1999-07-27PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES OR PAGERS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City °f Mound, throughteamwork and cooperation, provides at
a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the: needSof ali citizens; fostering a Safe, attractive and flourishing
community
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 27, AT 6:00 P.M.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 2658-2659
7:30 P.M.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
*Consent Agenda:. All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA
*B.
APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1999, REGULAR MEETING. 2660-2676
CASE//99-29: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO
CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE
AT 6037 HAWTHORNE RD; BLOCK 9, LOTS 5 AND PART OF 6,
THE HIGHLANDS; MARLENE & JEFF HARTY, 61610,
PID# 23-117-24 34 0025 ............................ 2677-2689
*C.
CASE//99-14: VARIANCE; SIDE YARD SETBACK; TO
CONSTRUCT A NONCONFORMING ATTACHED GARAGE
AT 2374 CHATEAU LANE; BLOCK 2, LOTS PART OF 8 AND PART
OF 9, JOHN S CARLSON; LARRY AND PAMELA PETERSON,
61550, PID # 13-117-24 43 0028 ....................... 2690-2704
2655
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES OR PAGERS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*D.
CASE # 98-63: VARIANCE; LAKESIDE SETBACK, STREET
FRONTAGE AND HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A
SCREEN PORCH OVER THE EXISTING DECK AT
4347 WILSHIRE BLVD; PART OF LOTS 75, 76 & LOT B, 1s? REARR.
OF PIP 1sT DIVISION; W. THOMAS & DIANE HARMON, 37890,
PID # 19-117-23 13 0008 ............................ 2705-2739
*E.
*b'f~ RESCHEDULE START TIME FOR HRA MEETING ON
AUGUST 10, 1999 TO 6:00 P.M ........................... 2772
~ V~-o~ *G. PAYMENT OF BILLS .............................
~~~'~'' ~-~L}~_ ~-'~)O.L,~t_,,. 2773-2792
O~~ COMMENTS& SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON
~ X r ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REVISION SECTION 350:420:
.0 REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVISION
I~'~ 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACED
BY NEW LANGUAGE .................................. 2793-2818
INI~ORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS
Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Road .................. 2740-275
Ed Gordon, 4737 Island View Drive ................ 2752-2756
Maria Amplatz, 2845 Cambridge Lane .............. 2757-2771
A. Quarterly report from Len Harrell, Police Chief ............. 2819-2832
Letter from Orono on a meeting to review updated information regarding
the Dakota Rail line. This is scheduled for Wednesday, July 28, 1999,
at 8:00 A.M. in the Orono City Council Chambers ............... 2833
C. DCAC Minutes - July 15, 1999 ........................ 2834-2839
D. Planning Commission Minutes of Julyl2, 1999 .............. 2840-2850
REMINDERS:
CITY COUNCIL SPONSORED EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION LUNCH -
FRIDAY, JULY 30, 1999 - 11:00 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M., CITY HALL. 2851
2656
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES OR PAGERS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
B. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - AUGUST 3, 1999,
7:30 P.M.
2657
CITY OF MOUND "
· NOTICE OF
CHANGE IN MEETING TIME
JOINT PLANNING COMMIS-
SION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE is hereby given that the City
Council of the City of Mound Regularly
scheduled meeting on July 27, 1999, will
begin at 6:00 P.M. on that' date. The reason
for the change in time will be to hold a jo nt
Planning Commission/City Council meeting to
discuss repealing City Code Section 350:420,
Subdivisions 9 & 10, pertaining to
nonconforming uses and replacing them with
new language.
Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk/Acting City Manager
(Pu 01ished~in_ ~ .. The Laker Juty,~'l 7, .1999)
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKEF[, Mound,
Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are stated below:
A,) The newspaper, has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.) The printed Change In Meeting Time
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week for I successive weeks:
It was first published Saturday
the 17thdayof July 19 99 ,
and was thereafter printed and published every
Saturday, to and including Saturday,
the day of
19__;
Authorized Agent
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
17th dayof July ,19 99
By: ~/~?~,,t .~
.... - ...... .... ~N. ota~3Public
~ KRIS'"~ HOLM [
~Rat~~ti~° J
(1) ~w~fl~~ ~-~m~sers
f~ ~m~le s~: $12.90 ~r in~.
~) M~lmum rate ~l~ed by law for ~ve ma~er: $12.90.
(3) Rate a~ually ~g~ for ~ve ma~er: $7.19 per inch.
Ea~ a~i~al su~sive week: ~.14.
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF
CHANGE IN MEETING TIME
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound
Regularly scheduled meeting on July 27, 1999, will begin at 6:00
P.M. on that date. The reason for the change in time will be to
hold a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to discuss
repealing City Code Section 350:420, Subdivisions 9 & 10,
pertaining to nonconforming uses and replacing them with new
language.
Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk/Acting City Manager
Publish in The Laker - July 19, 1999
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
July 13, 1999
Page 1
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 13, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular
session on Tuesday, July 13, 1999, at 7:35 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark
Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark., City
Attorney John Dean, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Suthefland,
Assistant City Planner: Loren Gordon.
The following interested citizens were also present: Planning Commission Members: Geoff
Michael, 1713 Avocet Lane, Frank Weiland, 6045 Aspen Road, Cklair Hasse, 6627 Bartlett
Boulevard, Bill Voss, 4608 Kildare Road, and Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road.
Other public present: Pauline Raye, Indian Knolls, Frank McMenamylook, 5211 Shoreline
Drive, Paul Muset, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, Lonnie Weber, 1716 Bluebird Lane, Mark E.
Brewer, 5581 Shoreline Drive, Haflan Dugstead, 5881 Fairfield Road, Marilyn Byisea, 2851
Cambridge Lane, June Estelle, 1666 Coffman Street, St. Paul, Gail Opheim, 2400 Fairview
Lane, Stacy and David Briggs, 2396 Fairview Lane, Erwin and Jill Walters, 2348 Fairview
Lane, Eric Byrd, 23330 Fairview Lane, Bob Longnecker, 2361 Fairview Lane, Tamra Botkin,
2355 Fairview Lane, Dorothy and Bill Netka, 2360 Commerce Boulevard, Dotty G. Brieres,
5053 Bartlett Boulevard, Phyllis Jensen, 2920 Pelican Point Boulevard, Shirley Romness,
5235 Bartlett Boulevard, Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Jay Petersen, 2667 Halsted Lane,
Bob and Nancy Craig, 3017 Brighten Boulevard, Patrick MacKenzie, 3013 Brighten
Boulevard, Sandra Simar, 5910 Idlewood Road, Beth and Bob Anderson, 3001 Brighten
Boulevard, Robert and Judy Hutchins, 3054 Brighten Boulevard, Gary Blix, 3025 Brighten
Boulevard, and Thomas Alexander, 4994 Manchester Road.
The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:37 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA
Clark indicated that items D and E would be August 10, 1999 instead of July 27, 1999 per
the Planning Commission. Hanus pulled item F for a quick correction.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
July ~ ~, ~ 99~
Page 2
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Brown to approve the Regular Agenda, as
amended. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
1.0 APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1999, REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION
Weycker, Brown, unanimously.
1.1 APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 1999, REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION
Weycker, Brown, unanimously.
1.2 APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 1999, SPECIAL MEETING.
MOTION
Weycker, Brown, unanimously.
1.3
PAYMENT REOUEST #2 - MOTION - AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT - KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION $80,024.49.
MOTION
Weycker, Brown, unanimously.
1.4 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
Weycker, Brown, unanimously
1.5
CASE #99-27: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCES; FRONT YARD AND
SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT AN ATrACHED 24 X 24 GARAGE
AND A 16 X 20 SCREEN PORCH AT 4873 CUMBERLAND ROAD; BLOCK 1, LOT
24, ARDEN; MELODY OLSEN, PID # 24-117-24 44 0021.
Hanus believes the required side yard setback should be 10 feet not 6 feet and, therefore, the
variance requested is 6 feet. Both Sutherland and Gordon debated this feeling it was a lot of
record and should be 6 feet required setback. However, in light of Code 350.620, subd. 2C, page
49 of City Codes, Gordon acceded the point to Hanus.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution as amended above.
DraJ2 Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
July 13, 1999
Page 3
RESOLUTION ~99-59
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCES; FRONT YARD
AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT AN
ATTACHED 24 X 24 GARAGE AND A 16 X 20 SCREEN
PORCH AT 4873 CUMBERLAND ROAD; BLOCK 1, LOT 24,
ARDEN; MELODY OLSEN, PID # 24-117-24 44 0021.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.6
SET PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE HALSTEAD PLACE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AREA fl>DA) TO CHANGE THE CURRENT USE OF AN R-1
MOBILE HOME PARK TO AN R-l, PDA AND R-3 PDA RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED WIHTIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING
DISTRICT, LOTS 1, 2, 3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID #22-117-24 43 0007, P AND
X CASE #99-28. (SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 10, 1999}.
1.7
SET PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE HALSTEAD PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA fl>DA} FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED HOME DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, LOTS 1,
2, 3., HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID #22-117-24 43 0007, P AND X CASE g99-28.
(SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 10, 1999).
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to approve Consent Agenda Items # 1.6
and 1.7 with the date change to August 10, 1999. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
1.8
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #99-21: RESOLUTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT; TO ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE
THE WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER, WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY
COLLABORATIVE, PROVIDE TWO ROOMS FOR THE HEAD START
PROGRAM, AND BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN; 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE;
TRACTS A - G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY #739 AND THAT
PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D; ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, PID #'S
24-117-24 12 0014 AND 24-117-24 12 0058.
Gordon presented this case to the Council prior to the public hearing discussion. He stated that
there was considerable public comment regarding the parking and traffic when this appeared
before the Planning Commission. He further commented regarding the definition of the
Memorial Gardens as a "cemetery" per a decision from Dean
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
Jury is, ~999
Page 4
Weycker stated that as an employee of the Healthy Community Collaborative, she would
not be voting on this issue. However, she would like to participate in the discussion as it
relates to the other items under consideration.
Hanus asked if the parking issues on the west side of the church had been alleviated.
Brown stated that the police had changed that arrangement. Gordon stated that there are
40-50 on-site parking spaces in the lot between the school and the church. Totally, there
are about 180 spots in designated parking lots. For the Community Center, the suggested
parking lot use would be the west wing one and there shouldn't be any spill over. Hanus
also recognized the alternating use of the parking with different activities.
Brown also stated that the Senior Citizen busing had been rerouted off Fairview Lane.
There was some disagreement among the audience present about this.
The Mayor opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Bob Longnecker of 2361 Fairview Lane stated that the buses are not all taking an
alternative route and that just today one went down Fairview. He stated that the traffic is
in such a hurry he feels the neighborhood children are in jeopardy. He is seeking ways to
slow the traffic. He has not seen any improvement in the speed. He is suggesting that the
traffic be rerouted on the road behind them which is a commercial route.
Brown stated that the bus drivers had been asked to reroute the traffic and he would check
into this again. He also suggested looking into changing the speed limit along Fairview
Lane.
There was discussion between Council members and the Mayor and staff as to how to lower
the speed limit on a street. Ahrens suggested looking at it as an area where a
school/children were. Mr. Longnecker asked about speed bumps (removable ones).
Tammy Botkin of 2351 Fairview Lane stated she was very upset. She wants the traffic from
these enterprises to use Hidden Vale. She doesn't believe a speed sign/change will help.
There are ten children who live in the neighborhood. "School buses, and daycare parents
bolt down Fairview as if they will die if they don't get to the school on time." She is afraid
something will happen, someone will be injured or killed. She asked why people can't use
the street behind (Hidden Vale). She stated she spoke at the Planning Commission meeting,
but didn't feel that she was heard.
Brown stated that after she left the Planning Commission meeting, he went over to the
church and spoke with the Chief of Police. Discussion was held on using alternative routes.
It was his understanding that the buses were using other routes.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
July 13, 1999
Page 5
In response to Ms Botkin's comment that a Planning Commissioner up and left when she
was speaking, Chair Geoff Michael suggested she look at the reason this Commissioner left.
He took exception to her comments regarding this Commissioner.
Brown further stated that the Planning Commission was a recommending body to the City
Council and that the City Council had final approval on issues.
Jill Walters of 2348 Fairview Lane stated that she drove a school bus in Minnetonka and
that their streets had 15 mph limits. The City Manager and Dean will look into ways to
lower the speed limits. Ms. Walters indicated that from 5:00 - 6:15 p.m. this evening she
sat and counted the traffic. Seventy three cars went down Fairview Lane, a street that is
only 1 car wide when people are parking on it.
Jeff Metzger of 2470 Fairview Lane stated that in the nine years he has lived there, the
traffic issues have only increased and become worse. He commented that it shouldn't be
the job of the neighborhood to make comments to the drivers, it should be the police's job.
He felt that St. John's is asking to create a whole new problem and haven't fixed the old
one. He doesn't feel that changing the speed limit will change things until it is enforced.
He also indicated he felt the church officials also violated the traffic laws.
As for the Memorial Gardens, he is concerned that kids play in the area constantly and the
temptation will be to dig up the ashes. Brown explained that the ashes will be buried in
vaults underground and that a memorial stone would be place on top of the vault. The kids
will not be able to get to the vaults. It is like an underground mausoleum.
David Briggs of 2396 Fairview Lane stated he didn't like the idea of the memorial gardens.
He also is concerned about the traffic along Fairview Lane. He has "seen squad cars pass
the traffic by." Many people run the stop sign. He doesn't want to see someone killed
before action is taken. He feels the police need to issue tickets aggressively.
Bob Tomolka, Treasurer of St. John's Church, stated that after the Planning Commission
meeting, the direction of the Senior Citizen's center traffic was changed. He stated they
could sent out additional notifications to the people involved as well as to the congregation,
but that the church wasn't interested in creating additional problems. The Collaborative
and the Senior Citizen's Center doesn't increase the traffic since there is only one or two
buses from each going back and forth each day. They are trying to be good citizens and will
do what they can to help resolve the issues.
Gail Opheim of 2400 Fairview Lane stated her issues were with the Day care traffic. The
noise level at all times of the day was loud. Daycare parents/buses need to monitor speed
and obey the stop signs. Also, she has had people from the daycare park in her driveway
or blocking it so she could not get out of her driveway.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
Page 6
Eric Byrd of 2330 Fairview Lane asked why Hidden Vale couldn't be the street that
everyone from the church used. He sees this as the logical solution.
Tammy Botkin stated that the arrow off County Road 15 for St. John's Church points right
down Fairview Lane. She asked if this could be moved to direct people down Hidden Vale.
The treasurer for St. John's said they had no problem, but were not sure it could be moved.
They would check with the City.
Phyllis Jensen of 2920 Pelican Point Court spoke in favor of the memorial gardens as a
peaceful restful place for loved ones after they had died.
Jeff Metzger asked if the senior center was still temporary.
-~a BQ. lcvard spoke for the senior center stating that the plans were to build a new
building within 1-1/2 to 3 years.
Bill Voss of the Planning Commission brought up the need for aggressive enforcement of
traffic laws along Fairview Lane. However, speaking from experience as a retired law
enforcement officer, in those cases, quite often the biggest offenders are people who live in
the neighborhood. He suggested, however, that some funds were available with which to
bring in additional help for the police outside the local force to help enforce these rules.
He stated that it only took a short period of aggressive enforcement before the issues
resolved themselves.
Mayor Meisel dosed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Hanus asked the staff about the 50 foot setback requirement for cemeteries and where it
came from. Gordon stated the setback was part of the Shoreland Ordinances philosophy
and they (staff) were "honoring what was on the books." Hanus asked if this area was to
be surveyed. Gordon stated that yes, it would be surveyed. Since the health issues of
burying "bodies" wasn't involved here, the ordinances were different than a cemetery in that
respect. There are no specific regulations for plattings, however, the church did have bylaws
they were operating from. The City has no control over the plattings.
Brown stated he would follow up on the traffic issues. Weycker agreed with Bill Voss that
perhaps aggressive enforcement of the traffic rules would help, but at the same time, they
should look at lowering the speed limit if possible. Mayor Meisel asked that the Chief of
Police look into additional funds to help with this enforcement.
Weycker further suggested that the third %vhereas" also indicate that the senior center was
"temporary." She also encouraged the church to send out flyers or information to the
members and users of these facilities.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
July 13, 1999
Page 7
Hanus stated that "no one wants to be the bad guy," however if people do not call the
police, there is no record of an issue. He encouraged the neighborhood to use the police
as needed to resolve these issues.
The Mayor also asked the staff to look into moving the "arrow sign" pointing to St. John's
Church to along Hidden Vale rather than Fairview Lane.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve Resolutions granting the
conditional use pernfits for St. John's Church for the Westonka Senior
Citizen's Center temporarily and for the Westonka Healthy Collaborative,
and to build a Memorial Garden on Tracts A through G, inclusive, registered
land survey No. 739 and that part of block 2, Shirley Hills Unit D, PID #'s 24-
117-24 12 0014 and 24-117-24 12 0058 P and Z 99-21.
Discussion
Hanus stated that he had outlined four to five main issues for the City to address and asked if
they should be tied to the resolution or be a new motion. Those issues were: staff review and
speed limit changes along Fairview Lane; parking on the west side of the street other funding to
get additional help for law enforcement; move the sign. Mayor Meisel asked that these not be
tied to the resolutions.
Ahrens and Brown asked if Head Start caused additional traffic. This caused two additional
bus routes per day. Discussion came up about "Kids Core." The Mayor cautioned that
"Kids Core" was not before the Council on this item. In general there were "traffic issues
to be addressed."
The motion carried 4-0-1 with Weycker abstaining.
Recommendations were made to staff to look into the four areas outlined by Hanus above.
1.9
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REVISION SECTION 350:420:
REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVISION
9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACED
BY NEW LANGUAGE
Gordon reviewed that the Planning Commission had heard this new language in June and
by a 7-2 motion denied recommending the proposed language. At the public hearing held
June 14, 1999, regarding the revision to the zoning code regarding streamlining, discussion
was held to hold a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Thus, an open public hearing was set for this evening to review this language and
philosophy.
Draft Meeting Minutes o Mound City Council
Page 8
It has been suggested that after opening the public hearing, it be continued until July 27~
giving the Planning Commission time to review all aspects of the streamlining revision at
their July 26t~ meeting. The City Council will consider this prior to their July 27t~ meeting
at 6 p.m.
The proposed language supports the discussion held at the June Council meeting.
Discussion was held between Council Members regarding the use of the term expansion or
modification of accessory structures. Dean suggested adding the language of "new
structures" to the ordinance also. Hanus stated the issue is with the terminology "non-
conforming."
He suggested the following language change:
"Nonconforming principal...may be expanded, enlarged, or modified, or added onto
provided that the use of the parcel is conforming to district regulations, and
provided that the expansion, enlargement, or modification, or addition
meets...created."
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m., explaining that after comments were heard,
the public hearing would be continued to July 27, 1999 at 6 p.m.
Michael Mueller of 5910 Ridgewood Road, a Planning Commission member stated that he
was concerned over the language. He feels the Planning Commission has done a good job
of cleaning up non-conformities over the years he has served on this board. He stated that
98% of the time, the Council approves what they recommend, but what isn't reflected is a
non-conformity that exists on the property in question apart from the building permit issue
that is recognized and action taken to correct it as a result of the review by the Planning
Commission.
Bill Voss, another Planning Commission member stated he was in favor of streamlining. He
doesn't feel that the amount of non-conformities that are cleaned up isn't sufficient to be
spending all the time on it that they do. He believes there are other issues that the
Planning Commission could better spend their time on, such as an advisory to the downtown
redevelopment currently being directed by Council.
Geoff Michael, 1713 Avocet Lane, the Chair of the Planning Commission, stated he feels
caught in the middle. He sees value in what the Planning Commission is doing, but yet sees
opportunity to deal with other issues. He suggested that perhaps if the Planning
Commission arranged their time better both could be handled. He suggested a zoning
meeting once per month and a working session the other meeting.
In this manner, he feels the Planning Commission could more easily accomplish both tasks
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
July 13, 1999
Page 9
without streamlining. He stated that the Planning Commission does indeed catch things that
staff misses (due to staff's heavy workload).
Jay Peterson, 2667 Halsted Lane stated that he feels it is in the best interest of the citizens
to streamline. He does believe, however, that making the Planning Commission does have
some merit versus a case being reviewed by both boards. He does see potential for some
abuse in the future because of the load put upon staff and the reviewing board. He would
like to continue to see review by the Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked for a motion to continue the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. to July 27, 1999
at 6 p.m.
For the benefit of the public present, Hanus discussed the history of a permit process in the
City of Mound and the purpose behind the streamlining efforts.
After this review, Council Members discussed who the final authority should be. Staff,
Planning Commission, and City Council were all put forth.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to continue the public hearing
on amending Section 350:420 of the Mound City Code until July 27,
1999 at 6 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
Hanus added that this was not meant to infer that the Planning Commission was not doing
a good job. He feels they have value and are doing their job well.
1.10
PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION TO ASSIGN
THE CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM TRIAX MIDWEST
ASSOCIATES, L.P. TO MEDIACOM LLC. HEARING WILL FOCUS ON
THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED AND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF
MEDIACOM LLC.
Clark read a memorandum to the City Council regarding this franchise owner change. She
further stated that not all the financial information was in on the new proposed owner. The
public hearing would be to hear comments only.
The Mayor opened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m.
Dottie O'Brien asked how the franchise owner change would impact subscribers. Clark
explained that this was a different issue being considered. The subscribers should not see
a difference, at least at the beginning. The Mayor stated that these were the issues the
Council was exploring. '
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
Page 10
Hanus asked if the new owner would provide additional hardware. Ahrens stated that she
had a concern about increased rates.
Michael Mueller asked if the subscriber would have more channels. His concern is that with
new ownership comes new rules. Would the promises made to the Mound residents st/ll
hold was another concern he had.
The Mayor dosed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m.
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown to continue the public
hearing on the franchise ownership change for the local cable television
to be heard and considered within the next 30 days. Motion carried 5-
0.
1.11 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
Gary Blix of 3025 Brighten Commons asked why the neighborhood received notices from the
Police Department forbidding their congregation after 10 p.m.
Hanus stated his understanding of the congregation is that it cannot be noisy or cause a
disturbance.
Mr. Blix is concerned that his neighbor who lodged the complaint calls at anything whether
it is a disturbance or not. He had a petition from the neighbors against Mr. Bruce McComb
that the Police Department ignore his calls. Mr. Blix stated that if Mr. McComb sees lights
after 10 p.m., he calls the police.
Beth Anderson indicated that the neighborhood has been verbally threatened by Mr.
McComb that no one can get together in their home or otherwise after 10 p.m. even if the
windows are shut.
The Mayor responded that the Police Department must respond to all calls.
Pat McKenzie and Judy Hutchins also discussed the problems they are having with this letter
and "ruling." They believe the neighborhood is a group of reasonable adults who are not
irresponsible, want to be nice. Mr. McKenzie suggested that perhaps a mediator would
help.
Ms. Hutchins feels the manner of distribution was handled very poorly. Letters were
dropped off at homes where only children were home. Neighbors who have never caused
any harm or done anything wrong felt threatened by this action. She feels they all deserve
an apology.
.Draft Meeting blin~ites - Mound City Cou~ci!
Page 11
Citizens stated they were afraid that the next time the police were called, they would get a
ticket. They wanted to see the records that were filed against them. Dean suggested they
could ask, but most likely that information would be considered confidential.
Jay Peterson of 2667 Halsted Lane addressed the Council regarding the speed limits of the
streets in his area. They are posted 30, but he feels they should be 20 mph. He discussed
the conditions on these streets, in particular, Halsted Lane, that would lead him to that
decision. He asked if there were ordinances that would help on this issue.
Next he discussed the Auditor's Road improvements and a turn onto County Road 15. He
wanted to know if it was temporary or long term.
Finally he offered comments on the school board and the actions of the Council towards
obtaining the property. He felt the offer from the City was too Iow and wanted to know if
the Council had any intent of going back to the school board to try to renegotiate.
The Mayor answered that her impression was that the property was offered to someone else
and they were no longer in the discussion. She believes it is a binding offer.
Mr. Peterson went on to discuss how he felt about the two boards (Council, School Board)
and their interaction. He believes it resembles how children fight on a playground. He
further discussed the school board property and the need to maintain that as open space for
enjoyment of and recreation for the citizens. Discussion was held as to different visions held
by different people between Mr. Peterson and the Council Members.
Mr. Peterson wanted to know what the City's vision was for this property. The Mayor stated
that if it was up to current zoning, she would vote for development. However, until plans
are seen, she will follow the City ordinances. Brown agreed with the Mayor. He felt Mr.
Peterson is mistaken about the Council's offer to the school board. It was done in good
faith based on the knowledge they had.
Mr. Peterson continued to offer that most of the people wanted open space for this land.
The Mayor stated it was a mute point at this time since the offer made is binding. The
Council members agreed with her.
1.12 DISCUSSION: COUNTY ROAD 15 REALIGNMENT:
Chamberlain presented information regarding the schedule for the County Road 15 realignment
schedule that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority had just approved earlier this evening.
The Council needs to approve two resolutions to make allow Chamberlain to move forward.
These are asking the County to pull the construction of this project forward one year to
accommodate Mound's redevelopment schedule. This would require that Mound do some pre-
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
Page 12
work on the project which is the purpose of the second resolution. Monies expended in the pre-
work that would have been covered by the County, will be reimbursed Should the project not
be pulled up on the County's schedule, the money has already been approved and will still be
there.
Discussion regarding the alignment of parking was held among the Council Members and
Chamberlain. Chamberlain explored three options for parking along County Road 110. In the
first two options, no land is taken from property owners to accomplish the desired plan. In the
third option, some land is acquired from the property owners. The owners are compensated for
the land acquired. If the City/County (appropriate authority) cannot purchase the land,
condemnation could be considered.
Ahrens asked since the costs would be shared if the City was prepared to move forward with
their portion of the costs. Chamberlain covered ways to accomplish this.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to move both resolutions listed
below. Motion carried 5-0.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY ADJUST
THEIR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) TIMING FOR
THE REALIGNMENT OF COUNTY ROAD 15 FROM 2002 TO 2001.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY
CONDUCT A PARKING STUDY FOR COUNTY ROAD 110
BETWEEN AUDITOR'S ROAD AND LYNWOOD BOULEVARD.
1.13 DISCUSSION: REVIEW OF CONTRACT FOR LOST LAKE GREENWAY
PLAN PREPARATION.
Cameron sent a letter to Clark regarding this project at the Metropolitan Council. This July
8, 1999 letter was in the packet and addresses the eligibility of this project for partial
funding if bid by December 31, 1999. Mound's canal project, that consists of a pier and a
boardwalk, is closely tied to this project.
Cameron is asking Council to authorize staff to prepare a draft agreement and contract
accepting Chamberlain as the Landscape Developer, Cameron as the Civil Engineer and the
use of other consultants: Haakanson/Anderson and Er/ckson/Ellison for this project.
Dean asked if competitive bidding was required. The answer was no for this portion of the
project.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
July 13, 1999
Page 13
Brown pointed out that the Robert Brown referred to in the literature was not him and this
was not a conflict of interest.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to prepare appropriate
service contracts between the contractors/consultants listed above and
the City for this project. Motion carried 5-0.
1.14 DISCUSSION: MINNETRISTA SEWER AND WATER AGREEMENT
Mayor Meisel reported the discussion between Minnetrista and herself and Clark representing
Mound.
They have accepted our costing, but only need water services from Mound. Additionally,
they want nothing in the contract regarding the compost site.
Clark stated she had talked today with them regarding the compost. The approvals from
both the Watershed District and MNDOT seem to be coming and operation is scheduled
to begin on August 1, 1999.
Mayor Meisel stated that, at this point, discussions ceased regarding providing water to
WARA per Council instructions to her as a representative for Mound.
Brown stated, "no compost agreement, no water."
Mayor Meisel indicated concern because one Council Member had spoken to the
Minnetrista council members prior to the meeting. The impression given was that the
Mayor could not represent the Council's views accurately. The Mayor took offense to this.
That Council Member explained the actions taken, apologized for the impression that was
left, and stated that was not the original intent. The Mayor accepted the apology, but
indicated she still felt offended that this member did not respect her ability to fairly
represent the Council's viewpoint.
At this point, any agreement for water between Minnetrista and Mound for the WARA
project is a dead issue.
Brown asked how this would impact the Remington project reviewed by the Planning
Commission the night before in their meeting.
Cameron explained that the issue was for serving these areas safety for fire. Domestic use
could be served with current infrastructure. For fire purposes, the pipe is too small to even
serve the residents on the end of the line today. Weycker asked what the solution was.
Cameron stated a bigger pipe is necessary. The size depends upon how many people would
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
Jury 13, 1999
Page 14
be served off it.
Cameron discussed the third plat that he was aware of in that area which would call for 20
more units.
Clark expressed the opinion that it may be to Mound's benefit to approve WARA since this
larger pipe would then be put in at some cost to the developer.
Council Members continued to point out the issues with the compost site and the history
of what has happened regarding one. Council Members were unwilling to approve any
water agreement with Minnetrista without a compost contingency. Weycker pointed out that
unless Mound was at the table on these projects, they would lose all input opportunity.
Mueller suggested that staff be directed to study in general, providing services to other
municipalities and the impacts of this on Mound as a whole. He is interested in a cost-
benefit analysis. Cameron was confused over what Mueller wanted since he already does
this when evaluating options such as this. Cameron was asked to attend the next Planning
Commission meeting.
Jay Peterson addressed the Council regarding the roads along the border between the cities
and what could be done to prevent these from being "over used" due to new construction
in the area. He asked the City to look at the legal ramifications of shutting off access or
making the roads culode-sacs. Dean explained that they could be done, except for the one
that is platted to go through both cities now - Westedge.
Peterson cautioned about providing water since this was the City's last "trump card."
Weycker suggested the Council move on to other topics since action will not be done
tonight. Tho Mayor ~qll oontaot the de,,el~e,r of thc rt-tmington p.r. ojoet
1.15 DISCUSSION: CONFIGURATION OF PEMBROKE MULTIPLE SLIP
DOCK.
Todd Rask is the permit holder on this slip. Previously he has had an end slip when he was
asked to give up his private dock and move onto the multiple dock. He viewed the size as 28
feet although the City saw the slip as 24 feet. By moving to an interior slip, he is unable to park
his boat.
A discussion was held on the "official size" of his boat, the fact that he has a new boat, the
change in the way boats are measured now as opposed to earlier years and other issues.
When Mr. Rask bought his boat this year he discovered that he could not park in an inside
slip and have the space he needed.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
July 13, 1999
Page 15
Discussion was held on how big slips could/should be on a public multiple dock
configuration. It was indicated that this needs to be looked at in the Use Plans and,
perhaps, 24 feet should be the maximum size.
After discussion on how to accommodate this boat this year and possibilities for the future,
a temporary solution was found. The Mayor suggested approving the redesign for this year
and addressing the ordinances for size prior to next year's assignments of slips.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker to approve the current
redesign (page 2558) for this year to accommodate Mr. Rask and
address boat size ordinances as soon as possible.
Weycker's second included addressing Mr. Watson's interest fin'st prior to redesign. Brown
accepted this amendment.
Mr. Rask stated that he had discussed this with Plaza to see if the encroachment was a
problem. Mr. Plaza indicated that it was not a problem. Clark also has spoken with Mr.
Plaza and the currently used arrangement is fine with him for this year.
Since this would resolve the issue for this season, Brown withdrew his motion as did
Weycker.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the 1999
configuration and moving Mr. Rask to the end slip with the agreement
of Mr. Plaza for the encroachment and for review after this season.
Also the ordinances addressing the size of boats at common multiples
to be addressed.
After discussion, an amendment was added to discuss this plan with Mr. Watson. Dean
recommended that if Mr. Watson has an issue with the arrangement, then the issue needs to come
back before the Council. This change was accepted by the motion makers.
Further discussion was held regarding whether or not Mr. Rask could put a boat of his size
on a multiple dock next year and the grandfathering of a dock space. It was felt by some
that boats cannot continue to grow and be accommodated, others felt that once a person
had a multiple slip, as long as they kept the same boat, it couldn't be taken away.
Motion carried 4-1. Weycker was opposed.
1.16 RESOLUTION OPPOSING TAXATION WITHOUT PUBLIC CONSENT
FOR A NEW BASEBALL STADIUM IN HENNEPIN COUNTY.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
Page 16
MOTION by Brown, second by Hanus
opposing taxation without public consent.
to approve the resolution
Motion carried 5-0.
INFORMATION
Financial Report for June, as Pared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
Quarterly Report from Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager.
Latest Information from Hennepin County on Their Tobacco Ordinance.
L.M.C.D. mailings.
Letter from Bruce Chamberlain regarding Dakota Rail.
DCAC Minutes - June 17, 1999.
Letter from NSP regarding Remote read electric and gas meters for residential and
commercial customers.
Suburban Rate Authority (SPA) mailing.
Planning Commission draft Minutes 6/28/99.
REMINDERS
Coffee and Donuts with Businesses - Thursday, July 15, 1999, 7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M.
Mound City Hall.
City Regular Council Meeting - July 27, 1999 6 P.M. start time.
City Council Sponsored Employee Recognition Lunch - Friday July 31, 1999 11:00
A.M. - 1:00 P.M. City Hall.
Committee of the Whole Meeting - August 3, 1999, 7:30 P.M.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
July 13, 1999
Page 17
EXECUTIVE SESSION - WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION
MOTION made by Meisel, seconded by Hanus to move into Executive Session
at 12:55 A.M. regarding the Woodland Point Litigation. The vote was 4-0 in
favor, with Weycker abstaining and not participating. Motion carried.
The City Council returned from Executive Session at 1:50 A.M. The Mayor explained
that the City Attorney in the Woodland Point litigation was given direction during the
Executive Session.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to adjourn at 1:55 A.M. The
vote was 4 in favor, Weycker absent. Motion carried.
Francene C. Clark Acting City Manager
Attest: Council Secretary
July 27, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 6037 HAWTHORNE ROAD,
BLOCK 9, LOTS 5 AND PART OF 6, THE HIGHLANDS,
PID# 23-117-24 34 0025,
P & Z CASE #99-29
61610
WHEREAS, the applicants, Marlene and Jeff Harty, have applied for a front yard setback
variance to construct a conforming detached garage at 6037 Hawthorne Road; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setback:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 14.6 ft 20 ft 5.4 ft
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning
District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, 30 feet
front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the existing house is in sound condition and presents a practical difficulty to
building a conforming garage; and,
WHEREAS, the hardcover is below minimum requirements as proposed; and,
WHEREAS, the property is a through lot and building setbacks must meet front yard
requirements on both Hawthorne and Cherrywood Road street frontages; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed 30 feet setback is typical of house setbacks along Cherrywood.
A 20 feet setback could be allowed although the 30 feet setback will maintain the established
character of the street corridor; and,
July 27, 1999
6037 Hawthorne Rd - Harry
Page 2
WHEREAS, the existing one stall detached garage on Hawthorne would be removed with
the proposal; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed construction of a 28x36 detached garage meets all city zoning
code requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval
of the variance recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance listed below as recommended by
the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming 28x36 detached garage.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 14.6 ft 20 ft 5.4 ft
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the
owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of conforming 28x36 detached garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on Certified
Survey from Coffin & Gronberg, Inc, Job # 99177:
LOT 5, AND THE NORTHEASTERLY 10 FEET OF THAT PART OF LOT 6, LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF
A LINE DRAWN AT A RIGHT ANGLE FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE AT A POINT DISTANT 120 FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, BLOCK 9, "THE
HIGHLANDS", ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
o
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
July 27, 1999
6037 Hawthorne Rd - Harry
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember, and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss (7:42 p.m.), Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb
Hawkinson. Absent and excused: Commissioner Orv Burma.
The following public were present: Tom and Diane Harmon (4347 Wilshire Blvd), Steve Codden
(3615 Lyric Ave, Orono), Bruce Thompson (6639 Bartlett Blvd), Scot McKenzie (5251 Bartlett
Blvd), Carla Wirth (1736 212 Ln NE, East Bethel), Melody Olsen (4873 Cumberland Rd), John
and Kristin Beise (6643 Bartlett Blvd), Ken Evans (6635 Bartlett BIvd), Larry Peterson (2374
Chateau Ln), Jeff Harty (6037 Hawthorne Rd), Dorthea Helmen (6669 Halstead Ave), Mike Gair
(15050 23r" Ave, Plymouth), Ed Forliti (7101 10th Street North, Suite 119, Oakdale), Jeff
Sowada (34 Peninsula Rd, Dellwood), B J Johnson (6655 Halstead Ave), Merry Peterson (6619
Bartlett BIvd), Jerry and Rita Hughes (6641 Halstead Avenue), Bill Meyer (6601 Bartlett Blvd),
Cindy Palm (2695 Westedge Blvd), Deb Funk (2695 Oaklawn Ln), Gary Nachreiner (6056
Cherrywood Rd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-29: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING
DETACHED GARAGE AT 6037 HAVVTHORNE ROAD; BLOCK 9, LOTS 5 AND PART OF 6,
THE HIGHLANDS; MARLENE AND JEFF HARTY, 61610, PID # 23-117-24 34 0025.
Gordon presented this case which is an application for construction of a 28 feet by 36 feet
detached garage. The associated variance with this project is 5.4 feet. The existing single stall
garage will be removed prior to construction. This proposal meets all city zoning code
requirements. The hardcover is below the minimum. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval.
There were no discussion or comments prior to a motion.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to move staff recommendation. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: July 12 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Marlene and JeffHarty
CASE NUMBER: 99-29
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 6037 Hawthorne Road
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to build a 28 feet by 36 feet detached
garage. The associated variance requests are listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 14.6 ft 20 ft 5.4 ft
The property is a through lot and building setbacks must meet front yard requirements when
facing Hawthorne and Cherrywood Road. The existing one stall detached garage would be
removed with the proposal. The proposed garage meets all zoning code requirements.
COMMENTS: The proposed 30 feet setback is more typical of house setbacks along
Cherrywood. A 20 feet setback could be allowed and staff is encouraged that other building
setbacks along this street have been considered. Hardcover is below minimum requirements as
proposed. The existing house front yard setback does present a practical difficulty in building a
new garage.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
JUN !
CITY OF MOUND
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
b-I"],.,,-qB City Planner ~ 'l"~ 4q
~2,"1'] -'~ City Engineer Other
~,--] 'Z-q(']; Public Works
Case No. qq- ~,l~
DNR
Plat # (//~//~/" (.~
B-2 B-3
APPLICANT Name ~ ~ ~'1 ~ .
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
OWNER)
(W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (Xno. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2
ex f
SETBACKS: REQUIRED
Do the existing structures comply with a~ a/rea, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No,(~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ~ E W) ..~. ft. jz-)/.~.~ ft. ._~:~/"t ft.
Side Yard: ( N S~%~) /d~ ft. ~ ft. ft. .
Side Yard: (NS'~(~ ~. ft. /-t', 2¥ ft. ... ft. ~e-/~_L~cl ,~'h~'
Rear Yard: ( N(~E W ) ,~'~ ft. r~L~ ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: Id.~, (~?O(~q ft /C/~&~ j sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: ,¥~ ~; '/~q ft ..~ ~ ~'.~_'~ sqft sqft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ~,~) other: specify
;/
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the ~ction of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No ~'. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship
described in this petition? Yes
affected?
/~r, which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of. the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. 12-30-98)
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
MARLENE T. AND dEFFREY A. HARTY
IN LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
HA Vi~ THORNE
ES:
~rly 10 feet of that part
erly of a line drawn ot
)rtheosterly hne ~t o poipt
sterly from the North-
at 6. Block 9. "The Highlands",
I plat thereof
ROAD
s
0.~0~;'' ~-
T(
t~
4
,undaries of the above described property.
:*star, c] house, garage, yard barn. and other
,n tt does hal purport t,.' ShOW any other
~ment s
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS' o/'O..? '7 /.i'/¢~/,,/.W~,,r,,,.~..E
OWNER'S NAME: tut,,~r~_.¢~ -~. ¢ %~1¢'¢~e.~.,¢ ,At.
t
LOT AREA /~2¢~,// SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I '~J Rg'~
LOT AREA
SQ: FT:"X 40'%"-= '(for LotS of R~-C'o'rd*) ....... I -/2~"L'/
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined.in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:.1. 225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
LENGTH WIDTH
SQ FT
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
x =
X = /~
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRIVE'WAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open docke (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under ere
not counted es herdcover
OTHER l~oe, tc /pt,.,'fCT;(,.
x = / o,7
X = .8~,~
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
x :
X = ~5, I
TOTAL OTHER ............. , ...........
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference.).:..-.,...-.: . ,........... .... .~., ..... ..,.-.'. · · ·
PREPARED BY ~¢'.;"'-, /. ~¢ ~:. '/~/~/~ ¢,,"r.: ~ .//J r-. DATE
TCITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~'0_~ -7 /,,11[¢~,,i2/'¢,¢~,,:.~,(' /~
OWNER'S NAME: j~Arz4.,~,¢~, ~ ~,¢'~',~.,/ A, ~/~,r~.'r',~"
LOT AREA /E2~// SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA /(2 56"/
SQ: FT: 'X 40%"-= (for LEtS Of Re-c'o'rd*) ....... I '/2¢'¢. '¢ l'
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . I I "
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH
X
X
~l~01~OCZb TOTAL HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS ~A~, ~'~
(GARAGE/SHED) $~,&~
SQ FT
X =
. F~. f;..O¢,~ FOTAL~ DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRIVE'WAY, PARKI'NG
AREAS, SIDEWALKS, X = ...~.~, ~
ETC. X =
DECKS Open decke (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
x :
X = ~¢, I
TOTAL OTHER ............. : ...........
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference.)..:.....: .-.~... .... -.........~-,. .... '...,.-... · · ·
PREPARED BY ,~',,¢/-' ' , ¢' ~:. /,¢/,~¢;r' (. ¢.',;' , ..?/~/c. DATE
'3UILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
5341
S,TE S ', ect Add,ess
Business Name/Tennant
The applicant is:
LEGAL Lot 5 ~- ~
DESCRIPTION Subdivision
Address
CONTRACTOR
Company Name
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Add tess
ENGINEER Phone (H)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
,z/PPI../c lb, UT""
DESCRIBE WORK:
CITY OF MOUND
Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
(W) (M)
(W) (M)
Block Plat #
PlO#
b¢Tac/ c b x
License #
oALUATION ~L
F WORK: //.~/~,~ ~, '--' VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS E~ECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDON ED
FOR A ~--RIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO YHE EXTERIORS OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (I) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMI~'EE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT t HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS TYPE OF WORK. WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE t~ DATE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~/!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV:
BLDG SiZE (SO FT) # STORIES
MAX OCCUPANT LOAD
FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED?
YES I NO
RECEIVED By / DATE; .~' PLANS CHECKED BY:
AppROvED BY ) DATE:
ZONING
CITY ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS
ASSESSING
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FILET(?E~S)
LOT OF RECORD?
YARD
IH)USE .........
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
'FOP OF BLUFF
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
NO RiA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
NO R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
] DIRECTION [ REQUIRED ]EXISTING/PROPOSED
N S E W ~,'
N S E W
10' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
.4
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACltED BUILDINGS
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
ItARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
Thi.n Zoning Information Shecl only summarizes a portion of thc lequircmcnls outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
.'~. ~' l"'d'l ,, h.~ ~ X ~"
'6,~1 'tv: ~
~ ~ 0 I
'Is ~
/
7
Ju~ 27, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING ATTACHED GARAGE AT 2374 CHATEAU LANE,
SOUTH OF LOT 8 AND THE NORTH 50.00 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 2, JOHN S.
CARLSON,
PID# 13-117-24 43 0028,
P & Z CASE #99-14
61550
WHEREAS, the applicants, Larry H & Pamela J Peterson, have applied for a side yard
setback variance to construct a non conforming attached garage at 2374 Chateau Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the addition would mimic the design of the existing garage with the ridge line
running north/south and no soffit on the south wall; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setback:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side yard 2.03 ft 6 ft 3.97 ft
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning
District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 20 feet
front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the hardcover is below minimum requirements as proposed; and,
WHEREAS, the city code establishes a 4 feet threshold for sideyards for a number of
reasons including access and fire code issues; and,
Ju~ 27, 1999
2374Chateau Lane- Peterson
Page 2
WHEREAS, the proposed construction exceeds the 4 feet setback threshold for any type
of structure; and,
WHEREAS, Staff has recommended denial of the proposal; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval
of the variance with modifications; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a side yard setback variance listed below as recommended by
the Planning Commission in order to construct a non conforming attached garage.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side yard 4 ft 6 ft 2 ft
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the
owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of non conforming attached garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on Certified
Survey from Schoborg Land Surveying Inc, Job # 5190:
THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 8 AND THE NORTH 50.00 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 2, JOHN S. CARLSON
ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
o
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
July 27, 1999
2374 Chateau Lane - Peterson
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember , and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss (7:42 p.m.), Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb
Hawkinson. Absent and excused: Commissioner Orv Burma.
The following public were present: Tom and Diane Harmon (4347 Wilshire Blvd), Steve Codden
(3615 Lyric Ave, Orono), Bruce Thompson (6639 Bartlett BIvd), Scot McKenzie (5251 Bartlett
BIvd), Carla Wirth (1736 212 Ln NE, East Bethel), Melody Olsen (4873 Cumberland Rd), John
and Kristin Beise (6643 Bartlett BIvd), Ken Evans (6635 Bartlett BIvd), Larry Peterson (2374
Chateau Ln), Jeff Harty (6037 Hawthorne Rd), Dorthea Helmen (6669 Halstead Ave), Mike Gair
(15050 23r~ Ave, Plymouth), Ed Forliti (7101 10th Street North, Suite 119, Oakdale), Jeff
Sowada (34 Peninsula Rd, Dellwood), B J Johnson (6655 Halstead Ave), Merry Peterson (6619
Bartlett Bird), Jerry and Rita Hughes (6641 Halstead Avenue), Bill Meyer (6601 Bartlett BIvd),
Cindy Palm (2695 Westedge Blvd), Deb Funk (2695 Oaklawn Ln), Gary Nachreiner (6056
Cherrywood Rd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-14: VARIANCE; SIDE YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A NONCONFORMING
ATTACHED GARAGE AT 2374 CHATEAU LANE; BLOCK 2, LOTS PART OF 8 AND PART
OF 9, JOHN S. CARLSON; LARRY AND PAMELA PETERSON, 61550, PID # 13-117-24 43
0028.
This applicant has applied to add on to an existing attached single car garage converting it to a
two stall. This would require a 3.97-foot side yard variance. The rest of the property is
conforming. The garage would create the only non-conformity.
This is a difficult case to recommend in favor of a two-stall garage since the setback would
exceed the 4 feet setback threshold for any structure. There are other options for a 2 stall
garage on the property by making it detached and in the back yard. Further the proposal would
compromise the character of the property and surrounding neighborhood.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request.
Brown stated that he looked at the site and a detached garage would not work. He feels
another option would be better. Weiland also feels it would be best in the back yard.
The owner stated he had a letter from the neighbor who doesn't object. Brown stated then he
should look at buying property from him to construct this conforming. The Commission cannot
afford to set this type of precedence.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller to grant a 2 foot side yard setback variance.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Chair Michael stated that this case will go to City Council on July 27, 1999.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Larry and Pamela Peterson - 2374 Chateau Lane
CASE NUMBER: 99-14
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 2374 Chateau Lane
EXISTING ZONING: One and Two Family Residential (R-2)
COMPREItENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add on to an existing attached single
car garage converting it to a two-stall garage. The associated variance request is as follows:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side yard 2.03' 6' 3.97'
The property is currently conforming in all respects of the code. The garage would create the only
nonconformity with a 2 feet side yard setback as proposed. The applicant has indicated to staff that
the structure existing garage will remain and new structure will be added to it. The driveway will
remain unchanged at about one foot off the property line. Typically the threshold for sideyards is 3
to 4 feet for a number of reasons including access and fire code issues. The addition would mimic
the design of the existing garage with the ridge line running north/south and no soffit on the south
wall.
DISCUSSION: This is a difficult property to add an attached two stall garage. The proposed setback
exceeds the 4 feet setback threshold for any type of structure. The property to the south also does not
have a garage and if proposed would be adjacent to the proposed garage. Setbacks in this case would
be similar for a two stall attached garage. Given this large amount of variance needed, this property
is best served with a detached garage located in the rear yard. Another option is to modify the
entrance between the garage and the house to shift the stalls closer to the house. There is about 4 to
5 feet of area that could be used as garage that could bring the sideyard into conformity. The third
option is to reduce the amount of variance needed. Four feet is the threshold and may be acceptable
in this case.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#99-14 - 2374 Chateau Lane Variance
July 12, 1999
The property was designed with a single car garage and the proposal would compromise the
character of the property and surrounding neighborhood. Other similar properties have detached
garages where the setbacks are narrow. A detached garage would better serve the overall
neighborhood character in this case.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny
the variance request.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
APE 1 9 1999
CITY 0F~0UN~
Application Fee:
$100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
Iqqq
City Planner~'
City Engineer
Public Works
DER
Other
'(Address
Block
Su d,v,s,on
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA ~-2~ R-3 B-1
Phone (H) qT~ -- //~ (W) "
B-2 B-3
(M)
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
OWNER)
(W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~,no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.)'
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Variance Application, P. 2
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No J~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard' ( N,~S I~,~)
Side Yard: (~JE W )
Side Yard: ~.N~,$ E W )
Rear Yard: '~~ )
Lakeside: N S E W )
: NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
~-~ ft. ~'.,~"' ft. ' ft.
?/) ft. o ~; ft. .~---j, .~'ft.
/~ ft. /~ .~ ft. ~ ft.
/~ ft. ~,~'~ ft. ~ ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
/2~z~q ft ~~ sq ft ~ sq ft
~y'~/~ sq ft /2// ¢ sq ft ~ sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
~t. too narrow
( ) too small
( ) too shallow
Please describe: J~,/,~,
( )topography ( ) soil
( ) drainage ~Q,existing situation
( ) shape ( ) other: specify
('Rev. 12-30-98~
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), Noir'. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes,(~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's S,gnatu
Applicant's Signature
D a t e ~'~-~/~'~--~/~
Date
, ._~ (Rev. 12-30-98)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDC0VER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
RECEIVED
APR ,~ Et 1999
r¢~OUND PL~N~',.f,!G & JNSP.
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME: ~,~/~r~
LOT AREA / ~/-/~9,.~ SQ. FT. X 30% =
LOT AREA ?~,~.,~,_,, ~, SQ. FT. X 40%
(for all lots) ..............
(for Lots of Record*)
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/~
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
LENGTH / WIDTH SQ FT
/
~?, x ~, = ~,~/. b
~,~ x /~ ---,/ ~
X =
TOTAL HOUSE
/
7
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
¢ Z'"'" x /Z =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ........
PREPaREd BY ~?./.~ ,/,J. :~,~.,~'7.~ ..............
$c H oBoRG
ND SURVEYING
INC.
I I~ereoy certify tl~at this plan, survey.or report waS.
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Registered Land Surveyor u.i~der the laws of the State
of Minnesota. 7 ~ /~ /] .
Date: ,,.'T'/4Ax~ //[~ Registration No. 14700
JOE] #
BooK-Pag
Scale
HAROC~VFR CALCU! ~TION~
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE C, OVERAGE}
P~o~E~'rv ADO~ESS: Z 3 Y~¢
OWNER'S NAME: ~/'/) ~/'~ )/
30% = (fora, lo,si ..............
= (for Lots of Recorcl~) .......
= (for detached ~uildings cnt¥) . .
RECEIVED
JUN 2 ~ 1999
I
eExistincj Lots cf Record may have ,~0 percent coverage provicecl that mc~nic~ues are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Se=don 350:1 2;25.$ubd. 6. ii. 1. (see 13ack). A 131an mus~ be submit=ed
and aDproved by the Building Cffic.;ai.
LENGTH
Hous~ ?~, 22_
WIDTH SC. FT
x ¢/.¢ --
x 4. c'= ¢,%¢
× /'f = / / F_
, CTAL 2.~",,\C: {-."D gLDC3, .................
AREAS,
~Tc.
4:~ x '2. = ?~'
/~,4 x 'z.__ =.
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
× /¥ =
/
TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPF. RV1OUS SLIRFAC~ .¢2/~, ¢
/OVER
(indicate~tifferencar~ ................ . ............... /7 .~'~,, /
BUILL)INL~ HI:::HMI I' APPLICA I ION
SITE
Subject Address 2575
ausiness Name renn nt
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The applicant is:
LEGAL Lot .~ ~ 7'/.~/
DESCRIPTION Subdivision
OWNER Name L/~,~
Contact
Address
Phon~
A~CHITECT Name
&/O~ Address
ENGINEE~ Phone
,Z~owner __contractor __tenant
(W} (M)
(W} (M)
Plat #
[M)
License #
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
VALUATION
OF WORK: /"~Y "'~' t"~"'g"~ VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO FHE ~XTERIOR$ OF ANY BUiLDiNG OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1} YEAR FROM THE GATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAIN~NG THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRIT'TEN REGUEST OF THE PERMITTEE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY {30l BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
BLDG SIZE {SQ FTI
OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV:
MAX OCCUPANTLOAD
# STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED
#UN~TS YES / NO
PLANS CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY I DATE:
ZONING
CITY ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS
ASSESSING
COPIED APPROVED
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION S}IEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
SURVEY ON FILE? yES / NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO
¥ fi, RI) I D! RECTION
IIOUSE .........
FRONT
N S E W
FRONT
s.,E E W
SIDE
REAR
iq S E W
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
7.o
EXISTING LOT SIZE: '
LOT pEP'ri-i:
vARIANCE
DETACIIED BUILI)INGS
GARAGE, SIIED .....
N S E W
FRONT
N S E W
FRONT
N S E W
SIDE
N S E W
SIDE
N S E W
REAR
NS E W
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
50'
I 0' OR 30'
OR 40%
I
BY:
IDATED:
i.IARDCOVER
CONFORMING'7 ~,~ I NO / 7 ,
· ri,is Zoning Infmmation Sheet only sununarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the Ci{y of Mound Zoning Ordinance.For furfl~er ini'ormation, contact the City of Mound
~ ........ ~i,.~_~,.' ~" ! .±' ~~.~ ~~ ~. I i W-.-' o~ _u C'J
'~5'////~.' ' '~ '<m .o ~'. ,z0 ~" ',~. 'g ~ ~ ~,,~, - c~l ... t-. { '~ 7.-,
~ ¢ ~t _, 1208 ~
· ~'~r~ 5z~, · z~
........ '~' ~o: '~)~
' - ~" ~ ~T~
................ ~...
July 27, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET FRONTAGE AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES
TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING SCREEN PORCH OVER THE EXISTING DECK
AT 4347 WILSHIRE BLVD,
PARTS OF LOTS 75, 76, AND LOT B, FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND
PARK, FIRST DIVISION,
PID# 19-117-23 13 0008,
P & Z CASE #98-63
37890
WHEREAS, the applicant, W. Thomas and Diane P Harmon, have applied for a street
frontage and hardcover variances to construct a conforming screened porch on an existing deck
at 4347 Wilshire BIvd; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Street Frontage 20' 40' 20'
Hardcover 6299 sf 4115.2 sf 2183.8 sf
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 20
feet front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the survey shows the lakeside setback at 51 feet which meets the required
lakeside setbacks of 50 feet. The proposed improvements would also line up with house setbacks
east of the property; and,
July 27, 1999
4347 W~lshire B/vd- Harmon
Page 2
WHEREAS, the property has nonconforming street frontage of 20 feet along Wilshire Blvd.
The impervious surface coverage is also nonconforming by 2183.8 square feet or 61%, the
overage is due in large part to the ddyeway rather than other structural improvements. The existing
house size is typical for the lot and is not oversized; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed porch would utilize the existing deck as floodng adding a roof with
a 6/12 pitch and wall with typical aluminum screening. Exit doors are located on the sides and the
existing sliding glass door would remain; and,
WHEREAS, the property received a previous variance for the deck as prescribed by
Resolution 93-82; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval
of the variance recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a street frontage and hardcover variances listed below as
recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming screened
porch on an existing deck.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Street Frontage 20' 40' 20'
Hardcover 6299 sf 4115.2 sf 2183.8 sf
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the
owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of conforming screened porch on an existing deck.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
THAT PART OF LOTS 75, 76, AND LOT B IN "THE FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND
PARK- FIRST DIVISION, AND ALL OF LOT 4 AND THAT PART OF LOT 3 AND THE PRIVATE STREET
IN "PHELPS ISLAND PARK, FIRST DIVISION", ALL DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 125 DISTANT 60 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT A IN "THE FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK
- FIRST DIVISION; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROAD
A DISTANCE OF 360 FEET TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 26 DEGREES 26
July 27, 1999
4347 Wi/shire Blvd - Harmon
Page 3
'FEET EAST A DISTANCE OF 75.7 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 21 FEET EAST TO THE
SHORE OF LAKE MINNETONKA; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SHORE TO THE EXTENSION
SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG
THE EXTENSION OF SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT B; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EXTENSION SOUTHEASTERLY OF SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT 76; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EXTENSION OF SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
AND ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 125;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT
THAT PART THEREOF LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE AND ITS
NORTHWESTERLY EXTENSION; COMMENCING AT THE JUDICIAL LANDMARK SET PURSUANT TO
DISTRICT COURT TORRENS CASE NO. 10398 AT THE ANGLE POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE
OF SAID ABOVE-DESRIBED PROPERTY, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF A LINE
HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "LINE A"; THENCE NORTH 26 DEGREES 26 FEET WEST A
DISTANCE OF 75.7 FEET TO THE JUDICIAL LANDMARK SET PURSUANT TO DISTRICT COURT
TORRENS CASE NO. 10398 MARKING THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID ABOVE-
DESCRIBED PROPERTY, AND SAID "LINE A" THERE ENDING; THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 15 FEET
WEST TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 20 FEET
SOUTHWESTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM SAID "LINE A", SAID POINT OF
INTERSECTION BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH
26 DEGREES 26 FEET EAST A DISTANCE OF 71.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 30 DEGREES 34 FEET
WEST A DISTANCE OF 43.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43 DEGREES 26 FEET EAST TO THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ABOVE-DESCRIBED PROPERTY, AND SAID LINE THERE ENDING,
ALSO EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF
ENDING OF SAID "LINE A"; THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 15 FEET WEST TO A POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 40 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY, MEASURED
AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM SAID "LINE A", SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING THE POINT OF
BEGINNING OF THE EXCEPTION BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 26 DEGREES 26 FEET EAST
A DISTANCE OF 65.05 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT B WITH SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY
LINE OF SAID LOT 76; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EXTENSION AND SAID
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 125;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH A LINE DRAWN NORTH 26 DEGREES 26 FEET WEST THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF
SAID EXCEPTION; THENCE SOUTH 26 DEGREES 26 FEET EAST TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING,
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
o
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
July 27, 1999
434? Wilshire Blvd - Harmon
Page 4
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember ,
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
I
Mayor
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss (7:42 p.m.), Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb
Hawkinson. Absent and excused: Commissioner Orv Burma.
The following public were present: Tom and Diane Harmon (4347 Wilshire Blvd), Steve Codden
(3615 Lyric Ave, Orono), Bruce Thompson (6639 Bartlett BIvd), Scot McKenzie (5251 Bartlett
BIvd), Carla Wirth (1736 212 Ln NE, East Bethel), Melody Olsen (4873 Cumberland Rd), John
and Kristin Beise (6643 Bartlett BIvd), Ken Evans (6635 Bartlett BIvd), Larry Peterson (2374
Chateau Ln), Jeff Harty (6037 Hawthorne Rd), Dorthea Helmen (6669 Halstead Ave), Mike Gair
(15050 23r~ Ave, Plymouth), Ed Forliti (7101 10th Street North, Suite 119, Oakdale), Jeff
Sowada (34 Peninsula Rd, Dellwood), B J Johnson (6655 Halstead Ave), Merry Peterson (6619
Bartlett BIvd), Jerry and Rita Hughes (6641 Halstead Avenue), Bill Meyer (6601 Bartlett BIvd),
Cindy Palm (2695 Westedge BIvd), Deb Funk (2695 Oaklawn Ln), Gary Nachreiner (6056
Cherrywood Rd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-63: VARIANCE; LAKESIDE SETBACK, STREET FRONTAGE AND
HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH OVER THE EXISTING DECK AT 4347
WILSHIRE BOULEVARD; PART OF LOTS 75, 76, AND LOT B, 1sT REARR. OF PIP 1sT
DIVISION; W. THOMAS AND DIANE HARMON, 37890, PID # 19-117-23 13 0008.
The applicant has applied for a permit and variances to construct a lakeside porch to an
existing deck. This would require variances to the street frontage setback of 20 feet and a
hardcover variance of 2183.8 square foot, or sixty one percent. The case was reviewed by the
Planning Commission last year and denied. The applicant pulled the case prior to the Council
meeting.
The applicant is now coming back with the same proposal, only with a new survey on the
lakeside setback and adjoining properties. The new survey shows a 51-foot lakeside setback
and the adjacent homes that "line up" with the porch.
The property has an existing nonconforming lot width of 20 feet. The existing hard cover is also
nonconforming at sixty one percent and is largely due to the driveway rather than other
structures. The existing house is typical for the lot and is not oversized. The property is
irregular in shape due to the length of the driveway needed to access the house. A substantial
reduction in hardcover is not feasible.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance
request.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to move staff recommendation.
Weiland had some questions answered regarding the hardcover and setbacks that are
discussed on page 73.
MOTION CARRIED 6-1 with Weiland opposed.
/ __SC_~J.O_BORG
_LA.N_ O__~S U_ ~RoV_.E Y I N G
1', mc.
I heleb¥ calilly thai lifts plait, or repair was
plat)at ed I)y ilia or illldet f,y alii ecl Sllt)e(vi.StOll and that I alit
a d~lly Rag sieged Land ~UfVeVO[ UIt(JOf Iha laws of Iha Slate
of Mim~esola. ' .,' ,~ )/
szo/ 43¥7 ~,~i~ 8~e~
Book- Page ~(a~ I ~
~cale ~/~ ~
/'~-Z~ *
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
fill
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: July 12 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: W. Thomas and Diane P. Harmon
CASE NUMBER: 98-63
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5eee
LOCATION: 4347 Wilshire Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add lakeside porch to an existing
deck. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Street Frontage 40' 20' 20'
Hardcover 6299 sf 4115.2 sf 2183.8 sf
This case was reviewed by the Planning Commission last year where the motion forwarded to
Council was for denial of the request. Seeing the potential was there to wait out another year if
Council also denied the request, the application was withdrawn prior to the meeting. After
reviewing options, the applicant is coming back with the same proposal as before for the porch
but with new survey information on the lakeside setback and adjoining properties. The applicant
has stated to me that the new survey which will be ready on Friday, shows a 51 feet lakeside
setback. Also setbacks of adjacent homes are shown and indicate that the porch will "line up"
with the other homes. The survey will be handed out to the Commission at the meeting.
The house is located at 4347 Wilshire Blvd. in the R-IA district. The house is tucked back off
the roadway and is accessed by it private driveway. Current property improvements include a
one-story house with an attached tuck under two-car garage. The existing lakeside deck setback
is nonconforming at 46.8 feet. The property has nonconforming street frontage of 20 along
Wi lshire Blvd. The impervious surface coverage is also nonconforming by 2183.8 square feet, or
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#98-63 -4347 Wilshire Road Variance
Jul), 12, 1999
61 percent. The overage is due in large part to the driveway rather than other structural
improvements. The existing house size is typical for the lot and is not oversized.
The proposed porch would utilize the existing deck as flooring adding a roof with a 6/12 pitch
and walls with typical aluminum screening. Exit doors are located on the sides and the existing
sliding glass door would remain.
The property received a previous variance for the deck as prescribed by Resolution #93-82. This
resolution approved the deck construction recognizing the hardcover, street fi'ontage and lakeside
setback. Since the approval of the resolution there has been an addition of a sidewalk connecting
the patio to the stairway which added 44 square feet of hardcover. There is a planting area
adjacent to the deck that has some poly underlay. It does not appear the poly extends along the
sideyard. The poly does have some perforations but the extent of which is not known.
COMMENTS: The property is irregular in shape and because of the length of driveway needed
to access the house. A substantial reduction in hardcover is not feasible. The previous resolution
acknowledged the existing hardcover with the deck addition also recognizing it as hardcover.
The only change to the site is a 4 feet by 14 feet walk connecting the patio to the stairway leading
to the dock. The proposed addition although keeping the same dimensions as the deck, will add
bulk. It would however line up with adjacent homes which meets a shoreland management
provision for nonconforming lakeside setbacks. The applicant has a new survey that he will
provide at the meeting showing a lakeside setback of 51 feet. He wishes to provide this to revise
the previous survey.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variances as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Diane P. and W. Thomas Harmon
4347 Wilshire Boulevard
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Home Phone (612) 472-4256
RECEIVED
1999
June 08,1999
Ms. Kris Linquist
Planning and Inspection
City of Mound
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Variance application #98-63
Dear Ms. Linquist:
We request that our variance application #98-63 be placed back on the next available Planning
Commission meeting agenda. We will submit some additional and/or revised information in
suppod of our application.
Please advise us at the above telephone number (472-4256) as to the date of the meeting our
application is scheduled for review.
Yours truly,
W. Thomas Harmon
Diane P. Harmon
va~eqmtg.wps
W. Thomas and Diane P. Harmon
640 Fourth Key Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
(954)763-9322
RECEIVED
N0V 1 9 1998
MOUND PLANNING & iNSP.
November 16, 1998
Ms. Kris Linquist
Planning and Inspection
City of Mound
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Variance application #98-63
Dear Ms. Linquist:
We respectfully request that our variance application #98-63 be withdrawn at this time,
prior to the City Council meeting scheduled for November 24, 1998. We wish to
reconsider and/or modify the application for submission again next spring.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please also send us a copy of the minutes
from the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting at our above address.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Orv
Burma, and Council Liason Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon
and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss,
and Building Official Jori Sutherland.
Public Present: Bob Bittle, Ann Hunt, David Braslau, Pat Meisel, Bill Pinegar, Bob Brown, Ed
Shukle, Bob Hunt, Mark Theide, and Dr. Pam Myers.
Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 26, 1998 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Burma stated that on page 11, fourth paragraph down should read, "Burma didn't recall that a
stipulation was that the Geyen's could not use the vacant lot for their personal use."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to approve the corrected
Minutes of the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion
carried 6-0.
Chair Michael recited the procedure for Public Hearings.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-63: VARIANCE, LAKE SIDE SETBACK, STREET FRONTAGE AND
HARDCOVER VARIANCE SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH OVER THE
EXISTING DECK, W. THOMAS & DIANE HARMON, 4347 WILSHIRE BLVD, PART OF LOTS
75, 76 & LOT B, 1sT REARR. OF PIP 1sT DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23 13 0008
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicants, W. Thomas and Diane P Harmon, have submitted a request to add lakeside
porch to an existing deck. The associated variance request is listed below.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 1998
Existing/Proposed Re(~uired Variance
Lakeside 46.8' 50' 3.8'
Street Frontage 40' 20' 20'
Hardcover 6299 sf 4115.2 sf 2183.8 sf
The house is located at 4347 Wilshire Blvd. in the R-lA district. The house is tucked back off
the roadway and is accessed by it private driveway. Current property improvements include a
two-story house with an attached two-car garage. The existing lakeside deck setback is
nonconforming at 46.8 feet. The property has nonconforming street frontage of 20 along
Wilshire Blvd. The impervious surface coverage is also nonconforming by 2183.8 square feet,
or 61 percent. The overage is due in large part to the driveway rather than other structural
improvements. The existing house size is typical for the lot and is not oversized.
The proposed porch would utilize the existing deck as flooring adding a roof with a 6/12 pitch
and walls with typical aluminum screening. Exit doors are located on the sides and the existing
sliding glass door would remain.
The property received a previous variance for the deck as prescribed by Resolution #93-82.
This resolution approved the deck construction recognizing the hardcover, street frontage and
lakeside setback. Since the approval of the resolution there has been an addition of a sidewalk
connecting the patio to the stairway which added 44 square feet of hardcover. There is a
planting area adjacent to the deck that has some poly underlay. It does not appear the poly
extends along the side yard. The poly does have some perforations but the extent of which is
not known.
The property is irregular in shape and because of the length of driveway needed to access the
house, substantial reductions in hardcover are not feasible. The previous resolution also
acknowledged this condition and conditions are unchanged. The proposed addition although
keeping the same dimensions as the deck, will add bulk which require its review. The setbacks
of the two homes to the north are similar and the addition would line up with them well. Staff
reviewed the possibility of trying to maintain a 50 feet lakeside setback, but the applicant felt the
porch would be too small with an 8.8 feet depth. Staff feels the additional bulk is minimal should
not detriment the lakeside aesthetics. The porch should add to the use and enjoyment of the
property.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variances as
requested.
DISCUSSION:
Weiland asked what the old concrete slab was. Gordon stated that he thought it was a pad for a
ham radio antenna.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 1998
Weiland commented on what would stop them from enclosing the screen porch and make it an
addition and then request that they want a deck. There would be no additional review by the
commission and would just require approval of a building permit. Gordon stated that they
looked at that possibility.
Mueller asked what the hardship is for the porch. Gordon stated that the amount of bulk would
not add too much to the existing condition. He thought the line up rule with adjacent homes
would apply.
Gordon stated he had a telephone conversation with the applicant about the possibility of a
conforming deck. The applicant stated if he took off the encroachment, the deck would not be
usable.
Hanus brought up the Darling case. Mueller and Hanus discussed the case. Hanus stated that
the case was similar to this one.
Burma stated that he is concerned that if a 3 season porch is granted, what would stop them
from turning this into a 4 season porch and then request for a deck.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Hasse to deny the request. Motion carried 6-1.
Opposed: Hanus.
This case will go to City Council on November 24, 1998
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
~n
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: November 9, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: W. Thomas and Diane P. Harmon
CASE NUMBER: 98-63
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5eee
LOCATION: 4347 Wilshire Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R- 1A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add lakeside porch to an existing
deck. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Lakeside 46.8' 50' 3.8'
Street Frontage 40' 20' 20'
Hardcover 6299 sf 4115.2 sf 2183.8 sf
The house is located at 4347 Wilshire Blvd. in the R-lA district. The house is tucked back off
the roadway and is accessed by it private driveway. Current property improvements include a
two-story house with an attached two-car garage. The existing lakeside deck setback is
nonconforming at 46.8 feet. The property has nonconforming street frontage of 20 along
Wilshire Blvd. The impervious surface coverage is also nonconforming by 2183.8 square feet, or
61 percent. The overage is due in large part to the driveway rather than other structural
improvements. The existing house size is typical for the lot and is not oversized.
The proposed porch would utilize the existing deck as flooring adding a roof with a 6/12 pitch
and walls with typical aluminum screening. Exit doors are located on the sides and the existing
sliding glass door would remain.
The property received a previous variance for the deck as prescribed by Resolution//93-82. This
resolution approved the deck construction recognizing the hardcover, street frontage and lakeside
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
#98-63 -Harmon Variance Request
November 9,1998
setback. Since the approval of the resolution there has been an addition of a sidewalk connecting
the patio to the stairway which added 44 square feet of hardcover. There is a planting area
adjacent to the deck that has some poly underlay. It does not appear the poly extends along the
sideyard. The poly does have some perforations but the extent of which is not known.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The property is irregular in shape and because of the length of driveway needed to access the
house, substantial reductions in hardcover are not feasible. The previous resolution also
acknowledged this condition and conditions are unchanged. The proposed addition although
keeping the same dimensions as the deck, will add bulk which require its review. The setbacks of
the two homes to the north are similar and the addition would line up with them well. Staff
reviewed the possibility of trying to maintain a 50 feet lakeside setback, but the applicant felt the
porch would be too small with an 8.8 feet depth. Staff feels the additional bulk is minimal should
not detriment the lakeside aesthetics. The porch should add to the use and enjoyment of the
property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variances as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE. ciTY OF APPLICATION MOUND ~ "J'~'!'-~
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 'oc'r 2 '~ 1998 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
'~pl~li~tion Fee: $100.o0
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
i!~)':~_~) '(~ ~ City Planner
I O'~_~'(-'t~ City Engineer
Public Works
Case No.
Other
R-3 B-1
SUBJECT Address z-./,.~ ~ 7 //V')~_,<,~//,'-c ~/'u ~-/.
PROPERTY Lot/9~-~.~-~ ~-
LEGAL Block
DESC. Subdivision
PID~ I ~
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2
PROPERTY Name ~,
OWNER Address ~
Phone (H) ~/~ -~2~ ~ (W)
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
Plat # ..~ ~' ~Z~
B-2 B-3
(W) (M)
OWNER)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? {~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Vari'~.nce Application, P. 2
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No Jx['. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
.:
NSEW)
NSEW)
NSEW)
NSEW)
N~EW)
NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
(or existing)
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ~.~ ft. ~,~ ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ~0 ft. ~ o ft.
sq ft sq ft sq ft
sqft ~/~D sqft ~/~ sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( )toosmall ( )drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
describe:
(Rev. ll/14/97)
Vanance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain:
o
Was the ha. rds/hip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes(), No~. If yes, explain:
Are the Conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes (), No ~I>~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
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 a~
Owner's Signatur Ye"¢~~/'""'~~ ~///~ ~~ Date /"/
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. 11114197)
June 22, 1993
RESOLUTION ~93-8Z
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE SETBACK, STREET FRONTAGE,
AND HARDCOVER VARIANCE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK
AT 4347 WILSHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOTS 75t 76 & LOT B IN
THE FIRST RE-ARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK, FIRST DIVISION,
PID %19-117-23 13 000St P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-022
WHEREAS, the owner, Kenneth Dahlgren, has applied for a
variance to replace the existing deck and add two more feet
resulting in a 44.8 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water, and;
WHEREAS, the impervious surface coverage on this
property is also nonconforming by 2,140 square feet, or 52 percent,
including the proposed deck, and;
WHEREAS, inadequate street frontage also exists of 20
feet to the required 40 feet, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA
Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City
Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard
setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 50
foot setback to the ordinary high water, and;
WHEREAS, this property is unique in size and shape and
it could be expected that it may exceed the limit on hardcover due
to the configuration and need for a long driveway, however, the
extent of hardcover and request to further encroach on the
lakeshore setback is inconsistent with the City Code and
compensation must be made'in some area in order to gain some more
conformance with hardcover, and;
WHEREAS, the owner would be satisfied with being allowed
to replace the deck as is, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
request and unanimously recommended approval to replace the deck as
is.
NOW, THEP~EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve the following variances to allow
reconstruction of the existing 12' x 12' deck, as is, for the
property at 4347 Wilshire Blvd.:
ae
A setback variance from the deck to the ordinary high
water of 3.2 feet.
June 22, 1993
B. A street frontage variance of 20 feet.
Ce
A variance to impervious lot coverage of 2,124 square
feet (52 percent hardcover).
The city Council authorizes the alterations pursuant to
Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with
the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a
lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions
and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Re-construction of a 16.3' x 12' deck at the lake
side of the dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
That part of Lots 75, 76, and Lot B in "The First Re-
arrangement of Phelps Island Park - 1st Div., and all of
Lot 4 and that part of Lot 3 and the private street in
"Phelps Island Park, First Division", all described as
commencing at a point in the Southeasterly line of County
Road No. 125 distant 60 feet Southwesterly from the
Southwesterly corner of LOt A in "The First Re-
arrangement of Phelps Island Park - 1st Div; thence
southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said road
a distance of 360 feet to the actual point of beginning;
thence South 26 degrees 26 feet East a distance of 75.7
feet; thence South 37 degrees 21' feet East to the shore
of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southwesterly along said shore
to the extension Southerly of the Southwesterly line of
said Lot 4; thence Northwesterly along the extension of
said Southwesterly line.and along said Southwesterly line
to the Southeasterly line of said Lot B; thence
Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line to its
intersection with the extension Southeasterly of the
Southwesterly line of said Lot 76; thence Northwesterly
along the extension of said Southwesterly line and along
said Southwesterly line to the Southerly line of County
Road No. 125; thence Northeasterly along said Southerly
line to the point of beginning, EXCEPT that part thereof
lying Northeasterly of the following described line and
its Northwesterly extension: Commencing at the judicial
landmark set pursuant to District Court Torrens Case No.
10398 at the angle point in the Northeasterly line of
June 22, 1993
said above-described property, said point being the
point of beginning of a line hereinafter referred to as
"Line A"; thence North 26 degrees 26 feet West a distance
of 75.7 feet to the judicial landmark set pursuant to
District Court Torrens Case No. 10398 marking the actual
point of beginning of said above-described property, and
said "Line A" there ending; thence South 76 degrees 15
feet West to a point of intersection with a line drawn
parallel with and 20 feet Southwesterly, measured at
right angles, from said "Line A', said point of
intersection being the point of beginning of the line
being described; thence South 26 degrees 26 feet East a
distance of 71.40 feet; thence South 30 degrees 34 feet
West a distance of 43.5 feet; thence South 43 degrees 26
feet East to the Southeasterly line of said above-
described property~ and said line there ending, ALSO
EXCEPT that part thereof described as follows:
Commencing at the point of ending of said "Line A";
thence South 76 degrees 15 feet West to a point of
intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 40 feet
Southwesterly, measured at right angles, from said "Line
A", said point of intersection being the point of
beginning of the exception being described; thence South
26 degrees 26 feet East a distance of 65.05 feet; thence
Southwesterly to the intersection of the Southeasterly
line of said Lot B with the Southerly extension of the
Southwesterly line of said Lot 76; thence Northwesterly
along said Southerly extension and said Southwesterly
line to the Southerly right-of-way line of County Road
No. 125; thence Northeasterly along said Southerly right-
of-way line to its intersection with a line drawn North
26 degrees 26 feet West through the point of beginning of
said exception; thence South 26 degrees 26 feet East to
said point of beginning.
Se
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Smith.
June 22, 1993
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following voted in the negative:
none.
Attest: City Clerk
Nov-09-98 13:23
HARMON
Ft. Lauderdale,r
Certificate of Survey
for Ken Roelofs Construct[om
in "Phel~'s Island Park,
Firs% Division" & "The FirRt
Re-arrangement of Phelp's l$1and
Park-lst-Di¥.
Hennepin County, Minnesota
o;
·
/
/
%0395 ~ ~* &ot~ ~=t of
'~ Ae ~e~ e~l ~e ~u~ ~6°~~
k~r~ rt~t-~ ~M df
[ hereby ccrli~¥ thac~hi'- ~,utvcy ,,vas IprC '~,'.ed b)' mc or under my direct super- [)Al E ~- ~ - ~
vlsio~. ~nd Ih[l~ I am a duly ~e~i~h'rt~l Civil Engincc~ and L..md S~'cynr undcr
the taws pi tht' 5tnl~' ~{ Mis~nt'suta. ~CALE / '~- 2 ~ /
Mark S (;ronhcr~ Minnc~t'm~mq~'r 127,.
Nov-09-98 13:23 HARMON
RECEIVED
Uv - 9 1998
Ft. Lauderdale,F1. 954
CITY OF MOUND
HAROCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
763-1994
P ..Q2
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA SO. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. } {
LOT AREA /~2~oc~J~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Recorde) ....... { ~,'//,.4'..~ }
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A ptan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS O~en deck= (~/4' min.
opening between boards) w{th ·
I:~rvioue au,'face u~der Ire
not counted ae herdcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQFT
4',,'.,2 X .zF'. / = /.z ,./ ~,. ~
~, ,~ x ~.~' = ~'~. ,.~"
x =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
/~, $ x t.z = / ~', ~,
TOTAL DECK ..........................
,.,~/~
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
~/7 ..c,P. 9
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / 0~.~.
PREPARED
I
DATE
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
LEGAL
DESCAIP'~CN
OWNER
CTNTRACTOR
5341
:'CITY OF MOUND
Maywood Road, Mound, MN.55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472.-0620
Rlock
PID#
Address
&/OR A(~dress
F-NGINE=-R Phone
License
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
VALUATION
OF WORK: ~ ~ oO VALUE APPROVED:
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPLJCA~N~E DA
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////~////////////////////////////////
(0FF~E USE ONLY) SPECIAL ~ONDITIONS&~OMMENTS:
CON ST,q UC .~CN
CCC~JPANCY GROUP / OlV:
YES I NO
AP.mACV~D BY/OAT[;
Z~NING
I
I
I'
I
Solid wall-~,
36" screen door
Door from houso
16'5
Solid wall
36" screen door
4x4 cedar posts
2- 2x10 headers above posts
Aluminum screening
asphalt shingles~/~'"~
2- 13/4" x 14" micro lam ~/'.,,,,,~. ~~...__..___~
~~ -- ~"~,,.~ Metal flashing @ house
4~<6RSC
2- 2xl 0 cedar header ~s-'''~'''~ 8'2 '~-- 4'2 '- 4' ~'
~,x4 cedar posts
lx4 covering screen
sc-een all openings w th aluminum
.~c'eening
existing deck
end view
12'-3'.'
/~ Existing house
structual ridge w/o ceiling joist
Ii
4x6 rough sawn cedar rafters @
24" o.c.
16' -8"
Plan view
(roof)
' 2- 1 3/4" x 14" micro-lan
.. <
II
2' overhang
11fi
June 23, 1992
RESOLUTION #92-72
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND LEVEL
FOUR SEASON PORCH AND A FIRST LEVEL BASEMENT ON
PART OF LOTS 75, 76 AND LOT B, THE FIRST REARRANGEMENT
OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK - 1ST DIVISION AND ALL OF LOT 4
AND PART OF LOT 3 AND THE PRIVATE STREET IN
PHELPS ISLAND PARK - 1ST DIVISIONv
PID ~19-117-25 13 0007 (4345 WILSHIRE BLVD)
P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-020
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to
replace an existing screened porch with a second story four season
porch and a first story basement; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2,
Single Family Residential Zoning District which'according to code
requires a 40 foot lot width and a 6 foot side yard setback; and
WHEREAS, the subject property has a 20 foot lot width and
a side yard setback of 5.9 feet resulting in a 20 foot lot width
variance and a .1 foot side yard setback variance; and
WHEREAS, it was originally the applicant's intent to also
construct a deck on the north side of the proposed porch which
would have required an additional 4' lakeshore variance, however,
at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant withdrew the
request for the deck variance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request
and has unanimously recommended approval of the lot width and side
yard setback variances. In rendering its opinion, the Planning
Commission adopted the following Finding of Fact:
In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that
the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the
Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from
the shape of the existing lot over which the present owner of
the property has no control.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota,.as follows:
The City does hereby approve the 20 foot lot width variance
and .1 foot side yard setback variance to allow construction
of a conforming two level addition housing a four sea~on porch
and basement at 4345 Wilshire Boulevard.' ' '
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code
with the clear and express understanding that the use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a two level addition including a four season
porch and basement.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
That part.of Lots 75, 76 and Lot B in "The First Rearrangement'
of Phelps Island Park - 1st Div." and all of Lot 4 and that
part of Lot 3 and the private street in "Phelps Island Park
First Division,, ... PID #19-117-23 13 0007.
0
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or"
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith
and seconded by Councilmember Jessen.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following voted in the negative:
none.
Attest: City Clerk
ss/Skip Johnson
Mayor
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Legal Description
Thai part of Lei One (!) of the Firsl Rearrangement of Phelps Island Park. FIrsl Division. and II~e adjoining privale slreels. If any. described as follows.
Io-wlt: Commencing at a point on Ihe shore line of ~ke Ml,nelonka where Ihe same Is tnlersected by a line parallel with and Sixty (C~) leer
Southweslerly from the Scuthweslefly line of Lot A el sam Rearrangemenl. measured at righl angles Iherelo. laken as and for Ihe poinl ~ beginning;
Iheuce Soulhweste[ly along sa~ sho[e line a distmme of ni~ely-INe (g5) leel; Ihe~ce Northerly (~ a stJaigh~ Ih~e to a poii~t h* the S~uthedy
COurtly road which said lasl nam~ ~hll Is Ilillely-J~e (95) leer Soulhweslefly measured along lhe Soulherly line el saki County R~d hem the point
el intersection of the southerly [h*e of sa~ Coul~ty Road a~ a line drawl1 pamlie[ wtrtl and sixty {50) leol Soull~wesiefly i[om Ihe Sotltllwesleliy line
of said Lot A measured at righ[ angles therelo; Ihence No~heaslefly along Ihe soulherly line el said counly road a distance o~ nlnely4ive (95) ~eel
to a point where Ihe soulhefly line of County Road Is inlersect~ by a line parallel wilh and slxly (~) leel Soulhwesledy hem Ihe Southwesledy line
of ~M Lot A of ~ld Rearrangemenl measured at dghl an~es Iheret3; thence Soulheaslefly along said East descdb~ line Io the poh. el beginni~g;
O - WOOD STAKE P~CED o - IRON MEN,' 8E~ ' · = IRON MeN. INPLACE
B.H.- ~O~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~f~k ~r~co~~ ~Z~.
B~RINGS.ON PROPOSED INFOR~TION '
ASSUMED DATUM ?~*~ 1st FLOOR ELEV. . ~-~ GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
__ SASEMENT ELEV. ~OP BLOCK ELEV,
E&P=
~ - DRAINAGE O00.O - EXIST. ELEV. (000.~], PROPOSED ELEV. OO0.O EXIST. & PROP, ELEV.
' I hereby cerllly Ihal [hl~ plan, survey or report was JOB 8
SCHOBORG prepared by me or under mydlrect supervision and that I am
a duly Reglslered Land Surveyor undar Ihe laws Of the Stale
.t,t,e~l Date: ~,'/ /~s ~ Re~lrstion No. 147~
FEB 2 2 1999
Z~'VIsF~ J~L Y t2, I
PREPARED FOR
DAVID
HOLMS
~ e.,N~Zt~AL ZONLNG LN'FOIt, MATION SIIEET
50' tM.soured fro~ O,H,W,)
FRON?I # S I
~RONTt # I B
~SHO~I
SO' tmealured fr,w O.H.W.!
EXI6TXNG I~ND/OR PROPOSBD 8ETBkCKS$
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
ACCESSORY BUILDINO
tO) '%
O
July 27, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR
MARK HANUS AT 4446 DENBIGH ROAD
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AVALON
DOCK SITE # 33525
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Hanus, is seeking a Construction on Public Lands Permit
to construct a Fire Ring and install rip rap along the shoreline on Stratford Lane Commons, Dock Site
# 33525, abutting 4446 Denbigh Rd; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is on Stratford Lane and abuts 4446 Denbigh Rd,
Lot 1, Block 1, Avalon; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed modification to the rip rap will improve the condition of the
shoreline; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant in conjunction with the Parks Director will be responsible for
obtaining the necessary permits from the MCWD; and,
WHEREAS, Fire rings are generally required to be on private land however due to the
poximity of the structures and the fact that this area is inaccessible it would appear reasonable to
allow the fire ring closer to the lake as proposed; and,
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote
for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural
contour of any public way, park, or commons; and,
WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission reviewed this request and unanimously
recommend approval; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct a fire ring and modify the rip
rap to the shoreline on Stratford Lane commons abutting the property at 4446 Denbigh Road.
July 27, 1999
Stratford Ln abutting 4446 Denbigh Rd - Hanus
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
JUNE t7, t999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Orvin Burma, Frank Ahrens and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent was: Commissioner Mark Goldberg
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Road
Councilmember Hanus stepped down for this discussion.
Park Director Fackler reported on the request for a public lands permit as detailed in the
staff report of June 11, 1999. Staff recommends approval as requested with the condition
that the applicant shall work with the Parks Director to complete the rip rap according to
the normal permit requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and
the City shall obtain the permit. This recommendation will come before the Council on
June 22, 1999.
Councilmember Hanus questioned whether the subject of rip rap needs to go to the City
Council, as in the staff report, Building Official Jon Sutherland stated it was considered
maintenance and does not need to go to Council.
Park Director Fackler stated he is uncertain, but the Building Official, Jon Sutherland has
talked to the MCWD, and he has a better feel for this question.
Chair Funk asked to have the Building Official clarify whether the issue of the rip rap does,
or does not, need to go before the City Council.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to recommend approval of the
Public Lands Permit for Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Road. Motion carried
unanimously.
CITY OF MOUND
STAFF REPORT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
MEETING
DATES:
TO:
FROM:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SUBJECT:
June 11, 1999
June 17, 1999 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
July 13, 1999 City Council
Dock and Commons Commission and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Mark Hanus - 4446 Denbigh Rd
Dock Site # 33525 - Stratford Lane
Public Land Permit Application To Modify Rip Rap and install a fire ring.
Background: The applicant is seeking a Construction on Public Lands Permit as described
in the attached application in order to clean up the rip rap and allow a fire ring.
Comment:
1) Rip Rap: The existing shoreline is in poor condition and concrete chunks are not an
acceptable material for rip rap. The applicants request results in cleaning up the shoreline
at no cost to the city and absent the fire ring, I would consider the rip rap to be
"maintenance" which should be processed administratively and not require council
approval.
Rip rap modification requires Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval and
historically the Parks Director is responsible for rip rap work and the required permits. The
MCWD representative Jim Hafner has discussed this case (see attachment Exhibit A) with
both the applicant and myself and recommends the fast track permit procedure with the
applicant being responsible to the city and the city to be responsible to the MCWD.
2) Fire Ring: Regarding the fire ring (in general), Staffwould suggest that they remain on
private property except in cases such as this where the commons are inaccessible due
to slope or other conditions. In addition, due to the proximity of the structures it would
appear reasonable to allow the fire ring closer to the lake as proposed.
printed on recycled paper
Hanus-4446 Denbigh Rd
Dock # 35- Stratford
Page 2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as requested with the condition that
the applicant shall work with the Parks Director to complete the rip rap according to the
normal permit requirements of the MCWD and the city shall obtain the permit.
JS:kl
,,;. 410'/
949-90?2 UERSRT!L 3?0 P02
PUBLIC LAND ?F. RMIT A?i:'LIcA'rION
CITY OF MOUND. 534! Maywood Road. Mound. MN' 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472.-0620
MRY 26
08:46
DISTRIBUTION:
BUILDING OFFICIAL
.. PARKS DIRECTOR
DNR
MCWD
.. PUBLIC WORKS
DATE R~CEIVED
DOCK MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE -'~-
l cheek ~n,):
I
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new co=u, uc~o-. NOTE: NO PEPJvIIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTH]~R BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC [~ND (Cit~ Code
Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND ~A.NCE PER!~T - to aaow repairs to aa cxis~g structure (Cit7 Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
CONT]2~FJATION OF STRUCTURE - m ~Iow m exis~in$ encroachment to ren~ia ia aa "~s is' condition
(Cit'), Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
ALTERATION
~aimge. slope, trees, vcgemQon, fill, e~ (Ci~ Co~ Section 320,
shoreline,
Subd. 4). ~ ? -
The sh'ucture or ~ork )'ou ~e requ~tin~ h an activit~ on pub~cly o~ed lan~. St~uctur~ ~ke bo~t ho~es, pafi~, she~, etc.
~ s~ NONCO~O~G USES. It ~ the intent of the City w b~g a~ t~ ~es into conformance w~ch ~ea~ that ~hose
~ructur~ ~ at some ~e in the ~e ~ve to ~ remo~et ~om the public hn~. ~ ~mi~ ~e gr~nted for a ~ked t~e and
are non-tr~fer~ble. $~i~y co~ion m~ meet the S~te B~ C~e when the ~rmi~ ~ for new to~t~ucfion, or a new
~mit ~ ~ppli~ for due to ch~n~e ~ d~k site hold~.
Phone (home)
~ut:ing AddreSs ~q~
Property O~er ~k
Legal Lot I
Description Subd. ~v= {on
Proper~y Dock Si:e ~_
Con~ractor Name ~ on ~.
Address
Phone
Block
Shoreline Type
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDiNG LABOR & MATERIA]~);
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE:
~ivnat~,re of Anplicant
Date
949-907~ UERS~TIL ~70 F~~ MAY 26 '99 08:46
SUPPLEMENT TO PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
5-26-99
The following is a narrative description of the work proposed on public lands (lakeside of
vacated Stratford Lane) by Mark Hanus at 4446 denbigh Road.
The riprap that is in place and was installed at private expense is primarily field stone. This was
installed over a number of years sometime prior to 1970. All work proposed is above the 929.4
lake level to avoid having to involve the MCWD or DNR.
I would like to:
1. Remove the chunks of concrete
2. Lift the top layer of field stone
3. Lay down a weed barrier blanket
4. Replace the field stone
$. Install a plastic mowing edge (garden edging) approximately 18" inland from the
meaf~dedng edge of the top of the riprap
6. Top dress the field stone and cover up to the edging with 2" river rock to match the field
stone.
By doing this 1 would like to accomplish the following:
1. Create an easier to maintain edge for mowing. Trying to trim grass .and weeds past the upper
stone is impossible. The grass and weeds grow uncontrolled.
2. Control the weeds growing up through the riprap. Weeds ar~ growing through including
Purple Loosestrife.
3. Clemi up the appearance for myself and the neighbors that can see the area.
4. Re-laying the stone in a more orderly fashion will form a more stable base for the riprap.
This will also be easier to maintain in the furore than the random piles that exist today.
It is important to note:
1. No work is proposed below the 929.4 level.
2. No change in shoreline location or shape is proposed.
3. No change in elevation is proposed.
4. This is only a "cleanup" of the area by installing a mowing edge, resetting stone, adding a
weed blanket, and top dressing.
5. No fill is proposed other than the top dressing.
6. No removal of material is proposed other than pieces of concrete.
949-90?2 UERSATIL 421 P02 JUN 03 '99 11:22
AMENDMENT TO:
SUPPLEMENT TO PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
Dated $-26-99
My neighbor, Jack Cook at 4452 Denbigh Road and myself are interested in sharing a fire ring
on our property lines. This has historically been considered a permitted use provided a Public
Lands Permit has been approved.
This amendment is to add the fire ring permit to the rip rap top dressing application. The fire
ring will conform to current city codes in all respects. The applicable sections of both surveys
have been pasted together and are included with the proposed fire ring location h~dicated. The
fire ring will not be larger than the 3 foot diameter allowed.
I am fully aware of the current restrictions on recreational fires and these restrictions to both size
and use will be followed.
¢'"74'-/
)IV
.1 g GO 'Z
B ENCI-I~/~,,~:
Too 941.33
()
~o~¢. Block
Owdli~F
~/rs ! Fl~or
El~v.
":.'.'.'G$ SI
JUN-O~-1999
15:06 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 6124710682
Minnehaha Creek ~ Watershed District
P.O1/OB
EXHIBIT A
Gray Freshwater Cenler
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre
2500 Shadywood Roacl
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471-0590
Fax: (612) 471-0652
EmaJl:
adminOminnehahacreek,org
Web Site:
www. minnehahac~eek.org
bATE:
To:
FAX MENLO SHEET
Phone: 471-0590 Fax:
471-068E
Board of Managers
Pamela G. Bli~
James Calkin$
Lance Fishor
Moni~ Gross
Thomas W. Laaounty
Thomas Maple, Jr.
Malcolm Reid
FAX No:
FROM:
I~E:
Number of Pages including cover memo:
r~e
EXHIBIT A
99-
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
Gray Freshwater Foundation
2500 Shadywood Road, Excelsior, MN 55331
Ph: 471-0590
Fax: 471-0682
SHORELINE EROSION PROTECTION- FAST TRACK PERMIT
I, residing at
(Propcrty Owacr)
(Stn.~t Address}
PH:
· request approval to install
(City). (State. Zip)
riprap shoreline erosion protection on property described as
(S~:t Ad&ess)
(city) (county)
(PID# located on tax statement)
, located in
The rip rap installation
will consist of along the shoreline of , , in full accordance with
(Lineal feet) (Lake) (Bay)
the Minneha'ha Creek Watershed District Shoreline Protection Guideline for riprap placement required for
issuance of a Fast Track General Permit. I have contracted with
(Name of Company) (Address) (Phone)
, to perform the work who is familiar with the technical requirements and has
(Bond Nmnber)
fulfilled the bonding requirements of the watershed district (see reverse). I have read and understand the
requirements of the MCWD relating to Shoreline Erosion Protection.
(Signaturc of properw, ovm~r)
(Date)
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this
day of ,19 99
Notary Public
Approved By:
James Hafner, District Technician
(Date)
Distribution: Propcrty Owner
Contractor Mtmicipality DN'R District Fil-
ia.si
JUN-04-1999 13:06
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED
6124710682 P. 03/03
F~[RIBIT A
Bonding requirements:
All shoreline project applicants are required to submit a bond or letter of credit as
described in District Rule K.
Projects involving 50 lineal feet or less require a bond of $5,000.
Projects greater than 50 lineal feet require a bond equal to $100 per foot.
Individuals or contractors may submit an individual project bond as described above or
they have the option of submitting a standing bond in the amount of $25,000 with the
MCWD to cover multiple bonds on an annual basis. If a standing bond is to be used,
please provide the followhag:
Bond holder:
Address
City, State, Zip:
Contact:
Bond Number:
Phone #:
Individuals or contractors may submit an individual project
TOTAL P.03
July 27, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR
ED GORDON AT 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
LOT 7, BLOCK 7, DEVON
DOCK SITE # 42351
WHEREAS, the applicant, Ed Gordon, is seeking a Construction on Public Lands Permit
to construct additional retaining walls and flower beds on Devon Commons, Dock Site # 42351,
abutting 4737 Island View Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is on Devon Commons and abuts 4737 Island View
Drive, Lot 7, Block 7, Devon; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed construction will stabilize the hillside, enhance the appearance,
and eliminate the need for mowiDg; and,
WHEREAS, ~= ''~ cc~,9~r~net tre~rs~)e~(eept f~r-8 ~n~all area
k&=olrU,~ ~.J~.h ~t h~ n~n~ti,,,~ ;~i~£¢'-4 ~ '~,¥ la~l~l,~and,
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote
for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural
contour of any public way, park, or commons; and,
WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission reviewed this request and unanimously
recommend approval; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct additional retaining walls and
add flower beds to Devon Commons abutting the property at 4737 Island View Drive.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 1999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Orvin Burma, Frank Ahrens and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent was: Commissioner Mark Goldberg
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
4. REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
Ed Gordon, 4737 Island View Drive
Park Director Fackler reported on the request for a public lands permit as detailed in the
staff report of June 11, 1999. Staff recommends a permit be approved as requested
subject to a final inspection and approval by the Building Official at the completion of the
project.
Chair Funk questioned if the wall can come up to the stairway evenly, without an adjoining
problem.
Mr. Gordon stated it would be even, and look very nice.
Commissioner Ahrens asked for some clarification from Mr. Gordon regarding the detail
of the proposed changes.
Mr. Gordon proceeded to explain that the sketch included in the information packet,
detailing what is now in existence, and the changes he wishes to make.
Commissioner Eurich asked how much of the changes were on Commons property.
Councilmember Hanus answered that the majority of the changes are on Commons
property. However, most of the land is not traversable.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he believes it looks like a good improvement.
Commissioner Burma asked what happens if Mr. Gordon moves away and the new owner
does not take care of these shrubs.
Councilmember Hanus stated these changes will help stop erosion also, and the area is
more likely to go back to wild than end up barren.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk to recommend approval of the
Public Lands Permit for Ed Gordon, 4737 Island View Drive. Motion carried
unanimously.
CITY OF MOUND
STAFF REPORT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0~20
DATE:
MEETING
DATES:
TO:
FROM:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SUBJECT:
Background:
June 11, 1999
June 17, 1999 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
July 13, 1999 City Council
Dock and Commons Commission and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Ed Gordon - 4737 Island View Dr
Dock Site # 42351- Devon Commons
Public Lands Permit Application To Add Retaining Walls and Flower Beds.
The applicants is seeking a Construction on Public Lands Permit as
described in the attached application in order to add retaining walls and plantings.
Comment: The proposal will help stabilize the hillside, enhance the appearance, eliminate
the need for mowing. This area of commons is not traversable except for a small area at
the lakeshore which is not being negatively impacted by this proposal.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends a permit be approved as requested subject to
a final inspection and approval by the Building Official at the completion of the project.
JS:kl
printed on recycled paper
Rev. 4/97
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
DISTRIBUTION:
9_~..-oTq-q°/ BUILDING OFFICIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
DNR
MCWD
.~' ...
)--~q'7 q~ PUBLIC WORKS
~ one):
DATE RECEIVED %_~.'-~ _ Gl C~
DOCK MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code
Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroackment to remain in an "as is" condition
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
.¢
LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320,
Subd. 4).
The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc.
are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those
structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and
are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
Applicant Name ~--~-~ ~o-,--do-~
Address
Phone (home)
Abuttin9 Address
ProDertv Owner
Legal Lot
Description Subd.
Public Name
Property
(work)
Contractor
Dock Si
Name
Address
Block
Shoreline Type
Phone
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: ~ a~,z ~ qt.
Signature
Date
July 27, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR
MARIA AMPLATZ AT 2845 CAMBRIDGE LANE
LOT 9 & PART OF 8, BLOCK 38, WYCHWOOD
DOCK SITE # 51795
WHEREAS, the applicant, Maria Amplatz, is seeking a Construction on Public Lands
Permit to replace the dilapidated stairway, to add a boulder retaining wall, install rip rap along the
shoreline, and do some decorative planting and landscaping on Brighton Commons, Dock Site #
51795, abutting 2845 Cambridge Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is on Brighton Commons and abuts 2845 Cambridge
Lane, Lot 9 & Part of Lot 8, Block 38, Wychwood; and,
WHEREAS, a dock storage platform is reasonable for this site due to the topography
of the land; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed rip rap will improve the existing poor condition shoreline and
will be installed at no cost to the city; and,
WHEREAS, the contractor in conjunction with the Parks Director will be responsible
for obtaining the necessary permits from the MCWD for the rip rap; and,
WHEREAS, maintenance needs to be tied to the owner as provided by City Code
Section 320:05, Subd. 6; and,
WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote
for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural
contour of any public way, park, or commons; and,
WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission reviewed this request and unanimously
recommend approval with conditions; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to replace the dilapidated stairway, to add
a boulder retaining wall and a dock storage platform, install rip rap along the shoreline, and do
some decorative planting and landscaping on Brighton Commons, Dock Site # 51795, abutting
2845 Cambridge Lane with the following conditions:
July 22, 1999
Brighton Commons abutting 2845 Cambridge Ln - Amplatz
Page 2
The dock storage platform may be constructed not to exceed 6'x10' or equivalent
square footage..
This permit will be subject to the fees as noted in City Code Section 320:05,Subd. 4 as
approved by the City Council on August 11, 1998.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
JULY 15, 1999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners *Frank Ahrens, Mark Goldberg and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
*Arrived at 8:05 p.m.
Absent and Excused: Commissioner Orvin Burma
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
Maria Amplatz, 2845 Cambridge Lane
Maria Amplatz, 2845 Cambridge Lane, presented her request to replace the stairway,
install retaining walls, and plants.
Park Director Fackler pointed out the Building Official requested that this needs to be tied
to the land and the applicant must file with Hennepin County.
Ms. Amplatz stated that would be a welcome addition. She also presented a rough
landscape plan, stating it is fairly open as far as the plants being put in, and seeing which
plants will do the best in the conditions there.
Commissioner Goldberg questioned whether the platform size is over the limit with the
addition for dock storage.
Park Director Fackler quoted the ordinance, noting this platform is larger than the code
allows.
Councilmember Hanus stated he spoke with Building Official Sutherland, and he was
aware of this discrepancy, but still recommends approval.
Chair Funk asked if this discrepancy would halt the project and a variance would need to
be applied for.
Park Director Fackler stated he was not sure, and Building Official Sutherland would have
to address the issue.
Discussion followed on possible ways to have the platform conform to code, and
consensus was reached that Building Official Sutherland's recommendation is a feasible
approach.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to recommend approval of the
Public Lands Permit for Maria Amplatz, 2845 Cambridge Lane, and approval
of an additional platform to be attached to the structure, of the minimum size
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999
necessary at the discretion of staff, but not to exceed 9 x 10 or equivalent
square footage. Motion carried unanimously.
Park Director Fackler stated this issue will come before the City Council on July 27, 1999.
2
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-O620
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 15, i999
Dock Commission, Applicant, and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official .,:~_~
ADDITION TO STAFF REPORT DATED 7-8-99 for 2845 CAMBRIDGE LN.
Mr. Faclder has kindly reminded me of our standard procedure of tying maintenance of the
proposed improvement to the applicant. This should be part of your approval and the tie should
be as approved by the City Attorney.
Please excuse my forgetfulness.
printed on recycled paper
~,ECEIVED
PLANNING & II,!SR
RECEIVED
~EGEIVED
, LA,IN,,,G &
ii'
o
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 8, 1999
MEETING
DATES:
July 15,1999 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
July 27,1999 City Council
TO:
FROM:
Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~
APPLICANT: Maria Amplatz, 2845 Cambridge Lane
LOCATION: DOCK SITE #51795, BRIGHTON COMMONS
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION TO REPLACE STAIRWAY,
INSTALL RETAINING WALLS AND PLANTS
Background The applicant, is seeking a Construction on Public lands Permit as described
in the attached application in order to replace the dilapidated stairway (that has since been
removed) with a new stairway that has a better configuration. The proposal includes a 1-2
feet high boulder retaining wall due to the steep slope. The stairs and retaining walls are
designed and to be constructed by Concept Landscaping who is familiar with the city
requirements. Also included by the contractor is some needed rip rap work at no cost to
the City.
Additional work proposed by the applicant is some decorative planting and landscaping for
which we do not at this time have a plan or narrative and therefore are unable to comment
on. As noted in my inspection notice of 5-3-99, the applicant had done some clearing of
vegetation on the commons without prior City approval. This situation has been
substantially corrected with the installation of a seed blanket and the previous vegetation
on the hillside has re-established itself vigorously.
Comments
1) In addition to the new stairway, a dock storage platform is needed on this site due to
the steep slope. I have discussed this with the contractor and one could be incorPorated
as suggested by staff or as modifie,~y the applicant/contractor and approved by staff.
i printed on recycledpaper
Public Lands Application Dock # 51795
Amplatz - 2845 Cambridge Lane
Page 2
2) Due to the fact that there is no landscape plan available for review, staff suggests that
this portion not be acted on or approved until such time that a review process can be
completed and no additional cutting should be done unless having prior approval by the
City. I have discussed the need for a plan with the applicant and it is possible that a plan
may be ready to be submitted at the dock commission meeting. If that is the case the
commission could review the information and act accordingly with a staff follow-up prior to
the City Council meeting.
Recommendation Staff recommends the Dock and Commons Commission recommend
approval of the Public Lands permit to allow a new stairway as proposed or as modified
and approved by staff to allow for a dock storage platform up to a maximum size of 6'x10'
in size.
JS:kl
Concept Landscaping
3153 Priest Lane, Monnd, MN 55364
472-4118
RECEIVED
MOUND PLANN~G &
~. ~n~or LIC.~0~-8997
B~d~ Sho~line Con~ctor ~019008644
City of Mound
5341 Commerce Blvd
Mound, MN 55364
att John Southerland
Dear John
Please fred attached drawings for Ria Amplatz. Ria has contracted with us to replace her old steps
to the lake and install redrock along her shore line, freshen up existing redrock with a layer over the
old. Ria is going to then plato the hillside with ground cover plantings on her own.
Sincerely
James H. Smith
Rev. 4/97
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
DISTRIBUTION:
BUILDING OFFICIAL
PARKS DIRECTOR
MCWD
~t,.13. ~q' PUBLIC WORKS
one):
DOCK MEETING DA-i~E
CITY COUNCIL DATE
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code
Section 320, Subd. 1).
PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
l __ LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320,
Subd. 4).
The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc.
are all NONCONFORMING USES. It. is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those
structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and
are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
Applicant Name
Addre s s
Phone (home)
~utting Address
O~er~,
ProDertv
Legal Lot
Description Subd.
Public Name
Property Dock Site
Contractor Name
~ddress
Phone
(work)
Block
Shoreline Type
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE:
Signatu/e of Applicant
Date
ti'
m N
CITY OF MOUND
IN/S)PECTION NOTICE
( ~___. T W TH F
PERMIT NO. SCHEDULED ~,,''~'~ ''~q ~',1,,
O~/. NER ~'Q~[~T ~~~- PHONE
FOOTING ~ PLUMBING ROUGH-IN ~SlTE INSPECTION
W~OARD D FIREP~CE AT THROAT
PROGRESS ~ FIREP~CE FINAL
~RRECT WORK & PROCEED [ ~l~]~
STOP ORDER ~STED. CALL INSPECTOR
INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE %C~ESS _ ~ ,
'~ ~ ~or ~ in~~~~~nc~
~erl~-on~actor on s~e ~
B, 47 -0600
Oi~ of Mound, ~I Ma~ood ~oad, Mound, Minneso~
Yel~w C~ylSite Notice ~ite Copy~nsp~oCs File
RESCHEDULE START TIME
FOR HRA MEETING ON
AUGUST 10, 1999
TO
6:00 PM
BILLS
July 27, 1999
Batch 9070
211,336.90
TOTAL BILLS
$ 211,336.90
LCD
0
0
D
N
0
_J
Z
,-t-
z
o o
Z
I
0 I
.J_J
.,_lZ
~o
· · · · e. · ?' · · · · · · · · · ·
,_~
Z
::3
0
0
Z ~ Z
,,, h,
(2'
]'1'-I
co ao oo o ,,.,,. ~
z ,0
~Z
Z
O~
z
~Z
,no
i '~-
o~
, ~
, ~
! ! !
!
n~
0
Z
z
0
o t
~U
'" Z
,!
z
Z
_J
z
Z oo
O,
Z
z
La
Z
,.~
Z
..IV
I
LUZ
~,..~ n,.-
0
0
IAI
0
Z
'<
~Z
0 ,""'*
.I-
,~-
'~,~
oo oo oo oo
-J .,._1 .J
-J
0
0
Z
u
Z
iD
o
o i~°
I>-'
iz
Z
0
Z
(:3
g o o o o
} ° o
Z
Z
!
o oo g
.g ~o ._g g ._go ..g ~o
! ! I ! I I ! ! II
I I I I I I / I I
Z
'::3
0
z
· ' ,:4 '' ' J'
!
I' II I I I I
~oc5o
I I' I
_J
z
0
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 27, 1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBEJCT:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK/ACTING CITY MANAGER
ADDITONAL LICENSE APPROVAL
The following license was applied for today. The license period is April 1, 1999 through March
31, 2000. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted.
Tree Removal License
Bud's Landscaping
printed on recycled paper
z
!
tD I ZZ ~.~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NONCONFORMING
USE CRITERIA BY AMENDING SECTION 350:420
OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES
The City of Mound does ordain:
Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of Ordinances is amended by repealing
existing Subd. 9 and Subd. 10, and adding the following:
350:420 Subd. 9 N.o. nconforming. Jl~rincipal and accessory structures may be
expanded, enlarged,-t[~ modified,~iSiZovided that the use of the parcel is conforming
to district regulations, and l~rovided that the expansion, enlargement, or
modification meets the current zoning regulations and no other nonconformities
are created. In the event that a nonconforming structure is removed, razed, or
demolished, all newly proposed construction must meet current zoning
regulations.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council on
Published in The Laker on
Affidavit of Publication
"CITY OF MouND
~,. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE REPEALING
OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420,
SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO
NON-CONFORMING USES
TO SE REPLACED B.~/' .NEW
LANGUAGE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the
City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341
Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July
13', 1999 to consider the approval of
repealing City Code Section 350:420,
Subdivision g & 10 pertaining to non-
conforming uses to be replaced by new
language. ~
· All persons appearing at said hearing
with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
~ris Linquist, Planning Secretary
(Published in The Laker June 26, 1999)
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.) The printed Repealinq City Code
Sect. 350: 420
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week for I successive weeks:
It was first published Saturday
the 26th. dayof June 19 99 ,
and was thereafter printed and published every
Saturday, to and including Saturday,
the day of
19 ;
Authorized Agent
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
26 day 9f June ,19 99
By: ,~-l~/l ~ [~//PJ - - .~
(~~ "~'~ K~m'~': ' ~' Notary;, Public
Rate Information
(1) Lowest classified ~te paid by ~mmercial users
for ~mparable space: $12.90 per inch.
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $12.90.
(3) Rate a~ually charged for above mailer: $7.19 per inch.
Each additional su~essive week: $5.14.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
To~
From~
Date=
subject:
MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK/ACTING CITY MANAGER
JULY 7, 1999
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL
At the Public Hearing you held on June 14th, regarding the
revision to the Section of the Zoning Code on streamlining
language there was discussion of having a joint meeting with the
City Council on this issue. The City Council had already set
it's public hearing on this issue for July 13, 1999. The City
Council is receptive to hearing your comments so they will open
the public hearing on July 13, 1999 to hear comments and interact
with the Planning Commission at that time. You will then be able
to hear their reasoning for the streamlining. The City Council
will then continue the public hearing until July 27, 1999, at
6:00 P.M. This will allow the Planning Commission time at your
meeting on July 26, 1999, to review all aspects of the
streamlining revision. The City Council has then set their July
27, 1999, meeting for a 6:00 P.M. start time in order to meet
with the Planning Commission prior to the regular meeting at 7:30
P.M.
Another reason the City Council would like to have the Planning
Commission at the July 13, 1999, HRA Meeting at 6:00 P.M. is to
update you and have your input on the downtown redevelopment and
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District schedule and boundaries.
Therefore, if you have comments on the revision and the downtown
redevelopment, please make every effort to attend the HRA
meeting on July 13, 1999, at 6:00 P.M., and the Public Hearing on
the Code revision at the regular meeting at 7:30 P.M., in the
City Council Chambers.
pr~nted on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF
CHANGE IN MEETING TIME
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound
Regularly scheduled meeting on July 27, 1999, will begin at 6:00
P.M. on that date. The reason for the change in time will be to
hold a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to discuss
repealing City Code Section 350:420, Subdivisions 9 & 10,
pertaining to nonconforming uses and replacing them with new
language.
Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk/Acting City Manager
Publish in The Laker - July 19, 1999
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent and excused: Frank Weiland
Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane,
Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, #
432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett
Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy
Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501
Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.)
with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor
Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood
Lane.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE MAY 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as
amended. Motion carried: 8-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REVISION SECTION 350:420: REPEALING OF
CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVlDION 9 AND 10 PERTAINING TO NON-
CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACE BY NEW LANGUAGE.
Gordon introduced the new language recommended by City Council in response the
last meeting's discussion on streamlining.
Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of Ordinance is amended by repealing
existing Subd. 9 and Subd. 10, and adding the following:
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
350:420 Subd. 9. Nonconforming principal and accessory structures may be
expanded, enlarged, or modified, provided that the use of the parcel is
conforming to district regulations, and provided that the expansion, enlargement,
or modification meets the current zoning regulations and no other
nonconformities are created. In the event that a nonconforming structure is
removed, razed or demolished, all newly proposed construction must meet
current zoning regulations.
Mueller is concerned that no matter where a new structure is located, as long as it is
conforming, this new language allows it to be placed. He also is concerned that a
review of other nonconformities existing structures is bypassed. He believes the
language to be too open.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Mayor Meisel asked the commission to consider these as some ordinances that need
rewriting and that are cumbersome. That is why City Council recommended the above.
She believes that staff should be allowed to do the job they have been hired to do.
Sutherland stated that the language and motion was based on historical data on how
the City Council and Planning Commission have acted and voted in the past. This
would allow a small number of cases to be sped up in the system. He recognizes that
the Planning Commission will lose some control.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Burma indicated that not listed in the statistics on page 49, are actions that the Planning
Commission took to resolve other issues and the application approved. Mueller also
addressed this issue.
Clapsaddle stated that he would agree with the Mayor that many codes need review
and rewriting. However, saying that, he also feels that it is difficult for staff and
administration to administer a code that is weak. He believes the code needs to be
strong first.
Additional discussion took place between the commissioners and staff regarding what is
reviewed and what is not. Mueller stated that if the Planning Commission is doing so
well, then let the cases pass through them prior to Council appearance. That way,
items can be taken care of with regard to the Comprehensive Plan process and intent
also.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
Michael stated that all had made good points, however, if the City Council wanted to
save time, they should give "Board of Appeals" authority to the Planning Commission
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Michael (for discussion), to
recommend the Council's streamlining language. Voting Aye:
Brown and Voss. Opposed Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael, Mueller,
Glister, Brown, and Burma. Motion did not carry.
MOTION by Michael, seconded by Mueller to deny the Council's
streamlining language. Voting Aye: Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael,
Mueller, Glister, Brown, and Burma. Voting nay: Brown and Voss.
Motion carried.
Mueller asked for a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning
Commission on this topic.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 350:420
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420,
SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES
TO BE REPLACED BY NEW LANGUAGE.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July
13, 1999 to consider the approval of repealing City Code Section 350:420, Subdivision 9
& 10 pertaining to non-conforming uses to be replaced by new language.
All persons appearing at said hearing with referenc~,,to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~~,,~,~~~ ~,,~ ?
g Secretary
Published in the Laker, June 26, 1999
printed on recycled paper
Mound Planning Commission Minutes "
June 14, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
· MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent and excused: Frank Weiland
Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane,
Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, #
432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett
Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy
Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501
Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.)
with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor
Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood
Lane.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE MAY 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as
amended. Motion carried: 8-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Chair Michael introduced the public hearings with a word to the public. Staff would give
their comments, then questions could be directed to the applicant and staff from the
commissioners. Each person from the public wishing to speak should come forward to
the podium and clearly state their name and address. Comments should be brief and
concise and directed to the issue at hand. Once the public hearing was closed, there
would be no further comments from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REVISION SECTION 350:420: REPEALING OF
CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVlDION 9 AND 10 PERTAINING TO NON-
CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACE BY NEW LANGUAGE.
83
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
Gordon introduced the new language recommended by City Council in response the
last meeting's discussion on streamlining.
Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of Ordinance is amended by repealing
existing Subd. 9 and Subd. 10, and adding the following:
350:420 Subd. 9. Nonconforming principal and accessory structures may be
expanded, enlarged, or modified, provided that the use of the parcel is
conforming to district regulations, and provided that the expansion, enlargement,
or modification meets the current zoning regulations and no other
nonconformities are created. In the event that a nonconforming structure is
removed, razed or demolished, all newly proposed construction must meet
current zoning regulations.
Mueller is concerned that no matter where a new structure is located, as long as it is
conforming, this new language allows it to be placed. He also is concerned that a
review of other nonconformities existing structures is bypassed. He believes the
language to be too open.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Mayor Meisel asked the commission to consider these as some ordinances that need
rewriting and that are cumbersome. That is why City Council recommended the above.
She believes that staff should be allowed to do the job they have been hired to do.
Sutherland stated that the language and motion was based on historical data on how
the City Council and Planning Commission have acted and voted in the past. This
would allow a small number of cases to be sped up in the system. He recognizes that
the Planning Commission will lose some control.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Burma indicated that not listed in the statistics on page 49, are actions that the Planning
Commission took to resolve other issues and the application approved. Mueller also
addressed this issue.
Clapsaddle stated that he would agree with the Mayor that many codes need review
and rewriting. However, saying that, he also feels that it is difficult for staff and
administration to administer a code that is weak. He believes the code needs to be
strong first.
84
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
Additional discussion took place between the commissioners and staff regarding what is
reviewed and what is not. Mueller stated that if the Planning Commission is doing so
well, then let the cases pass through them prior to Council appearance. That way,
items can be taken care of with regard to the Comprehensive Plan process and intent
also.
Michael stated that all had made good points, however, if the City Council wanted to
save time, they should give "Board of Appeals" authority to the Planning Commission
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Michael (for discussion), to
recommend the Council's streamlining language. Voting Aye:
Brown and Voss. Opposed Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael, Mueller,
Glister, Brown, and Burma. Motion did not carry.
MOTION by Michael, seconded by Mueller to deny the Council's
streamlining language. Voting Aye: Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael,
Mueller, Glister, Brown, and Burma. Voting nay: Brown and Voss.
Motion carried.
Mueller asked for a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning
Commission on this topic.
85
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 350:420
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420,
SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES
TO BE REPLACED BY NEW LANGUAGE.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on
Monday, June 14, 1999 to consider the approval of repealing City Code Section 350:420,
Subdivision 9 & 10 pertaining to non-conforming uses to be replaced by new language.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.~ ~cretary
Published in the Laker, June 5, 1999
printed on recycled paper
Mound City Council Meeting Minutes
May 25, 1999
DRAFT MINUTES
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 25, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, May 25, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said
City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark
Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Police Chief Len
Harrell, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance
was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from
the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Brown asked that item 3D be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Weycker pulled item 3A from
the Consent Agenda.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded 'by Brown to approve the Regular Agenda, as
presented, and items B, C, E, F, G, H, and I from the Consent Agenda.
ZONING CODE STREAMLINING AND PROCESS ENHANCEMENT
Gordon covered the actions of the Planning Commission regarding these processes. In
100 % of the cases that were conforming structures over the past couple of years that the
Planning Commission has recommended, Council has also recommended. Therefore, this
became an issue to pursue and see if there were other ways to stream line the processes
for both the City and the citizen.
Staff prepared the following guidelines for the Planning Commission to review. Under
streamlining the following two were recommended:
Mound City Council Meeting Minutes
May 25, 1999
DRAFT MINUTES
Option # 1
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses
Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structures may be
improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure provided that any
nonconforming detached accessory structure, and the principal structure are in sound
condition as determined by the Mound Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover
on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. Of the Mound
Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval.
Option #2
Section 350:420. Nonconformim, Uses.
Subd. 9. A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion meets all applicable
city ordinance requirements.
The following Process Enhancement was offered:
Section 350:510. Board of Adjustment
Subd. 1. The Board of Adjustments shall be the Planning Commission.
Commission shall hear and act on all variances to this ordinance.
The Planning
Gordon stated that this Process Enhancement was allowable by the State of Minnesota. Weycker
asked if it was true for Statutory Form B. Yes, stated Gordon.
Hanus is opposed to the process enhancement. He stated that he would have to think twice about
who was on the Planning Commission if that were enacted. He stated that as an elected official,
he would want to make sure that his opinions and views are what are voted on. He feels that the
Planning Commission is a mostly "non-political" body in a "highly political" town. He was in
support of the streamlining option #2, however. He stated that this was hardly any different than
the proposal he made a couple of years ago when the streamlining began.
His goal is torelieve the 19ng process for the applicant. He stated, "we are here to serve them."
He further stated that he would not "sweat the small stuff that an additional pair of eyes might
catch."
Mound City Council Meeting Minutes
May 25, 1999
DRAFT MINUTES
However, he stated, he would like to see the language of option//2 tightened up. He suggested
the following:
"Nonconforming principle and accessory structures may be expanded, and conforming
principle and accessory structures may be added, provided that all uses on the parcel are
conforming, and provided that the entire expansion or construction meets the current
zoning regulations and no other non-conformities within the zoning ordinance are created."
Weycker asked if what he was really saying was that there was an existing variance on the
property. Hanus responded that he was not saying a variance existed.
Sutherland stated that Hanus' language was good. It defines the situations well and is better than
the staff's suggestions.
Ahrens agreed with Hanus both on the process enhancement issue and on the selection of Option
#2 for streamlining. She stated that the Planning Commission was an advisory commission to the
Council and were appointed people and not elected representatives. She sees issues with granting
authority to an advisory body.
Hanus stated that another issue was the lack of the presence of the attorney at the Planning
Commission meetings. He also had real problems with the suggestion of a fee if the applicant
chose to appeal to the Council a Planning Commission's ruling.
Ahrens pointed out that they needed to be careful not to confuse uses with variances.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare ordinance
language based on his earlier comments ("Nonconforming principle and accessory
structures may be expanded, and conforming principle and accessory structures may
be added, provided that all uses on the parcel are conforming, and provided that the
entire expansion or construction meets the current zoning regulations and no other
non-conformities within the zoning ordinance are created.") and to take back to the
Planning Commission for comment and review and to set a Public Hearing date. All
areas of the ordinance impacted should be changed consistently. Motion carried. 5-0.
Hanus stated that if this was adopted, it certainly would be more user friendly for the applicants.
Sutherland thanked the Council for their actions and suggestions.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Jnl[t-4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mound City Council
Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner
May 19, 1999
Zoning code streamlining and process enhancement
The current streamlining provisions were adopted in mid 1996 with the intent of reducing the
number of variances without sacrificing community housing goals. (Streamlining provisions are
found in Section 350:420 subdivisions 9 and 10 of the zoning ordinance.) The Council directive
was to review how these provisions have worked and to evaluate ways to improve on them. The
Planning Commission has spent the last 2 meetings reviewing this item and is forwarding on
their findings for the Council to review.
During the last 3 years under streamlining provisions, there has been an increase in case load.
Staff believes this increase is more attributable to the current housing market and economic
conditions than it is to code provisions. The provisions have in fact, reduced the number of
variance cases. Without them, the case load would have been even higher than current.
Staff presented two options to the Planning Commission that posed ways to make streamlining
and the variance process more efficient. Both approaches were based on the trends that have
occurred over the last three years. The first option, streamlining, provides additional language to
the current provisions by allowing streamlining of all conforming construction regardless of
existing structure setbacks, lot area or width, or stTucture condition. Exceptions to this provision
would be properties with nonconforming lakeside setbacks, floodplain, and hardcover issues.
Although the Planning Commission agreed that cases with conforming construction were
approved virtually all of the time, a review was still needed to clean-up the few problem cases
and have an extra set of eyes. Motion was not adopt additional streamlining provisions and keep
the current language in place as written.
The second option Staff presented was intended to reduce the process time for variance case
review. We termed this approach "Process Enhancement." Essentially what this would do is give
the Planning Commission review and approval authority over all variances to Zoning and
Subdivision Codes. Under this approach a variance review would be reduced from a month or
more to as little as two weeks from the time of application. The current powers of the Planning
Commission as a recommending body would change those of an approval body. A draft of
suggested language is on the following page. Council would retain the powers as the appeal body
for any applicant who wished to appeal the Commission's ruling. The Commission motioned to
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Zoning Code Streamlining and Process Enhancement
May 19, 1999
move forward with the proposed process enhancement and also add language to place a fee on
any appeal to Council.
If the Council concurs with the Commissions findings, language would be drafted and public
heatings would be held to consider its adoption. The following are the options suggested by Staff
and considered by the Planning Commission.
Streamlining Options:
#1 - Allow construction of conforming detached accessory structures only. Leave current
language in subd. 9 and 10 except for minor modifications. New subd. 11 would read as
follows:
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structures may be
improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure provided that any
nonconforming detached accessory structure and the principal structure are in sound
condition as determined by the Mound Building Official. Furthermore, impervious
cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the
Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance
approval.
#2 - Allow conforming additions to nonconforming structures. Existing subd. 9 and 10 would be
repealed and replaced with the following:
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 9. A nonconforming structure may
applicable city ordinance requirements.
be expanded if the expansion meets all
Process Enhancement:
The Planning Commission would act as the review and approval body for all variances to Zoning
and Subdivision Codes. The Council would retain appeal authority if the applicant wished to
appeal the Board of Adjustment's decision.
Section 350:510 Appeals and thc Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
Subd. 1. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall be the City Council Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission shall hear and advise thc City Council of its
findings and determinations, act on all variances to this ordinance.
Current language is struck out. Additional language modifications to Section 350:510 and
350:530 would be made to keep language consistent.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Cla.psaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Acting City Manager/City Clerk Fran Clark, Daren Jensen (2625
Wilshire Blvd), Kirk & Kelly Geadelmann (1709 Baywood Lane), Mike & Chris Stoltenow
(2925 Holt Ln), Michele Berglund (5138 Hanover Rd), Eisa Watson (4610 Tuxedo Blvd),
Ted Metz (1601 Bluebird Ln), Clyde Bonnema (5513 Bartlett Blvd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
DISCUSSION
STREAMLING/PROCESS ENHANCEMENT
Gordon introduced the topic of streamlining and/or process enhancement to the
Commission again for discussion. He had formed some suggested language changes
to the ordinances and presented them to the commissioners. The suggested changes
are as follows:
Streamlining Options
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structure
may be improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure
provide that any nonconforming detached accessory structure and the
principal structure are in sound condition as determined by the Mound
Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be
compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. of the Mound Zoning Code
or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval.
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses
Subd. 9.A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion
meets all applicable city ordinance requirements.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Process Enhancement
Section 350:510. Board of Adjustment
Subd. 1. The Board of Adjustments shall be the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hear and act on all variances to this
ordinance.
Clark asked the Planning Commission to bear in mind that one objective is to be "user-
friendly to the applicant."
Brown commented that as a new person on the Planning Commission, they were user
friendly and attempted to be equally fair to all applicants.
Some discussion was held regarding the first Board of Appeals considered this
evening. Clark stated that yes, the property belonged to the State, but that Mound was
the caretaker of that property. Mueller still wants an attorney's opinion.
Brown stated that to get things done propedy and to get them done right, the correct
procedure of going through the Planning Commission must be done. Clark felt that in
some cases, this was a duplication of efforts. Tonight she was here as a courtesy to
the Planning Commission.
Brown stated that all processes should work with in the established system. He felt this
one bypassed the proper procedure.
Sutherland stated "Staff's position is to not promote too strongly the applicant's
(position). Our position is to respond and give the Planning Commission the
information they need and sometimes we may disagree with you guys, but other times
you show us that we miss something, so the bottom line is whatever you ask for, we
need to treat you with courtesy and not be argumentative and not try to sell a case too
hard. So we would like to have the opportunity to keep our relationship good with these
guys.
Chair Michael brought the meeting back to streamlining.
Mueller asked why they were looking at Subd. 11 and not 9 or 10. Gordon stated that 9
and 10 address principal buildings. Mueller stated then the staff would have total
control of these situations. Why are we asking this, because of staff's workload he
asked.
2
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Gordon stated that it started as a Council directive to look at further ways to streamline
processes based on the voting habits over the past three years. Whether or not it
benefits the community has not been determined. Mueller feels it will help the citizens
since there would be a shorter waiting period from application to permit.
Gordon stated that he was before the Commission just asking if this is what they want
to do. He has presented two options. Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses: Subd. 11.
and Subd. 9.A. If the Commission does not want to do this, this process would stay the
same and they could look at other areas to streamline.
Sutherland stated that the community goals were admirable. The fact is, he stated, we
haven't abided to the community goals and Comprehensive Plan to eliminate some
steps over the past couple of years. So by doing some of this, the Planning
Commission would have the time to do some special projects such as housing
redevelopment. He mentioned some funds the city has transferred to a joint community
account and then cities can apply for a grant from this fund.
Mueller feels the Planning Commission is part of the checks and balances. For
example, the last Board of Appeals case looked at tonight would not have come before
our board.
Brown suggested that the Staff prepare a "Consent Agenda" like they have on the
Council. Then if a commissioner would like to look more closely at an issue, they could
pull it off for further separate discussion. It would be similar to tonight. Four of the six
cases passed with little to no discussion. The other two required discussion. If this had
been a Consent Agenda, those two would have been pulled and the others passed in
"bulk."
Weiland stated that was what they did now. Mueller agreed and stated they would
rather have the information presented to them to decide. Weiland pointed out that the
Planning Commission had a responsibility to the City Council to have reviewed these
cases prior to passing on.
Sutherland suggested a one year trial of the streamlining. Many felt this was not what
they wanted.
Voss believed that a new city manager will be requiring more of the Planning
Commission in the way of special projects and so forth as Sutherland had stated.
Brown echoed these thoughts.
Glister stated it was important to speed up the process and be more user friendly to the
applicant. But, she feels lots of eyes reviewing something is good.
3
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to agree to 350:510, but that
the other would remain the same.
A discussion was held about charging an additional modest fee if an applicant wanted
to appeal to the City Council. The purpose is not to just recover staff time, but to
encourage the applicant to really think out why they are appealing the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Gordon stated that if the commissioners were comfortable with the change, he would
bring before the City Council for review prior to bringing back to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing after he does some additional "tweaking" to the
language.
Weiland wanted to let it be known that he was really against this motion.
The vote was called. Motion carried: 5-3 (voting nay: Michael, Weiland, Hasse).
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to add some language to the
ordinance that would really put some teeth into the Planning
Commission's ability to make decisions, but that would not deter the
applicant. This could be a modest fee. Also the applicant would
need to show a reason for appeal.
Brown stated that he really had some issues with that. Sutherland pointed out that
normally (98-100% of the time) Staff was in agreement with the Planning Commission
and the City Council on recommendations. This was an effort to help speed the
process and eliminate unnecessary extra work.
There was additional discussion on the value or correctness of additional fees for an
appeal. This included some comments by Weiland that perhaps the building permit
fees were too Iow. Sutherland stated that the fees were adapted from a State fee
schedule which is followed by most municipalities. They were compatible with other
cities.
A call on the motion resulted in a Motion carried: 6-1.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
Apdl 26, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Michael
Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff
present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary
Deb Hawkinson.
Those absent: Jerry Clapsaddle (excused); Becky'GliSter (excused).
Public Present: Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane); Bob Steele; Gaylord Steele (207
Donne); Mr. and Mrs. James Smith (3153 Priest Lane); Jay Peterson (2667 Halstead
Lane).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
DISCUSSION
STREAMLINING
Gordon stated that there was a need to review the streamlining provisions in the zoning
code as they apply to residential construction. This discussion was formalized with a
Council motion to have the Planning Commission revisit the streamlining provisions and
provide a recommendation on how they can be further enhanced. He further discussed
the caseloads that had been looked at since 1996 when streamlining was first enacted.
They have gone up in number, but he believes this is due to increased activity versus a
negative reflection on streamlining. A review of the voting on conforming construction
cases shows that when the Planning Commission recommends Council approval, the
Council will approve the variance resolution in every case.
Code enhancement has been added, which modifies the nonconforming structure to be
expanded if expansion meets all applicable city code requirements. This would include
approval of all conforming accessory buildings and principal structure additions. There
are probably at least three exceptions where a review would be needed: floodplain
issues, shoreland impact zone, impervious surface.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
Apdl 26, 1999
In small communities, such as Mound, the Planning Commission and the Board of
Zoning Appeals are the same group of people. A way to reduce process time would be
to designate the Board of Appeals as the approval body. In this situation, the Council
would still retain its authority as the appeal body on cases where the applicant wishes
to have the Board of Appeals decision heard. This would one way to reduce the
review process for the applicant. Staff feels that these added streamlining provisions
and process enhancement will not compromise overall community goals. These
proposed strategies accurately represent the trends happening in the review process.
The also will give the Staff, the Commission, and the Council have more time to
address broader community planning issues such as comprehensive plans, zoning
updates, downtown redevelopment, and many other issues.
After discussion by many commissioners, the consensus was in favor of the
streamlining and process enhancement suggestions by staff.
MOTION by Brown, second by Weiland, to recommend Staff's
suggestions to the City Council and let them decide.
Weiland stated that he would like to see a trial period of trying these strategies before
recommending that City Council pass this on outright. He believes the balance
between appointed and elected officials must be looked at.
Mueller asked that attorneys be present at controversial cases. Gordon stated that the
attorney's information is gathered upfront in the staff report. If more is needed, the
issue is tabled and then the attorneys are contacted.
Gordon stated that the Code enhancement could be handled by amending the
language to the codes. A year's trial time period is difficult because of the ordinances
that would require changing.
Brown and Weiland withdrew the motion.
Staff was requested to bring back ordinance draft language for the zoning code
enhancements and later address the process enhancements.
2
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
l ln
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff
Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner
April 19, 1999
Zoning code streamlining
There has been an on going discussion about the need to review streamlining provisions in the
zoning code as they apply to residential construction. This discussion was formalized with a
Council motion to have the Planning Commission revisit the streamlining provisions and provide
a recommendation on how they can be further enhanced.
The current streamlining provisions were adopted in mid 1996 with the intentions of reducing the
number of variance cases while still upholding Comprehensive Plan goals and the intent of the
zoning code. The zoning code (Section 350:420) currently allows streamlining either by a
previous variance approval within 15 years or by compliance with percentage of the required
yard or lot standards. The intent of streamlining was to reduce the number of cases that were
"slam dunks." Staff knows the existing provisions have reduced the number of variance requests.
The sheer volume of construction activity over the past few years however, has kept the case load
high. The following two tables give a comparison of cases before streamlining was adopted in
1996 and the case load after adoption. The tables show the number of variance requests has
increased from an average of 39 per year pre-1995 to 44 per year after 1996.
Variance Cases 1990- 1995 before streamlining provisions
1990 20
1991 45
1992 48
1993 41
1994 49
1995 30
Totals 233 (39 per year)
225 or 97%
The intent of this review is to evaluate the streamlining process to see if any revisions are
needed. Included in your packet material are spreadsheets of all variance cases since 1995. Each
of these cases did not qualify for streamlining for one reason or more. The nonconformity is
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Zoning Code Streamlining
April 19, 1999
usually due to insufficient yard setbacks or lot standards. In a smaller percentage of cases,
floodplain standards trigger the nonconformity. Another specific area that commonly triggers
variance review is a lakeside setback of accessory use.
In reviewing the yearly summary sheets, one area that really jumped out at staff was the number
of cases where the proposed construction was conforming and a variance was granted. Of the
total 142 cases reviewed since 1996, 49 cases or 35 percent involved a review of conforming
construction through additions or alterations. All of the 49 cases reviewed were approved by both
the Planning Commission and City Council. The following table is a summary of the packet
material.
Variance cases 1996 to present after adoption of streamlining provisions
1996 48 15 15
1997 40 13 13
1998 5O 19 19
1999 to date 4 2 2
Totals 142 (44 per year) 49 49 or 35% of
total cases
reviewed
Note: When the Planning Commission recommended approval of a case with
conforming construction, the Council approved it 100% of the time.
There has been recent discussion at the Planning Commission and Council that variance cases
with conforming construction appear to be a "rubber stamp" approval because they are always
approved. There is also some sentiment that it is a hassle to the applicant to go through the
review process when the outcome seems known. The review variance process requires the
applicant to complete an application, provide addresses of adjacent property owners for mailing
labels, and provide a updated survey of the property with improvements.
The major reason Mound has reviewed nonconformities is to ensure proposals meet the goals of
the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. This process has been a tool over the years in helping
the City transition from a cabin community to a community with typical year round housing
stock. Many of the tough decisions to realize this goal have been made in cleaning up the
community. The City has a practice of requesting that other noncompliant property issues that
are related to the request be brought into conformance. This process has assisted with property
compliance issues related to a request.
If the Planning Commission and Council were to entertain allowing streamlining of cases with
conforming improvements, the following could result:
· Loss of review authority over related noncompliant property issues.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
Zoning Code Streamlining
April 19, 1999
· A reduction in the number of variance cases.
· Lose some ability to advance comprehensive plan and zoning goals.
A reduction in staff time spent on review.
· Possibly allow nonconformities to exist longer than they would if a review were required.
· Spend more time on community wide planning projects.
Given the past direction on streamlining, here are some options staff would suggest to further
enhance streamlining:
Code Enhancement
Modify the nonconforming use section to allow a nonconforming structure to be expanded if the
expansion meets all applicable city code requirements. This would include approval of
conforming accessory buildings and principal structure additions. There are probably at least
three exceptions where a review would be needed. These would include:
1. Floodplain issues
2. Shoreland Impact Zone
3. Impervious Surface
Again, these would be part of meeting all applicable code requirements.
Process Enhancement
The review of voting on conforming construction cases shows that when the Planning
Commission recommends Council approval, the Council will approve the variance resolution in
every case. In many small communities such as Mound, the Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Appeals are the same group of people. One way to reduce the process time would be to
designate the Board of Appeals as the approval body thereby keeping the Council free of any
review for variance cases. There are Cities that have adopted this structure and find it works well.
In this situation, the Council would still retain its authority as the appeal body on cases where the
applicant wishes to have the Board of Appeals decision heard.
Summary
Staff has explored ways streamlining can be further enhanced and still not compromise overall
community goals. The code enhancement and process enhancement strategies seem to accurately
represent the trends happening in the review process. We feel these two approaches will also help
staff, the Commission, and Council have more time to address broader community planning
issues such as the comprehensive plan, zoning updates, downtown redevelopment, and many
others.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Fran Clark
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for June,1999
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 1,233 calls for service during the
month of June. There were 29 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses
included 1-criminal sexual conduct, 2 burglary, 1 aggravated assault, 4
vehicle thetis, and 21 larcenies.
There were 47 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 child
abuse/neglect, 2 criminal damage to property, 2 narcotics, 9 liquor law
violations, 6 DUI's, 4 simple assaults, 10 domestics (4 with assaults), 2
harassment, and 11 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 127 adult and 5 juvenile citations. Parking
violations accounted for an additional 19 tickets. Warnings were issued to
123 individuals for a variety of violations.
There was 2 adults and 1 juvenile arrested for felonies. There were 24
adults and 10 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 7 adult
misdemeanor warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 13 vehicle accidents, 7 with injuries. There
were 26 medical emergencies and 75 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 13 occasions in June and requested assistance 15 times.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - June, 1999
III.
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on 1 criminal sexual conduct case and 4 child
protection issues in June. Other cases included burglary, assault, damage
to property, forgery, theft, careless driving, domestic assault, absenting,
tobacco violations, and harassment.
Formal complaints were issued for worthless check, theft by credit card,
violation of an order for protection, driving after cancellation, derelict
auto, and several gross misdemeanor DWI cases.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 60 hours of overtime during the
month of June. Officers used 46 hours of comp-time, 173 hours of
vacation, 12 hours of sick time, and 14 holidays. Officers earned 68 hours
of comp time.
Investigator Niccum attended a course on compliance checks for alcohol
and tobacco; reducing youth access.
V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS
CSO Burke handled 243 contacts consisting of 38 animal complaints, 36
ordinance violations, and 166 miscellaneous calls for service; 3 citations
were issued. Reserve Bruckner continues in a part time capacity and had
an additional 21 contacts; 3 citations were issued.
VI. RESERVES
The reserves donated 226 hours of community service in the month of
June. The unit currently has nine members.
Our reserves again did an excellent job during Mound City Days!
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUNE 1999
PART I CRIMES
OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED
REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 1 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 1 0 0 1
Burglary 2 0 0 0
Larceny 21 0 0 1
Vehicle Theft 4 0 0 0
Arson 0 0 0 0
TOTAL
29 I 0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect 1 1 0 0
Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0
Criminal Damage to Property 2 0 1 0
Weapons 0 0 0 0
Narcotic Laws 2 0 0 2
Liquor Laws 9 0 0 9
DWI 6 0 0 6
Simple Assault 4 0 1
Domestic Assault 4 0 0 4
Domestic (No Assault) 6 0 0 0
Harassment 2 0 0 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 4 0 0 6
Public Peace 1 0 0 1
Trespassing 0 0 0 0
All Other Offenses 6 0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
7 3
6 0
0 0
5 0
0 0
0 0
0 6
0 1
0 0
2 0
TOTAL
47
24 10
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
TOTAL
6
0
26
75
13
980
1,107
HCCP
Inspections
TOTAL
3
37
1,233
33
26
11
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE 1999
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Hazardous Citations
Non-Hazardous Citations
Hazardous Warnings
Non-Hazardous Warnings
Verbal Warnings
Parking Citations
DWI
Over .10
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Adult Felony Arrests
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
83 446 329
42 232 272
27 118 102
54 298 282
85 481 494
16 196 220
6 25 35
5 23 25
6 40 40
7 16 15
0 0 0
2 12 12
31 137 208
1 12 36
10 44 112
29 90 192
47 235 381
26 160 174
75 326 298
37 151 164
980 4,378 5,055
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mutal Aid Requested
1,569 7,420 8,446
52 293 351
21 119 379
3 19 35
13 88 103
15 39 27
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUNE 1999
CITATIONS
DWI
More Than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired or No Plates
Stop Arm Violations
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
Overweight Vehicles
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
ADULT
6
5
1
3
1
68
2
0
19
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
19
1
1
1
0
7
146
JUVENI LW.
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUNE 1999
WA/~NINGS
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
Adul%
26
25
23
0
1
17
0
0
0
19
111
0
7
Juveniles
1
3
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
Run: 2~Jul-99 14:45 PRO03
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 05/26/99 ~ 06/25/99
Activity codes: All
Property Status: All
Property Types: All
Property Descs: All
Brands: All
Models: All
Officers/Badges: All
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd Quantity Act
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value Code
Prop type Totals: 300 0 1.000
Prop type Totals: 30 0 1.000
Prop type Totals: 1,540 0 3.000
Prop type Totals: 150 0 1,000
Prop type Totals: 97 47 2.000
Prop type Totals: 2,485 0 7.000
Prop type Totals: 1,521 0 1.000
Prop type Totals: 3,312 3 7.000
Prop type Totals: 305 0 7.000
Report Totals: 9,740 50 30.000
Page
Brand Model Off-1 Off-2
Assnd Assnd
..............................
Run: 2-Jul-99 14:00 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 05/26/99 - 06/25/99
range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
tivity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Offficers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: Ail
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE N-tIMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9000
9001
9002
9012
9014
9015
9016
9020
9030
9034
~038
9040
9100
9150
9200
9210
9220
9240
9312
SPEEDING 68
J-SPEEDING 4
NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 2
OPEN BOTTLE 1
STOP SIGN 3
J-STOP SIGN 1
FAILURE TO YIELD 1
EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 1
CA~RELESS/RECKLESS 1
CROSSWALK VIOLATION 3
STOP ARM VIOLATION 1
ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 3
NO SEATBELT 1
PIkRKING/ALL OTHER 16
NO TRAILER PARKING 3
DAS/DAR/DAC 3
PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 19
NO INSUPOMNCE/PROOF OF 3
CHANGE OF DOMICILE 3
FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 10
FOUND PROPERTY 10
FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 1
9314
Page 1
Run: 2-Jul-99 14:00 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 05/26/99 - 06/25/99
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEP~TMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVI~ CODE
ACTIVITY CODE Nt~ER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 7
9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 3
9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 3
9561 DOG BITE 1
9562 CAT BITES 1
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 1
~567 DANGEROUS DOG 1
9710 MEDI CAL/ASU 4
9720 MEDI CAL/DOA 1
9730 MEDI CALS 21
9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 7
9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 6
9900 ALL HCCP CASES 3
9904 OPEN DOOR/AI2~RMS 1
9910 MISC. SERVICES BY OFFICERS 2
7920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 1
7921 INSPECT IONS CITATION 4
9930 H~DGUN APPLICATION 5
9931 HANDGUN DENIALS 1
9932 OFP VIO. CRIME CONTROL & LAW ENF ACT OF '94 2
9944 UNWANTED GUEST 1
9945 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 3
Page
Run: 2-Jul-99 14:00 CFS08
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
HOW Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
Patrol Areas:
Days of the week:
NO
05/26/99 - 06/25/99
oo:oo - 23:59
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT A/qALYSI$ BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE Nl3MBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9980
9992
9993
9994
9996
r, 5353
~,K331
AL351
\L352
\L552
~4365
}~4930
~8540
;A540
:J~49
:~070
:2501
WARR3kNTS
MUTUAL AID/8100
MLF173AL AID/6500
MLFFUAL AID/ ALL OTHER
MUTUAL AID/NkRCOTICS
ASLT 5~MS-INFLICT BD HRM-t{ANDS-ADULT-STR
ASLT 5-THRT BODILY }{APJ4-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ
ASLT 5-MS-FEAR B0D HRM-NO WEAP-ADLT-STR
DOM ASLT-GM-INFLT BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-AD-FAM
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY H~-HANDS-AD-FAM
ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HAIDS-;kDLT-AC
ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-THRT BODLY-HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ
BURG 4-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM PROPERTY
BURG 4-AT FRC RES-D-bqgK WEAP-UNK ACT
DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSESSION
DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UN~
CRM AGST FAM-UNK LVL-CRIM ABUSE VULN ADULT-UNK
CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-MALIC PUNISHMENT CHILD
TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH
TRAFFIC GM-AGG DUI UNK INJ-MV
TRAF~ACC GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV
TRAFF GM FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV
7
4
5
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
/2E01
32R01
Page 3
Run: 2-Jul-99 14:00 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 05/26/99 - 06/25/99
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
12U01 0.20 OR MORE BAC 2
31501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE LRqDER INFLL~ENCE 4
J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 2
-~042 CSC 1-UNK ACT-OT FAMILY-UNDER 13-F 1
'<3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2
,!3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 2
'{4!40 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 1
!5313 JIF~ENILE-CURFEW 1
,~5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 3
'~9199 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-OTHER 2
J3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 1
~3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 2
~%380 VIOLATION OF HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER 1
5110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2
.>1297 STLN PROP-FE-POSSESS-OTH PROP-501-2500 1
?B021 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-MONEY 1
7151 THEFT 501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 3
7059 THEFT LESS 200-MS-YARDS~OTHR PROP 3
i~]151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1
?G159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 7
~169 THEFT LESS 200-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 2
30560 FRAUD-UNK-FIN-TR/LNS-CARD-USE-FRGD-UNK-LOSS 1
Page
Run: 2-Ju1-99 14:00 CFS08 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 5
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
HOW Received:
:ivity Resulted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
Patrol Areas:
Days of the week:
NO
05/26/99 - 06/25/99
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
All
All
All
Ail
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT AigALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
U1062 THEFT-FE-THFT BY SWINDLE TRICK-2501-19999
U2497 THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
V0081 VEH-UNKNOWN-MS-TAMPER WITH-ENTER-AUTO
VB021 VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO 1
JE080 VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER WITH-OTH-MTR
'*** Report Totals: 327
Run: 2-Jul-99 14:24 OFF01
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 05/26/99 - 06/25/99
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: All
Activity codes: All
Officers/Badges: Ail
Grids: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 1
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
..... OFFENSES CLEARED
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
A5353 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-H~krDS-ADULT-STR 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 50.0
A5503 ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD HRM-NO WEAP-ADLT-STR 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
AK331 DOM ASLT-GM-INFLT BODILY HArM-KNIFE ETC-AD-FAM 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-H~gDS-AD-FAM 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
~L352 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HNDS-ADLT-AC 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
~L552 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-THRT BODLY-HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
~4365 BURG 4-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM PROPERTY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
i~4930 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-D-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
5540 DRUGS-SMALL AMOLSgT MARIJUANA-POSESSION 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
~A540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
[3149 CRM AGST FAM-UNK LVL-CRIM ABUSE VULN ADULT-UNK 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
[3070 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-MALIC PUNISHMENT CHILD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
'2501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
2701 TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
'2E01 TP~AF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
'2R01 TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST~UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
'2U01 020 OR MORE BAC 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
{501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 100.0
]E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 i00.0
1042 CSC i~UNK ACT-OT FAMILY-UNDER 13-F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z{001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 i00.0
'~3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
Run: 2-Jul-99 14:24 OFF01
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
Dispositions:
Activity codes:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
NO
05/26/99 - 06/25/99
00:00 - 23:59
Ail
All
All
All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACclIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 2
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- AC773AL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
LIQUOR-UNIDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21
JUVENILE-CURFEW
JUVENILE-RUNAWAY
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-OTHER
DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT
DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
STLN PROP-FE-POSSESS-OTH PROP-501-2500
THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-MONEY
THEFT-501-2500~FE-MOTOR VEH-MONEY
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP
FRAUD UNKFIN TRANS-CARD-USE-FRGD-UNK-LOSS
THEFT-FE THFT BY SWINDLE TRICK-2501-19999
THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201~500
VEH-UNKNOWN-MS-TAMPER WITH-ENTER-AUTO
VEH 501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO
VEH 200 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER WITH-OTH-MTR
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADb-LT 07JVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
AP. RESTARREST CEPTION TOT;kL CLEARED
M4140
M5313
M5350
M8199
N3030
~3190
P3110
Q1297
3'3151
:'S059
?Gl51
?G159
73169
;:]560
!1062
12497
'9081
'B021
.'E080
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 100.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 50.0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
1 0 i 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
7 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0.0
2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
Report Totals:
68 2 66 31 23 10 2 35 53.0
July 15, 1999
CITY of ORONO
Municipal Offices
Street Address: Mailing Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN
55323-0066
Honorable Mayor and City Council
c/o Fran Clark, Acting City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Mayor Gabriel Jabbour has requested the Mayors and interested Council Members of the Cities of
Minnetrista, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Orono and Spring Park meet to review updated information
regarding the Dakota Rail line. A meeting has been scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 28,
1999 in the Orono City Council Chambers.
Since the last meeting of the Mayors regarding the Dakota Rail/Trail, a subcommittee of that group
has contacted the parent company of Dakota Rail to obtain information regarding the current status
of the rail line and plans for the future. The subcommittee has learned that we are currently in a
critical period during which key decisions are being made regarding the future of Dakota Rail. These
decisions could substantially change the character of the Dakota Rail line. It is important
representatives of the cities along the Dakota Rail line meet to get up-to-speed regarding the current
status of the rail line, potential changes to the rail line, and potential future uses of the rail corridor.
Please call the Orono City Offices regarding your attendance at 249-4600.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Moorse
City Administrator
RJM/lsv
Telephone (612) 2494600 · Fax (612) 249-4616
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
JULY t$, t999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners *Frank Ahrens, Mark Goldberg and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
*Arrived at 8:05 p.m.
Absent was: Commissioner Orvin Burma
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Goldberg, seconded by Hanus, to approve the minutes
of the June 17, 1999 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Agenda approved as presented.
REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
Maria Amplatz, 2845 Cambridge Lane
Maria Amplatz, 2845 Cambridge Lane, presented her request to replace the stairway,
install retaining walls, and plants.
Park Director Fackler pointed out the suggestion by Building Official Sutherland regarding
the addition of a dock storage platform.
Ms. Amplatz stated that would be a welcome addition. She also presented a rough
landscape plan, stating it is fairly open as far as the plants being put in, and seeing which
plants will do the best in the conditions there.
Park Director Fackler pointed out that this request needs to be tied to the land.
Commissioner Goldberg questioned whether the platform size is over the limit with the
addition for dock storage.
Park Director Fackler quoted the ordinance, noting this platform is larger than the code
allows.
Councilmember Hanus stated he spoke with Building Official Sutherland, and he was
aware of this discrepancy, but still recommends approval.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999
Chair Funk asked if this discrepancy would halt the project and a variance would need to
be applied for.
Park Director Fackler stated he was not sure, and Building Official Sutherland would
probably need to address the issue.
Discussion followed on possible ways to have the platform conform to code, and
consensus was reached that Building Official Sutherland's recommendation is, in fact, the
most feasible approach.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to recommend approval of the
Public Lands Permit for Maria Amplatz, 2845 Cambridge Lane, and approval
of an additional platform to be attached to the structure, of the minimum size
necessary at the discretion of staff, but not to exceed 9 x 10 or equivalent
square footage. Motion carried unanimously.
Park Director Fackler stated this issue will come before the City Council on July 27, 1999.
4. DISCUSS: 2000 CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUESTS
Park Director Fackler presented the request of $22,500 to cover possible multiple slip dock
installation for sites yet to be determined. Also, $298 for 2 phones to replace the 2-way
radio system that has become outdated.
Commissioner Goldberg questioned if this change is chargeable to the Dock Commission
alone.
Councilmember Hanus answered that there are many"unofficial" trade-offs between funds,
primarily for ease of accounting.
Park Director Fackler stated that the numbers could change, depending on the situation
at Woodridge.
Councilmember Hanus stated this is still in negotiation, and any planning for a settlement
would be premature.
Commissioner Ahrens questioned if a plan for stairways would come to the DCAC.
Park Director Fackler replied yes, it would.
5. DISCUSS: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS
Councilmember Hanus brought up problems with boat sizes on multiple docks. This is an
issue right now and should be discussed quite soon.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999
Commissioner Ahrens stated this subject should be put on this agenda, or at least very
soon because some rules need to be established. Slips are 24 feet deep, and LMCD
allows a 4 foot overhang, although this is not always clear in the LMCD regulations.
Commissioner Goldberg stated the intensity of the multiple docks also needs to be
regulated, especially on multiples in front of neighborhoods.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated that other city's rules are basically this: if a boat is too
large to fit in the slip, it belongs at a marina.
Park Director Fackler stated that each dock configuration should be looked at, and the
maximum number of boats and the boat sizes should be set and then adhered to.
Councilmember Hanus stated that trying to accommodate people will eventually have to
come to an end, as there are limitations in what can be done. He suggested directing staff
to bring in designs and set limitations at the next meeting, to send to Council. Also,
present boats, even over large ones, need to be grand fathered until a new boat or user
is assigned to the slip. Then the limitations would be adhered to. This aids in the
transition, but still works towards the most desirable intensity and boat size.
Commissioner Eurich stated that less flexibility may not be such a bad thing. Rather than
going site by site, simply have a 24 foot maximum, as other cities do, and grandfather any
larger boats. When they are taken out of the system, stick to the set limits.
Councilmember Hanus stated that this may help with public opinion also, as a person
limited to 24 feet is paying the same as someone with the ability to have a larger boat.
Commissioner Ahrens agreed and indicated support to draft a change to the ordinance to
cap the boat size at 24 feet and grandfather existing larger boats.
Councilmember Hanus questioned whether a larger slip would be put in for new multiple
docks where someone already has a larger boat, with the same grand fathering clause
after that transitional exception.
Park Director Fackler stated that the bowsprit would also have to be addressed, as some
can get quite long and hang over, cutting off the rest of the dock as one cannot get around
it.
Councilmember Hanus suggested stating that nothing can stick out over the dock, and
allow people to deal with that however they can, such as backing their boat in if they have
a long bowsprit. Also, beam width needs to be addressed. Other cities have an 8 % foot
limit, and that seems to be a manageable number.
Ownership of boats kept in the system was discussed, highlighting the rules of the system
which need to be discussed and possibly changed. Park Director Fackler and Dock
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999
Inspector McCaffrey will highlight the problem areas to present for discussion at the next
meeting.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to recommend a change to
the City Ordinance to restrict the length of watercraft to 24 feet, and the beam
not to exceed 8 % feet, as defined by the boat manufacturer. Also, under no
circumstances can any part of the boat extend over any section of the
multiple dock. Boat length and width restrictions may be waived for an
existing dockholder with an existing craft until that owner or boat leaves the
system. Motion carried unanimously.
REVIEW: DOCK INSPECTOR LETTER TO MOUND CITY DOCK SITES/SLIPS
WITHOUT BOAT USE
Dock Inspector McCaffrey presented the draft of the letter that could be sent to dock
holders who don't register a boat.
Councilmember Hanus stated the general feeling from Council was if someone pays their
fees, they can use the dock or not, as they see fit. However, the priority for this letter is
to educate the people who believe their docksite goes with their property. The second
priority is people who are paying the fee out of habit, and have not really thought about
people waiting to put a boat in the water.
Park Director Fackler suggested that if someone wants to just fish off their docksite, they
could be required to share. Also, any "use it or lose it" rule could be designed and directed
more specifically towards the multiple docks.
Commissioner Eurich stated his belief that abutters and non-abutters should be treated
fairly. If an abutter wants a dock just to watch the sunset, a non-abutter should have the
same right.
Councilmember Hanus stated that the forced share idea would probably treat both fairly
and asked how many non-utilized sites exist.
McCaffrey answered about 30.
Commissioner Ahrens disagreed with a forced share provision, noting this may be an
example of over regulating people.
Councilmember Hanus stated this may be true. The idea came up from trying to
accommodate people, but it may be regulating people already in the system too much.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he would agree with this regulation on the multiple dock.
4
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999
Chair Funk suggested giving the waiting people a list of unused docks and let them
approach the site holder.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated this is being done. He has lightly encouraged people to
contact these site holders over the years. He then asked about the possibility of a lottery
system, which was discussed, but no consensus was reached.
Park Director Fackler stated he will gather information from John Dearie regarding this
issue.
Consensus was reached to send this letter to the proper people at the beginning of next
year.
7. DISCUSS: THE YEAR 2000 DOCK FEES
Park Director Fackler reported that staff recommends not increasing the fees for the year
2000 City of Mound Dock Program.
Councilmember Hanus questioned whether the Dock Fund balance was marked for any
large expenses.
Park Director Fackler stated that there is nothing major that stands out. Some standard
projects, but nothing unexpected. Maintaining some older rip rap is the only project that
may get fairly expensive.
Councilmember Hanus suggested examining any future projects regarding costs before
a decision is made on where to direct these funds.
am
DISCUSS: DCAC RESTATEMENT OF PRINCIPALS RELATING TO DOCK AND
COMMONS
Commissioner Goldberg suggested moving this item to the August agenda, but distributed
his information to all for study.
9. REVIEW: SURVEY ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK
Moved to the August meeting.
10. DISCUSS: AUGUST DCAC AGENDA
To be included on the August agenda are:
Discuss: DCAC Restatement of Principals Relating to Dock and Commons
Review: Survey on multiple slip dock
Discuss: Kenmore Commons multiple site and other possible site locations
Discuss: Suggested rules and regulations for docks
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission July 15, 1999
11.
12.
10.
FYI
A)
C)
D)
E)
LMCD INFORMATION
POSC MINUTES (Meeting was CANCELED)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR
LETTER FROM JAMES MILLER
REPORTS
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
C) DOCK INSPECTOR
No report at this time.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to adjourn the meeting at
10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss (7:42 p.m.), Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb
Hawkinson. Absent and excused: Commissioner Orr Burma.
The following public were present: Tom and Diane Harmon (4347 Wilshire Blvd), Steve Codden
(3615 Lyric Ave, Orono), Bruce Thompson (6639 Bartlett Blvd), Scot McKenzie (5251 Bartlett
BIvd), Carla Wirth (1736 212 Ln NE, East Bethel), Melody Olsen (4873 Cumberland Rd), John
and Kristin Beise (6643 Bartlett BIvd), Ken Evans (6635 Bartlett BIvd), Larry Peterson (2374
Chateau Ln), Jeff Harty (6037 Hawthorne Rd), Dorthea Helmen (6669 Halstead Ave), Mike Gair
(15050 23r~ Ave, Plymouth), Ed Forliti (7101 10th Street North, Suite 119, Oakdale), Jeff
Sowada (34 Peninsula Rd, Dellwood), B J Johnson (6655 Halstead Ave), Merry Peterson (6619
Bartlett BIvd), Jerry and Rita Hughes (6641 Halstead Avenue), Bill Meyer (6601 Bartlett BIvd),
Cindy Palm (2695 Westedge Blvd), Deb Funk (2695 Oaklawn Ln), Gary Nachreiner (6056
Cherrywood Rd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 28, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Weiland to accept to accept the Minutes from the
June 28, 1999 Planning Commission meeting as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Prior to presentation of the Board of Appeals, Chair Michael explained the Public Hearing
process.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-25; PRELIMINARY PLAT; TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL
OF THE HALSTEAD PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AREA (PDA) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED
HOME DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT,
LOTS 1-2-3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID # 22-117-24 43 0007.
Gordon presented this case. Remington Development Corporation has a purchase agreement
with the Myrna Codden Estate for the Minnetonka Highland Mobile Home Park. The developer
would like to redevelop the existing mobile home park and vacant adjacent land into a single-
family home development. The site is located both in Mound and Minnetrista and is going
through the appropriate review processes in each community. Because the property is located
in both communities, approval of the entire project is dependent on favorable approval from
each Council.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
There are three areas of review for this development plan: Preliminary Plat; Planned
Development Area, CUP for R-1 and R-3 zoning areas and variances; corporate boundary
adjustment called an attachment/detachment.
The Preliminary Plat proposes a total of 23 single-family homes on 5.67 acres, or a density of 4
units per acre. The plan is further divided into a single family detached home area on the
"lower" level and a single family attached home area on the "upper" level. There are seven
platted lots for detached units, and sixteen platted lots for attached units in 2 and 4 unit building
arrangements. The Mound portion of the plat is for 10 attached units and 2 detached single
family homes. This is the "upper" end of the Iow-density residential category. Lots 1 through 6
are proposed for twin homes and will require variances to lot area and width.
Roadway access to the townhomes is provided by a public street that proposes a one-way
circulation pattern. This will service lots 1-6 and 10. Lots 7-9 are proposed to be serviced by a
private driveway. The public road would be entirely within Minnetrista as proposed by the
corporate boundary adjustment. Lots 22 and 23 on the "lower" level would be served by
Halstead Avenue. The entire street will be brought up to standard with pavement, curb and
gutter improvements. A new cul-de-sac will be built at its terminus. The majority of Halstead
Avenue is also located in Minnetrista.
The upper portion of the site is relatively level and has pavement over much of it. There are
few natural resources on this portion. A vegetated slope divides the upper portion from the
lower. The slope meets the definition of a bluff and is granted protection under the Shoreline
Management Ordinance. This would include land alteration, vegetation clearing, and structure
setbacks from the top of the bluff. Below the bluff the land slopes to Halstead's Bay gradually.
The bluff area separates the upper and lower levels of the development adjacent to lots 7-10
and 22. Under the requirements of Shoreline Management structures on the newly platted
lands must maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. It appears that buildable
footprints do not reflect this provision. Staff recommends a conservation easement to protect
the slope and vegetation.
Provisions for utilities and infrastructure are covered by the City Engineer's report.
Staff has requested that the developer rezone the upper lots 1-6 and 7-10 to an R-3 PDA which
would be guided through a CUP. The current R-1 zoning does not allow for twin homes or four
unit townhomes. The lower level would remain as currently zoned R-1. A CUP will regulate
both the R-1 and R-3 areas of the development.
As part of the CUP, staff has recommended the following bulk minimum requirements for the
attached units: lot areas - 3100-7100 square feet, 28-50 feet of lot width, 18 feet of front yard,
7.5 feet to the lot line on the sides and 15 feet minimum rear lot. For the detached units staff
suggests the following minimums: lot width and area, the same, 35 feet of front yard, 10 feet on
each side yard, and 15 feet in the rear.
Hardcover calculations will be done for each lot individually with a per lot cap. A percentage of
the entire development would be established which could not be exceeded. This would be
done to assure that each lot is not overbuilt. This would need review prior to final plat and CUP
approvals.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Staff has suggested some boundary adjustments to keep the upper roadway in one jurisdiction
and avoid splitting properties. This would be done by an attachment/detachment process that
would require approval by both cities.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the preliminary
plat, rezoning, and conditional use permits with the following conditions:
1. Maintain a 30 feet-building setback from all bluff areas.
2. Establish hardcover calculations for the development and maximums for each individual
lot.
3. Pay park land dedications fees prior to final approval.
4. Agreement by both Mound and Minnetrista City Councils on the boundary adjustment.
5. Storm water facility approval by MCWD.
6. Provide a copy of the covenants with final plat submittal.
7. Pay delinquent water fees pdor to final plat approval.
8. Secure water and sewer service agreements between both Cities.
9. Approval of fire and access issues by Fire Chief.
10. Include all recommendations from the City Engineer's report.
11. Conditional approval of the preliminary plat, rezoning, and boundary adjustment on plan
approval by the City of Minnetrista.
The utilities in the project would be provided by the Cities of Mound and Minnnetrista. Details
on how they are provided are supplied and outlined in the Engineer's report.
The Developer has supplied a tree inventory of what exists on the property today and what
plantings are proposed.
Weiland asked how the process of changing the residency location from Mound to Minnetrista
and vice versa worked for existing residents. Gordon stated there was a procedure in place
that has recently been put under the auspices of the Minnesota State Planning Agency. They
may need to review the issues at hand once both the cities have approved the PDA. Weiland
stated that only a few people would be impacted at this point.
Brown has a concern over the capacity of the water main to provide sufficient flow for this
development once it traverses the proposed development to the North (Saunders Lake). He
asked Gordon if the developer had contingency plans should Saunder's Lake not go as
planned. Gordon is not aware of any contingency plans.
Regarding the hardcover, Gordon stated that it needs a thorough review and that the
conditional use permit should be contingent upon certain limits being met for hardcover. He
suggested that the hardcover percentage for the entire development be determined and that a
maximum be set for the individual lots. To apply the hardcover limitations lot by lot would not
be practical.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Mueller asked Gordon to define single family attached versus detached and asked if these were
new planning terms for townhomes and twinhomes. Gordon stated that they were.
Mueller further asked if the drainage plan had been determined and outlined, in particular, the
upper versus the lower "level" of this development. He also asked how the neighboring
properties would be impacted by this proposed development. Finally, he asked should there be
an issue with storm water run off or drainage and properties are damaged, who had the
responsibility to fix the problem and who would bare the consequences of such an issue.
Gordon stated there was a storm water plan that has been reviewed by the engineers. The
storm water pipes from both communities will be impacted. The plan will improve some current
problems where the storm water is allowed to drain following natural slopes and grading.
Arrangements will have to be worked out between the cities.
Mueller asked if the preliminary plat approval assumed future water and sewer agreements
between Mound and Minnetrista. Further, if there are agreements, will we tie our own hands
and not have sufficient water and sewer services for our own residents. Who is responsible
should there be future issues with these services, Mound, Minnetrista, the development, the
landowner or just who.
Gordon stated that many issues still remain on the water and sewer agreements with
Minnetrista and Mound. The water issues are external to this project, however.
Public road would serve all properties except lots 7-9. There would be an easement for private
roadway between these property owners.
Brown raised a concern over where the water flows just west of lot 23 and flowing onto lots 16
and 17. Gordon indicated that the storm water flow plans will reroute this and the run off will be
directed to culverts and pipes rather than its natural flow as it is now.
Both Mueller and Brown raised questions regarding fire equipment access particularly along the
area where there is no public road. At the same time, Clapsaddle asked how long the private
road was. It is projected to be 40 feet back from the public roadway.
Voss raised some questions on the attachment/detachment process, which were explained by
Gordon. Voss stated that while he understood this was a fairly simple process, at the same
time it presented some complicated issues. He asked why annexation wasn't being
considered. It seems more economical to him for Mound to give the 1.8 acres Minnetrista to
avoid the land use issues.
Gordon stated that initially the Cities would work out the agreements and then the private
issues would be considered. He stated that there was a tax base question about just giving up
the land. Voss asked if the taxes garnered on this property would pay for the
process/infrastructure, etc. of the boundary change.
Gordon stated he was made aware today that the developers had a new plan to present which
would eliminate the boundary issue altogether.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Chair Michael stated that he wanted to hear the public first and that he had issues listening to a
new plan that did not have staff's review and comments first. Clapsaddle stated that the public
should be heard from first. Michael opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
Kenneth Evans of 6635 Bartlett Blvd stated that an additional problem was all the people that
live in the trailer home today. They are at the "mercy of Remington." He feels the people living
there have no say.
Terry Hughes of 6641 Halstead stated support for the development from the beginning. His
concern was about the water run off and where it will go. He further stated that he has lived
there for over 13 years and wanted to thank the trailer park occupants. He stated that he has
not ever had a problem with them.
Bill Meyers of 6601 Bartlett stated this was his first look at the proposed development. He feels
it is very "people-dense." He stated that it was the most dense plan he had seen yet. (Mr.
Meyers is a former planning commissioner.) He wanted to know where the parking was being
provided and if there was enough. He asked what the center island would be along the one
way road. (Park land) He asked where the snow would go, visitor parking, boats, etc. He
determined that there was only 3,000 - 4,000 square feet per unit. He wanted to know where
the hardship was and indicated he is not in favor of the proposal.
Mueller asked Mr. Meyers if this proposal does not get recommended, does that mean that he
is in favor of the trailer park. Mr. Meyers stated that he didn't feel the trailer park would last that
long. The development, he feels would be there fifty to sixty years from now.
B J Johnson of 6655 Halstead also raised a concern over the density and the potential run off.
He is concerned over the phosphorus that will be running into the bay. He doesn't' feel it can
support more.
Dorthea Helmen of 6669 Halstead asked how big a pipe would be needed to carry the run off
and what would happen if it failed. She also asked if it would all run to one holding pond.
Gordon stated he was not totally aware of all these plans, but that they had received review by
the City Engineer. The pipes will be totally sized when the water agreement is determined.
Details will be filed with the final plat.
Bruce Johnson of 6639 Bartlett Blvd stated that he was the manager of the trailer park and he
feels this proposal is better than what he has seen previously. The density will decrease with
this development. His only concern is over where the current residents will go. At this time,
building and other permits continue to receive a negative response due to non-conforming
properties. He would like to see the rezoning process go through. Since 1985, he has
attempted to clean up the trailer park, but he hasn't seen any help from the City. He would like
to see this proposal approved.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.
Michael Gair, the site developer, introduced the others with him: Jeff Sowada and Ed Forliti
from Remington Development.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Mr. Gair stated that this has been a relatively complex development and that they have
attempted to be sensitive regarding the issues of the current residents. They have appreciated
the comments and issues that have been raised by both cities as well as the neighbors and
residents. They would like to think that they have done a good job on the preliminary plat and
on adjustments to correct issues as they have been raised.
The new proposal is not an attempt to confuse, but to accommodate the thirty-foot setback from
the bluffs. It will also leave city boundaries the same. One of the two unit buildings will be
removed to accomplish this and a third unit added to another one. This will result in a decrease
of one unit from the proposal currently being looked at. In the plan Outlot A will be dedicated to
park area and open space.
All the engineering plans will be approved by the City Engineers. There will be a Homeowner's
association and they will provide those documents. They will cover the fire plans with the cities'
fire departments.
Gordon stated that the developers would be asked to improve Halstead Ave and the developers
indicated that they would accomplish this with concrete and asphalt. There would be curb and
gutters and catch basins to handle the run off. In response to Commissioner Clapsaddle's
questions, the developer stated the grade would be changed to keep it lower than the curb and
gutter for run off. The pond has been designed to allow the nutrients to be taken out of the run
off before outletting into the bay. The engineer designed drainage would be better than today.
Guest parking is planned in the center common area. Each detached home will have an
attached two-car garage and room for two more cars in the driveway. The driveways will be
extended such that there will be no overhang onto the public street.
Clapsaddle noted the setbacks along the sides of the property, and asked where the boats
would go. It was noted that the Home Owner's Association prohibits outside storage of boats.
The developer answered Clapsaddle's questions regarding water and storm water run off and
the improvements along Halstead Ave.
Mueller raised the concern that the Planning Commission does not approve final plats and
indicated his hesitancy to approve the plan without all the details before them. He has problem
with draining 56 acres through one lot and not knowing who is responsible should there be a
100-year or 500-year storm as there has been two of in the last ten years.
The developer suggested that the final plat be reviewed by the Planning Commission to
eliminate problems.
Brown raised his concern over the rerouting of the current residents of the trailer home and
process that is involved with that. Ed Forliti stated there was a process that had to be followed
for that that is governed by State statutes. He is asking that the preliminary plat be approved
so that they could move forward.
Mueller asked if the Minnetrista Planning Commission approved the plan. The developer stated
that the Planning Commission approved the plan, however, the Council tabled the plan until the
water issues are worked out and the process for attachment/detachment is considered more
fully.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Mueller asked what plan they saw. The developer stated they saw the first one considered
tonight by the Planning Commission. 'The new plan was drawn that morning.
Gordon stated that it appears many of Staff's issues had been addressed in the new plan. He
was not comfortable with a recommendation until there was time to review the plans.
Mueller asked if they shouldn't table the decision until the new plan is reviewed by staff. Mr.
Gair indicated he would rather have approval with conditions so that they could move ahead.
Chair Michael indicated that would probably not happen. The developer stated that having to
go before four bodies with an ever-changing plan was a tough process.
Brown stated that one of the more important questions is how the two cities deal with the water
issue and that isn't resolved yet.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown to continue the Public Hearing on the
planning unit development and conditional use permit and preliminary plat until staff
reviews the newly submitted changes and provides comments.
DISCUSSION
Voss feels they could rule on the preliminary plat first and come back for the other issues.
Gordon expressed some concern about the process since Minnetrista would have to review the
new changes.
The vote was 5-2 with Michael and Voss voting against. MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Michael stated this would come back to the Planning Commission on the 26th of the
month and to the City Council on the 27th of July.
Clapsaddle was excused.
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-28; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP); TO CONSIDER
THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE HALSTEAD
PLACE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) TO CHANGE THE CURRENT USE OF AN
R-1 MOBILE HOME PARK TO AN R-1 PDA AND R-3 PDA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT; LOCATED WITHIN THE
R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, LOTS 1-2-3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID # 22-117-
24 43 0007.
See above case.
CASE # 99-27: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT
AN ATTACHED 24 X 24 GARAGE AND A 16 X 20 SCREEN PORCH AT 4873
CUMBERLAND ROAD; BLOCK 1, LOT 24, AREDEN; MELODY OLSEN, 37730; PID # 24-
117-24 44 0021.
Gordon stated that this was the same variance request that was heard in 1995 and approved
by Resolution 95-61. However, the project was never completed. Conditions on the property
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
have not changed since 1995. The variances required to build a 24 by 24 foot square attached
garage are 0.2 foot to the front yard setback and 2 feet to the side yard setback.
Since the property does not have a garage, the proposal is considered an improvement to the
property and there does appear to be a practical difficulty to placing a typical ~;ized garage due
to the shape of the property. It has no impact on the parkland behind the property.
Staff has recommended Planning Commission recommendation to City Council of the
variances; however, the applicant has a further request.
Melody Olsen is requesting a 24 by 26 foot. This would require an additional 2-foot side yard
variance. Weiland asked the applicant why she didn't build in 1995. She stated that some
personal issues had arisen which prevented her from building.
Mueller feels that the additional two feet makes this awfully close to the property line. The
Commissioners suggested to her that she angle the garage or build behind her home to gain a
garage that size. Mueller is concerned over the precedent that would be set if they granted this
large of a variance.
Weiland and Chair Michael both asked the applicant if she knew what having a non-conforming
property meant.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown to move staff recommendation. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
Chair Michael stated this would come before the City Council on July 13, 1999.
CASE # 99-29: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING
DETACHED GARAGE AT 6037 HAWTHORNE ROAD; BLOCK 9, LOTS 5 AND PART OF 6,
THE HIGHLANDS; MARLENE AND JEFF HARTY, 61610, PID # 23-117-24 34 0025.
Gordon presented this case which is an application for construction of a 28 feet by 36 feet
detached garage. The associated variance with this project is 5.4 feet. The existing single stall
garage will be removed prior to construction. This proposal meets all city zoning code
requirements. The hardcover is below the minimum. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval.
There were no discussion or comments prior to a motion.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to move staff recommendation. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
Chair Michael stated that this case will go to the City Council on July 27, 1999.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
CASE # g9-14: VARIANCE; SIDE YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A NONCONFORMING
ATTACHED GARAGE AT 2374 CHATEAU LANE; BLOCK 2, LOTS PART OF 8 AND PART
OF 9, JOHN S. CARLSON; LARRY AND PAMELA PETERSON, 61550, PID # 13-117-24 43
0028.
This applicant has applied to add on to an existing attached single car garage converting it to a
two stall. This would require a 3.97-foot side yard variance. The rest of the property is
conforming. The garage would create the only non-conformity.
This is a difficult case to recommend in favor of a two-stall garage since the setback would
exceed the 4 feet setback threshold for any structure. There are other options for a 2 stall
garage on the property by making it detached and in the back yard. Further the proposal would
compromise the character of the property and surrounding neighborhood.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request.
Brown stated that he looked at the site and a detached garage would not work. He feels
another option would be better. Weiland also feels it would be best in the back yard.
The owner stated he had a letter from the neighbor who doesn't object. Brown stated then he
should look at buying property from him to construct this conforming. The Commission cannot
afford to set this type of precedence.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller to grant a 2 foot side yard setback variance.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Chair Michael stated that this case will go to City Council on July 27, 1999.
CASE # 98-63: VARIANCE; LAKESIDE SETBACK, STREET FRONTAGE AND
HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH OVER THE EXISTING DECK AT 4347
WILSHIRE BOULEVARD; PART OF LOTS 75, 76, AND LOT B, 1sT REARR. OF PIP 1sT
DIVISION; W. THOMAS AND DIANE HARMON, 37890, PID # 19-117-23 13 0008.
The applicant has applied for a permit and variances to construct a lakeside porch to an
existing deck. This would require variances to the street frontage setback of 20 feet and a
hardcover variance of 2183.8 square foot, or sixty one percent. The case was reviewed by the
Planning Commission last year and denied. The applicant pulled the case prior to the Council
meeting.
The applicant is now coming back with the same proposal, only with a new survey on the
lakeside setback and adjoining properties. The new survey shows a 51-foot lakeside setback
and the adjacent homes that "line up" with the porch.
The property has an existing nonconforming lot width of 20 feet. The existing hard cover is also
nonconforming at sixty one percent and is largely due to the driveway rather than other
structures. The existing house is typical for the lot and is not oversized. The property is
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
irregular in shape due to the length of the driveway needed to access the house. A substantial
reduction in hardcover is not feasible.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance
request.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to move staff recommendation.
Weiland had some questions answered regarding the hardcover and setbacks that are
discussed on page 73.
MOTION CARRIED 6-1 with Weiland opposed.
Chair Michael stated that this case will go to the City Council on July 27, 1999.
DISCUSSION
COMMUNITY CENTER GROUP UPDATE (Cindy Palm, presenter)
This was postponed at the request of the presenter due to the lateness of the hour.
INFORMATION
1. Memo from the Acting City Manager'regarding Proposed TIF District Funding
2. Tax Increment Financing Basics
3. How Tax Increment is Calculated
4. Minutes from the June 8, 1999 City Council Meeting
5. Minutes from the June 22, 1999 City Council Meeting
6. Monthly Report from June, 1999
7. Brown invited the Planning Commission to come to the HRA and City Council meeting
on July 13, 1999 to discuss Tax Increment Financing and Streamlining. He also invited
them to the EDC meetings on Tuesday mornings at 7'.
The City Council extended the Comprehensive Plan by six months and the role of the Planning
Commission is uncertain.
Brown also discussed cell phone conversations in the Commission meetings. He felt the one
that took place tonight was rude. He started to make a motion, but withdrew it later.
10
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chair Michael to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Michael at 10:55 p.m.
11
TO: ALL CITY EMPLOYEES
FROM: FRAN CLARK
RE: CITY COUNCIL SPONSORED
EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION
COOKOUT
The Mound City Council would like
to invite you to a picnic lunch.
FIRDAY
JULY 30, 1999
11:00 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
07-27-g6
11:13
+61Z33T9310
i i
l'~sdq. ! ',~ 2%. '%g~J M y~.~r len~ of interest.
,;
'1
..~
.t
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 28, 1999
Tonka Bay City Hall
1. CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARING
· Ordinance Amendment, an ordinance relating to boat storage density on
Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03
(Continuation of 7/14/99 Public Hearing).
3. ADJOURNMENT
· LAKE MINNTTONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BOARD M£MBEP~'
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secreta~/, Mlnnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spdng Pa~k
~dre~ Ahrac~
BoO Ambro~
Wayzata
Kent Dar~len
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitcl~ak
Minnetonka
LJli McMillan
Robert Rascop
Shorewocx:l
Herb J. Suer~
Woodland
Sheldon Wert
Greenwood
15, 1999
TO:
FROM:
Lakeshore Weekly News
Arm: Legal Department
(Fax # 473-0~
Roger Win~dministrative Technician
Continuation of Public Hearing Notice (7/22/99 Edition)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PUBLIC ~%R[NG NOTICE - CONTINUATION
7:00 PM, July 28, 1999
Tonka Bay City Rail
· '4901 Manitou Road
Ordimmce Amendmeat
The Lake Mirmetonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold continuation of
the luiy 14, 1999, public hearing to consider amending LMCD Code Sections
2.02 and 2.03, an ordinance relating to boat density, storage and multiple dock
facilities on Lake Mirmetonka. All interested parties will be given an
oppommity to comment on this proposed amendment.
D6tails available at the LMCD office., '18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven,
lVIN 55391.
O
~ R~'yc~ed Content
Web Page Address: http://wWW.wintemet.corn/-Imcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@ wintemet, com
'"DRAFT
LAKE MIN~TON~ CONSERVATION DISTRICT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOAT STORAGE DENSITY AND
MULTIPLE DOCK FACILITIES ON LAKE MINNETONKA;
AMENDING LMCD CODE SECTIONS 2.02 AND 2.03
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION
DISTRICT ORDAINS that the LMCD Code of OrdNances is amended as follows:
Section 1. LMCD Code Section 2.02 is amended by adding new subdivision 6 as follows:
Subd. 6. Special Rule for Sites or Interests in Sites Created After March , 1999 and
Multiple Resident. ia Sites. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions 1 through 4 of this
section, no dock or mooring area may be constructed, established or maintained which provides
space for or is used for mooring or docking a greater number of restricted watercraft than one for
each 100 feet of continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978 (unless authorized by special
density licenses pursuant to Section 2.05), at any site described in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this
subdivision:
(a)
A site created after March , 1999 on which more than one single family
residential unit or one or more multi-family residential units are constructed.
(b)
A site created after March ,1999 for which dockage fights are attached, in
whole or in part, to other specified non-riparian sites or real properties.
(c)
Any site for which dockage rights are initially attached in whole or in part, to other
specified non-riparian sites or real properties by instrument created or recorded 'alter
March ,1999.
Section 2. LMCD Code Section 2.02 is amended by adding new Subd. 7 as follows:
Subd. 7. Special Rules for Shoreline Calculation in Certain Cases. In any case in which the
measured shoreline at a site exceeds 125% of the distance, measured on a straight line, between the
two end points of the shoreline at the site, the Board may adjust the length of shoreline for which
credit is given for purposes of computing ~e number of restricted watercraft at the site as follows:
'(a)
Shoreline will not be adjusted to a length shorter than the straight line distance
between the end points of the shoreline.
(b) Shoreline will be adjusted only for sites requiring a multiple dock license.
(c)
CLL-159074
LKllO-4
ShoreLine will not be adjusted at any site for any dock facility which was in
existence on March
at the site.
,1999 unless the number of boat storage units is increased
(d)
The Board will make adjustments to shoreline at the time of issuance of new
multiple dock licenses. Adjustments may be made when the Board concludes that
the mount of shoreline measured at elevation 929.4 NGVD is not fairly
representative of the amount of shoreline that is reasonably useable for the
construction and maintenance of docks at the site due to such features as nan'ow
inlets, small coves, highly sinuous shoreline configuration, large areas of the
shoreline covered by emergent vegetation or a great difference between the length of
measured shoreline and the distance measured along the edge of emergent
vegetation between the extended lot lines of the site. Shoreline adjustments shall be
made so as to approximate the number of restricted watercraft and impacts resulting
from watercraft storage to that of other sites with comparable useable dockage space
which do not have the same characteristics of unusual topography, shoreline
configuration or vegetation.
Section 3. LMCD Code Section 2.03 is amended by adding new Subd. 17 as follows:
Subd. 17. Special Rule for New Dock Facilities Se,wing More Than One Residential Unit.
Multiple Dock Facilities constructed after March ,1999 which provide dockage for more than
one residential unit shall be so located and configured as to minimize the impact of the hcility on
adjacent and nearby properties which are not provided dockage at the fi,cility, provided such
location and configuration is reasonable, does not pose a hazard to navigation and is deemed by the
Board to be generally consistent with the criteria set forth in Sub& 3 of this Section.
This enactment is in effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the
Enabling Act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of 'the Board of
Directors of the LMCD and has the effect of an ordinance.
of
Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this · 1999.
day
ATTEST:
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ct.r.-159074
~Kl10-4
MAL
KER
SON GILLILAND
M A R T I -N ,,. ......
JUL 1,5 1999
By
July 14, 1999
Board of Directors
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
18338 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL
Re:
Public Hearing relating to Amendment to LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03 to
be heard on July 14, 1999
Dear Directors:
The undersigned represents several owners of marinas on' Lake Minnetonka. I have been
retained by the them to review the proposed ordinance to be reviewed by the LMCD on July 14,
1999. Unfortunately, I have been out of town and have only recently had an opportunity to
review the draft ordinance and to discuss the issues with some, but not with all, of my clients.
Because of the importance of the issues raised by the proposed ordinance, we ask that the
LMCD take testimony at the public hearing tonight and then continue the public hearing to a
later date and in the interim, that the LMCD hold a work session on the issues related to this
ordinance. Moreover, I will not be able to attend the public hearing tonight.
We believe that the goals which the LMCD is seeking apparently to accomplish by the
ordinance can be accomplished by enforcing existing ordinances against those individuals that
are violating those ordinances relating to boat density and leasing of slips on property that is not
allowed under the LMCD Code. Moreover, as will be discussed hereinafter, we believe the
ordinance does not address the practical aspects of ownership of marinas and the reduction of
slips at a marina in the future at such time as a marina operator considers converting the property
to residential or some other less intensive use.
My clients and I believe that the ordinance is arbitrary in that it is addressing the issues
relating to density for conversion of marinas that include approximately one percent of the
shoreline of the lake. The most difficult issue in this ordinance is that, as my clients understand
it, the LMCD wants to bring about a reduction in overall density of boat slips on Lake
Minnetonka. The ordinance provides that at such time as a marina is converted to, say a
residential use, that the residential use or uses on the former marina site would only be allocated
one slip per 100 feet of shoreline. As we know, because of the historical development of marinas
and the lack of ordinances or different ordinance requirements in the past, all marinas have a
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
july 14, 1999
Page 2 '
density of slips per 1 O0 feet of shoreline far in excess of one slip per 1 O0 feet as is envisioned in
this ordinance. As a practical matter, the marinas can never afford to convert to housing with a
lesser density of slips per 100 feet of shoreline, because as we all know, there is substantial value
in each slip, either as a marina slip or as a slip servicing a residential use. Under the proposed
ordinance a marina, in probably all cases, has more value continuing as a marina with the present
number of slips than that marina property has if it ever converted to a residential use with just
one slip per 100 feet. A marina, depending upon its financial situation, could convert to
residential uses if it did not lose all of the slips that it presently has. For example, assume that a
marina has 200 slips on the shoreline. That marina may be able to convert to residential and
reduce the number of slips to say 100 slips and be able to financially still make that conversion.
However, if the number of slips has to be reduced to say 20 slips under your proposed ordinance
the marina could never afford to make that conversion to residential uses. Of course, by making
the conversion, the LMCD will have accomplished its goal of reducing the overall number of
slips on the lake, but that goal will never be accomplished given the economic impact of your
ordinance if adopted.
Moreover, a marina that is not doing well financially, knowing that it can not convert to
residential ase because of this ordinance if adopted, will continue to operate on a "shoestring"
and not provide the sort of screening and other amenities that the City or the LMCD may desire
marinas to provide.
As you know, through the years, many cities have wanted to see one or more marinas in
their jurisdictions converted to residential uses. However, with the adoption of this ordinance it
will be impossible to do so. Therefore, your ordinance will adversely impact the comprehensive
land use planning and goals of numerous cities around Lake Minnetonka.
What really should be done in the work session is to talk though how a marina can afford
to be converted to residential use without losing all of its slips but certainly giving up an
appropriate number of them at the time of conversion to residential.
I am sure you also know that many cities have nonconforming use provisions that provide
that a commercial establishment, such as a marina, can convert from a commercial type use to a
less intensive use without losing certain of its rights. F6r example, in this situation, a marina
which may be deemed by most as being a more intensive use than a residential use could convert
and not necessarily lose any of the slips that it has. Of course, we know politically that is
important that at time of such conversion that the local unit of government bring about some
reduction in the number of slips at the time of conversion to residential use. However, your
ordinance will make that negotiating process impossible to implement.
Some of my clients believe that perhaps the LMCD does not want to have any marinas
convert to residential uses and therefore you are adopting this ordinance so that it is impossible
financially for a marina to convert to residential uses because of the substantial loss of slips that
would be then allocated or available for the shoreline involved. If that is what the LMCD is
Lake Minnetonl~ Conservation District
July 14, 1999
Page 3
trying to accomplish, then you should clearly state that that is pan of the public policy for
adopting such an ordinance, that is, trying to keep marinas fi.om converting to residential uses.
I understand that there is no pending situation that would necessitate the immediate
adoption of this ordinance. In any event, the issues raised by the ordinance are of such
importance to the future of Lake Minnetonka that we think it is very important that the public
heating be continued and that the work session be conducted to make sure that all parties
understand the intent and purpose of the ordinance and its actual and practical effect if adopted.
Please include this letter in the public record related to these proceedings.
Very truly yours,
Bruce D. Malkerson
BDM/ad
cc: Charles LeFevere (via facsimile)
CITYof ORONO ....
Munictt~i Offices
~ Addrt~ Mailing Address:
27~ Kalley Padcway P.O. g,)x GG
Ofono, MN 55356 OystaJ Bay, MN 55323.0066
July 12, 1999
Greg Nybeck
Executive Dkector
Lake Mirmetonka Conservation District
18338 Mianetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391
Dear Greg:
I am writing on behalf of the Orono Mayor and City Council in opposition to the LMCD's proposed
ordinance amendment regarding boat storage density. Although the overall intent of the amendment
has merit, the actual effect of the amendment will be insignificant in terms of its impact on boat
storage around the lake, and will fall unfairly and discriminatorily on a very small number of
properties. Based on these concerns, the City is opposed to the ordinance amendment.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Moorse
City Administrator
RJMflsv
Telephone (612) 249-4600 · Fax (612) 249-4616
'-~ ~C3 Page 1 of 1
FLEI$INGER
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
bjohnson2928 <bjohnson2928(~email.msn.com>
<fleisinger@msn.com>
Wednesday, July 21, 1999 11:03 PM
IDSD 277 Property
I feel the school district is giving away property that belongs to the
people in 277. I support the City's effort to bid for the property. How can
I stop the district fi.om giving away something that dosen't belong to them?
Hurry ! Thank You Bob Johnson bjohnson2928~msn, com
07/22/1999
'F,U FO
Memo
MOUND POLICE
DEPARTMENT
To: Fran Clark
From: Len Harrell
Date:. 07/25/99
Re,, Fairview & Maywood area
Squads have been working a radar survey for the past nine days starting on July 14"~
and continuing through July 23r~. Squads have been in the area on selected days
both in the morning (0600-0900) and in the afternoons (1600-1815). A total of ten
shifts were staffed for approximately 25 hours of officer time.
The average speed was approximately 20 miles per hour with about 80 cam per time
period. The highest speed was one vehicle traveling at 31 mph and the lowest speed
was 5 mph. One dtation was issued for failure to stop at the stop sign for a woman
who was lost in the area.
The statute (169.14 subd. 7a & b) allows for the council to reduce the speed limit in a
residential area on a city street below 30 mph. Should the council decide to do this
they need to consider that many neighborhoods may want to follow their lead and the
cost for replacing signs could be substantial.
· Pa~e 1
Improving Quali~ ofWateg Quali~ of Li~
Gray Freshwater Center
Hw%. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471-0590
Fax: (612) 471-0682
Email:
admin@minnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www. minnehahacreek.org
Board of Managers
Pamela G. Blixt
James Calkins
Lance Fisher
Monica Gross
Thomas W. LaBounty
Thomas Maple, Jr.
Malcolm Reid
July 23, 1999
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear ·
Enclosed are copies of a brochure on water quality grades. We'd like you to
make them available with your other public information.
We are offering the brochure to explain the grading system. The same
grades enclosed in the brochures were also posted on the District web site.
Grades for Lake Minnetonka bays were also included on Hennepin County's
new Lake Minnetonka map.
We hope you find this information helpful. Please call if you have questions
or if you need additional copies.
Sincerely,
L. Eric Evenson
Administrator
LEE/pra
Enclosures
ij~ Printed on recycled paper containing
at least 30% post consumer waste.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Jim Fackler, Park Director
Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector
July 27, 1999
Subject: Pembroke Multiple Dock
I called Craig Watson in relation to the proposed
re-configuration of the Prembroke City Dock which would
allow Mr. Rask to moor his boat on the south outside slip
and shorten Mr. Watson's slip.
Mr. Watson said with the current dock design he has
difficulty maneuvering around Mr. Rask's boat and if the
dock is changed his slip will become unusable.
printed on recycled paper