bert rand · Building Official Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1984 .Case No. 84-359 Fence-height variance and setback variance'for.5045 Bartlett Boulevard - SWly 10 feet of.Lot 3, all'of Lots 4, 5, 29 and SWly 50 feet of Lot 30, Block 5', Shirley Hills Unit B Mrs. James. Hill was present. The Buildlng Official explained the.Hi, lis.would like to.place a s~imming pool and a privacy fence on their property. They do.front on two streets/have a through lot. They would like to,place the privacy fence on.the perimeter of the property on the'Avon .side. The fence location from the'property line has not really.been determined; they were going, to place it at the top'of the hill which I' would estimate is 6 feet from:the property line. It would still' be in the required front yard area which is set by the fence ordinance and requires a maximum-of 48 inch height. The'decking is attached to the house and then proceeds to the south around an abo~e.ground pool within 12 feet at the closest point of their lot. The Avon frontage comes in at an angle on their property and their required setback would be 20 feet to the decking. The pool then is 16 feet by..40 feet above ground and the Zoning District of R-1 requires a 30 foot setback to swimming poo'ls~in the front yard (30 feet from Avon)~ The Staff recommends variances be granted due to the shape of the lot. They have the signatures of'the neighbors approving the request. Byrnes questioned if any foliage on Avon would be disturbed in the erection of the fence. Mrs. Hill stated they do not intend to. Byrnes feels the foliage is a natural barrier. Byrnes moved and Charon seconded.a motion to approve the variances as recom- mended by the Staff. The Chairman asked if the motion .could i.nclude "that if the pool .comes out, the fence be removed or reduced to a conforming height of 48 inches". The maker and seconder of the motion.agreed to amending the motion. The vote on the motion.as amended was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. This item will be referred to the City Counci'l for the September 25, 1984 agenda. AU6 7 1984 ].il ': -"' OtZ MOUND CITY OF MOUND Case Fee Paid APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Date Filed Street Address of Property Legal Description of Property: Lot.~Wly 10 Ft. of Lot ], all of 4,5 and'29 and SWly 50 Ft. of Lot 30 Addition Shirley Hills Unit B 3. Owner's Name ~1~¢$ ~o 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Block /(// ?ID No. 24-117-24 12 00,24 Day phone 5~3Y~ Name Address Day Phone Ho. 5. Type of Request: (~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ) Amendment ) Sign Permit )*Other Present Zoning District j~ ~ Existing Use(s) of Property /~ '~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that ali 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./') signature of Applicant /.,-/~--'~/~// ~/'~. //~ Date-/~f:~/~-Z~/'//! . Planning Commission Recommenda/~ion: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date R~quest for Zoning Variance 'Procedure (2) D. Loc~tion of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. £. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. Does the present use of the property conform to 9~I use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ('~.) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area heigh~ and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ('~,) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable.use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil : ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ~4x) Too shallow. ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after.the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ~X~) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any ot~er man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No(~x) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No ,(.~') If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? ~ 1~% H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dime.nsions and wj-itten, explanation. /~ttach additional , sheets, if necessary.). I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrime~ta~ to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordir, a~ce? I A~ a~jo'~ning ~opert¥ o~e~, ~e h~¥e no objections to the Hills' proposed pool, fence, and deck as shown on the attached plan. Sincerely, 8/ 6/8 City of Mo~ud: As adjoining property owners, we have no objections to the Hills~ propsed pool, fence, and deck as shown on the attached plan. Sincerely, 7/6' .'.:::d, - ,! PROPOSED RESQLUTI:ON CASE NO. 84-359 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR SOUTHWESTERLY l0 FEET OF LOT 3, ALL OF LOTS 4, 5 AND 29, AND SOUTHWESTERLY 50 FEET OF LOT 30, BLOCK 5, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID #24-117-24 12 0024 (5045 Bartlett Boulevard) WHEREAS, James C. Hill, the owner of the property described as the SWly 10 feet of Lot 3, Lot 4, 5 and 29 and the SWly 50 feet of Lot 30, Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit B, has applied for a variance to construct a 6 foot high privacy fence within the required front yard and a poo! within 23 feet at the closest point to the lot line with the deck attached to the pool within 12 feet of the lot line; and WHEREAS, the City Code for the R-1 Zoning District requires 48 inch maxi- mum height fence in the front yard location, a setback of 20 feet to the decking, and a 30 foot setback to the above ground swimming pool; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval due to the shape of the' lot and to afford the owner reasonable use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA does hereby approve the requested 7 foot variance to the above ground swimming pool, the 8 foot variance to the decking, and a fence height variance as requested for the SWly 10 feet of Lot 3, Lots 4, 5 and 29, and SWly 50 feet of Lot 30, Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit B, PID # 24-117-24 12 0024 (5045 Bartlett Boulevard). CASE NO. 84-361 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of September lO, 1984: Board of Appeals Applicant: Case No. 84-361 Peter W. and Klm S. Johnson Location: 3140 Priest Lane 2305 Commerce Boulevard Legal Desc.: Lot 4, Block 2, Highland Mound, Minnesota 55364 Shores Addition Phone: 472-1060 Request: Front Yard and Lakeshore Set§mck~Variance Zoning Dist.: R-1 The applicant is requesting to place the home on the last platted lot for the sub- division of Highland Shores on Lot 4 within 20 feet of the Priest Lane property line to the West and within 26 feet of the shoreline to the East. The Zoning Code for the R-! District requires a 30 foot setback from the public right- of-way and 50 foot setback, to the principal structure from the lakeshore elevation of 929.5. Comments: This site has had fill Placed on there from soil reports taken on the site. It indicates approximately 5 feet of fill that would have to be removed from the construction zone of.the home and controlled compaction placed on the site oversized from the excavation. The platting of this parcel on the North of the lot has a depth of approximately 69 feet+ to the shore- line and on the Southwest lot line, the depth of the lot iI-s 140+ to the lakeshore. Recommendation: The Staff would recommend that the variance be granted as the lots were platted shallow and would make it difficult to comply with the required setbacks to shoreline and to the right-of-way. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on September 25, 1984 agenda. !t is also recommended that applicant get approval from the Watershed District. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1984 Case No. 84-361 Front yard and lakeshore setback variance for 3140 Priest Lane Lot 4, Block 2, Highland Shores Addition Peter and rim Johnson were present. The Building Official reviewed app)icant's request to put a home on the )est platted lot in Highland Shores addition on Priest Lane; the R-1 Zoning District requires a 30 foot front yard setback to'the public right-of-way and.a 50 foot setback fcom the principal bui-lding to the lakeshore elevation of ~29.5- in going back to the platting of the property; there was fill placed there many years ago before the lots were platted. The depth of the lot on the north end is 69+ feet which makes it somewhat difficult to comply with a 30 foot front yard a-nd a 50.foot lakeshore setback. The Staff recom~nends approval because of the she)low platting. The home proposed is in excess of the required mini- mum 840 square feet, but it 'i's compatilble with .the neighborhood. Soil boring taken show originally lot had about 5 fees of fill. Reese moved and Meyer seconded a motion approving the requested variances. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. This will be referred to the City Council on the September 25, 1984 agenda. case No. -~P'/ -.,~<~ / CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property ~l~O Pr;est L~-~_, i~/ouod Legal Description of Property: Lot ~t:~ Date Filed 4. Applicant (if other than owner) Name Address ~O~ C~..~,,o._~ ~)(vJ ,"l~c~.,,..~O_~ ~ [-~. 5. Type.of Request: (~} Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. , 6. *If other, spec)fy: ~.~-o_ ~-~. Pr. esent Zoning District Day Phone .o. ff') 2- I 6( 0 ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning,'variance, or conditional use permit or If so, list date(s) of other zoning procedure for this property? ~ list date(s) of application, action taken an provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. 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 i ns~cting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as-may be required b)~la~./~/~ /. J(~]~~~ Date ~/~/~ Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. £. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. II!. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~() ~lo ( ) If "no'l, specify each non-conforming use: Ce Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in whlch it is located? Yes If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable.use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil (~) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface (~) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: E. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in'the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (/~) If' yes,, e plain: /~/~) ~ n F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain: G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~') No (') If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? .-~ 0 H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that wi)l permit you to make reasonable use of your l~nd? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additlon~l sheets, if necessary.) ....v I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrime~ta~ same zone, or to the enforcement of' this ordinance?' for Peter Johnson of Lot 4, Block 2, Highland Shores, and adjoining vacated road ~Hennepin County, Minnesota 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 4, Block 2, Highland Shores, and those parts of / / / / . / vacated Priest Avenue and Loring Avenue shown on the plat of "The ~ighlands" adjoining the above-described Lot 4, which lie Southeasterly of the Southerly and Southwesterly continuation of a curve comprising that part of the EasteRly line of Priest Lane as shown on the plat of.Highland Shores, which adjoirls the Westerly line of Lot 4, Block 2, Highland Shores, and which lie Northeasterly of the extension of the Northeasterly line of Lot 5, Block 2, Highland Shores, the location of all e'xisting buildings, if aDy, thereon, arid the proposed locat- ion of a proposed building. I~ does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. Scale: Date : o : ~ : 1 inch = 50 feet September 20, ~984 Iron marker Spot elevation GORDON.R. COFFIN C0., INC. Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 Engineers and Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota " N G~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-361 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE SETBACK VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES ADDITION, PID # 23-117-24 34 0078 WHEREAS, Peter W. and Klm S. Johnson,.the owners of property described as Lot 4, Block 2, Highland Shores Addition PID # 23-117-24 34 0078, have applied for a variance and setback to the lakeshore and street front to con- struct a home on a vacant parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Code for the R-1 District requires a 30 foot setback from the public right-of-way and a 50 foot setback to the principal structure from the Ordinary High Water Lakeshore Elevation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recom- mend approval due to the shallowness of the lot and to afford the owner reason- able use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA DOES HEREBY APPROVE the'lO foot front yard variance and the 24 foot lakeshore setback for Lot 4, Block 2, Highland Shores Addition PID # 23-117-24 34 0078 (3140 Priest Lane). GRADING APPLICATION APPLICANT' S NAME: ~)~ ~- ADDRESS: c_~~~_~, PERMIT NUMBER: PHONE #: ~ CITY: ~/~ {~v)~ PHONE #: CITY= ~r~ ~ SITE ADDRESS: //J4/ ~------~-~'""'~' f-~ '~----'~'~c~ ~_~ ~/' ./~'~-~ ~' (See reverse side for instructions) DESCRIPTION OF WORK: ,,'~ OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS: NUMBER OF CUBIC'YARDS TO BE MOVED: BOND REQUIRED: $ I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the informa- tion is correct and agree to comply with the City of Mounds Codes and the State of Minnesota Laws., /~' ' PLAN CHECKING FEE $ gO,bO GRADING PERMIT FEE TOTAL FEE APPROVED BY PERMIT TO EXPIRE WITHIN 1 YEAR OR 180 DAYS:AFTER FILL PLACEMENT IS DISCONTINUED. Information to be included: 1. Type of fill to be placed. 2. Time schedule of completion of work.. 3. Purpose of work/fill. 4. Proposed surface ~es-coration 5. Describe erosion control measures. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Jan Bertrand, Building Official September 13, 1984 Anthony VanDerSteeg's Grading Permit Request I am forwarding to you Mr. VanDerSteeg's fill/grading permit application, Exhibit A survey and proposed fill elevations from Mark Gronberg, Engineers/ Surveyors, Minnehaha Creek Watershed correspondence, photographs and the appli- cable City Codes, U.B.C. Chapter 70 and Ordinance 467, which pertain to his application. I would recommend placing his request on the City Council Agenda for Septem- ber 18th or 25th, whichever fits their schedule better. I would like to comment on the past history and the survey submitted. The past couple of years I have visited the site and I have seen debris such as, but not limited to tires, brush, trees, shingles, corrugated metal, papers, barrels, planks, concrete, pop cans, sheetrock, roofing and styrofoam in the fill area. 'It has been operated as a "Clean Land Fill" The existing "after the fact" fill area involves approximately an area of 200 feet by 250 feet by 10 foot depth of fill plus an additional area to be filled with 25,000 cubic yards. ! have requested that Mn. VanDerSteeg state what purpose he intends for the site. He has told me that he has not charged a fee to put debris and dirt on the prop- erty. If the site is not intended to continue as a "Land Fill", than it is my opinion that he has rendered the land useless for development for many, many years continuing with the same type of material and construction debris. Some of the materials already placed will decompose over the years (50 to 1OO) and settling will take place without extensive soil corrections. He has not had a refuse pick-up service for his business operation, according to his comments to me. The City Council may want to arrange periodic inspections of the filling process depending on the schedule of completion. A bond may be requested in the event that the City would need to make corrective measures on behalf of the owner's inability to complete the work. JB/ms cc: John Cameron ways within the City made necessary by the special burden resul%~ng from hauling and transporting thereon by the applicant in removal of rock, sand, dirt, gravel, clayoz other like material, the amount of such cost to be determined by the City Manager or Council; and conditioned further to comply with all the requirements of this ordinance and the particular permit, and to save the City free and harmless from any and all suits or claims for damages resulting from the negligent excavation, removal or storage of rock, sand, dirt, gravel, clay or other like material within the City. Subd. 8. Any such other requirements as the City Manager or Council shall from time to time deem proper and necessary for the ~protection of the citizens and the general welfare. Subd. 9. Such permit shall not be granted for a period of longer than 12 months, but may be renewed by the Council or City Manager. Section 35: 225. ~ and ~~_~. AnI~ person, firm or corporation that shall refuse, neglect or fail to comply with any requirement made of him or it under the provisions of Section 35:220 as promptly as same can be reasonably done, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and the Council may revoke the permit issued, and in addition to other penalties prescribed herein; the failure to comply with such requirement, after notice, and the continuing excavation, removal or storage of rock, sand, gravel, dirt, clay, or other like material on the premises shall be prima facie evidence of a public nuisance and may be abated by court action. '~~ Reclamation Permit. Land reclamation under this o ' ' he reclaiming of land by depositing of material so as to elevate the grade. Land reclamation shall be permitted only after issuance of a special permit in all districts on any lot or parcel upon which two hundred (200) cubic yards or more of fill is to be deposited for land reclamation. Fill materials shall be approved by the City Manager or his designated agent as suitable to the final use of the property. Fill materials shall conform to the following minimum requirements. The material shall not include garbage or toxic materials and shall be stable, non-combustible, and not support decay. Section 35:235. ~ of p~. The permit shall include as a condition thereof a finished grade plan which will not adversely affect the adjacent land, and as a condition thereof shall regulate the type of fill permitted, plans for rodent control, fire control, and general maintenance of the site and adjacent area, and make provision for control of material dispersed from wind or hauling material to or from the site. The permit shall also make reference to the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls established in the Zoning Ordinance (23.711). , 233 Section 35:240. P_tDJliki~~. The dumping of materials for the purposes of land reclamation shall not be a violation of any other ordinance~ or code provisions of the City, including but not limited to dumping and sanitary landfill, provided that the person engaged in such land reclamation shall have first secured a special permi% in accordance with the provisions of Section 35:230. .Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council Published in the Official Newspaper d ~/o7 McCOMBS - KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 12800 industrial Pk. Blvd. PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 Phone 559-3700 TO ATTENTION WE ARE SENDING YOU ~Attached [] Under separate cover via ,the following items: [] Shop drawings I-I Prints E] Plans [] Samples E] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval [] For your use I-] As requested For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE RE AR S , [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Return , copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US ¢q40'T~ Co COPY TQ SIGNED: If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us et once. WlDMER BROS., INC. P. O. Box 218 SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384 Phone 471-8593 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. S~E~ 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. CITY. STATE AND ZiP CODE Plymouth, MN 55441 Attn: John Cameron We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: DATE OF PLANS Social Securib/No. PHONE J DATE 559-3700 6-26-84 .lOB NAME Mill Pond Drainage Ditch JOB LOCATION Mound, MN 55364 Name of Spore4 J Jos PHONE We propose to do.the necessary clearing, trench drainage ditch to.proposed grades. Finish grade & s. eed where disturbed. Excess material stays on site. Job to be done when weather permits Contract Price: .$3,390..00 ...... Alternate: Remove clump of dead elms at station 1+00. Trees $150.00 Stumps $150.00 Present Employer: Reference~ (Name TWO): Bank: We reserve the right to file a Mechanics Lien if bill is not paid within the length of time prescribed by law. .... We will not be responsible for any underground utilities that cannot be located by the Utility companies or the homeowner. Normal clean-up is included in this proposal. There is no sod figured in this proposal. We wilt not assume the responsibility for water pipes, trees, tree roots, sprinkler systems, etc. unless notified to exact location prior to excavating. Frost ripping extra charge. It is expressly stipulated and agreed that the undersigned shall not be held liable for damages to grass, trees, shrubs and any underground obstructions. including pipes, electrical wiring and etc. ]l~t~ ~ropoGe hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: dollars ($ ). Payment to be made as follows: 30 days after receipt of invoice. All material is guaranteed to be as. specified. All work to be completed in I workmanlike man,er according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica- tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to catty fire. tornado and other necessa~j insurance. Our workers ere fully covered b~ Workmen's Compensation Insurance. ,~'~'~[~ ~ ~l~r~pOl~[I, -- The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance: Signature v - . - ~ ~'"~.._ Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within . ~/ days. Signature Signature FO~*M 11B-3 CO~Y~RIGHT $~0- Ava4kM~fl'Om~lf~c..Gro~o~Ma~l. 01450 ILLIES & SONS Box 103 Minnetonka Beach, MN 55361 Sodding~ Black Dirt-- Excavating and Grading 938-3300 471-9333 472-1922 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GRADING AND LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT FOR ~OV'T LOT 1, SECTION 14-117-24 (P~D #14-117-24 14 0003) WHEREAS, Antonie VanDerSteeg, owner of the property described as the North 435 feet of Government Lot l, Section 14-117-24 West of the 5th Prin- cipal Meridian, EXCEPT that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said lot distant 606.02 feet West from the Northeast corner of said lot; thence East to the Northeast corner of said lot; thence South along the East line of said lot a distance of 165 feet; thence West parallel with said North line to an intersection with a line drawn South parallel with said East line from the point of beginning; thence North to the point of beginning, together with an easement for ingress and egress and driveway purposes over the South 50 feet of the West 246 feet of said excepted tract, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. PID #14-117-24 14 0003; has applied for a grading and land reclamation permit pursuant to City Code Section 35.200; and WHEREAS, City Staff has reviewed the request and does recormnend approval with stipulated conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the requested grading and reclamation permit for Antonie YanDerSteeg property as stated on the attached Exhibit "A" with the following conditions: 1. The Exhibit "A" fill area be adhered to by the applicant with the silt fencing installed at the perimeter continuously and maintained in good condition. Seeding or sodding shall be accomplished by October 1, 1986 or when filling is completed, whichever date is sooner. 3. The fill material that has been placed will have all material removed that will support decay. At the recommendation of the Building Offi- cial, a soils engineering firm will be retained and a report submitted to the City Engineer to verify compliance of this at the owner's expense. 4. Submit to the City Engineer any other required permits; i.e. Watershed District. 5. No further fill material will support decay with a log (or record) to be kept by the property owner of future fill to be used stating the date received, where the fill was transpor'ted from, the name of the transporter and the number of yards received. 6. The owner is required to provide garbage/refuse service by an indepen- dent service for his floral and home use. 7. Erosion and dust control shall be by the use of haybales staked and secured in place or ~qual and dust control as approved by the-City Engineer and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 9. This permit will expire October 1, 1986 or may be renewed by the City Manager. The permit is non-transferable 'to a new property owner and it may be revoked after notification to the property owner. ~3~ CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1984 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: September 14 , 1984 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council will meet at 7:30 P.M. on September 2 ~ 1984, at the Mound City Hall, 53ql Maywood Road to pass upon the proposed assessments. The general nature of the improvements and the areas to be assessed are as follows: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1983 - Area within the following boundaries proposed to be assessed: Belmont Lane on the East North of Lynwood Boulevard to Tonkawood Road 700 feet West of Commerce Boulevard 700 feet South of Shoreline Boulevard Total Cost to be Assessed $25,600.64 The proposed assessments for the above are on file for public inspection at the City Office. Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing. 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 CIerk 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 objections to the presiding officer at the meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk AMOUNT - Published in The Laker September 10, 1984 4. 5. 6. 10. 11. 12. CITY OF MOUND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENT JULY 1, 1983 - JUNE 30, 1984 SALARIES (weekly parking lot sweeping, patching, repairs, install and take down Christ- mas lights) RAILROAD LEASE (driveway entrance by Koenig Building and large lot across from House of Moy ELECTRICITY FOR CHRISTMAS LIGHTS GARBAGE COLLECTION SNOW PLOWING & REMOVAL ENGINEERING COSTS (2 yrs) (design, plans and specifications parking lot repair & seal coating plan) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PARKING LOT STRIPING MAINTENANCE MATERIALS CHRISTMAS BULBS LEGAL NOTICES PARKING LOT LEASES A-1 RENTAL (to install parking bumpers) TOTAL LESS 25% OF SNOW REMOVAL COSTS 1983 PARKING LOT PROGRAM 1984 PARKING LOT PROGRAM $8,397.74 $2,464.00 $ 3,993.41 6,399.96 60.32 144.00 8,375.63 552.40 296.47 737.10 17.93 161.48 24.10 4,734.40 2~ ,00 $25,522,20 2,09~ .91 $23,428.29 5 YEARS = $ 1,679.55 5 YEARS = $ 492.80 $25,600.64 g£' L~£L~ g~'ggt7 OfT' tT£/JT- LL'O£ ~'0£ 96'g9~ 96'g9~ gL'gt ~'gL /6' LOL L6' Lg' 9L I.~' 9L 8g'gL~;L 8C~' 9LgL ~L'176 gL'~ O0'~L- gZ'~Og 69'~ OL'~- 6L'~Lg Lg' 6g~ ~9' ~' 9~ 9~' EL'~OL fiO'~ 00'0%- ~0' 60'~OL 8~'gLg ~O'~L ~O'~L 86'~E 86'ESE ~' EO'6~ O0'O~L- ~'OL L ~' 6~ gg' ~ ~0' ~ 00' ~- L6' Og'60~L Og'60~L ~L'~ ~L'g99 g~'6~ g~'6~ 00' 00' 9g'gL9 99'~L9 0~ (88) (~) (~) (~) (~) (~) (LB) (02.) (6L) (8L) (gt~) (~) (GE) (gE) (~) (LL) (gL) (~L) (t~L) (EL) (~'L) (~) (LL) (OL) (6) (g) (9) (~') (£) (~) ( ~£ ) (££) (~£) ( O~ ) (6~) (L) ooo~o88o~o~oo~ooooooo~ooooo8o~oooo8~°~ A 0 ~0~ ~o o ~~oo~ ~o~o 0000088 oooooo ooooooBE~ o o 000008000000 000000 000000000000000 00000 bL~bbb~bbb~b~.~0~nbk~tubk-~b0b~h~L~bbb'b~b~L~bk~bb _LNOWn'qg / · 22 ~2 2301 32 22 238 4854 61 22 238 4856 11 22 238 4860 31 22 238 4957 71 22 238502031 22 238 5120 11 22 244. 5011 O1 22 244 5019 31 22 259 6056 21 22 259 6070 31 22 268 5909 41' 22 28b 5846 31 22 280 5921 41 2~ 280 5928 91 22 283 5924 21 22 286 6056 51 22 289 3017 41 22 292 6016 71 22 310 2895 81 22 310 3136 61 22 337 5881 81 22 343 2434 71 22 346 5667 21 22 364 2571 21 22 388 2529 91 22 397 2524 11 22 397 2539 93 22 397 2549 81 22 4O4 5533 31 Delinquent Water and Sewer Thomas Simon Geo. Baker Elma Jensefl Ron Konek Barbara Timmons Ronald Hayes David Hiltsley Dick Janke Hud John Gaines Bryon Lee Jo Roehl(may need adj.) Steven Spencer * Randy Fingen Shirley Waytcke Dean Reid Bill Petron Robert Brown Carol Evans J.T.Evans Ernie'Howard Robert Holz Century Auto Body $127.61 2301 Fairview Ln. 238.55 Paid 128.90 Paid 80.72 Paid 51.67 4957 Edgewater Dr. 70.80 5020 Edgewater Dr. 57.15 5120 Edgewater Dr. 78.67 5011 Rosedale Rd. 104.46 5019 Rosedale Rd. 188.24 6056 Bartlett Blvd 76.01 Paid 71.80 5909 Glenwood Rd. * 102.47 5846 Idlewood Rd. 64.80 5921 Idlewood Rd. 132.17 5928 Idlewood Rd. 89.20 Paid 326.98 6056 Hawthorne Rd. 183.04 3017 Longfellow Ln. 50.59 6~16 Cherrywood Rd. 200.78 Pai'd ' 108.80 3136 Westedge Rd. 184.18 5881Beachwood Rd. 79.60 2437 Commerce Blvd. '123.18 5667 Bush Rd. * 146.33 2571Lakewood Ln. 50.61 2529 Avon Dr. 120.44 Paid * 84.04 Paid $20.00 53.30 2549 Emerald Dr. 292.61 5533 Shoreline Dr. $3466.92 $2713.10 '22 ~22~01 ~2 22 238 4854 61 22 ~38 4956 11 22 238 4860 31 22 238 4957 71 Geo. Baker 22 238.5020'31' Elma Jensen 22 238' 5120 11 Ron Konek 22 244' 5011 O1 Barbara Timmons 22 244'5019 31 Ronald Hayes 22 259 6056 21 David Hiltsley 22 259 6070 31 22 268 5909 41' Dick Janke~'.. 22.28b 5846 31 Hud 22 280 5921 41 John Gaines 2~ 280 5928 91 Bryon Lee 22 283 5924 21 22 286 6056 51 22 289 3017 41 22 292 6016 71 22 310 2895 81 22 310 3136 61 Shirley Waytcke 22 337 5881 81 Dean Reid 22 343 2434 71 Bill Petron 22 346 5667 21 Robert Brown 22 364 2571'21 Carol Evans 22 388 2529 91 J.T.Evans 22 397 2524 11 22 397 2539 93 Ernie~H°ward 22 397 2549 81 Robert Holz Century Auto Body 22 404 5533 31 Del.inquent Water and Sewer Thomas Simon $127.61 2301Fairview Ln. 'Jo Roehl(may need adj.) Steven Spencer Randy FJngen 238.55 Pald 128.90 Paid 80.72 Paid 51.67 4957 Edgewater Dr. 70.80 5020 Edgewater Dr. 57.15 5120 Edgewater Dr. 78.67 5Oll Rosedale Rd. 104.46 5019 Rosedale Rd. 188.24 6'056 Bartlett Blvd 76.O1 Paid 71.80 5909 Glenwood Rd~ 102.47 5846 Idlewood Rd. 64.80 5921 Idlewood Rd. i32.17.5928 Idlewood Rd. 89.20 Paid 326.98 6056 Hawthorne Rd. * 183.04 3017 Longfellow Ln. °50.59 6~16 CherrYwood Rd. 200.78 Pai'd '~ 108.80 3136 Westedge Rd. 184.18 5881Beachwood Rd. 79.60 2437 Commerce Blvd. ·123.18 5667 Bush Rd. '* 146.33 2571Lakewood Ln. 50.61 2529 Avon Dr. 120.44 Paid 84.04 Paid $20.00 53.30 2549 Emerald Dr. 292.'61 5533 Shoreline Dr. $3 66.92 $2713.10 22 232 2301 32 22 238 4854 61 22 238 4856 11 22 238 4860 31 22 238 4957 71 22 238 502031 22 238 5120 11 22 244 5011 O1 22 244 5o19 31 22 259 6o5~ 21 22 259 6O70 31 22 268 5909 41 22 280 5846 31 22 280 5921 41 22 280 5928 91 22 283 5924 21 22 286 6056 51 22 289 3017 41 22 292 6016 71 22 310 2895 81 22 310 3136 61 22 337 5881 81 ~22 343 2434 71 22 346 5667 21 22 364 2571 21 22 388 2529 91 22 397 2524 11 22 397 2539 93 22 397, 2549 81 22 404 5533 31 Delinquent Water and Sewer $127.61 238.55 1 28.9O 80.72 51.67 7o.8O 57.15 78.67 lO4.46 188.24 76.01 71.8o 1 o2.47 64.80 132.17 89.2o 326.98 183.04 5o. 59 2oo. 78 1 O8.8o 184.~18 79.6o 123.18 146.33 50.61 120.44 84.o4 53.3o 292.61 $3466.92 ,J · Applicant Address ' held harmless from any liability. Fee $2.00 Telephone, ,, Person or ~m ~erat~g , ~. ~.~., ~:~. ' ~o~ ot ~~o~ ,~0o~o/~o~o/~o,,ooo ..... ~e applicsn~ for this ~t agrees ~at he w~! csr~.the above amount of ~sursnce and that the ~cy ~ con~ s clause ~erein t~ V~lage is . BILLS ...... SEPTEMBER 25, 1984 Air Comm 164.00 "~merican Flagpole 300.00 Acro-MN 256.55 Holly Bostrom 150.OO · Blue Cross 137.01 Burlington Northern 533.33 Butch's Bar Supply 317.90 Bradley Exterminating 19.00 Bi.ll Clark Oil , 225.97 Cbntinental Telephone 993.45 · Davies Water Equip 122.97 Dray Publicat'ions 338.75 Dyna Med 83.55 First Bank Mpls 4.00 Henn County Treas 38,190.00 Henn County Sheriff 459.75 d J Printi.ng 105.O0 Long Lake Ford .. 80.25 The Laker 165.69 MN Dept of Public Safety 40.00 Mpls' Oxygen Co. 21.OO Mtka Portable Dredging 2,173.50 NW Bell Telephone 270.05 N.S.P. 4,317.17 Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00 Parkdale Enterprises 172.00 RC Identfications 197.75 Don Streicher Guns 315.34 Tri State Pump 953.54 Westonka Community Serv. 118.27 VanDoren Hazard Stallings 1,251.25 Wurst, Pearson, Hamilton 2,272.58 Waconia Ridgeview Hosp 90.00 Water Products Co. 1,O69.34 R L Youngdahl & Assoc 3,511.O0 Robert Cheney Election dudges Griggs, Cooper Johnson Paper Co. Johnson Bros. Liquor Mound Postmaster Minnegasco Ed Phillips & Sons Quality Wine Suburban Utilities Supt's TRW Communications United Business Machine TOTAL BILLS 1,430.00 1, 01.55 686.51 219.54 988.69 208.48 50.90 556.25 661.72 20.00 231.80 458.00 66,859.40 Metropolitan-Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-63b~, September 10, 1984 TO: RE: Legislators,'Local Elected Officials and Staff Report on Chair's Regional Meetings I would like to thank you all for participating in the Metropolitan Council's recent series of regional breakfast meetings for local officials. Your involvement is very important in our efforts to reestablish lines of communication between the Council and its major constituencies. The meetings provided an excellent opportunity to listen to your concerns, and to share ideas and solutions on how best to approach regional problems. A number of the issues we discussed have been included in the six metropolitan initiatives the Council has decided to address as priorities. The regional meetings reinforced my belief that we can work together to accomplish some very important common goals. Thanks again for taking the time to attend the meetings. I hope you found our discussion useful. Attached is a summary of some of the issues raised at the meetings. Sincerely, SSG:ma Enclosure ~2~S An EqualOpportunity Employer A SUMMARY OF STATEMENTS MADE AT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL C~AIR'$ 1984 REGIONAL MEETINGS WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS ANOKA COUNTY Both the public and the Metropolitan Council are frustrated with current solid waste siting process. o Emphasis should be placed on abatement rather than incineration. Public needs to be educated about abatement; especially the true cost of landfills. CARVER COUNTY Local businesses could be involved in abatement programs. - Thomas Hamilton, mayor of Chaska Alternative sources of funding for solid waste solutions must be found. For example, a regional excise tax could be levied; general revenues should not be used. - K. J. McDonald, state representative, District 35B Legislative assistance could help fund a heavy-metal extraction plant. - Earl Renneke, state senator, District 35 Carver County farmers would welcome sludge from wastewater treatment plants if the heavy metal were removed. The Metropolitan Council should spend more money in this area instead of incineration. - Harold Trende, Joe Neaton, Carver County commissioners Recycled sludge is valuable; have used it on a dairy farm. - Peter Meintsma, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission chair Funds are needed to operate, rather than develop, county and regional parks. - Harold Trende, Carver County commissioner The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission will hold regular regional meetings. - Peter Meintsma, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission chair DAKOTA COUNTY o It's very important to have local representation on various Metropolitan Council advisory committees. Planning and coordinating, rather than operating, should be the Council's main objective. One good example is the 911 system. The Metropolitan Council should have better oversight of Metropolitan commissions. The Metropolitan Council is "the best generator of paper," but it needs to find better, more effective ways of communicating. The Metropolitan Council should continue to emphasize open spmce when it comes to parks. HENNEPIN COUNTY o We need help with combined sewer overflow problem. o Better coordination between the Metropolitan Council and other regional agencies is needed. o Maple Grove is concerned about high wage settlements at the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. RAMSEY COUNTY Emphasis should be placed on the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) option at $20 million, as opposed to mass burn at $100 million. The Mayor's Task Force is currently addressing a phase-out of lake overflow charges for St. Paul and eight suburban communities and establishing an equitable cost for purchasing the Old Middle Belt Line interceptor. The Metropolitan Council should investigate the groundwater problem and maintain water quality in the region -- most communities use the same water supply. - Gregory Harcus, mayor of New Brighton Additional funding needed to tighten security in operating regional parks. - Hal Norgard, Ramsey County commissioner Operation, maintenance and security costs of regional parks are absorbed by local units of government, yet everyone uses the parks. - Henry Sinda, New Brighton city manager A one-percent property sales tax could be levied to support transit. - Ed Bayuk, former MTC commissioner Latimer tax study should be monitored. Inequities among various levels.of government should be included in the study. SCOTT COUNTY The Metropolitan Council is staff dominated and the staff is not responsive to the suggestions and concerns of local officials. ~ Transportation is still a real problem and the racetrack will have a lot of impact. We need a representative on the Regional Transit Board. The Shakopee Sioux community has some real needs in the areas of housing~ sewers, etc.--we want to work together to solve some of our problems. - Norman Crooks, chairman, Mdewakanton Sioux Co~unity WASHINGTON COUNTY Growth, solid waste and other regional issues are also of concern to counties outside the seven-county Metropolitan Area. They need to be included in future planning. - Sally Evert, Washington County Board of Commissioners chair When regional issues become critical, we often lose sight of local control and individuals rights. - Chuck Hoffman, state representative, District 55B A water commission could be set up to deal with surface water management. - Bill Diessner, state senator, District 56 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS o Development of riverfront pFoject should continue. People living outside of Minneapolis should help pay operation and maintenance costs of parks because they use parks more than Minneapolis residents. Low-income persons are not being fully considered in the park planning process. They do not have the opportunity to visit outlying regional parks. Need to deal with intercity rivalry, such as that which exists between Minneapolis and Bloomington. A stronger metropolitan planning role would be required to solve this problem. - Don Fraser, mayor of Minneapolis The Metropolitan Council should look at structural unemployment as a regional problem. Businesses should help solve the problem by offering better job training, health care and housing. - Tony Scallon, Minneapolis alderman, 9th Ward Hennepin County is concerned about the perception that they are not doing anything about the solid waste issue. Would like to find out more about the use of abatement funds authorized by 1984 legislative session. The Metropolitan Council needs county support on reaching a solution to the solid waste problem. - Arthur Lee, Associate County administrator, Bureau of Public Service CITY OF ST. PAUL o Concerned about operating budgets of metropolitan commissions. o The Metropolitan Council needs to communicate more with local units of government. ?4/ Long-range regional planning should be done instead of concentrating on 5-10 year brush fires. - Patricia Conley, administrative aide, Mayor Latimer's Office Want information on how other countries deal with the problem of solid waste. - Joanne Englund~ program coordinator, St. Paul Public Works Four years ago, there was no interest in combined sewer overflow beoause it was too difficult to finance and was not seen as a problem. Today it is a problem and help is needed to find a solution. - Joanne Englund, program coordinator, St. Paul Public Works Is the Metropolitan Council looking at effects of farm runoff? - Joanne Englund, program coordinator, St. Paul Public Works Ramsey County has a new policy of maintaining and renovating, rather than rebuilding its roads. - Ruby Hunt, Ramsey County commissioner Difficult to get funds for road maintenance because state and federal governments favor new construction. - Joanne Englund, program coordinator, St. Paul Public Works The Metropolitan Council should take this issue of renowation ws. new construction to state and federal levels. - Patricia Conley, administrative aide, Mayor Latimer's Office The following are some of the comments made by Metropolitan Council, Chair Sandra Gardebring. o Alternatives to landfills must be found. Abatement, composting and recycling should be used as alternatives to landfills. o Public must be willing to pay for expensive alternatives. The Metropolitan Council should be consistent in dealing with sludge ash siting and agricultural preserves. The Metropolitan Council will continue to seek help from private and public partnerships to deal with regional problems. The Metropolitan Council needs to be realistic about what it can accomplish in the area of solid waste. The Metropolitan Council can play a positive, catalytic role in helping to resolve the combined sewer overflow problem. The governor has asked the Metropolitan Council and the~.Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to establish a plan by 1990. Water qualitY' is a legitimate issue -- the question must be asked, "Is spending a lot of money separating the sewers going to improve water quality enough to justify the cost?" The new Regional Transit Board (RTB) has a heavy workload to be completed by the end of the year. The Council will help to get it up and runnSng. The Council will continue to communicate with its constituents, that is, local units of government and the legislature. In twenty years, human service issues such as aging will be critical, while physical issues such as solid waste will, for the most Part, be taken care of. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359 September 1984 Publication No. 07-84-138 26'-3 OPTIMUM / IDEAL MANA(~ERS INCORPORATED September 11, 1984 Bill Husbands 1620 Mendelssohn Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Bill: Re: City of Mound - Loss Control Visit August 22, 1984 Thank you for the time and courtesy you extended to me during my visit on Wednesday, August 22, 1984. Our d~scuss~on of your current Loss Analysis, in addition to. an uninhibited tour of the C~ty of Mound, indicates that the present loss situation of this municipality is commendable. The Loss Ana]ys~s indicates theft there are no ndverse claims or accident/injury trends taking place. Because of this factor, it is my contention that your present loss control methods are extremely effective and warrant no assistance on my part at this time. However, should you find a need in the future for Intercontinental Insurance Manager's Loss Control Services, or have any other Workers' Compensation concerns, do not hesitate to contact me. Your continued efforts in safety and health are greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Steven H. Forster Loss Control Consultant COPY TO: Earl Bailey, R.L. Youngdahl & Associates Sp~(,alis/s in Word,rs' Omp~.~lion. Prop~rlyan~Casualty Insuran~ / 16605OUTH ttlGHWAY IO0 / SUI'I't. ~0 MIN'NLAP()I.I.N MINNE~TA ss41~ ' I012t 541-o~,~ Minnehaha ~reek Wate~she~ Pistr;¢t September 20, 1954 A~uS: lf, 1984. 4. Hearing of permi{ applications. A. 77-50 Clinton Morriaon - maintenance of rip-rep ehorelIne erosion pro~ection0 Sec. ~TB~, Ceder Poi~. Lake Minnesonke, ~. ~0-S7 Williem M. Johnaon - building eetback o~ ~ ~eet. lot 4, Block ~, Hi~hland Shores, Mound. C. 81-04 Palmer Koosman - permit extension ~o ex=ava~e w~ldlife pond, 6045 Chestnu% Road, Mound. D. 83-34 Mennepin County D~pertmen~ of Transportan~cn - county project 7410, Bridge Removal and Reall~nmen~ of CSA.~ Se=. 21DAD, a% the Burlington Northern Railroad =roaming, M~nnetrlste. M1nnehaha Creek: wetland alteration (DNR Wetland 715W): 18BAD, east of Frederick Ave. at M:nneheha Creek, St, Louls Park. F. 84-123 louis Smerllng - 84 lineal fee: of shoreline erosion pro:action, excavation of · heath area. 20BOA, Sprzng Park Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Oronc. G. 84-127 Painters Creek Development Corp. - gra~:n~ and drainage plan for "Palntere Creek*', a 10-lot residentlal subdivision, SeT. 31CD, Bayside Road, mas% of County Roe~ or on~. ~. 84-12~ City of Shorewood - ator~ sewer construc~::n fro~ Ivy Lane to Lake William, Sec. 26AD, 20960 Ivy Lane. ShDrewood. ~. 84-134 Alan M=Dowell - 633 lineal fee: of shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 02DCD, Browns Bay, Lake M~nnetonka, Orono. J. 84-140 Vincent H. Bakken - 165 lineal fee: of shoreline erosion prote=:ion, Sec. 2lO, 190 Interlachen L~ne. Tonka K. 84-142 Milwaukee Road - remove abandoned bridge across Minnehaha Creek, aec. 20BCA, Powell Road. St Park. seawall %o control erosion and provide a boa% launch area. 14BC, Camp Christmas Tree, Dutch Lake, Minnetria%a. M. 84-144 City o~ Minne%onke - sewer &n~ water, Street Extension, Essex Road, Spring Lake Road. Minne%onkm. N. 84-145 ~ee ~orae Condominiums - 280 lineal ~eet of rip-Tap shoreline erosion pro%action, ~ec. 13BA, Jenning$ ~y, Lake Minnatonka, Mound. O. 84-146 Stanley Gregory - wetland altera%ion Gred~lng 27-855w, Sec. 02CCC, ~horeline Drive, Orono. P. 94-147 City o! Shozewood - roadway improvements, C~ty Project 84-2, various locations, ~ho=ewood. O. 84-148 William May - 100 lineal feet o! rip-~ap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 24ACA, Emerald Lake, Lake Minnetonka, Mound. R. 84-149 D.T. Cousins - aluminum ahem%lng seawall for shoreline erosion protection, Gee. 1aBC, Edlne Mill Pond. Mlnnehaha Creek, Edina. S. 84-150 Centurion Company - gradin9 and drainage for 'A~penwood", an B-lot residential subdivieion, ~loodplain development, Pazkwooda Road, Twin Lake, St. Louis Perk. T. 84-151 Centurion Company - gre~in~ and drainage for lohman'a Amhurst 4th Addition, ~loodplain development, Ml~eheha 'Tren¢~ Creek", Minnelonkm, Tonka Bay. C~rxes~ndence. A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Carroll. ~ng:neer's Re~r~ - ~. P~nze:. (1) P~oject S%a:us Reports - CP-5 Pain%e~ Creek. (4) C. Draft Permit Application ~uidel~es. 9. New Business. ~0. Ad~:urnmen~. MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT September 6, 1984 The special meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Acting Chairman Lehman at 5:15 p.m. in the first floor conference room at the St. Louis Park City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Managers present: Andre, Carroll, Lehman and McWethy Managers absent: Cochran, Spensely and Thomas Also present were Board advisors Panzer and Macomber. present was James yon Lorenz. Also Acting Chairman Lehman stated that the purpose of the special meeting was to conduct a work session to prepare line items for the proposed 1985 District budgets. Treasurer Carroll reviewed a draft of proposed line item expenditures for the Administrative Fund. Manager Carroll noted that the District has, in recent years operated at a level of activity in the Administrative Fund in excess of ~125,000 per year. Manager Carroll noted that this had been possible because of fund balances available from repayment of pre-project expenses from the Minnehaha Creek Improvement Project. Manager Carroll suggested that the District's Board of Managers should, over the next few years, seek to reduce activity financed by the Administrative Fund to the amount of the annual tax levy of $125,000. Manager Carroll also suggested that the Managers review and evaluate the purposes being served by the present Data Acquisition Fund. Manager Andre noted that the District had been operating with an Administrative Fund budget of $125,000 since approximately 1974 and that at some point it might be appropriate to consider requesting legislative authority to increase the Administrative Fund levy. The Managers discussed the uses of the present Data Acquisition Fund, noting the fact that the present fund had been financed by repayment of pre-project expenses from the Minnehaha Creek Improvement Project which funds were not then needed for general administrative expenses. The Managers noted that there was statutory authority in Minn. Stat. § 112.61, Subd. 8 to establish such a fund and to make a separate tax levy for data x? 7 acquisition and survey purposes, when other funds were not available for such purposes. The Managers agreed that only current administrative expenses should be paid from the Administrative Fund, and that the other funds should be evaluated to determine their suitability for payment of other tyl~es of District expenses. The Managers reviewed the detailed line items suggested by Treasurer Carroll and suggested modifications in the draft Administrative Fund budget. The Managers then reviewed the proposed line items for the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund and the proposed line items for the Watershed Management Planning Fund. Following review of the draft budgets, the Managers directed the staff to publish the three draft budgets for public hearing on September 20, 1984. There being no furth~'- business to come before the special meeting, Acting Chairma.. Lehman declared the special meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 3050n Camille D. Andre Acting Secretary -2- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT August 16, 1984 The regular meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Manager Lehman at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, August 16, 1984, at the Wayzata City Hall, Wayzata, Minnesota. Managers present: Andre, Lehman, McWethy, Spensley and Thomas. Managers absent: Cochran and Carroll. Also present were Board advisors Panzer, Reep and Richards. ADDroval of Minutes On motion duly made, seconded unanimously adopted, formal approval of the Minutes of July 19, 1984, was continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Managers. ~pproval of Permit ADplications The Managers reviewed a memorandum from the Engineer dated August 9, 1984, indicating those applications which comply with the applicable standards of the District and which were recommended for approval on the terms and conditions as set forth in the Engineer's written memorandum. Following discussion and review of the written memorandum, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by McWethy that the following permit applications be approved subject to all terms and conditions as set forth in the Engineer's written memorandum: 82-40 City of Minnetonka - site grading, excavation (100,000 cubic yards), expansion of athletic fields, Sec. 14ACB, City Garage/Big Willow Athletic Field complex, Minnetonka. 84-126 Richard C. Hawley - plus or minus 54 feet shoreline setback variance from Lake Ztunbra, Sec. 0lB, 5641 Zumbra Drive, Victoria. 84-135 Larry Jones - 90 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 8CDD, Orono. 84-136 Bill Weeks - 120 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 17CCB, West Arm Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Spring Park. 84-137 84-138 Thomas Grudnowski - 85 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 24BDA,~_~O~s Bay, Lake Minne~onka,~ Paul Webster - 200 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 23BB, Huntington Point, Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach. 84-139 Michael D. Goldman - 105 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 28BDC, Crescent Beach, Upper Lake Minnetonka, Tonka Bay. In regard to other permit applications pending before the Board, upon recommendation from the Engineer as set forth in his August 9, 1984 memorandum and supplemented by his report to the Managers during the meeting, the following permit applications were tabled without discussion until such time as additional information is submitted to the District for review in connection with formal action on these permit applications: 84-69 84-127 Willow Wood Assoc. - maintenance dredging of approximately 31 cubic yards of silt, Sec. 28ACD, east of Willow Wood Drive on Gideon Bay, Tonka Bay. Painters Creek Development corp. - grading and drainage plan for "Painters Creek", a 10-lot residential subdivision, Sec. 31CD, Bayside Road, east of County Road 84, Orono. -2- 84-130 Laurance R. Elwell, Jr. - placement of 13,600 cubic yards of fill; unknown quantity of fill within a Type III wetland; Sec. 30CCC, southeast quadrant of County Road 6 and Ferndale, Plymouth. 84-132 Floyd Olson - fill placement, Sec. 20AB, southeast quadrant of County Road 24 and State Highway 55, Plymouth. 84-140 Vincent H. Bakken - shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 21D, 190 Interlachen Lane, Tonka Bay. 84-141 Melvin J. Peterson - shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 05DB, Stubbs Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Orono. Upon motion by Thomas, seconded by McWethy to table those pending permit applications, the motion was unanimously adopted. Bob Pierce - grading and drainage plan for an 18-unit apartment building, Sec. 23ACA, southwest corner of County Road 19 and Glen Road, Shorewood. 84-120 The Enqineer reported on his review of the grading and drainage plan for an 18-unit apartment building in Shorewood, Minnesota. The Managers noted that they had reviewed this matter last month tabling the matter in order to enable the Planning Commission of Shorewood to act upon this proposal. The Engineer reported that approval had now been obtained from the City of Shorewood for this development and the proposal is therefore now back before the Managers for review and approval. The Engineer reported that the plans do meet the Watershed District's policies and criteria. General discussion followed noting previous surface water drainage problems associated with the site which have now been eliminated. Following discussion, and based upon the Engineer's recommendation and the understanding that the previous surface water drainage problems do not adversely impact the site at this time, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas that the application be approved subject to the conditions recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. -3- City of Excelsior - road construction, sanitary and storm sewer, and watermain, SEc. 35, Second and Third Avenues at Division St., Excelsior. 84-125 The Engineer presented the plans and specifications pertaining to this project entailng road construction, sanitary and storm sewer and watermain utility improvements in the City of Excelsior. The Engineer reported that previous water retention problems in this area have been solved and should not present any problems with the undertaking of these public improvement projects. Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre that the application be approved subject to the conditions recommended by the Engineer in his memorandum. Upon vote the motion carried. City of Shorewood - storm sewer construction from Ivy Lane to Lake William, Sec. 26AD, 20960 Ivy Lane, Shorewood. 84-128 Mr. Reep reported that work has already been initiated and completed pertaining to this storm sewer construction ~n the City of Shorewood. The District's engineering consultants stated that they do not know whether the storm sewer facilities were constructed in accordance with Watershed District recommenda- tions made prior to the meetinq. General discussion followed during which the Managers expressed concern that the applicant was seeking an after-the-fact permit from the Watershed District. Following discussion regarding the options available to the Managers to insure compliance with The Watershed District criteria for installation of projects of this nature, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas that the the District's Engineer be· authorized and instructed to correspond to the City of Shorewood to request the immediate installation and maintenance of erosion control plans as set forth on the plans reviewed by the District's Engineer and that "as built" plans conforming to the District's requirements be submitted to the District for review and approval of this project recognizing, however, that the project has been substantially completed at this time. Upon vote the motion carried unanimously. Tim Foster - 4,000 square feet of lake bottom sand, Sec. 02AA,- south, shore of Christmas Lake, Cha~hassen. 84-129 The Engineer reported that two conflicting plans had been submitted by the permit applicant, one to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and one to the Watershed District. The Engineer reported that neither plans comply with applicable standards and regulations ~Qr improvement of private beach areas in public waters. The Engineer recommended that the permit application be.denied subject to the right of the applicant to reapply with plans consistent with applicable standards and -4- regulations. Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre that the Engineer's recommendation be accepted and the permit application be denied. Upon vote the motion carried. Messiah United Methodist Church - grading and drainage plan for a building and parking lot addition, Sec. 30DD, south of County Road 6, west of State Hiqhway 101, Plymouth. 84-131 The Engineer reported that plans had been reviewed by him for the Messiah United Methodist Church in Plymouth, Minnesota. He found these plans to be in conformance with the policies and criteria of the District; however, the current plans are to be revised to show in detail a catch basin outlet control structure which is to be included as part of this storm water drainage system for the building and parking lot addition. Following discussion noting the fact that the applicant has agreed to submit revised plans to the District for review and approval for the catch basin system to be included as part of the surface water system, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre that the application be approved subject to the recommendations of r_he District's Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Tingewood, Inc. - grading and drainage plan for an 8-lot residential subdivision, "Gideons Bay Woods", Sec. 28AD, Gideons Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Tonka Bay. 84-133 The Engineer reported that he had reviewed the plans for the development of an 8-lot residential subdivision in Tonka Bay. Those plans were in conformance with the policies and citeria of the District and the Engineer recommended approval of the application. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas that the application be approved subject to the Engineer's recommendation as noted in his memorandum of August 9, 1984. Alan McDowell - 603 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protecton, Sec. 02DCD, Browns Bay, Lake Minne~onka, Orono. 84-134 The District's Engineer reported that he had reviewed the plans and specifications accompanying ~he permit application of Mr. Alan McDowell for placement of rip-rap for a maximum of 16 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka. The District's Engineer noted that this request requires a variance from the shoreline erosion protection guidelines of the Watershed District and a permit from the Minnesota DN-R. General discussion followed during which the Managers noted that there does not appear ~o be a factual basis for the granting of the variance inasmuch as reasonable -5- alternatives do exist for the applicant to attempt to eliminate the erosion problems occurring at this site. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas that the permit application be tabled until additional information is submitted by the applicant showing other alternatives more consistent with the current guidelines pertaining to shoreline erosion protection practices. Upon vote the motion carried unanimously. Citizen Presentation - John Iacono Proper~y - St Louis Park, Minnesota As instructed, Mr. Panzer submitted to the Managers his memorandum dated July 30, 1984, outlining the various actions taken by the Watershed District since Mr. Iacono raised questions about water problems the he is experiencing on his property at West 34th Street in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Mr. Panzer outlined his investigation and the various alternatives for possible elimination of the high water problems being experienced by Mr. Iacono. Mr. Iacono was present to note that he has not had an opportunity to fully investigate the conclusions reached by the District's Engineer. Mr. Iacono distributed to the Managers a written response to the current status of his difficulties. General discussion followed during which the Managers discussed what alternatives might exist for the Board to undertake at this time. Mr. Iacono did express the fact that he felt that the Watershed District and City had undertaken to date every commitment that had previously been made to him. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by McWethy that this matter be tabled further until Mr. Iacono has had an opportunity to respond to various facts and conclusions set forth in the Watershed District's memorandum of July 30, 1984. Upon vote the motion carried with Managers McWethy and Spensley voting against tabling the matter. Manager Lehman ordered the matter continued with the understanding that the District staff need do nothing further on this matter until a response is heard from Mr. Iacono to the District's July 30, 1984, memorandum. CP-5 Painter Creek Project Status Repor~ The Engineer outlined the current status of the Painter Creek'Upper Storage and Retention Project. The Engineer explained a number of factors why this project is now somewhat behind schedule. The Engineer also noted difficulty in attempting to obtain through direct negotiation with affected property owners the necessary easements for undertaking of the project. General discussion followed in which the Managers inquired of the District's Attorney the procedures'for initiation of condemn'ation proceedings in order to obtain all necessary easements. Mr. Richards noted'that if condemnation proceedings were started, it -6- would be his recommendation that all property owners be included in the condemnation proceeding pleadings to be filed with the Mennepin County District Court. The Attorney also noted that this would not preclude obtaining easements directly from property owners who were otherwise willing to grant those easements to the Watershed District. Mr. Panzer reported on the status of work being done on the affected properties in the project area including the identification of necessary legal descriptions and all parties having any property interests in the properties affected by the project. Recognizing the necessity for leadtime to prepare the necessary condemnation pleadings as well as filing those pleadings with the District Court in a timely fashion in order to enable the District to complete construction during the winter season of 1984-85, the Managers commented about the need to hold a special meeting to consider the initiation of condemnation proceedings if that becomes necessary. During the interim, the Managers also expressed the Board's desire that the staff continue to negotiate with all affedted property owners to acquire all the necessary easements without the necessity for condemnation proceedings being commenced. Following discussion on the status of this project and the need to proceed expeditiousl~ if the project is to be undertaken yet during the winter of 1984-85, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas that the District staff be authorized to proceed to prepare the necessary conde~ation pleadings and be ready to serve and file those pleadings on or about September 10, 1984, if formal authOrization by the Board of Managers is given to proceed in that fashion while at the same time the staff being authorized to continue negotiations with all property owners to acquire necessary easements, and that a special meeting be scheduled for August 30, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. at the St. Louis Park City Hall to discuss further the current s~atus of this project and the methods and procedures by which the District is to proceed in order to complete the Painter Creek Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project. Upon vote the motion was unanimously adopted. Thereafter, noting that the staff is in the process of identifying all persons owning property within the project area including their mailing addresses, it was moved by Spensley, seconded by Thomas that these affected property owners be notified by mail of the District's special meeting scheduled for August 30, 1984, at which time consideration will be given to commencement of condemnation proceedings for proceeding with this project. Upon vote that motion carried unanimously. Treasurer's Report Mr. Steve Stewart of Robert J. Lapic, accountants for the Di'strict, was present to submit the Treasurer's Report. Following discussion and review of the status of various accounts and funds available for investment, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas that the Treasurer's Report dated August 16, 1984, be approved and the bills paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote the motion carried. -7- Budget Hearings - 1985 The Managers noted that public hearings will be held on the adoption of a 1985 budget for the District at its regular meeting on September 20, 1984. General discussion followe~ in which the Managers noted the need to consider levying for the District's Administrative Ftknd, the Water Management Planning Fund, Water Maintenance and Repair Fund, and Data Acquisition Fund. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas that the District publish notice of a public hearing on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District budget to be considered at the Board's regular meeting on September 20, 1984, at the St. Louis Park City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, with the following amounts to be identified in the notice of public hearing as the maximum amounts to be considered by the Managers to levy for the funds as noted: $125,000 $ 15,000 $ 25,000 $ 50,000 - Administrative - Water Maintenance and Repair Fund - Water Management Planning Fund - Data Acquisition Fund Upon vote the motion carried unanimously. The Attorney was instructed to publish a notice in legal newspapers throughout the District as required by law. CP-8 Minnehaha Creek Channel Improvements Project Mr. Panzer reported that the Minnehaha Creek Channel Improvements Project is ready to be completed subject to the execution of agreements which have been submitted to the District for review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Department of Natural Resources. Upon review of those agreements and based upon the Engineer's recommendation for the Board to execute those agreements for completion of this project, it was moved by Andre, seconded by McWethy that appropriate officers of the District be authorized and instructed to execute those agreements on behalf of the District and submit them to the State of Minnesota for completion of these channel improvement projects. Upon vote the motion carried. Phase I Clean Lakes Grant Application - Lake Minnetonka Mr. Panzer reported that the State of Minnesota presently has under consideration proposals for adoption of a State program equivalent to the Federal Clean Lake Grant Program. The Engineer has completed in draft form the federal grant application for applying for funds but recommended that the application be held pending a determination by".~he State of Minnesota of what clean lakes grant program it might implement. The Managers ordered the matter tabled as recommended by the District's Engineer pending further clarification of these programs by the State of Minnesota. -8- Private Citizen Project - Storm Sewer System - Ji~ Biqham, City of Orono Mr. Jim Bigham was present to request that the Managers consider funding a storm sewer project on lands ~wned by Jim Bigham., City of Orono. Mr. Bigham explained that his lands are the receiving lands of a subdrainage area which is necessitating the installation of a private storm sewer project on his property. Mr. Panzer stated that the District has previously reviewed this project and at one time agreed to cost-share in this project with the City of Orono which had agreed to pay for one-half the cost of the project. Mr. Panzer sta~ed that a contract bid of approximately $6,500.00 has been received to install the necessary storm sewer system including the undertaking of necessary restoration once the project is completed. Mr. Panzer also reported that the City of Orono is not interested in undertaking this project at this time apparently ~aking the position that this is a project to be undertaken by a private citizen inasmuch as it is totally on private property. Mr. Bigham expressed concern that no one was willing to assist him in completion of this project. A motion was made to refer this matter to a future budget session meeting of the District when the Managers could consider whether a project of this nature is in compliance with the Watershed District guidelines to finance a private project of this type. That motion died for lack of a second. Thereafter, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas that the District participate in this project if the City of Orono agrees to pay one-half of the cost of the project and provided further that the City maintain the system once installed with the understanding that the property owner would grant to the City all necessary easements for installation and maintenance of this storm sewer system. Upon vote that motion carried. The Managers noted to Mr. Bigham that representatives from the Watershed District would discuss this matter further with the City of Orono to determine what interest the City might have in participating in this project given the fact that the Watershed District has agreed to participate financially in a project of this nature. Further action was tabled on this matter until the Distr~ct has had an opportunity to talk to appropriate Orono CiTy officials. Headwaters Control Structure The Engineer distributed the August Report, for discharge from Lake Minnetonka into Minnehaha Creek from the headwaters control structure. Mr. Panzer noted that the trend which has been observed over the last several months continues for the water levels of Lake Minnetonka and the flows in Minnehaha Creek to be within the optimum zones for regulated flows of Minnehaha Creek. -9- Chapter 509 Surface Water Manaqement Report The District's Engineer distributed draft policy statements for review by the Managers. This matter was ordered continued in order to allow the Board to review these policy statements which are intended to be included in the District's 509 report. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the regular meeting, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas that the regular meeting be adjourned. Upon vote the motion carried and Manager Lehman declared the meeting duly adjourned. Respectfully submitted, 2934n John E. Thomas Secretary -10- MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT August 30, 1984 The special meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order at 7:05 p.m. at the St. Louis Park City Hall by acting Chairman Lehman. Managers present: Andre, Carroll, Lehman, Spensely and Thomas. Managers absent: Cochran and McWethy. Also present were Board advisors Panzer and Macomber. Acting Chairman Lehman stated that the purpose of the special meeting was to review the status of the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project in the Painter Creek subwatershed and to consider the necessity of authorizing commencement of condemnation proceedings in connection with the project. Acting Chairman Lehman called upon the Engineer to review the status of the project. Mr. Panzer reviewed the status of survey work, soil investigation and design work which had been completed to date and reviewed topographic maps of South Katrina Marsh, Painter Marsh and Pond 937 which showed the identity and location of easements over private lands which will be required for the project. Mr. Panzer also reviewed the completion schedule for the project indicating that the schedule called for the commencement of construction by approximately January 2, 1985. Acting Chairman Lehman called upon the Attorney to review the procedure which would be involved to acquire easements by condemnation if negotiations with individual owners were not successful. The Attorney indicated that in order to assure that all necessary easements would be secured by the end of December, 1984, it would be necessary to commence a condemnation action in District Court by approximately September 10, 1984. The Attorney advised the Board that the District could utilize the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, § 117.042 providing for transfer of "title and possession" of the easement rights after 90 days' notice and payment to the property owners. The Attorney stated that if condemnation were not commenced by approximately September 10, 1984, the 90-day period would not start to run with respect to acquiring possession of the individual easements. The Attorney further explained that if negotiated agreement could not be reached with any one owner it would then still be necessary to commence a condemnation proceeding in the future to acquire such easements and that the 90-day notice period would still apply from the date the condemnation action is started. The result would be a delay in the commencement date for construction of project equal to the amount of time after September 10th the condemnation action was commenced. In addition, because the project re.cuires winter construction, delay beyond a certain point would jeopardize completion of the work during the winter of 1984-85. The Attorney further advised the Board that a meeting had recently been held with the appraiser, William Cushman, and that Mr. Cushman's appraisals were scheduled for delivery to the Board by the end of September. The Attorney informed the Board that it was not possible to submit offers to the individual property owners for the easement rights until the appraisals had been received and approved by the Board. As a consequence, no negotiation could commence with the individual owners until after approximately September 20th. Acting Chairman Lehman then called upon members of the public present regarding questions or concerns which they had regarding the project. Mr. Kenneth Turnham inquired of the Engineer whether or not the project would raise flood elevations on South Katrina Marsh. Mr. Turn_ham stated the he understood the Engineer had previously stated that the project would raise the flood elevation on South Katrina Marsh and then later stated that the project would not do so. The Engineer responded that the project concept, approved in August of 1983, called for no increase in the flood elevations of South Katrina Marsh. The Engineer stated that prior to hydraulic modeling, the project concept had included increasing the flood elevation on all major retention basins, but that following modeling, this was shown to be unnecessary to accomplish the objectives of the project. Mr. Turnham expressed concern about the presence of a soil boring crew seeking to take soil borings on his property. Mr. Turn_ham stated that he had not given permission to take soil borings. The Engineer responded that as soon as Mr. Turnham indicated he would not permit soil borings, the Engineer caused the soil boring crew to be removed from the property. Mr. and Mrs. Glenn Rye questioned the taking of a soil boring on their property without securing their permission. The Engineer stated that effor~ had been made to contact each owner and that a letter had been sent to each owner advising each owner of the plans of the District to have a survey crew in the area to conduct soil borings and survey work. The Ryes inquired regarding -2- the statutory authority of the Distric~ to enter upon property for such purposes. The Attorney advised that Section 112.43, Subd. 1(10) of the Watershed Act authorizes the District to enter upon the property to make surveys and inspections to accomplish its lawful purposes and further provides that the District is liable for actual damages resulting from such entry. Mr. and Mrs. Rye stated that they felt they had not been adequately consulted regarding the project or the intent of the District to take a soil boring or acquire easements over a portion of their property. They expressed their view that the District should delay commencement of condemnation proceedings until the individual owners had a greater opportunity to review and become informed with respect to the project. Acting Chairman Lehman stated that the project has been under active consideration.since early 1981, at which time a preliminary engineering study was authorized for the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project in the Painter Creek subwatershed. Acting Chairman Lehman stated that numerous meetings had been held with citizens in the area, and that the project was considered and authorized at final public hearings of the Board in August and September of 1983. Residents and Dick and Ginny Gabel were also present and indicated that they reside along County Road 6 but do not own property proposed to be acquired for the project. They indicated they had not previously been familiar with the project and wished to acquaint themselves with it. Mr. Turnham inquired regarding the anticipated cost of the project. The Engineer responded that the estimated construction cost, which assumed work during the winter of 1984-85, was approximately $297,000 with an additional $90,000 budgeted for land acquisition. The remaining $100,000 of the levy made by the Board for the project represents engineering, legal and administrative expenses associated with construction of this phase of the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project, and prior engineering and hearing expenses in connection with the project. Acting Chairman Lehman inquired as to whether there were any additional questions or matters for discussion from any of the members of the public present or from the Board. None were noted. Acting Chairman Lehman requested the Attorney to review and read aloud a proposed resolution which would authorize and direct the commencement of condemnation proceedings not later than September 10, 1984, to acquire the easements necessary for the project. The Attorney reviewed the proposed resolution, Manager -3- Carroll then offered the resolution as follows and moved its adoption, seconded by Manager Andre: WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (District) has determined that the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project in the Painter Creek Subwatershed (Project) will be conducive to the public health and promote the general welfare; and WHEREAS, District finds'that construction of the Project requires the District to secure easements over certain private properties in Hennepin County to construct flow control structures and to provide temporary seasonal detention of water; WHEREAS, the Managers have received and reviewed topographic maps of South Katrina marsh, Painter marsh and Pond 937, which depict the identity and location of the private properties and the easements required for the Project, which are identified as Parcels 1 through 25 inclusive, on Attachments numb, ered 1 through 25 attached hereto; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, ~ 112.43, Subd. 1(6) authorizes the District to acquire property by eminent domain, pursuant to Minn. Stat., Ch. 117; and WHEREAS, while the District intends to secure all easements by negotiation where reasonably possible, it anticipates that it may not be possible to reach agreement with every owner; and WHEREAS, the District requires title and possession of the properties described on Attachments 1-25 for construction of the Project during the winter of 1984-85; and the District has concluded that it needs possession of the properties before the Commissioner's award can be filed; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat., ~ 117.042 provides that possession may be secured by the District upon 90 days notice and payment, prior to the taking of title and possession, of an amount equal to the District's approved appraisal of value: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: .. 1. That the taking of the easements over Parcels 1-25 inclusive', as shown on Attachments 1-25 is necessary for the public good in order that such tracts can be devoted to water control and detention purposes. -4- 2. That the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District authorizes the acquisition by eminent domain proceedings under Minn. Stat., Chapter 117 of the those properties identified as Parcels 1 through 25, inclusive, on Attachments 1-25. 3. That the District's attorney is authorized and directed to commence by September 10, 1984, the necessary proceedings in District Court under Chapter 117 to appoint commissioners to determine damages sustained by The owners of the properties, as authorized by law. 4. That the District's staff is further d~rected to take all steps necessary to secure entry upon Parcels 1-25 for all surveys and investigations necessary to the Project. 5. That the District's staff is authorized and directed to take all other steps necessary to implement this resolution. Upon vote, the Chairman declared the resolution adopted. There being no further business to come before the special meeting, acting Chairman Lehman declared the special meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 3017n John E. Thomas Secretary -5- Pl u _ing AssistanCe NEWS Summer 1984 Prepared by Planning Assistance GARDEBRING OUTLINES SIX NEW INITIATIVES FOR COUNCIL Metropolitan Council Chair Sandra Gardebring said she believes the Council, working with others, can develop a plan for solid waste management that will make the Twin Cities Area a model for other areas of the country, The new initiative will be based on the assumption that the bulk of solid waste will no longer go into landfills, but will be used in other productive ways, Gardebring said. Gardebring, who became Council chair in mid-May, talked about solid waste management as one of six initiatives she wants the Council to tackle at once. The list includes another environmental problem, combined sewer overflows that result in untreated sewage entering the Mississippi River. : The price tag for separating the sewers to solve the problem is expected to b~ bet~,en $250 and $350 million. The schedule calls for beginning to separate the sewers by 19~5, after legislative action on financing for the project is obtained. The other four initiatives are regional transit planning {including a decision on whether the region needs light rail transit}, a "metropolitan framework" identifying major regional human and land use issues, metropolitan governance, and the internal management of the Council. Gardebring said the initiatives developed, in part, as a response to recent studies of the Council, including ones by the Citizens L,eague and the State Planning Agency. *'We've been told the Council needs to set an agenda for solving regional problerns and be an aggressive voice at the legislature and elsewhere. These initiatives are a beginning; we're looking at what needs to be done and developing a schedule for doint it, including pursuing the necessary legislation." The Council has already begun to divert its resources to work on the initiativesi Gardebring said. So/id Waste-The aim in solid waste management is to develop a plan that spells out goals for reducing the need for landfills in the Metropolitan Area. A recommendation to the legislature on the best landfill abatement program is to be ready by October, and the plan calls for Council adoption by January 1985. Guidelines will be ready in February, and the schedule calls for legislative action in May. Combined Sewer Overflow-The combined sewers initiative schedule calla for establishing a joint staff task force this month with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the three affected cities: Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul. 'Draft plans for solving the overflow problem and financing the solution will be ready by October, along with a recommendation to the legislature on action. Meetings on 1ha plan will be held with local officials in October and November. In January 1985, the Council will amend its regional water resources policy plan to inciude the combined sewers solution. The schedule calls for legislative action on financing in May 1985. Finally, new federal and state regulatory permits will be secured in July 1B85 Ind work will begin, Thl project could take until 1995 to complete. Transit-The regional transit planning initiative calls for the Council to take the lead in implementing legislative directives for a new governmental structure, policies and plans for transit service in the Twin Cities Area. included in the schedule is a January 1985 decision on whether light rail transit is needed in the Twin Cities Area. The new Regional Transit Board and the Council are to make recommendations on changes needed in the regional transit system by June of that year. Metropo//tan Framework-The Council will develop a new framework for the Me~ropo//tan ~ Development Guide to identify long-range regional trends in both human and physical areas.-' It also will provide a five-year policy direction for the Council and the region. It will adopt the Met.r.o.p, olitan Framework by January 1986. :' Metropolitan Governance-The Council will develop specific recommendations for. administrative and legislative actions to strengthen its role, and that of the metropolitan commissions and local governments in operating and financing the metropolitan systems. The systems are sewers, airports, transit and highways, and regional parks. A metropolitan affairs subcabinet of the governor's cabinet, chaired by Gardebring and including the chairs of each of the metropolitan commissions, will begin meeting this month. Legislative recommendations on metropolitan governance will be developed by October. The Council will adopt model personnel and administrative procedures for the metropolitan commissions by February 1985. HELP AVAILABLE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES THROUGH DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM STILLWATER AND STILLWATER TOWNSHIP SEEKING INPUT ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ACQUIRES STATE EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Council's Internal Management-The Council will review an(~ ~l~jthen its internal management, It will develop recommendations to reduce the size of the C~u~:il's agenda by October. It will review and strengthen management, financial controls and internal auditing procedures by October. Small businesses will account for over 85 percent of all new jobs in Minnesota. Thus. when small businesses prosper, everyone benefits. The Small Busirmss O~veiopment Loan Program was created by the Minnesota Legislature to assist small busin~ in starting or expanding operations when their needs canhot be met by existing financial markets. The legislature appropriated $24.3 million and authorized ar~ additional $30 million in bonding authority for this program. Key features of the loan am: - Fixed interest rates up to 2 percent below the rate paid by the f~-,cleral government on its loan; - Long-term commitments up to 20 years; and - Loan ceilings of up to $I million per applicant. Recipients of the Small Business Development Loans are to sedk private financing for a "set aside" of 15 percent of their loan amount into a pooled reserve fund intended to protect the state and private revenue bond capital providers front losses due to default on any of the program's loans. Businesses must meet the definition of a "small business" to ~l~lify. Under a special loan allocation, businesses may qualify if the produce or propose e~-w~jy-related technology. alternative energy resources, or energy conservation products or services. Businesses having a favorable impact on economically disadvantaged areas of th~ ~tate0 creating new jobs, or helping to employ minority or disadvantaged workers may qualify for special consideration if they meet other program guidelines. Qualified businesses may obtain loans through the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority. Businesses undergo normal loan application and approval procedures, including personal interviews and a comprehensive review of business plans. Loans are made available to qualified applicants within 90 day~ For further information on the Small Business Development Loan Program, contact ~ Morlock, Director of Business Services, Minnesota Department of Energy and Econ~n~ic Development, 150 E. Kellogg Bird,, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone {612) 2964039. Stillwat'er Township and the City of Stillwater have formed e Joint Planning Committee to formulate a policy for the city that deals with development s1~jing and utilities extension, The committee is grappling with several issues including: stag[~j of physical growth and utility extensions, delineation of a "transitional area" on the fringe of Freestanding Growth · Centers, annexation criteria and "pre-annexation" agreements. .- The committee is interested in finding out if other communities have confronted and/or found a solution to the same problem. If your community has, please contact Lucy Thompson, Planning Assistance Department, at 291-6521. The Metropolitan Council is also concerned about addressing these kinds of problems in its update of the Metropolitan Development Guide, Toward that end, the Planning Assistance staff is considering holding a }nearing to discuss alternative growth management strategies being used locally. If such a meeting is of interest to your community, please tel Lucy 'thompson know. The Metropolitan Council's Planning Assistance Department recently acquired copies of several of the State Planning Agency's best educational materials for local governments. Included are slide/tape shows on: Growth Management, the Role of the Planning Commission in Local Government, Orderly Annexation, Introduction to Subdivision Controls, If you would like more information or would be interested irt arranging a workshOp assisted by Council staff, call Romi Slowiak at 291-6323. Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAiD Mpls., Minn. · :Permit No. 1510 ~R. JON ELAM MANAGER CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOCD BLVD MOUND MN 55364 A NEWSLETTER OF THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION · TWIN CITIES AREA 1985 MWCC Budget Approved The 1985 MWCC Operating and Capital Budget was approved and adopted at the August 21 full Commission meeting. To receive public input, the Commission held six public meetings during the month of July, and invited all of the communities in the six sewer service areas to attend. The comments from the communities on the 1985 Budget were favorable. Expenditures for the administration, operation and maintenance of the Metropolitan Disposal System during 1985 will total $90,252,506 (see the chart accompanying this article for a breakdown of the budget). This amount represents a $5,898,081.00, or a 6.99 percent increase in proposed expenditures over the 1984 Budget. Over one- half of the increase, or 3.71 percent is due to balloon payments on debt service. The debt service cost is similar to a home mortgage where the debt for'a large purcl-[ase is spread over many years. In the Commission's case, each year dollars are included in the operating budget to cover the Commission's annual debt, or mortgage payment on facilities they acquired or built in the past. Subtracting the 3.71 percent for debt service costs from the total budget increase of 6.99 percent resuh~ in a remainder of 3.28 percent. This 3.28 percent increase reflects an inflationary increase in labor and materials, as well as new facilities/programs at the Metro Plant, which are necessary to meet increased air and water quality standards. Arriving at a 6.99 percent increase was a three-fold process. MWCC Program Managers prepared a draft Program Budget to meet their program objectives and needs for 1985. Department Directors reviewed these (Budget continued page 2) Richard Berg, MWCC Comptroller, at a budget meeting. Peter Meintsma Appointed. MWCC Chairman Peter E. Meintsma Governor Rudy Perpich appointed Peter E. Meintsma chairman of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC). He succeeds George H. Frisch. Meintsma served as Mayor of Crystal from 1974 until his appointment to the Commission. Active in civic affairs, he h'as served on committees of the Metro'politan Council, The League of Minnesota Cities, The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and The Citizens League. Meintsma is a history instructor at Anoka-Ramsey Com- munity College. He holds a master's degree in const: tional history from the University of Minnesota and co. pleted the reflective leadership program at the Univer- sity's Humphrey Institute. (Budget continued from page 1) requests and budgets were reduced by a joint decision of the Department Directors and Prol~ram Maria§ers. These reduced draft Program Budgets, when presented to the MWCC Staff Budget Committee, totaled a 10.36 percent, 739,000 increase. Staff Budget Committee met with each Department Director and Program Manager and further reduced the total increase to 8.57 percent, or $7,229,000. Additional reviews by the Budget Committee and the Commission reduced the total budget increase to 6.99 percent, or The average rate for local governments being served by the Metropolitan Disposal System is estimated to average $80.32 per 100,000 gallons discharged into the system. This is an average increase of 2.92 p~rcent over 1984. MWCC 1985 Budget QUALITY CONTROL 4.0% -- $3,592,000 ENGINEERING 0.7% -- $622,000 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 6.2% -- $5,567,000 ADMINISTRATION 1.8% -- $1,606,000 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 0.0% -- $~7.500 / / / ~ COMPTROLLER 0.6% -- $563,~0 BUSINESS SERVICES 1.8% -- $1,615,000 TOTAL BUDGET = $90,252,500 , ?77 Employee Assistsnce Program Renewed The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has renewed its contract with Family Service of Greater St. Paul. This program provides a wide range of services to our employees including educational and support groups, chemical dependency counseling and assessment, life transitions, self development, parenting, financial plan- ning; virtually any problem which disrupts the family/or individual and could affect job performance. The Employee Assistance Program covers employee and family members. It is a program that is governed by the Data Privacy Act which insures strict confidentiality. 'This confidentiality is provided at several levels. All voluntary referrals to the Employee Assistance Program are confidential and no one at the MWCC has access to names--only statistical totals. Supervisors who refer an employee to the Employee Assistance Program will not discuss this referral with any- one other than Family Service Counselors, nor will notes on the referral be put in a personnel file. If an employee voluntarily seeks help from the FamF Service for a personal problem and a Supervisor's assist- ance is required in any way, then the employee must sign a release of information form before Family Service can relay any information to that supervisor. No information can be released by Family Service with- out the employee specifically authorizing it in writing. Janet Fisher is MWCC's primary contact at Family Service with Kathy Bergman also available. Both can be reached at 222-0311. If you have any questions, don't hesi- tate to call them or contact Bruce Miller, at the Central Office, 222-8423. International Visitor Wolf§ang Radlegger, a member of the Salzberg Pro- vincial Government, met with Commission staff to discuss wastewater treatment and financial concerns. The meeting on June 26th was very informative for all who attended the meeting. MWCC staff learned how problems' in wastewater treatment, similar to the ones faced by the MWCC, are addressed in Austria. L-R: James Austin, State Department Escort--Interpreter; Wolfgang Radlegger; Steven Sielaff, Accountant-Comptro$1er's office; Lou Breim- burst, Deputy Chief Administrator. MWCC Goes to New Orleans MWCC staff scheduled to present papers at the Water Pollution Control Federation's annual conference in New Orleans are: Robert Polta, Quality Control, Rebecca Flood, Ouality Control, and Dick DeFore, Operations Department, Poha's paper, "Automation of Sludge Processin§~Con- ditioning, Dewatering, and Incineration," is co-authored by Donald Stulc, Quality Control, and George Mathes, EMA, Inc. Flood's paper, "Successful Disposal/Utilization of Sludge," is co-authored by Robert Polta and Nan Schumacher, Quality Control. DeFore's paper "Activated Sludge Control for Seasonal Disinfection," is co-authored by Joanne Hart, former MWCC employee, and Steven Chiesa, Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota. In addition, Claude Anderson is one of the co-authors of a paper to be presented by Terry Krause, Metcalf & Eddy, entitled: "Disinfection Plan for the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant." The other co-authors are Dennis Martensen, TKDA, and Hugh McConneil, IvlWCC. The conference, scheduled October 1-4, will be held at the Louisiana Superdome. Please check here if you no longer wish to receive THE OUTFALL Name Address Position Please make any address corrections directly on your mailing label and return to MWCC Public Information Office, 350 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul. MN 55701. 3 Complete Apprenticeships Three Metro Plant employees recently completed ap- Machinis~ and Aerospace Workers, District 77 and the g were Abel Alsides, Danny Coyle and David Graul. ~ :; ~ , ...... :~:~ L-R: Danny Coyle. Abe, Alside, and Dasd craul with their certifical,. ~tos of a fire on Jul~ 18th were recorded due to quick acdon on the part of Mike Thompson, Industrial Waste Tecfinician I1, Metro Plant. The fire broke out in a temporar~ building housing a boiler that was in the process of being dismantled. The building, a wooden structure, went up in smoke after a spark ignited from some weldin~ equipment. The buildin~ was destroyed, tile boiler imact and most important~no one was injured. Bulk Rate ITIETROP©LtTRfl u.s. Postage WRITE PAID (OI"iTROL Mpls.. Minn. ~50 ~ETEO/OUIq~.E BLDC-. 7TH & ROBERT,,rTREET! .rP, IRT PRUL IT:,R 55101 6j~ 22~.8493 Peter E. Meintsma Chairman E. Bergal Informahon Ofhcer Sept. 1984 Y~. JC'N ELA~ C;[TY OF FOUND E341 ~YwOCD ~LV~ CITY 0F MOUI~D _1984 Summer Recreation Pro,Tam Report In 1984 the City of Mound sponsored a Summer Playground Pmogram and a Summer Tennis Program. This report will include a summary of the Playground Program, a Playground attendance sheet, a summary of the Tennis Program and a %oral budget report. PLAYCROUND PROGRAM - six weeks of activities - five parks (Swenson, Highlands, Three Points, Belmont and Clover Circle) - morning programming (9:00 - 11:30) The main difference in program design this year was moving to morning hours from afternoon. With morning activities a lot of the heat is avoided so a larger variety of games can be played without the children getting so hot. We also avoided conflicts with afternoon swim lessons at the beaches, so otuv attendance was more consistant. One disadvantage Was not having lifeguards at the beaches when we went. Hiring life- guards to work in the playgrounds was one solution, and working with ~esionka Community Services to hire extra lifeguards was another. Program Sign-up - Swenson 64 ~ Highlands 37 - Three Points 50 - Belmont 28 - Clover Circle ~ Total 212 The total program sign-up of 212 children was slightly less than last year's 235. The daily attendance was up quite a bit over last year'~ however, and having activities in the morning is probably the reason for this. (Please see attached attendance report.) .~layground activities We started the season with all of the supervisors attending the Playground Workshoo put on by Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association. The program started June 18%h and ended July 27th with no activities the week of July fourth. The supervisors took turns planning the activities, and I met with them once a week to go over their pro- grams. 'Including the tennis teacher, I hired fourteen highschool and college students to work in the parks. In addition to the normal games and crafts, I scheduled informal soccer games during playground hours. We also reserved Fridays as a special event day with each park having its own event. On July 19th and 20th we went on a field trip to the Aware House (Children's Museum). We took two full busloads of children. The trips were a great success. 1..984 SU'I,,~'~:~ PLAYCROUh~ ATT~DA.NCE Swenson Park Belmont 'Three,, POints HiFhlands Clover Circle Daily Total :'~/11 M 26 18 ........... ,52 16 30 122 T ;58 24 -- .50 92 w 4.~ I c) .51 1 7 .~2 142 T 28 16 27 23 30 124 F 25 20 ~2 2_.~.0 ~50 127 160 7'-'~ 146 76 152 607 5/18 N, 25 11 25 ~2 2o T 23 20 22 15 28 108 w 26 18 ~? 18 28 T 22 16 22 20 ' 30 110 F .2O 18 15 18 JO 101 116 8-~ 105 8-~ 156 52--~ 6/25 ~[ ~ ~ ~0 ~5 28 82 T 19 17 11 17 27 W 2~ ~ 0 ~ 2 20 ~ 7 80 ~ ~0 8 ~ ~ 20 ~ 9 ~ . 27 ~ ~ 22 28 ~ ~.~ 7/9 M 29 4 16 8 25 82 W 25 ~2 ~8 ~0 ~O ~5 T 24 15 22 17 27 ' 105 F 94 48 7~ 50 ~ ~ 2 ~77 7/16 M 16 11 15 12 28 82 · ~9 ~ ~5 ~0 ~0 87 w 18 20 19 15 26 98 ~ ~ ~ ? 14 20 25 ~ 05 F 22 ~ 2~ ~ .~1 11~ 106 78 89 72 1 ~8 485 1/2~ M ....... T 1 6 4 10 12 24 66 W 21 9 ~4 14 25 8~ T 14 1~ 11 ~5 20 71 F 1~ ~12 ~12 ~ ~ 81 66 ~6 47 56 96 50~ - {' .... 657. ~82 .... 522 4~1 ~55 274~ Bad weather, Program cancelled NOTE: This attendance report does not reflect tennis progr_am participation. PROGRAM - six weeks of lessons - two parks (M & W at Swenson, T & TH ~t Three Points) - afternoon group lessons Free group tennis lessons were offered at Swenson Park and Three Points Park for children between the ages of eight and eighteen. The instructor tested the children the first day and divided them into groups according to their skill level. At the end of the session, "City of Mound" first through sixth place ribbons were awarded in ~ skills tournament. Total cost for the program was $377.30 (Please see attached budget report). 1984 was the fourth summer we offered this program. Both the total sign-up and average attendance were down this year fram last year. I'm not sure why this happened as the program design, times, places and promotion were ali the same. I feel that in working with Community Services we have been able to hire some excellant instructors% (With both of us offering a part-time job, we can p~ovide enough hours to attract a skilled leacher.) Therefore, the children receive excellant instruction while learning proper use of ou~ beautiful tennis courts. Also, since the playground program was in the morning and tennis was in the afternoon, there was:supgr~ision at the parks more hours of the day. Tennis Procram Attendance Park Week 1 2 3 4 . , 5 6 Totals W 14 ~8 12 ~4 12 10 80 ~hree T 22 12 15 ~ 12 10 71 Points TH 6 7 14 15 8 12 62 eekly , otals. 42 49 53 43 40_,, __42 269 Wages Uniforms Print in g Workshop Transportation - Bus Tzip - Mil e age N~iscell aneous* 984 Budget Report Lifeguard P1 aygrqunds Tennis Supervision Totals $4~6.~09 ,505.00 ........ 163.00 ~:5'074~ 09' 387.87 39. O0 426.87 9,5.75 93.75 28.1,5 28.12 56.25 108.00 '~08.00 '1'18.27 '1'18.2'7 6.5.95 5.'18 2.5.05 92.18 60.99 _. 60.99 $5527.05 ] ,577.30 126.05 $6030.40 *~iscellaneous includes "help wanted" adds in the paper and costs of going to the Children' s h~seum. Thank you once again for this summer job. If you have any questions about this report or the summer program, please call... TE~IS & SOCCER SPECIAL EV~S CITY OF MOUED SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS--1 & CRAFTS ,QOST: REGISTRATION: Swenson (Island) Park Highland Park Belmont Tot Lot Three Points Park Clover Circle Park Weekdays from 9:00 to 11:50 ; June 11 through June 29 - and - July 9 through July 27 (No pro.am July 2 - 6) Eone 5 years and older Sign up at the parks the first two days T E N N I S Free group tennis lessons and game opportunities will be provided... WR~RE: -Swenson Park Three Points Park ~:. June 11 through June 9 and JulY 9 through July 27 1:00 - 5:00 AGES: 8 - 18 years .' M&W T&TH REGISTRATION: 1:00 at the parks the first day SOCCER Informal soccer games will be put together at each park twice a week. Swenson T & %~H Clover Circle T & T~H Highland M & W Three Points M & W Belmont M & W TI~.~: During regular playground hours AGES: 9 - 14 years P~CISTRATION: None - come and play! INTEROFFICE MEMO FROM: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager DATE Len Harrell, Chief of Police Intersection at County Road 125 and Tuxedo Blvd. September 20,19 8..i~4 On September 19, 1984, I met with Gary Rielander of the Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation to discuss some modifications for improving the intersection of County Road 125 at Tuxedo Blvd. We discussed putting in a concrete median where the present posts are anchored in the road. The median would keep vehicles from cutting across eastbound Cty. Rd. 125 when making a left.turn from northbound Tuxedo Blvd. Mr. Reilander advised that a new cement median would be too costly, but stated that he would recommend that a "right of median" sign be installed for northbound Tuxedo Blvd. We then discussed adding a stop sign and informational sign at the curve of southwest Cty. Rd. 125 at Tuxedo Blvd. Mr. Rielander's first reaction was that the sign was not needed, but he stated he would pull the traffic statistics for the intersection before making a final decision. We then'discussed what the City could do on Tuxedo Blvd. at Cry. Rd. 125 to slow traffic northbound through the .intersection. It was agreed that adding a stop sign and an informational sign would help. Mr. Rielander also suggested adding a double yellow line to the center of Tuxedo Blvd. to enforce vehicles driving around the median to the right. Also suggested was a solid white "STOP" line even with the stop sign at Tuxedo Blvd. and Cty. Rd. 125. Mr. Rielander stated that he would inform me of the county's decision on additional signing after some further study. MINUTES OF TNE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 1984 Present were: Chairman Frank Weiland; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, Liz Jensen, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese and Michael Vargo; Council Representa- tive Pinky Charon; City Manager Jon Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Also present were the following interested persons: James Jagodzinski, Margaret Hanson, Bob Hanson, Scott Miles, Mrs. James Hill, Dean Hunter, James Hunter, Scot McKenzie, Mary McKenzie, Kathy Oman, Carol McMullen, Peter Johnson, Klm Johnson, Donald Larson, Janice Larson and Dick McCurdy. The Chairman opened the meeting and welcomed those persons in attendance. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1984 were presented for consideration. Reese moved and Jensen seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the.August 27, 1984 meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 84-356 Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit for a Printing Shop and Site Plan Review fo~ 2434 Commerce Boulevard Lots 15, 18 and Part of 33, Auditor's Subdivision James M. Jagodzinski was present. Planner, Mark Koegle. r, explained that Mr. Jagodzinski was really before you for , two actions - for a conditional use permit for a printing business - the busine is in existence right now in the r. ear of medical building west of the House of ~.. Moy. They will relocate to the new building'which is the second part of tonight's agenda on.this item which is the site plan review for a new commercial building a't 2434.Commerce, What the applicant is proposing to do is complete construction of that frame structure,'upgrade the house and connect the two with a second story bridge which a'driveway would pass underneath. The total structure would be ap- proximatel.y 4,000 square feet of leasable area. According to the site plan, at the rear of the property would be.a 10 car parking lot;'there are 2 spaces in the front portion'for a total of 12 cars. Also the site plan indicates that surfacing would be bi. tuminous up to the building and the rear portion of the lot would be basically a crushed gravel or stone.-The total lot area is approximately 15,O00 square feet which exceeds the minimum lot area of 7500 square feet and proposal does meet'all the setbacks. In his report, he mentioned that it does not abut on R-l; however, the wetlands are R-1. The parking requirements are not known as uses of the building right now are somewhat speculative. The parking is keyed to the use of the building; if all offices, the parking is one to 400 square feet which is lO stalls; if same space is lO0%.retail, you would be looking at 27 stalls. Parking is one thing that you may want to clarify. Landscaping plan C is very adequate. Planner mentioned that the Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for J~. Printing and approval of the site plan for the building subject to the 5 conditions in his report. The Chairman asked for a motion to accept or deny before getting into the dis- cussion on the conditional use permit for a printing shop and site plan review. Reese moved and Byrnes seconded the approval subject to the Staff recommenda- ' tions. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1984 - Page 2 The Chairman asked if anyone present had any comments or questions. No one responded. He ,then asked about the lighting of the parking areas and how do you maintain a dust free parking lot if you use crushed stone. Mr. Jagodzinski explained that what he had in mind was a free standing lamp- post in front at southwest corner of the house and a flood light out back of building to light parking lot; both on photocell to come on automatically. Discussed that floodlights might be a problem to abutting property owners. The Building Official stated Ordinance specifies lighting under certain types of business be a shaded light, i.e. no direct source of light visible from the public right-of-way or from adjacent properties. A~plicant stated that the light could be mounted on the bridge and would not be seen by the struc- tures on the north or south. Mr dagodzinski has talked to Watershed about the parking lots; they want him to build a depression (pond) with a couple of traps so whatever comes off the parking lot goes into pond and surface runs off through the traps and is skimmed off and held there, balance below the surface runs off into the swamp. Coffin Surveyors are preparing plan and should have .had it over to the Watershed District already. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Council will set the public hearing at their September 18th meeting; proposed date for the public hearing is October 9, 1984. Case No. 84-357 Recognizing the existing non-conforming lot width and setbacks to sideyard for 5425 Bartlett Boulevard Lot 27, The Bartlett Boulevard, Upper Lake Minnetonka Robert and Margaret Hanson were present. The Building Official explained that the applicants would like to build a 24 by 23 foot attached garage to their home. The R-1 Zoning District requires 10 foot sideyards, but for lots of record, one of the sideyards can be reduced to 6 feet due to the lot width. The R-1 Zoning District requires a 60 foot lot width and they have a 42.73 foot lot width. The existing lot is over the 10,000 foot requirement for lot area. The existing structure has a 2.7 foot and 4.6 foot sideyard to the lot line which are also nonconforming. In 1972, they were granted a variance to put an addition onto the rear of their home which was to the south of the house. The Staff recommends approving the 24 by 23 foot attached garage recognizing the existing nonconforming structure setbacks and lot width and that the new addition be conforming with 10 foot and 6 foot side yard setbacks and 30 foot front yard setback. Jensen moved and Vargo seconded a motion to approve. The vote was unani- mously in favor. Motion carried. This will be referred to the City Council for the September 25, 1984 agenda. Case No. 84-358 Sign Permit Variance for Mound Sta-Safe Lock Company, 2236 Commerce Boulevard N. 22.5 Ft. of S. 24 Ft. of W~ 100 Ft. of Lot 45, Koehler's Addn. to Mound Scott Miles was present. The Planner reviewed his report on this sign variance request. The Lock Company moved recently to the basement of the bakery building next to the Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1984 - Page 3 Anderson building. Upon moving.to that location, they installed the sign they had at the previous building which was a free standing roof/wall sign and was the plastic sign internally lit and has a flashing sphere at the top of it. Total area is about 9.4 square feet. They did file a sign permit appli- cation after being informed by the Building Official that installation of sign without a permit was illegal. They are also proposing to add some signage around the door (per sketch) which would consist of some identification let- tering and are requesting to legitimize the installation of what was put in as a roof sign. The new location has about 600 square feet of wall area which will, under the new sign draft, allow signage of a total of 90 square feet. The sign they are proposing is approximately 16 square feet - well within the ordinance. The problem on this one.comes with the roof sign which is pro- hibited in all areas of the City unless they are "an integral part of the architecture of the building". Also the ordinance draft prohibits blinking signs. Reese moved and Charon seconded a motion for approval based on the modifi- cation proposed by the Staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager asked the Chairman to make sure the applicant understands what the motion means. After discussion, Miles asked where he can put the sign; cost was $900. and he doesn't want to just throw it away. The Planner stated that there may.be a way to take sign and retrofit it as a wall sign; than it would be legal sign if the blinker was taken out of sign. It can't be mounted as a roof sign; but it may be possible to use the sign. This will be referred to the City Council for the September 25, 1984 meeting. Case No. 84-359 Fence height variance and setback variance for 5045 Bartlett Boulevard - SWly 10 feet of Lot 3, all of Lots 4, 5, 29 and SWly 50 feet of' Lot 30, Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit B Mrs. James Hill was present. The Building Official explained the Hi. lis.would like to place a swimming pool and a privacy fence on their property. They do front on two streets/have a through lot. They would like to,place the privacy fence on the perimeter of the property on the Avon side. The fence location from the property line has not really been determined; they were going to place it at the top of the hill which I would estimate is 6 feet from the property line. It would still be in the required front yard area which is set by the fence ordinance and requires a maximum of 48 inch height. The decking is attached to the house and then proceeds to the south around an above ground pool within 12 feet at the closest point of their lot. The Avon frontage comes in at an angle on their property and their required setback would be 20 feet to the decking. The pool then is 16 feet by 40 feet above ground and the Zoning District of R-1 requires a 30 foot setback to swimming poo'l.~ in the ~ront yard (30 feet from Avon). The Staff recommends variances be granted due to the shape of the lot. They have the signatures of'the neighbors approving the request. Byrnes questioned if any foliage on Avon would be disturbed in the erection of the fence. Mrs. Hill stated they do not intend to. Byrnes feels the foliage is a natural barrier. Planning Commission Minutes September lO, 1984 - Page 4 Byrnes moved and Charon seconded~a motion to approve the variances as recom- mended by the Staff. The Chairman asked if the motion could include "that if the pool comes out, the fence be removed or reduced to a conforming height of 48 inches". The maker and seconder of the motion.agreed to amending the motion. The vote on the motion.as amended was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. This item will be referred to the City Council for the September 25, 1984 agenda, Case No. 84-360 Side lot line variance for 4869 HanoVer Road Lot 7 and.part of Lot 8,. Block 16, Devon James Hunter was present. The Build}ng Official explained that he is requesting that we recognize an existing nonconforming accessory building setback. Awhile back the property was subdivided; one stipulat'ion was that the garage was to be removed~ Part of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance state that an accessory building cannot be constructed before the principal building. Mr. Hunter is in the process of constructing a~home, on.that site at the present time and is re- questing that the garage be recognized as being a nonconforming structure. There is a 4.6 foot and a 5 foot.setback to the west lot line and the 6rdinance requires 6 foot in the sideyard location. The reason it was.subdivided with 3 feet of Lot 8 going to the Lot 9 parcel was' to give the existing home a little more of a sideyard at the time, so they have a conforming side yard to their house. Reese stated garage is a little worse for wear. The applicant stated he wants to upgrade the garage; make it match the house being constructed. He has al- ready reshingled the.garage. Reese commented that is was then Hunter's in- tention to bring it up to a decent appearance.. Chairman asked for a motion.. Several persons present asked to be heard; they were: Scot McKenzie stated the garage doesn't look that well; the neighbor- hood thought it was going to be removed when the lot was divided and they all were in favor of that. They feel it is not conducive to the'neighborhood and is an eyesore as it stands. Kathy Oman stated they looked at the garage to- night and.all there is is siding; no sheathing (took picutes,of garage and house Hunter is building). The house looks like a skyscraper stuck on a 40 foot wide lot/thinks house not designed to fit the lot. There was no permit to reroof garage. She stated Hunter is selling house and they are the ones that will be living in that area. ~ She stated that they had had to fight to get a 6 foot variance to build their garage a few years ago. The Commission discussed the garage and asked whether the Building Official had looked at it. Mrs. Oman commented that the divider of the land was sup- posed to provide another drive'for existing house and there is no off-street parking. -Mary McKenzie stated renter of existing house on,Lots 9 and IO wanted garage down too, because it is right outside their back door. Carol McMullen stated it is real strange to look across the street and the garage belongs to the house on the corner, not with the one being built and there is no parking. She mentioned that they were never notified of the subdivision request. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1984 - Page 5 Reese asked if this garage were moved and brought up to code, would they still object to it? and commented Mr. Hunter is entitled to build a garage on the property and there is no way to stop him and that to keep peace in the neighbor. hood, the garage could probably be.moved for several hundred dollars to a site that would be conforming, but that.it would cost a bundle to bring it up to code. Mr. Hunter. would have to make the decision on a straight cost benefit basis;' is it cheaper to start over or cheaper to. move existi'ng building? Reese asked if this was a compromise that wau~d make everyone happy or equally unhappy? Hunter stated that was completely within the framework of his thinking. Reese asked if i.t was the condition of the garage or the location that the neighbors were complaining about.. They stated they'd like both remedied. Discussed at length. Hunter had not thought anyone would object to where garage.was. The City Manager stated that.applicant really ought to withdraw his application and' do it up to the City standards; i.e., minimum 6 foot sideyard setback and bring it up to code. The Chairman asked applicant if he'd like to rescind/with- draw his application. Hunter asked if his fee would be refunded? Weiland stated if he does withdraw request, he'd move to refund his fee. Michael seconded the motion. City Manager asked why they wanted to give a refund after the Building Official spent all that time trying to bring up the conclusion and recommendation. Weiland stated just to help him out and that if they could get everybody to do that, he would gladly recommend the refund and asked that this be included in the motion. Reese stated it was to ease the hurt and, in the long run, there would be a peaceful neighborhood and a better looking neighborhood. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Motion carried for refund of fee. The City Manager stated a time frame should be set up on conditions of resolu- tions. Discussed. Case No. 84-361 Front yard and lakeshore setback variance for 3140 Priest Lane Lot 4, Block 2, Highland Shores Addition Peter and Kim Johnson were present. " The Building Official reviewed applicant's request to put a home on the last platted lot in Highland Shores addition on Priest Lane; the R-! Zoning District requires a 30 foot front yard setback to the public right-of-way and a 50 foot setback from the principal building to the lakeshore elevation of 929.5. In going back to the platting of the property; there was fill placed there many years ago before the lots were platted. The depth of the lot on the north end is 69+ feet which makes it somewhat difficult to comply with a 30 foot front yard a--nd a 50 foot lakeshore setback. The Staff recombmends approval because of the shallow platting. The home proposed is in excess of the required mini- mum 840 square feet, but it "i-~ compati'ble with the neighborhood. Soil boring taken show originally lot had about 5 feet of fill. Reese moved and Meyer seconded a motion approving the requested variances. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. This will be referred to the City Council on the September 25, 1984 agenda. ?lanni. n~ C~mmis$ion Minutes September 10, 1984 - Page 6 Case No. 84-362 Lot split subdivision with lot width variance for 5034 Tuxedo Boulevard ~ Part of Lot 3, Block l, WhippTe PID 24-117-24 43 0036 Donald Larson and Janice Larson were present. The Building Official explained the applicants are requestiog a waiver to sub- divide the existing parcel, Lot 3, Block 1, ~hipple, into two lots of 12,900 square feet each. The lot width'would be 44.35 feet to the south on Tuxedo and 50 feet to the north on lakeshore. The existing site h~s several struc- tures on it. They have existing garage that is 2.2 feet to the lot line that would be on the subdivided parcel by itself. Applicants are proposing to re- move two additions - one a 26 foot by 18.2 foot and the other 8 foot by 16.4 foot. Her recommendation'is that the variances not ~e granted. The lots in the area have pretty much been platted at 50 feet. We had a similar case next to this. Mr. Veilleux had 2 legal lots of record which he divided. Now we would be creating two nonconforming lots. The Chairman asked for a motion. Byrnes moved and Vargo seconded a motion to deny the subdivision. Mr. Larson commented that, in the neighborhood, there are some lots 45 feet wide on the lakeside and one or two with 26 or 27 foot width on the street. They feel they have too much house and too much lot and doesn't fit the neighborhood. If a new house were put in, he would guarantee it would fit the lot and be of a width to meet the setbacks of 10.feet; and he would also remove the south garage. He's glad to have these things in the proposal. Very expensive house; heat bill last January was $389.-Want a smaller home that would fit the neigh- borhood. Vargo stated existing house would still be nonconforming. Reese stated he has a fine looking house. Applicant commented they paid more than house will sell for. Jensen asked setbacks. The Building Official said for new platted lots, setback to side yard would be 10 feet. Jensen concerned that if subdivision allowed, lot could not meet minimum setback requirements. The vote on the motion was: Jensen opposed, Michael abstained and all others voted in favor of the denial. Motion carried. Discussed that economics not a reason for granting variances. Copy of criteria for granting variances was given to applicant. This wi.ll be on the City Council agenda for the September 25, 1984 agenda. DISCUSSION The Chairman advised that George Kinser has officially resigned from the Planning Commission due to his job commitment and asked that a short letter of thanks be written for his participation. Charon is looking for resolution limiting number of unexcused absences for Commission members before dropping them from the Commission. The Chairman asked that the Council's action on the Planning Commission items be in- cluded in the packets. ADJOURNMENT Meyer moved and Vargo seconded a motion to adjourn at 8.'45 P.M. The vote was unani- mously in favor, so meeting was adjourned. Tfl Frank Weiland, Chairman