Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1999-08-24
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE 2. APPROVE AGENDA. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. MOTION. APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 3, 1999, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING .................................. 3093-3100 *B. MOTION APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 10, 1999, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ...... 3101-3112 *C. CASE//99-31: RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE; LOT WIDTH, SIDE YARD, REAR YARD AND DETACHED GARAGE FRONT YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DECK AT 4921 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE; BLOCK 14, LOT 16 AND BLOCK 21, LOT 1, DEVON; ED AND JENNIFER MADER, pID# 25-117-24 11 0124.3113-3140 *D. RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 2000 ..................... 3141-3147 *E. *F. RESOLUTION TO RESCIND RESOLUTION 91-41 WHICH APPROVED A C.U.P. FOR A LARGER GARAGE THAN WAS ALLOWED BY CODE, AT THAT TIME ON 4757 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, SANDI & TOM EFFERTZ. CODE WAS CHANGED IN 1997 .................... 3148-3150 MOTION APPROVING A QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION SIGN PERMIT FOR A PORTABLE SIGN - OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL .................... 3151-3153 3091 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS *0. A RF_.3OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DENYING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT~ LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR HALSTED PLACE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - LOTS 1, 2, 3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID//22-117-24 43 0007, P & Z CASES//99-25 &//99-28 ..................... 3154-3156 *H. MOTION TO PAYMENT OF BILLS .................. 3157-3175 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION. e CASE//99-26: RESOLUTION TO DENY VARIANCE; GARAGE SIDE YARD & LAKESIDE SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION ONTO THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE WITH ATYiC SPACE ABOVE AT 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD; PART OF LOT 22, LAFAYETTE PARK, NANCY RIGELHOF, 61690, PID# 13-117-24 21 0041 ......................... 3176-3189 e o DISCUSSION REGARDING DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON HALSTEAD LANE ................................ 3190-3195 DISCUSSION: POSSIBLE NORWOOD LANE SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO DECIDE WHO, HOW MUCH AND IF, THE CITY IS GOING TO ASSESS THE ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF NORWOOD LANE .............................. 3196-3218 8. INFORMATION AND MISCELLANEOUS A. EDC Minutes of July 8, 1999 ....................... 33219-3221 B. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of August 12, 1999... 3222-3228 C. L.M.C.D. mailings ............................. 3229-3240 Do Notice deom AMM (Association of Metropolitan Municipalities of 1999 Metro Regional Meeting. Thrusday, September 16, 1999 3:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M. New Brighton Family Service Center Please let me know if you would like to attend ............ 3241-3242 3092 MINUTES - MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - AUGUST 3, 1999 The Committee of the Whole for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 3, 1999, at 15:00 P.M., in the Council Workroom at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Those absent were: Councilmember Andrea Ahrens. Also in attendance were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, Public Works Superintendent Gregg Skinner, Secretaries Carla Wirth and Sue McCulloch. Others present were: Kevin Mr. Beigler, James Kmse, Joy Fleming, and other residents of Halstead Lane. Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 8:35 P.M. 1. STORM WATER UTILITY CHARGES The Acting City Manager presented information regarding the Storm Water Utility Ordinance which included the ordinance and information regarding a storm water utility fund that should be put in effect which has no money in it at this time. Mayor Meisel asked if the City had a fund available, when would this be put into effect. The City Engineer stated that the possibility would be within six months because it is tied in with the Comp Plan Update. Weycker stated that the issue at hand is to have some figures available before the storm water charges could be enforced. Mayor Meisel stated as the Council proceeds through tonight's agenda, they may have a better idea of what costs are coming so a fund can be available when the monies are needed. Brown asked about the Council's involvement with this plan. Brown also stated the Comprehensive Plan is to stop urban sprawl and limits what the City can do since it would be based on what the Metropolitan Council dictates. There was discussion regarding the purpose of the Metropolitan Council and how it effects the City of Mound's plans. There is concern that the Metropolitan Council will change Mound's Comprehensive Plan but there was also discussion that assured those members that the provisions in the Comprehensive Plan for Mound are so vague that they still would comply with what the Metropolitan Council would want from the City and also could be changed as the City sees fit. Mayor Meisel stated she would like to put the storm water utility into the budget for the City of Mound in the very near future. MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING- AUGUST 3, 1999 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON HALSTEAD LANE. Mayor Meisel stated she met with Councilmember Weycker, the City Engineer and Greg Skinner on Wednesday night in an informal setting regarding the Halstead Lane property drainage problem. The City Engineer stated there was discussion regarding the problem and reasons for this problem. He reviewed costs of repairing this drainage problem. The solution is to install a new pipe, but there is a possible expense for all residents concerned. Mayor Meisel stated that she would like the residents to come up with a number for each resident to pay for this project. She explained the residents are resistant in having to pay anything toward this project because they feel it has been existing for a long time. The cost of this project would be approximately $63,000. Kevin Beigler, 2820 Halstead Lane, stated the water is coming from Westedge and he believed that the cost should be divided amongst them also, not just those residents on Halstead Lane. He also stated that the erosion problem has to be fixed immediately. The City Engineer stated the drain comes from Westedge, curves and then goes out into the wetland. He also stated that the pipe that currently exists is not big enough to handle the drainage so after rainfalls water ponds in residents' yards. The curb line also needs to be improved. The Acting City Manager stated that the tax forfeit lot that the State owns needs to be cleaned up. If this lot does not get cleaned up the waste on this property will continue to flow into yards causing hazards to those individuals living on Halstead Lane. James Kruse, 2830 Pine Road, stated that the residents want the propert'y~t~teaned up. He stated he was happy to see the right plan being considered but it is a complicated situation and each resident has different situations to address. He stated the residents would like the cost to be zero but he understands that is probably not feasible. He stated the Council needs to determine collectively what would be a reasonable cost. Mr. Kruse stated he supports the suggestion by Mr. Beigler that others be asked to share in the burden of the cost. He suggested residents be allowed to present a dollar figure they are comfortable with and then the Council can decide what they would like to do. Mr. Kruse stated he is in business and understands how the economics work and that the City has different constraints. He stated if there is a willingness on the Council's part, there is willingness on the resident's part but the threshold is low. Mayor Meisel stated that the City does need to take some responsibility. She would like a dollar amount that the residents attending tonight's meeting could pay towards this project. Mr. Beigler stated that the drainage from Westedge is coming into his yard and each year the problem only increases. There is ponding after every rainstorm in his yard. Also, the rate of flow is a problem. The water comes gushing down the hill at a dangerous speed unloading the debris from the forfeit lot onto his property and into his yard. Mr. Beigler MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING- AUGUST 3, 1999 also stated that the ponding is due to drainage from Westedge and they should be held responsible also. Brown stated there was no budget increase for last year which is hurting the City currently. Brown stated he would like to talk this out with the residents and get this resolved in a very timely manner. He indicated this matter should not go any further and we as active Councilmembers should work with the people. Hanus stated the fact that there would be no budget for this project does not make this problem go away or excuse any one person involved. He indicated this is very serious and it needs to be worked out. Hanus stated other ways to get monies for this project would be to sell a bond and tax the people. Hanus raised the question of fairness in having other taxpayers pay for another person's problem. He indicated this type of project is typically assessed to those who live at the location and are then required to pay for the work that needs to be done. Hanus asked if the Westedge location would be nonexistent, would the Halstead property have this problem that currently exists today. The City Engineer stated that if Westedge was present, then the drainage problem at hand would probably not exist. The City Engineer stated that the assessment has been done correctly because history shows that the Halstead Lane residents were never assessed for drainage and the Westedge residents were assessed in previous years. The possibility of rerouting the drainage system to the corner of Pine and West Edge is not feasible either because the area is too flat. Mayor Meisel stated dollar figures need to be put together and she would like to see this project completed before the end of the year Joy Fleming, 2825 Halstead Lane, stated they paid assessment fees in the cost of the lot when they bought the house. The City Engineer agreed this may be true, but there is no documentation of payment for a storm drainage assessment. Mr. Beigler asked what the increase in his property value would be after this project is completed. Currently he has settlement cracks in his house that a person normally does not see until the house is 50 years old. Hanus assured Mr. Beigler that the property value would go up after the project is completed but he is not sure of an exact amount. Mr. Kruse stated the City has to come up with its lowest possible amount that they expect the residents to pay for this drainage pipe and then he is willing to discuss this issue further. Dean Fleming, 2825 Halstead Lane, stated his main interest is when the water comes rushing down the street during and after a storm and washes everything down from the top of the hill onto their property and also the serious danger that exists with such a rush of water coming down the street MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING o AUGUST $, 1999 Brown suggested the following proposal: Have the cost split 50/50 (city/residents) for the assessments and it can be paid off through a 10 year time period of less than $50 per month per resident involved in the Haistead area. Mr. Kruse stated this number was absolutely too high. He also stated the damage is because of the neglect on the City's part of maintenance. This problem has been existent for a long time. Mr. Kruse suggested the possibility of having a mediator find out the percentage of fault and possibly a monetary amount for those involved in this issue. He would like the most cost-effective solution. Mr. Kruse stated he realized that nothing is for "free" these days and he is willing to work with the City to find a solution. Brown asked if there was any other way to reroute this water and have it channeled off near Westedge away from the property in question. The City Engineer stated that this is not possible. There is no other location to reroute this water and the solution is to put in a new pipe. Mr. Beigler stated sandbagging the house would not necessarily do the job. He again stressed the danger of the rushing water. Mr. Beigler also stated there are sink holes in five out of the six properties in question that need to be dealt with. Mayor Meisel stated she would like to have the Committee of the Whole meet amongst themselves to discuss what their expectations are from each property owner and then the Committee would meet with the property owners to discuss a solution. Mr. Fleming suggested before the meeting to have each member of the Committee walk from Westedge all the way down to see all the debris, junk, and erosion on their street due to water drainage that currently does not function properly. Hanus requested a copy of the map with all the properties in question that the City Engineer was showing on the overhead tonight. A copy of the map was provided to everyone in attendance at the meeting. Mayor Meisel directed staff to get a legal decision regarding sink holes. They will meet on August 24, 1999, to discuss an offer in executive session within the Council meeting. After there is a decision, the Committee will then meet with the Halstead property owners involved in this project. 3. DISCUSSION ON REPLACEMENT WELL AND FUTURE WATER NEEDS. The Council reviewed the November 4, 1998 memorandum from McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. regarding the estimated cost of a municipal well capable of pumping 750 to 1,000 gpm. The City Engineer stated the estimate of $180,000 for a new well could be close, but since this is an almost one-year-old estimate the amount may very well be $190,000 now. The City Engineer also cautioned that this may be higher if they run into an unexpected MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING- AUGUST 3, 1999 problems when digging the well. The location of this well would be at the Evergreen water tower site. The City Engineer stated that by the year 2005 a new tower is a must to make the City efficient when it comes to fire fighting. Mayor Meisel stated that she will be bringing up the tower issue again in the future so make note of this project because she would like to see it followed through. Brown stated he had just recently spoken with Ed Fofliti of Remington Development in an informal setting. Brown stated that the more he sees this project progress, the more he sees this project heading downhill. There are huge issues with density and water for supplying this project. Hanus stated that he wanted to know how serious Minnetrista was about the water situation. It is noted that Minnetrista will not give Mound a compost sight in exchange for water. Brown mentioned the Remington project again. He stated the trailer park will go away whether Remington does it or not. The development now has 15 trailer hookups for density and there are only 8 trailers now existing on the property. The sites in Mound, when completed by Remington's developer, will have over 70% hardcover for each individual lot. This means that every addition these individuals add onto their new homes they will need a variance. If the City allows this development, it will set a precedent for anyone who owns an acreage of land. It was noted the Planning Commission turned down the a previous plan which was less dense than what Remington is suggesting to date. The whole picture is the density problem--putting too many homes in a very small area. 4. DISCUSSION ON INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES. The Council reviewed the infrastructure needs presented by the Police Department, City Management staff, Park Director, Public Works, and Building Official. This was requested by Mayor Meisel to get a list from all staff and put all "wish list" items on the table, and then progress forward with this list in increments when the funds come available. Mayor Meisel would like to seriously keep the water tower cost at hand. Brown mentioned the Mound Police Department forum. He stated the time allotted for officer travel in transporting animals could be alleviated by calling a reserve squad. Brown also noted that each police officer should have his own squad car to take home with him on a daily basis. He stated that it would be an incentive to have their own squad car and it would probably be better taken care of. The Acting City Manager stated the staff as well as others working with the City of Mound would benefit from Munnimetrix Systems Corporation's scanner/OCR information. The $3,000-$8,000 price includes the scanner, maintenance, connection to PC, software, and support. MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING- AUGUST $, 1999 Brown asked if the Dakota Rail Trail Fund should be included in a grant plan. The Committee appreciates Fackler's list of future improvements for the parks, but at this time the City does .not have additional monies for the parks. They will keep this information on file. Mayor Meisel stressed strongly she would like to act on the well and infrastructures with this year's budget plan. With the bonds that are available there can be accomplishments made, mostly the well, and then others. Mayor Meisel stated also that if the City of Mound and its residents want to have increased and improved services then there may need to be a tax increase to accomplish this. She wanted all members to keep the infrastructure information handy and she will bring these up at their budget meetings for further discussion. 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION. The City Attorney explained the Council would meet in closed executive session to discuss the Woodland Point litigation. The meeting recessed at 10:50 P.M. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back into session at 11:55 P.M. DISCUSSION ON AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO RUN PUBLIC. EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL (PEG) ACCESS PROGRAMMING. The Acting City Manager presented the draft agreement between the City of Mound and Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission with respect to PEG Access programming. According to her calculations it appears the PEG fees would be approximately $6,500 per quarter or $26,000 per year for LMCC's services. Within the agreement at hand it states the LMCC will provide PEG services to the City of Mound in exchange for $.84 per subscriber per month as previously remitted by TRIAX. Mayor Meisel is concerned regarding the programming fees as noted and any additional PEG fees. This item will be presented to the Council at the August 10, 1999 meeting. ® DISCUSSION ON TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY THAT MICHELLE BERGLUND WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE. The Acting City Manager presented this case. Ms. Berglund contacted the City about purchasing portions of 2 lots that adjoin her property. The lots are tax-forfeited lands. A portion of those lots are in wetlands which are not available for sale. The City Engineer has 6 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - AUGUST 3, 1999 looked at the property and there is a portion of Lots 29 and 30 that could be sold and are not in the wetlands. It amounts to approximately 5,000 square feet. The applicant is concerned about the 2 lots being built upon. The City staff assured her that cannot happen, but she is still interested in purchasing the non-wetlands portion of the lots. It has been the policy to send these types of requests for tax forfeit property to the Park Commission for their review and consideration. This was done and the Park commission recommendation was that the property continue to be held by the City of Mound and that discussions occur with the Minnesota Land Trust to convey a conservation easement. This would then give Ms. Berglund what she is requesting, that nothing be built on the property. Ms. Berglund still wants to purchase the portions of the lots that are not in the wetlands for her own reasons. This case was then decided that Ms. Berglund could do the survey, get legals, and the City would reconvey the portion of lots that is not in the wetlands which is Parcel B. This case was then brought up to the Planning Commission. Instead of being approved, the Planning Commission tabled this matter because they felt the case needed clarity by the legal department. The Acting City Manager would like to send this request in to the County to get this approved and the property released for sale to the adjoining property owner, Ms. Berglund. Brown stated a problem he foresees is having Ms. Berglund sell the parcel off at a later date to some developer who would come in and divide the lot into two lots and have two homes built there. At a previous meeting the Acting City Manager stated it was felt it would be hard to subdivide the property. Berglund is willing to put a conservation easement on the property. This will definitely not allow her to build on this lot and keep it natural, or anyone else build on the lot if it does get sold, until the conversation easement is revoked. Hanus stated that steps would need to be taken in order to make it buildable and the City would have control of the situation. The Acting City Manager stated that she did not need approval from the Planning Commission because it was all ready approved by a previous Council last September. Mayor Meisel asked about the City Attorney's opinion since the Planning Commission tabled this issue and would like a statement in writing. Mayor Meisel agreed with the Acting City Manager, but would like to see backup data to prove that this is legally fine. Brown stated very strongly that this item needs to go back to the Planning Commission for approval. Mayor Meisel would like to have any action approved in writing by the City Attorney before it progresses any further. 7 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - AUGUST 3, 1~ DISCUSSION ON PERSONAL VEHICLE USE AND MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT. The Acting City Manager explained the mileage reimbursement for personal vehicle use has not been changed since before 1981 and is currently at $.22 per mile. She recommended updating this reimbursement to reflect he current IRS rules to $.31 per mile and to change it in the future when the IRS changes. The consensus was the this is an administrative issue and should be changed to $.31 and in the future be changed automatically when the Federal government changes it. 9. DISCUSSION ON CITY MANAGER REPLACEMENT. Mayor Meisel presented the unopened proposals from several search companies for the replacement of the City Manager. She stated the list came from the League of Cities and there were no advertisement efforts. The Acting City Manager p~esented the City Manager advertisement and material from Kent State University which operates a center for hiring individuals on an assessment approach. This way of locating a manager will allow the City to do the screening. It appears the City pays only for the final assessment. Mayor Meisel is concerned about screening for your own employer. Weycker stated this may be highly time-consuming. Mayor Meisel asked all members to read through the applicants and information and make a decision by Tuesday night, August 10, 1999, which interviewing and firm would best suit the City of Mound. If the members selected the consulting approach, they should come up with two search companies they would like to use. Hanus suggested thc'~ __ '~ of Sathe & Associates to be obtained. The City of Chanhassen used them, found a City Manager, and are well pleased. Mayor Meisel stated she will call Chanhassen to hear about the company he was hired through and request a proposal. There is a list of staff suggested qualities in a City Manager that they would like. This list should be considered when selecting candidates. 10. ADJOURN. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adjourn at 12:41 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager Attest: Council Secretary 8 MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 10, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 10, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Absent and excused: Councilmember Andrea Ahrens. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon. The following interested citizens were also present: John and Kristin Beise, Suzanne Claywell, Steve Coddon, Ken Evans, Becky Glister, Lorrie Ham, Jill Hanson, Elizabeth Hanson, Dorothea Helmen, Terry and Rita Hughes, BJ Johnson, Lois Mader, Jerry Mader, Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Jim Mune, Brace Thompson, Frank Weiland, and Vema and Cldair Hasse. The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:31 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 roil 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 The Acting City Manager requested the addition of 3H, Resolution Authorizing Execution of the Grant Agreement and 3I, Resolution Reaffirming Authorizing City Sponsorship of State Grant-in-Aid Snowmobile Trail Funds be added on the Consent Agenda. MOTION by Brown, second by Hanus, to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 APPROVE MINUTES OF JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING- JULY 27, 1999. MOTION Brown, Hanus, unanimously. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 *1.1. '1.2. *1.3 '1.4 *1.5 *1.6 APPROVE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 27, 1999. MOTION Brown, Hanus, unanimously. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATION COMMISSION FOR LOCAL PROGRAMMING FACILITIES. RESOLUTION # 99-70 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATION COMMISSION FOR LOCAL PROGRAMMING FACILITIES. Brown, Hanus, unanimously. FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - 1999 SEAL COAT PROJECT - $27,951.88. MOTION Brown, Hanus, unanimously. PAYMENT REQUEST #3 - AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - $29,130.99. MOTION Brown, Hanus, unanimously. PAYMENT REQUEST #3 - NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - $4,030.10. MOTION Brown, Hanus, unanimously. PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Brown, Hanus, unanimously. '1.7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION # 99-71 Brown, Hanus, unanimously. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 .1.8 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWIVIOBILE TRAIL FUNDS. RESOLUTION # 99-72 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS. Brown, Hanus, unanimously. 1.9 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.10 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER 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, LOTS 1, 2, 3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID #22-117-24 43 0007, P & X CASE//99-28. AND PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE HALSTEAD PLACE PRELIMNARY PLAT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMLY ATTACHED AND DETACHED HOME DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRTICT, LOTS 1, 2, 3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID//22-117-24 43 0007, P & X CASE//99-25. The City Planner presented the case. This is a redevelopment named Halstead Place which requires a rezoning and a preliminary plat for single family attached and detached homes The portions of the plat lies both in the the City of Mound and the City of Minnetrista. The development is located on Bartlett Boulevard. The preliminary plat proposes two types of development. The upper portion is a combination of twin and 3-plex attached units and the lower level are detached single family lots. There are a total of 22 lots in the complete development. Overall the density is 3.9 units per acre and the Mound portion is 5.6 units per acre. There is a division between Mound property and Minnetrista. The Mound portion includes 8 lots that are attached and I lot that is detached by the lakeside. There are 9 lots within Mound and 8 of the lots need a variance which is being considered. Other planning issues are platting issues concerning outlots and the access easement which MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 will be served with a private driveway. There needs to be a variance for the right-of-way and the cul-de-sac. The development project includes a bluff area with a 30-foot setback. This land currently is a trailer park. Landscaping will be added near Bartlett Boulevard. The City Planner stated there are drainage and grading issues involved in this development. The developer proposes that the slope will be more gradual near one location but at another location the slope would be 40 percent, which is 10 percent over code. The storm water pond is in the Minnetrista portion of the plat and they would have the ultimate control. The City Planner referred to the rezoning issue. The parcel would go from an R-1 to an R-3 development area which is needed to accommodate the twins and the triplexes. With rezoning there would be setbacks that need to be changed and also variances to accommodate the rezoning. The City Planner referred to the hardcover issue. The total for the Mound side would be 40.07 percent but the development as a whole was just shy of 30 percent. The project is sensitive to the hardcover issue, however, the way the development is platted, Mound is receiving more of the hardcover than Minnetrista. Brown stated he was not aware of the hardcover numbers at the Planning Commission meeting two weeks ago. The City Planner stated that the actual percent is 40 percent, and code allows 30 percent. The City Planner also reviewed the shoreline management provisions and how they apply to the project. He described how the density level of the development can be based on the different tiers. The Shoreline Ordinance states that a developer can swap density if needed. With a density transfer, Shoreline management would allow 46 lots on this parcel. With typical standards applied, 25 lots woould be allowed. These numbers are deceiving because Minnetrista does not allow the density transfer in their Shoreland Management Ordinance and the lakeside lot 22 is not 20,000 square feet in size as would be required. Councilmember Hanus added with regard to the above figures, it really is irrelevant what shoreline management states regarding the density issue because they are including both Mound and Minnetrista property but, the Council is considering only the Mound property. The City Planner referred to the City Engineer's report who was not present tonight. The City Engineer stated in his report that there would need to be easements on the preliminary plat which was not noted before tonight. With regard to grading, if the project does get approved the bluff area should not be disturbed. There was a mention again of variances for street standards. Storm water and sanitary sewer are major issues in this project. The sanitary sewer flows down to Minnetrista and is pumped back to the sewage treatment plant by West Edge Boulevard. In order to have this project proceed, the City needs to come up with agreements regarding' maintenance so we can utilize their pipes. In addition, the water main is an issue. A solution for the water concern would be to do some 4 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 looping from Bartlett and then back up to Halstead. The City Engineer's report states with this scenario there would not be enough pressure for fire trucks with the six inch watermain that currently exists, but he is certain there would be enough pressure for residents basic water needs. The City Planner stated that the City Engineer mentioned replacing the six inch with an eight inch pipe but this would only increase about one PSI in the total loop system in the development so this is basically no improvement. The City Planner lastly pointed out storm water issues from the City Engineer's report. The City Planner stated the location where the intakes are placed seem appropriate. He also stated there would not be a storm water pipe at the location. He stated Minnetrista should own and maintain the pond and Mound would have a portion of responsibility of maintaining the pond. There appears to be a number of governmental concerns that need to be worked out regarding storm water. The City Planner stated the Planning Commission approved the project based on staWs recommendations for approval based on 15 conditions as noted in previous minutes and it was a 4-3 vote. When the vote was passed there was not enough information regarding hardcover and residents had issues regarding density and storm water concerns. The City Planner stated staff is looking for a concept approval based upon the above-noted information. Councilmember Brown stated he has noted other members of the Planning Commission have reconsidered after seeing other information come forward. Councilmember Hanus asked if there would be a common drive for the three properties. The City Planner stated that is correct. Councilmember Brown referred to the R-1 property and the new houses. He stated one concern he sees is the sloping of about a six-foot drop. If a retaining wall needs to be added, what does that do to the variance from the property line. The City Planner stated the setback needs to be 30 feet and currently it is at 15 feet. The City Planner stated there does need to be some consideration regarding landscaping. Councilmember Hanus asked about grading. He suggested staying back 6 feet or so from the house, but that would make a 45-degree drop, at a minimum. He noted the water will flow quickly and that windows on the backside of house will be looking at a grass wall. Councilmember Weycker asked if Minnetrista is also required to do a rezoning. The City Planner stated the process that they are doing is not quite certain. This proposal does not meet Minnetrista's density requirements at the current time. Councilmember Weycker is concerned about spot zoning with this piece of property. Mayor Meisel also has concerns regarding spot zoning. 5 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 Councilmember Weycker stated she has great concern with water issues and water problems. She stated the scenario of Mound having no control and Minnetrista having the control, could lead to a tremendous problem. Councilmember Hanus asked what findings or reasoning justifies the variances on a non lot of record? Gordon stated that if the projectdidn't include the Minnetrista land, it would be dificult to find reasons for hardship on the requested variances. Because of the variances noted, the City Planner stated staff would not recommend approval of the variances. It appears though that shoreline management states the density is not an issue. Councilmember Brown stated the Council can no longer look at this development as a complete project. The Council needs to consider only the Mound portion and as he sees it, it will be very dense and there will be a lot of hardcover. Also because Mound and Minnetrista have water issues which cannot be resolved to date, Councilmember Brown is again concerned regarding this development. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:22 P.M. Mayor Meisel gave instructions to the public regarding the hearing process. Ken Evans, 6635 Bartlett Boulevard, stated that there are too many variables in this plan as he sees it to date. He is concerned about what will happen with residents. The agreement he signed as a resident of the trailer park states a notice of 9 months needs to be given to the residents and that timeframe and the developer's timeframe do not coincide. Mr. Evans also noted the relocation costs for him would be great and he would endure a financial burden if he moved. Jerry Mader, 6607 Bartlett Boulevard, stated he has a concern regarding the tri-plex location. He stated he has attended meetings previously and heard each unit would be priced in the $200,000 to $400,0000 range. He is concerned that no individual would pay that amount because there will be no great view from the windows. He also stated the lot sizes do not seem appropriate. Suzanne Claywell, Wilshire Boulevard, stated she is very concerned about the high density. Ms. Claywell stated a developer should not be allowed to jam this amount of density into the amount of property that is there. She also stated a great concern regarding the variances for hardcover. She strongly stated that the City of Mound needs to be more concerned about building the community as a whole. She would like to be proud when she tells individuals that she is a resident of Mound. Bill Meyer, 6601 Bartlett Boulevard, stated he has lived in Mound for 20 years near to the trailer park and has never had a problem with trailer park. He was sure that maybe this is a better alternative than the trailer park but, only if there was not the zoning issue at hand. His great concern was turning this property into R-3 which now borders with Minnetrista and farmland. He feels the lots will be too small. This property is now an R-1 lot for the trailer park and he has a concern of having it changed for this specific development. Mr. Meyer also feels there would be a parking issue for all of the new residents on this site. He stated it 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 appears that there would be no room to store or park bigger items, except inside the garage. With setbacks that are required in this area, the garage size would also need to be reduced. Mr. Meyer stated the property, as he sees it, would be too dense. He stated the first moving van will destroy the park. He strongly stated to turn it into an R-3 is wrong. Cklair Hasse, 6627 Bartlett Boulevard, stated he lives directly east of this project. Mr. Hasse stated he is a member of the Planning Commission and when the project was first talked about, he liked it, but he wanted the developer to not have to rezone the property and acquire all the variances that were noted. Mr. Hasse stated he is definitely against the rezoning of the property from an R-1 to an R-3. Terry Hughes, 6641 Halstead Avenue, stated he lives adjacent to proposed R-1 and is concerned about the storm water and drainage pipe. He noted that Mound is being asked to take all the responsibility for the water. Since that is the case, there will be maintenance issues in the future and overflowing issues that the City of Mound will have to deal with in the future if this project is developed. RI Johnson, 6655 Halstead Avenue, strongly urged a denial of this redevelopment. He stated he has spoken before at other Planning Commission meetings regarding this project. Dorothea Helmen, 6669 Halstead Avenue, stated she has attended other Planning Commission meetings in the past. She lives downstream from the development being proposed and is very concerned about the water that comes from the pipe when the "big flood" will occur. She stated she is a Mound citizen at the mercy of Minnetrista since they have ownership of the holding pond. Geoff Michael, 1713 Avocet Lane, stated he comes before the Council as a member of the Planning Commission and the Chair to be more specific. He stated he has chaired three meetings regarding this development project--one was a joint meeting held at Minnetrista and there were two others he chaired in Mound's Council chambers. He stated he had a momentary lapse of judgment regarding this development. He encouraged the Planning Commission to at least move the project on for City Council for review. After reviewing the project more thoroughly, he stated that with variances, the rezoning, the high density issues, even though his vote is on record to having voted "yes" for this project, he would today vote "no" if he had it to do over. Mr. Michael stated it does not make sense to rezone the property as it exists today. Frank Weiland, 6045 Aspen Road, stated he comes before the Council today as a Planning Commissioner and a citizen. Mr. Weiland noted after the information he has received from tonight's meeting and how the information that keeps being introduced changes the whole project--if it were possible to revote--his vote would be "no." Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. Councilmember Brown stated he would like to read Mr. Orr Burma's statement, who is also a member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Burma states the following in his letter: MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 "I regret that a conflict of schedules makes it necessary to write this letter rather than attend the Council meeting tonight. Please accept this input into your deliberations on the subject. This letter is in regards to my vote on the Planning Commission regarding the trailer park redevelopment case. I was the second to the motion to pass the item to the City Council with recommendations for approval. I have since had serious reservations. These reservations are density and spot zoning. Because of these and other considerations of somewhat lesser concern, if the vote were taken today, I would vote for denial of the proposal as presented." Councilmember Brown stated that he was the 4~ vote on the Planning Commission regarding this proposal. He stated that at the time he made a good faith effort to see this project through but now he has serious reservation regarding the density and spot zoning and because of these considerations, if the vote was taken today he would vote "no" and deny the project. Michael Gair addressed Council regarding his client, Ed Fofliti. He stated he is stunned regarding the Planning Commission's votes that were stated tonight. Mr. Gair stated he still supports his applicant, Remington Development, for the consideration of the development. Mr. Gait stated even though this is a multi-jurisdictional development, this project is possible as long as there is communication amongst all of those involved in the project. He stated the redevelopment they are proposing consists of 5.67 acres, which would include 22 new homes. Mr. Gair stated the site is a redevelopment and these types of projects require mutual commitment. Mr. Gair admitted these types of projects are expensive and complicated. This project started with two neighborhood meetings and evolved to twin- family home sites and single-family with attached garages according to what the people wanted. To date, there have been several staff meetings with both cities. Remington has met with the Planning Commission and the project was reviewed. They have met with the County highway department on site regarding the Highway 110 concern. The possibility of a corporate boundary was discussed previously which was not feasible and then Remington eliminated an attached unit from 16 down to 15 for density reasons. Mr. Gair stated the total number of lots would be 22, which is three less than previously platted. He indicated that according to planning staff, this development meets the shoreline management ordinance and the storm water plan. He stated the water supply is being resolved. He stated he felt confident that the water supply from Mound and from Minnetrista will fit with the timing for the development of the project. Mr. Gair stated the storm water planning mitigates the concerns of residents. The water currently comes from the north and drops south through some ditches and culverts and drains without an easement from private property down to the lake. This meets the requirements that it needed to be further refined, but currently it does work at this point. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 Mr. Gair stated the road improvements will include newly constructed roadways including an appropriate turnaround on the road to service the utility vehicles. There will also be a tax revenue increase as a result of this plan. He restated this would be a fine place to live and own a home. The site development will be completed in a single phase and home occupancy could begin in Mound in late winter/spring of the year 2000 Mr. Gair then addressed the issue of grading. He stated the homes that back up to the east boundary near the retaining wall by Highway 110 would have some nice landscaping made available by having a raised grade with a walkout. Mr. Gait secondly addressed the storm water ponding in the southwest corner. Mr. Gair stated the lowest portion of the pond rises up and then drops down to Halstead. An elongate on the basin could be a solution and then shrubs could be planted along the edge. This will provide screening around the ponding. Mr. Gair referred to the City Engineer's reports. He stated the developer will place a conversation easement to protect the bluff and the slopes which was a concern in the report. Mr. Gait mentioned the County approval is not quite completed but is almost to the point of general support for this type of roadway to get a permit. Mr. Gair addressed the hardcover issue and explained the calculation does include the upper drives, parking area, and the finger of asphalt which was a concern of Councilmember Brown. Mr. Gait stated that the variances are not unusual, R-3 is what is required, and this does not change an overly amount of density. He is confident in the PUD and the preliminary plat to date. He also stated he supports the project and feels it would be a great place to live and a source of pride. Councilmember Brown stated the problem by granting a 40 percent hardcover is setting precedent so the Council would have to grant a 40 percent hardcover for other developers who come in and want to do exactly what Remington is proposing. This he foresees as a problem that Mound should not have to encounter. Mayor Meisel stated that this is a public hearing and she would like to move forward with the rezoning issue at hand. The City Attorney stated that Mayor Meisel is correct in wanting to discuss the rezoning part of this project and if it is passed by the Council, the PDA issue can be considered and voted on. Mr. Gair stated the issues with hardcover and surface runoff is discussed in shoreline management and shoreline management stated the hardcover is appropriate. ~ Councilmember Hanus wanted to know who the target owners are for this site. Mr. Gair reviewed two markets. He stated there would be opportunity for an empty nester or retired person to live comfortably in the single-family homes. There of course would not be an age restriction and the developer would not prohibit having young families. 9 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 Councilmember Hanus asked what the price range for these homes would be. Mr. Fofliti stated the price for the twins would range from $175,000 to $275,000. The single-family homes would range from $250,000 and up. Mr. Fofliti stated there would be more hardcover in Mound after the homes are developed. Mr. Forliti assured the Council that the hardcover will go down in Mound and the water will be controlled. There was some discussion regarding the change in Mound and Minnetrista's corporate boundary. This process is fairly easy according to Mr. Gain but the possibility of this occurring at this point in the project would not be something to put much concentration on. Evidently it was related to the Council previously and it was not something the City of Mound was interested in pursuing. Discussion Mayor Meisel stated she would like comments regarding the rezoning issue at hand. The City Attorney stated the redevelopment is considered two-part. The underlining rezoning district is one part and the second part is the preliminary plat. The City Attorney stated that if the rezoning does not get approved then the preliminary plat, at this point, would not even need to be considered. Councilmember Hanus asked if an appropriate finding for denial would be based on the development proposal that was presented. The City Attorney stated it could be or based on the type of intensity in that type of district and zoning characteristics of the surrounding property. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to see the trailer park area cleaned up and redeveloped. He noted Mound has been hoping for something to come along for a long time. At this point, though, Councilmember Hanus does not agree with this specific project at hand. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Mayor Meisel, to direct staff to view statements and testimony received to draft a resolution for denial of the Conditional Use Permit to Allow for the Halstead Place Planned Development Area to Change the Current Use of an R-1 Mobile Home Park to an R-1 PDA and R-3 PDA Residential Development Located with the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney suggested a resolution be considered at the August 24th meeting which would deny the above-noted development and connect the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat in some fashion. 1.11 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO MEDIACOM LLC. 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 The Acting City Manager referred to the Agreement and stated that Exhibit D was inadvertently omitted which requires Mediacom LLC to provide a Corporate Guaranty as recx)mmended. The replacement pages should be included with the Resolution previously handed out before tonight's meeting. The Acting City Manager also stated the conditions of the recently approved Franchise Agreement will apply to the new owners as well. Hanus moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTON//99-73 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO MEDIACOM LLC. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 DISCUSSION ON CITY MANAGER REPLACEMENT. Mayor Meisel referred to the City Manager consultant packets that were handed out at the Committee of the Whole meeting. She stated she did receive a packet also from the search firm Chanhassen used to hire their City Manager which she presented tonight as well. Mayor Meisel stated she would like to call the search groups which are favored the most tonight to set up interviews. Councilmember Brown voted for Oldani as his first pick Slavin as his second; Councilmember Weycker voted for Mercer as her first choice and Ralph Anderson as her second. Weyck~r felt Sathe (the Chanhassen refexral) was expensive; Councilmember Hanus voted for*~s his first choice and c :~ . . !~r-~r as h~s second; Mayor Me~sel voted for Oldani as her first choice and Sathe as her second choice. Mayor Meisel commented that the City Manager at Chanhassen raved about the Sathy firm because they located him and he is very pleased working in Chanhassen to date. Councilmember Brown requested the Council interview Mercer, Oldani and Sathe (who is local) according to the voting above stated. Councilmember Hanus reiterated that the initial interview for all of the search companies is at the expense of the interviewee not the City of Mound. Mayor Meisel stated when interviewing, the Councilmembers should have five or six questions to score that would be most important to that member. Also, Mayor Meisel will find a common day with all of those participating in the interviews and for all three search groups, and thank those that sent in packets for participating. Mayor Meisel will work on setting up a date and time for interviewing the search firms, Mercer, Sathe. INFORMATION/ MISCELLANEOUS Director. July Finance Department Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1999 Notice from Sugar & Spice of a filming at Shirley Hills Primary School on August 23 & 24, 1999. o Letter from Hennepin County regarding the County Road 15 realignment. Mayor Meisel and the Assisting City Manager stated some concern regarding the additional costs that would be incurred if the County Road 15 realignment project were moved up on Hennepin County's schedule. Memo to Assisting City Manager from Bruce Chamberlain regarding post office relocation. Councilmember Brown commented that the streamlining of the variance procedure that the Planning Commission is enforcing. He foresees this to be a great assistance now and in the future to the City of Mound. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 10:06 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. Manager Francene C. Clark, Acting City Attest: Council Secretary 12 Aug-24-99 11:45A michael j leonard Mound City Council August 20, 1999 612 9345172 P.02 Request For Variance For Deck Replacement We would like to request that the City Council grant a variance for replacement of our present back yard deck. The outer corner of the deck exceeds setback guidelines by 2.6 feet on the southeast corner in relation to the east lot line. This is due to the fact that the house was originally built at a slight angle to the lot line. Granting this variance will allow us to replace the deck as it currently is, following the dimensions and angle of the house. The plans, as approved by the Planning Commission at their August 9th meeting, would be followed with the exception of the above requested variance. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, 4921 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-6491 Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Michael Mueller and Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretaries Carla Wirth and Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Ed Mader, Jenifer Mader, Nancy Rigelhof. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE# 99-31: VARIANCE; LOT WIDTH, SIDE YARD, REAR YARD AND DETACHED GARAGE FRONT YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DECK AT 4921 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE; BLOCK 14, LOT 16 AND BLOCK 21, LOT 1, DEVON; ED AND JENNIFER MADER, 37870 PID# 25-117-24 11 0124 Gordon presented the case. The applicant has submitted a request to remove an existing deck, Ceplacing it with a slightly larger lake side and side yard deck. The associated variance requests are listed below: Lot width Side yard (east) Side yard (west) Rear yard Detached garage Front yard - IVD Front yard - Windsor Existing/Pmposed Required Variance 39.7ff 40ff 0.3ff 3.6ff 6ff 2.4ff 1.4ff 6ff 4.6ff 25ff 50ff 25ff 14.2ff 20ff 5.8ff 6.2ff 8ff 1.8ff The lakeside portion of the deck will remain largely unchanged in its current dimensions. The addition is the sideyard deck that would act as a walkway from the front yard. Existing sideyard setback here is 5.4 feet, which would be reduced to 1.4 feet. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 The property consists of two parcels Lot 16 Block 14 of Devon and Lot 1 Block 21 of Devon. Lot 16 is a lakefront lot on Devon Common where the house is located. Lot 1 is the triangular parcel directly across Island View from the house where the garage is located. The two lots are combined as one parcel I.D. with Hennepin County. West of the house is a 15 feet fire land that provides access to Devon Common. The alley is not developed with any stairway or walking path and no utilities are present. The proposed deck would be located 50 feet from the 929.4 feet OHW, but the property has a 25 feet of rear yard which requires the variance. Total hardcover for the entire property is 35 percent under the 40 percent allowable for this lot of record. The lakeside deck replacement presents no issues to staff as it will maintain existing setbacks. The sideyard deck is an enlargement of the nonconforming structure and is much less than the accepted 4 feet setback threshold. Although the alley could be viewed as providing buffer space to the adjacent property, the policy has been to maintain setbacks when possible. Staff would suggest that the deck serves no real purpose in the sideyard and a walkway of stone or other materials would be a good substitute. This alternative would remove future setback issues. The Commission has allowed encroachments into sideyards when abutting fire lanes along Island View Drive. If the Commission can find there is evidence to allow the walkway a variance could be granted. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the variances requested except for the west sideyard which should maintain the existing 5.4 feet setback. Brown asked if the deck would be a raised deck and Gordon stated it would be a raised deck. Weiland stated if the Planning Commission does not allow the walk along the side, the applicants would have to make the steps from the deck going to the front from the deck down inside the deck line. Brown wanted to know where the steps currently are at this point. The applicant stated they are located on the lakeside. Brown also asked if the applicants put the addition on, would they eliminate the steps and allow more setback. Weiland stated the applicants would have to put steps back by the house and come down with the steps. Brown stated the steps would be going towards the alley with steps off the side of the deck. With regard to the existing deck, the applicant would construct new steps and go left toward the fire lane and replace steps by the front. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 Weiland stated the steps would go from the northwest corner and down of the deck causing them to come down from the inside edge. The applicant stated the steps come 49 feet to the water's edge. The applicant would like it to be 51 feet from the water's edge. Brown asked the question of eliminating the variance with the new proposal and Gordon stated the new proposal would eliminate the variance. Gordon stated staff would like to see the steps not in the side yard, but in another location. Brown offered a proposal for the steps and the deck. He suggested still having the walkway, but having the steps going in two directions. The applicant stated they would like to keep the larger deck and allow the steps to go to the front of the house also. Sutherland stated there is precedent which granted a variance but not a walkway for a case where they built a walkway anyway and now the City needs to enforce issues Which resulted from this. Sutherland would rather have an encroachment into the lakeshore setback than the side setback. Sutherland offered a suggestion to have the stairs tucked into the deck. The applicant stated the stairs are tucked under deck currently, but there is no exit to the front of house. It was noted that the 15-foot alleyway can not be considered for change because it is needed for the fire trucks to enter and exist when needed. Glister stated past decks have been taken down because of not following Code. Burma stated his agreement to have the steps come towards the front as well to allow more deck in the long run. Brown offered another proposal and asked if it is possible to have duel steps. Instead of having the deck along side the house, since it widens out where deck is currently, just put steps right there and not have the whole walkway. Steps going under the deck from the front of the house or down and then have the outside steps. Gordon stated this is a possibility. Weiland wanted to know what the hardcover is presently. Gordon stated the whole parcel is just under 35 percent, the garage is 28 percent and the house is 42 percent. Brown offered another proposal. He suggested at the front of the deck having an exit come out and then go back toward the street with steps going down along side the deck Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 so there would be 12 feet of steps going backwards. The applicant would come off the deck in the front, walk down and turn around and go to the edge of the steps and back to the lake or keep going straight ahead. This would give the applicant full use of the deck and it would minimize the amount of steps needed. This proposal would also give access to front of house and then have an exit out of the back to the lakeside. Lastly, it would also eliminate a variance and there would be less encroachment. (Plan A). The applicant agreed with Plan A and felt this would be workable. Sutherland offered another proposal. It would be a deck of 11 feet by 26.5 feet. The proposal would recommend an encroachment into the one side. (Plan B). The applicant stated either Plan A or Plan B would be agreeable to him. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Chair Michael, to accept either Plan A or Plan B to be worked out with staff and the applicant prior to the Council meeting on August 24, 199. Discussion: Staff stated they would be agreeable with the full deck and tuck the stairway in on either side with the exception of the minor encroachment, if needed, at the bottom. Burma stated that either Plan would not include stairs on the lake side of the property. Sutherland recommended the applicant decide tonight which plan would be more appropriate to him. The applicant stated he would like Plan B with a maximum three-foot encroachment at the bottom of the deck. This would exclude the side walkway. Chair Michael stated that the addition would be nonconforming with Plan B. Sutherland stated Plan B would allow for no variances. AMENDED MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss, to accept the new deck as per Plan B proposed by Sutherland for an 11 foot wide deck with a stairway enclosed going toward the fire lane with a curvature to remain within the 50 foot setback to the lake. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Voss, to make it conforming by removing 2 foot 6 inches from the east side toward the timber retaining wall allowing it to be a six-foot conforming side setback. MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED: 7-0. 4 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 9, 1999 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Edward and Jenifer Mader CASE NUMBER: 99-31 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5 LOCATION: 4921 Island View Drive ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to remove an existing deck, replacing it with a slightly larger lake side and side yard deck. The associated variance requests are listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lot width 39.7 ft 40 fi 0.3 fi Side yard (east) 3.6 ft 6 fi 2.4 fi Side yard (west) 1.4 fi 6 ft 4.6 ft Rear yard 25 fi 50 ft 25 fi Detached garage Front Yard - IVD 14.2 ft 20 ft 5.8 fi Front Yard- Windsor 6.2 ft 8 ft 1.8 fi The lakeside portion of the deck will remain largely unchanged in its current dimensions. The addition is the sideyard deck that would act as a walkway from the front yard. Existing sideyard setback here is 5.4 feet which would be reduced to 1.4 feet. The property consists of two parcels Lot 16 Block 14 of Devon and Lot 1 Block 21 of Devon. Lot 16 is lakefront lot on Devon Common where the house is located. Lot 1 is the triangular parcel directly across Island View from the house where the garage is located. The two lots are combined as one parcel I.D. with Hennepin County. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99 - 31 Mader Variance Request August 9, 1999 West of the house is a 15 feet fire lane that provides access to Devon Common. The alley is not developed with any stairway or walking path and no utilities are present. The proposed deck would be located 50 feet from the 929.4 feet OHW, but the property has a 25 feet of rear yard which requires the variance. Total hardcover for the entire property is 35% under the 40% allowable for this lot of record. COMMENTS: The lakeside deck replacement presents no issues to staff as it will maintain existing setbacks. The sideyard deck is an enlargement of the nonconforming structure and is much less than the accepted 4 feet setback threshold. Although the alley could be viewed as providing buffer space to the adjacent property, the policy has been to maintain setbacks when possible. Staff would suggest that the deck serves no real purpose in the sideyard and a walkway of stone or other materials would be a good substitute. This alternative would remove future setback issues. The Commission has allowed encroachments into sideyards when abutting fire lanes along Island View Drive. If the Commission can find there is evidence to allow this walkway a variance could be granted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the variances requested except for the west sideyard which should maintain the existing 5.4 feet setback. 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 PAID 1999 CITY OF MOUND Application Fee: $1 OO.OO (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: -'~-~_~-~1~) ~/City Planner -~ -cg.'~-r-~ v' City Engineer ~-,"~,~-Oi~ ,/Public Works '"~-O~x~ ~ V~DNR Other Case No. qq "31 SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER Address i-4 Lot ~ Block I ~~ Subdivision ~O~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 Name ~ Address Phone (H)~t~-qW~-~N~I (W)QCu. ~-3Z5~ (M) B-3 APPLICANT Name J~'e-I ~C~r ¢ ~ (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) OWNER) (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. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): dec~ Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. qq -'~l .. Do the existing structures comply with ail 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 E W ) '~ () ft. ') ~. cJ ft. '-' ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) t ~ ft. .c; .~ ft. , t~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) I~ ft. '~. I~ ft. "b. ~ ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) -- ft. -- ft. ..- ft. Lakeside: ( N (~)E W ) S ~ ft. 50 ft. ---- ft. : (N SEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~ 0 ft. ~q.'l ft. 0 '~ ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ~ too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil C~) too small ( ) drainage (~ existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 6-16-99) 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 ~s the relocation of a road? Yes (), No'~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? · 'JO ocK 9. Comments: ~C 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. Applicant's Signature Date Date ~/~/~.~ (Rev. 6-16-99) 71-197 7-6-71 RESOLUTION NO. 71-197 RESOLUTION 'GRANTING VARIANCE (Lot l, 'Block 21, Devon) W~REAS, permission was g~anted by the Village Council~ on April l~, 1~71 to build a garage on Lot 1, Block 21, Devon, and WME~REAS, it is now known that the Village has a 20-fo0t easement ~or u~ilities over the south 20 feet of Lot l, Block 21, Devon, N0~, TKEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MI~ES 0TA: That since a ~rdship is created by the Village's easement over Lot l, Block 21, Devon, the owner thereof will be authorized a variance to construct a garage on Lot l',"~iock'21, Devon 'provided that the garage be built no closer than six feet from the north lot line and that all other stipulations provided in Resolution No. 71-107 be complied with. '- .0' ARq BE IT FURTHER STIPULATED: T?~t the garage shall be parallel with W~ndsor Place, and that the' southwesterly corner of the garage shall be no Oloser than 12 feet from Island View Drive. /' Adopted~by the Council this 6th day of July, 1971. 71-1o7 4-.].,~-7.]. RES0LUTIO~ ]{0. 71-107 RES OLIFf ION OHAHTINO FRONT AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES (Lot 1, Block 21, Devon) WHEREAS, the owner of Lot 1, Block 21, Devon has made application for :-~- variances in order tc place & garage en hie lot, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that variances be made, NOW, THEREF0~., BE IT RESOLVED BY Tm~, ¥ILLA~E ¢0UI~¢IL OF MOUI~ MOUND~ MI]~NESOTA ~ That variances be made so the garage will be not less than 10~ feet from Windsor Road and not less than 8 feet from IslAnd View Drive with the following stipulationel 1. The garage doors to open to the East 2. No further expansion ef the garage to be allowed~. 3. A covenant be written to legally make this lot &. part of Let 16, Block 14, and that the deed be filed. Adopted by the Council this 1}th day ef April, 1971. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SITE Subject Address Business Name/Tennant The applicant is: LEGAL Lot / / D DESCRIPTION Subdivision CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 47:2-0600 Fax: 47;2-0620 Block I 4 Plat , PlO8 OWNER Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT &/OR ENGINEER Company Name Contact Person ~ (/~ ;~ F~ C f~ ~, ~, . ~'~ C, 0 ~ ( Address Phone {H) (W} (M) License # CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: VALUATION WO.K: 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. TIM E LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAIN ED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTERIORS OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) 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 OI= 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 PERMITTEE 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 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 W1LL I~E 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, PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME A~MCANT'S SIGNATURE /////////////////////////////////////////////i///i//////////////////////////// {OF FICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP/OIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED APPROVED BLDG SIZE (SO FT) # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED) # UNITS YES / NO RE~E,VE~,I",?,,TE:. i:. ~i:~'"S ~:,E0~ED B"i :. ::i' ::: ::: : ~A~:~OVE':;i"~iDA~".. ZONING CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ASSESSING CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X -40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SO FT HOUSE X = ~/( Z, L~ X = X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER 54~,p$ TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = x = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x = ~-1 t x : %'5 x : I~IL~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. x : '~ X X = TOTAL DECK .......................... x X TOT_AL OTHER ................. TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... ~'LH PREPARED BY DATE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ SOLD TO I-- < m :33 Z Z ..~ 3 .< 0 C 0 m <.~-o Zoo NO , 0 0 (D 0 Z ::::::::::::::::::::: :i:~:i:i:i:~: !:i:i:i:i:i:i "0 Z The Home Depot #2805 400 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 (612) 881-7020 ThuJul08 21:51:30 1999 Materials for Deck: Qty UOM SKU Use Description 100 EA 334697 Baluster 6 EA 796279 Beam 54 EA 167136 Decking 6 EA 731867 H Bottom Rail 7 EA 167055 H Top Rail 5 EA 160971 Joist 23 EA 160713 Joist 1 EA 160646 Ledger 2 EA 160971 Ledger 4 EA Spec. Order 1 Post 6 EA 264784 Railing Post 7 EA 731867 V Top Rail 23 EA 864870 2x8 Joist Hanger 4 EA 164471 6x6 Post Bracket 1 BX 735002 Baluster Screw 8 EA 544208 Beam Bolts 8 EA 538892 Beam Nut 8 EA 538981 Beam Washers 16 EA 929514 Concrete for Pier I 3 BX 735003 Deck Screws 2 EA 462810 Hanger Nails 5 EA 228931 Joist Nails 50 EA 461938 Joist on top of Bea 3 EA 307640 Ledger Board Flashi 29 EA 928585 Ledger Bolt 29 EA 538981 Ledger Bolt Washer 22 EA 927708 Rail Post Bolts 22 EA 538892 Rail Post Nuts 22 EA 538981 Rail Post Washers 2x2x42" B1E Cedar Baluster 2x12x10 Pressure Treated Y/P #2 5/4x6x12 Std Cedar Decking 2x4x8 WR Cedar #2 Btr 5/4x6x8 Std Cedar Decking 2x8x12 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 2xSx10 Pressure Treated Y/P #2 2x8x8 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 2x8x12 Pressure Treated Y/P #2 6x6x8 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2 4x4x8 Std/Btr S4SWRCedar 2x4x8 WR Cedar #2 Btr 2x8 Joist Hanger LUS28 6x6 Adjustable Post Base ABA66 2 1/2" Grn Deckmate Screw 5lb Box Carridge Bolt Galv 1/2"x 8" Hex Nut Galv 1/2" Flat Cut Washer Galv 1/2" 60lb Quikrete Concrete Mix 3" Grn Deckmate Screw 5lb Box 10D Joist Hanger Nails N10D 16d Gal Spiral PTL Nails lib box Hurricane Tie H-1 Rafter/Truss 61Nx10FT Aluminum Flashing Lag Screw Galv 1/2" x 5" Flat Cut Washer Galv 1/2" Carridge Bolt Galv 1/2"x 6" Hex Nut Galv 1/2" Flat Cut Washer Galv 1/2" Materials Cost of Deck: $1684.57, plus sales tax This Price does not include any Special Order Items. Please see Store Associate to adjust the design or to price and order items. Price Valid Today, 7/8/1999 This Estimate Guaranteed for 3 day(s) Parameters from UBC.cod parameter file. Parameters used for Deck 1:60 psf live Icad, 48 inch footing depth. File saved as: f:\dn\decks\70803322.DEK Warning: This is not a final design plan. Variations in building codes, specific architectural considerations, or site conditions may require changes to this design. You are responsible for the final structure, code verification, material usage, and structural safety of this design. Be sure to check and verify the design with your local architect and building inspector. The Company assumes absolutely no responsibility for the correct use of this program. All output should be examined bya qualified professional to determine if they are reasonable and accurate. 565 The Home Depot //2805, 400 W 79TH ST, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420, (612) 881-7020 Thu Jul 08 21:51:45 1999 File saved as: f:\dn\decks\70803322.DEK Construction Specifications Deck 1: Construction Method = Beam to Side of Post Footing Type = Pier In-Ground Live Load = 60 Dead Load = 10 Decking Spacing = 0.125 in Joist Spacing = 16in Beam Spacing = 96 in Post Spacing = 106in Decking = 5/4X6 Untreated Western Cedars Standard Beams = 2X12 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2 Joists = 2X8 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2 Posts = 6X6 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2 Deck Height = 96 in Diagonal Bracing = No Deck Skirt = No Joist Overhang = 12 in Beam Overhang = 12in Decking Deflection Factor = 360 Joist Deflection Factor = 360 Beam Deflection Factor = 360 Pref Decking Size = Pref Joist Size -- none Pref Beam Size = none Pref Post Size = none Railing 1: Railing Height = 36 in Baluster Spacing = 3.75 in Post Spacing -- 96 in Toe Space = 3.75 in Railing 2: Railing Height -- 36 in Baluster Spacing = 3.75 in Post Spacing = 96 in Toe Space = 3.75 in Railing 3: Railing Height = 36 in Baluster Spacing = 3.75 in Post Spacing = 96 in Toe Space = 3.75 in \ \ \, 990507 25/I 17/24 MADER, JENNIFER ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEE NG CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 survey Fo : JENNIFER'MADER SURVEYED: June, 1999 DRAFTED: June 4, 1999 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 16, Block 14 and Lot 1, Block 21, *Devon", Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope ofou~ services does no_~t include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "e" Denotes I/2" 1D pipe with plastic plug beating State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer and a Professional SurveYor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. .Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 HARDCOVER ..TABU LATION. LOT_'I.6. :CONCRETE ........ [6 SO.:F'r[: :CONCRETE'. ' : .: ' ' 405 SO, TOTAL :EXI$'I]HG: HARDCOVER' 7 1 ;6.36: SO: F T::; TOTAE: EXISTING; HAROOOVER ' " 1 ;I 29SO: ~ FT. :TOTAL ;LOT..AREA ..... 3,922 SQ- :FT. 5 ~ TOTAL: LOT: AREA 4.0.30 SO. ~ FT.; FIND~qOR PZAC£ N89'49'58"E 109.90 I LAND AREA 4,030 SQ. FT. .. GRAPHIC SCALE (m~) inch = 20 ft. coOO°o THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: '. SURVEY ON FILE? YES ~ REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT WIDTH: ~0 ~' + REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W 1~."~,,,3 · FRONT: N S E,~ SIDE: N S E IWl I0 · SIDE: ",~' REAR: N (.~-E W.~5:)15' LAKESHORET {50')(measured from O.H.W.) ,_E: REQ. LOT AREA: ~ LOT AREA: I A &, CrCr-O so ,T "7, "7'(=,~ ¥- SQ FT LOT OF RECORD? (~ NO / ? EXISTING LOT DEPTH: i~)(~ / Jr/- ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W ~C) ! FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE % FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E VV SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/S~--IF~ ~'~lfl(.~. FRONT:/~N) S E W ~o' ,3~ ~,~lJ-~l/ FRONT:~S~E W ~ -- SIDE: N ~E W ~ SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E~ ~ LAKESHORE: -117. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMM-UNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 2000 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statues Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local Housing Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing Account is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted Sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipal that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 2000, a metropolitan area municipality that participated in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 1999, can continue to participate under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if, (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program, by November 15, 1999; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Mound hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 2000. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember. Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 6, 1999 City Managers and Administrators Thomas C. McElveen, Director of Housing and Redevelopment Certification of 1999 ALHOA Thank you for your participation in the 1999 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) Local Housing Initiative Program. Your community's commitment and involvement has contributed to the region's overall economic competitiveness and its tangible progress in providing affordable and life-cycle housing for metro area residents. Looking ahead to 2000, the Metropolitan Council seeks your community's renewed participation and continued cooperation in Livable Communities efforts. As part of the LCA legislation, the Council annually notifies each community of its "Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA)". The ALHOA is derived from the formula prescribed in law including market value, tax capacity and tax rates by the county assessor. It is an amount of local expenditure to support or assist the development of affordable and life-cycle housing or maintain and preserve such housing. The enclosed ALHOA is the amount of local expenditure expected of the community during 2000. Communities have some flexibility in determining which local expenditures fulfill the ALHOA contribution. Examples include local dollars contributed to housing assistance, development or rehabilitation efforts, local housing inspection and code enforcement, or local taxes to support a local or county I-IRA. Incentives for your community's renewed participation include access to nearly $15 million for housing development, clean-up of polluted sites for business and housing development, and mixed-use and mixed-income development. Also, your community's ALHOA expenditure will be reported in the Council's Annual Housing Report Card required by the LCA. Your community's intent to participate in the 2000 LCA Local Housing Incentives Program is needed by Nov. 15. To help you in verifying your community's continued participation, a model resolution is enclosed. Planning assistance for staff or information presentations for elected officials are available by contacting your sector representative (see below). Questions about the ALHOA can be referred to Guy Peterson at 651/602-1418. We look forward to continuing our mutual commitment to affordable and life-cycle housing. Thank you for your consideration. Sector Representatives: Anoka and Ramsey Counties Dakota and Washington Counties Hennepin County Minneapolis and St. Paul Carver and Scott Counties Sandra Pinel Patrick Peters Tom Caswell Liz VanZomeren Carl Schenk 651-602-1513 651-602-1617 651-602-1319 651-602-1060 651/602-1410 V:kLlBRARY~COMMUNDV~EITal~OI~I999~JJtOA lit I~ new pan99.doe 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (651} 602-1000 Fax 602-1550 ~ ~ ~ An Equ~ Opp°riunlty Emol°yer TDDflTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888 EXPLANATION OF AFFORDABLE LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE YEAR 1999 TO BE EXPENDED IN 2000 Simply stated, here's how we determined you community's ALHOA for 1999 that is to be expended in 2000. First, we determined the average market value of your city's houses in 1995, doubled it to arrive at a base value. We then found all of the 1995 high priced houses that were above this base amount and subtracted the base value from each of those high priced houses to arrive at an excess value number for each house. Next we added up all of those high priced house's excess values to arrive at the total base year excess number. This 1995 number doesn't change. We did the same for the current year, this time using the current market values for the houses and the current base value using the Consumer Price Index change according to the requirements of the legislation. If the current year's excess is bigger than the 1995 excess, we subtracted the 1995 excess from the current year's total excess to arrive at the Growth in Excess. We multiplied that Growth in Excess times your city's tax rate. This is the Affordable and Life Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount for this year. This means that if there is no growth in the total excess from 1995, then there is no Opportunities amount. Definitions: HOMESTEAD A homestead is defined as property regularly "homesteaded'' by its owners. For farm homes, it represents the assessment of the farm house, a garage and one acre of land only. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) The Consumer Price Index measures the inflation factor in the U.S. economy. The Department of the Interior publishes this rate monthly along with a yearly average. For this program, the yearly average CPI is used. To ensure that this base value does not lose its meaning in future years the base value is increased by the CPI each year. This increased value approximately represents the effect of inflation on the market value of houses in your city. By changing the base value every year, the houses that were not included in the first base year calculation should not be included in future years just because the market value has increased due to inflation. Refer to attached sample city printout for assistance Column A Anytown This is the name of your city Column B--2500,000 This is the 1998 value used for identifying homesteads in your city that were above this hurdle number. This hurdle number was the result of multiplying the base value (see above for the definition of the base value) times the CPI change from 1995 to 1998. Column C 255,736 This is the 1999 value used for identifying homesteads in your city that were above this hurdle number. It is exactly like Column B, except the CPI change is now from 1995 to 1999. Column D .. 200,000 This is the 1995 sum of all houses having values above the base value. It represents only those houses that were above the base value, and reflects only the amount left over after subtracting the base value from each house valuation. For example: If a high priced house had a value of $ 240,000 and the base value for the city was $ 235,000, then that. high priced house had an excess of 5,000 (240,000 -235,000 = 5,000). This original amount does not change. This original figure is used as the basis to determine if you city has had any growth in high priced homes since 1995. Column E 250,000 This is the 1999 sum of the~high priced homes having values above the current hurdle rate found in Column C. Like Column D, it represents only the excess amounts not the entire home value. Column F 50,000 Quite simply this is Column F minus Column E. If your city has added higher priced homes since 1995 you should have a balance in this column. If you city has not seen an increase in the higher priced homes since 1995 there should be no balance in this column. There is no negative balance in this column. All negative values become zero. This number is the basis for all subsequent calculations on this form. Column G 125,000.00 This number is your increased growth in higher priced homes (Column F) multiplied by you city's local tax rate (Column K). It represents the extra property, taxes received by your city on the higher priced homes identified in Column E. Column H 230,000 This number is the total of all homestead property tax capacity (not market value of the properties) in your city times 4o/o. The number is calculated and supplied by your County Auditor. Why 4%7 Since all higher priced homes will have a value above $72,000, then their tax capacity would be at 2%. However, since the program doubles the market value to arrive at the base value, then the tax capacity on the homestead tax capacity should also be doubled or 4% (2% x 2 = 4%). Column I 57,500.00 This number is the result of multiplying the 4% Homestead Tax Capacity (Column It) times your city's local tax rate (Column K). Column J . 12,500.00 This column is the lower of Column G or Column I. Simply stated it represents the calculated extra property taxes your city receives from these higher priced houses. In some cases these extra property taxes may be the 4% Homestead Tax Capacity number (Column J) rather than the Excess Growth number (Column G). In those instances, the growth of high priced homes is faster that 4% of the net tax capacity for the city. Column K 25.000 % This is your city's local tax rate for 1999 as certified by your County Auditor. Column L.. 12,500.00 This is the same as Column Opportunities Amount for 1999. J. It represents the Affordable Life-Cycle Housing Column M 125 This is the actual number of higher priced homes that had values above the t998 hurdle rate. ColumnN 150 This is the actual number of higher priced homes that had values above the hurdle rate for 1999. Column O 20.00% This is the increase in higher price homes from 1998 to 1999. For information only. I© PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 99- RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION #91-41, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE, LOCATED AT 4757 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 11, BLOCK 7, DEVON ADDITION, PID # 30-117-23 22 0059 P&Z CASES # 91-002 WHEREAS, property owners, Tom and Sandi Effertz, have requested the approved Resolution//91-41 be removed from their property; and, WHEREAS, at the time the garage was proposed, garage size was limited to a maximum of 840 square feet or 10% of the lot area. Structures in excess of this requirement were regulated by a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has since adopted new regulations for garages that would allow a 1200 square feet garage on the property as a permitted accessory use; and, WHEREAS, Resolution g91-41 has no applicability based on the current regulations; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby repeal Resolution//91-41 for the following described property: 4757 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 11, BLOCK 7, DEVON ADDITION, PID # 30-117-23 22 0059 2. The use that was allowed by said resolution is hereby acknowledged to be a lawful permitted use for which a conditional use permit is no longer required. 3. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound City Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 20, 1999 SUBJECT: 4757 Island View Drive Resolution The attached resolution was prepared to repeal Resolution 91-41 which is a conditional use permit for a garage that was larger that was permitted. The code has since been amended and now allows the garage as an outright permitted accessory use. The owners have requested the Resolution be removed to clean up the property's title. Approval of the attached Resolution is needed from Council for this to occur. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 56 March 26, 1991 RESOLUTION #91-41 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVERSIZED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 475? ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 11, BLOCK ?, DEVON ADDITION, PID %30-117-23-22 0059 P & Z CASE %91-002 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March, 12, 1991 pursuant to the Mound Code of Ordinances to con- sider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construc- tion of an oversized accessory building at 4757 Island View Drive, Block 7, Lot 11, Devon, PID #30-117-23 22 0059; and WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to construct a 32' x 34' garage addition resulting in a 1,088 square foot structure of accessory use; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District and has a lot area of 7,479 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Mound Zoning Code allows accessory struc- tures in residential districts, subject to issuance of a condi- tional use permit, that exceed 840 square feet of floor area or 10% of the lot area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval due to the findings that no variances are required, this type of construction is consistent with the neighborhood, and the structure will be improved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized accessory building is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The garage space is to be used by the occupant only. 2. The garage be a maximum of 840 square feet. The garage addition conform to all the required set- backs. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the follow- ing legally described property: 57 March 26, 1991 Lot 11, Block 7, Devon. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorded or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statues section 462.3595, Subd. 4. This shall be considered as a restriction on how this property may be used. Se The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. Proof of recording shall be filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Ma~or I ~ ' ~ Attest: City Clerk SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION- PORTABLE SIGN 40'6' City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. I ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION 2385 Commerce Blvd (see attached) Of more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper) NAME OF APPLICANT Our Lady of the Lake Church PHONE 472-1284 APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 2385 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN NUMBER OF SIGNS: TYPE OF SIGN: SIZE OF SIGN: DATES OF USE: banner temporary feet high x DE$CRIBE REASON/PURPOSEFORREQUEST: "The Incredible Festival" TO wall mount ~lO~free standing permanent ~ feet wide = /~ s~are feet to advertise annual church festival DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.): one 'over-street' banner (if we find it), 5 free-standing wooden A-frame signs August 13, 1999 tur~ Date ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: LOCATIONS OF A FPJUWiE SIGNS: -by Depot -by Super America -by Crow River Bank -by vacant lot across from PDQ -by OLL over-street sign: -across #110 by Highland The sign will be held up by a crane, owned by Bernie Hanson of Rocket Crane Service. The crane is mounted on a truck (about the size of a garbage truck), and the boom can be raised anywhere from a 30 foot minimum, to 110 feet. The truck will be positioned in an enclosed area, by the pastor's garage. The only access is from the street. The truck will be locked, and will be secure. If bad weather - high winds or storms- appear, the boom will be lowered. We would like the truck here to advertise to passer-by's that a carnival is going on in the back of our property. It will be put up on Friday, Sept. 11th, and taken down on Sunday, Sept. 13th. If there are any questions about the crane, Mr. Hanson would be glad to answer them. I could answer any other questions you may have. Rhonda Eurich Administrator Our Lady of the Lake Church 472-1284 August 24, 1999 RESOLUTION #99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DENYING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, FOR ~ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, YARD SPACE, HARDCOVER AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR HALSTEAD PLACE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a single family development called Halstead Place in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary plat, the planned development area, and the variances, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement and location of the street, their relation to topography, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls, and WHEREAS, the city Council, on August 10, 1999, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval, of the Halstead Place Subdivision located on property described as follows: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Halstead Heights, PID 19-177-24 43 0007 WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development Areas "to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and controlled platting technique to protect and promote the quality of life in the City", and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 2 acres of land area for Planned Development Areas. The net site area of Halstead Place is 1.6 acres necessitating a variance of .4 acres in order to process the request as a PDA, and WHEREAS, the development is located in the R-1 Zoning District and the applicant is requesting rezoning to R-1 and R-3 PDA districts. The R-1 District requires, a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. lot area, a minimum lot width of 60', a front yard setback of 30', side yard setbacks of, 10', a 15' rear yard setback and a 50' setback to the lakeshore and a minimum building floor area requirement of 840 square feet. The R-3 District requires a minimum of 5000 sq. ft. lot area for 3 unit structures and 7000 sq. ft. for twinhomes, a minimum lot width of 40', a front yard setback of 30' for twinhomes and 20' for 3 unit structures, sideyard setbacks of O' and 10', rear yard setbacks of 15' and a 50' setback August 24, 1999 presented, the Council is unable to conclude that any of the circumstances exists in this case. 5. Section 350:525 of the City Code sets forth the findings, all of which must be made in order to grant a, conditional use permit. Based on the record before it, the Council is unable to make the findings contained in paragraphs A, B, C, and D. Co FINDINGS: Preliminary Plat. The proposed preliminary plat is found to be unacceptable for the following reasons: 1. The roadway adjacent to the attached townhomes is not platted as an outlot for public street dedication. 2. The land underlying the access easement adjacent to lots 6,7, and 8 is not platted as fee title property. 3. Halstead Place would require a 15 foot variance for right-of- way and a 4 foot pavement width variance. The cul-de-sac would require a 15-foot right of way radius variance and a 5 feet variance for pavement width. Such extensive departures from acceptable roadway design are not warranted, and could potentially compromise public safety. 4. Lots 6,7 and 8 have no public street frontage. Lots 2 proposes 65% of the required street frontage and lots 3-5 propose 60% of the required street frontage. 5. The stormwater facility serving the development would be located outside the corporate limits of Mound, and. effective control would thereby be limited. D. RELA?IONS~IP OF ACTIONS: In addition to the findings described above, the various approvals which have been requested are interrelated to the degree that a determination not to approve either the plat or the rezoning would, in reality, render unnecessary further consideration of all of the remaining requests. Likewise, a determination that denying the requested variances would render moot further consideration of the preliminary plat or the conditional use permit to the extent that either relied on the grant of the variances. Finally, a denial of the conditional use permit would render moot consideration of all the variances which were not related to the preliminary plat. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember d seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: August 24, 1999 to the lakeshore, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has voted 4 to 3 for approval of the plan at its July 26, 1999, meeting, but members of the Planning Commission appeared at the August 10th City council meeting and voiced overwhelming opposition to the granting of the application with various members expressing their reasons for reversal of their position. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: A. DECISION: The request to rezone the property to a Planned Development Area is hereby DENIED. 2. The requested variances are hereby DENIED The request for a Conditional Use Permit for the Planned ' Development Area is hereby DENIED 4. The requested Preliminary Plat is hereby DENIED. B. FINDINGS: Zoning, Condltional Use Permit, Variances 1. The PDA rezoning, the conditional use permit and the variances all present similar land use issues. The essential issues present in each is whether the intensity of the land use is appropriate for a residential PDA; and especially for this site. in order for the proposed development to qualify for PDA treatment fully 35 variances are required. Included among the necessary variances is a variance to reduce by 20% the required PDA site area. Every variance is intended to serve the purpose of intensifying the development; and massing more structures on the site than would be allowed as a matter of right. While the purpose of the PDA process is to allow flexibility in site development, the number and extent of the requested departures would, if granted, amount to an abandonment of the regulations. 2. The properties which surround the subject site are all zoned for far less intensive uses. The proposed development would not be compatible with those surrounding uses. 3. In addition to the concerns expressed in finding 1, the impervious cover requirements for a PDA were met only if land lying outside the City of Mound were considered. If only the portion of the site located in Mound is considered, the impervious cover is 10% greater than the coverage allowed under the regulations. Because Mound has no control over the future development of the lands lying outside of its corporate limits, inclusion of those lands for coverage calculations is not appropriate. 4. Section 350:530 of the City Code sets forth the circumstances, all of which must be found to exist in order for a variance to be granted. Based upon the material BILLS AUGUST 24, 1999 Batch 9080 239,086.01 TOTAL BILLS $ 239,086.01 Jo z Z (2) c .o ~. -', ~ ~ o o ,=, o io ,,~ !,-, i,-, ~ ° ° ~ ° ° ~ I~ ~° Z 0 a. lo / / / Z ,,,$ ~..~ I ZZ Z / ac) g -,' g -, g - ..,. ., ..,. g ~ ~ g g .-, 0 I~ I'~ P~ ~, oO Z o ~ ~,~ ~ ,4' ~ ~,~ ~,~ 0 ~ o ~"~ Z . ," '", ~.~, ~ ~ ~ .~. ,,'3 ~ ,~. ' .. -~ ", L Z J o Il, ii I II I I '1 I Z 0 0 , < O, 0 ~J U i. I I I I !1 I I ! I / I I I [I I I in' io Z 0 o ..J ...J 0 Z I Z .... 44 '' ' j; j 4' 4 Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° .J Z Z Z Z -~ O, _.1 0 Z Lid r-', f > C, C 0 0 ~ 0 0 "', ' ': PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 99- RESOLUTION DENYING A PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 5308 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD, LAFAYETTE PARK, PART OF LOT 22, PID # 13-117-24 21 0041 P & Z CASE # 99-26 WHEREAS, the applicant, Nancy Rigelhof, has applied for a variance to build a detached garage 2.3 feet from the side yard property line and 38 feet from the Ordinary High Water line (OHW) requiring variance of 1.7 feet and 12 feet respectively; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 feet front yard, 6 feet side yard setbacks, and a 50 feet lake side setbacks; and, WHEREAS, current site conditions include a single family residence and a detached garage. The detached garage would be removed and replaced as proposed; and, WHEREAS, the property has a large amount of available area where a conforming garage could be built; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the variance request and recommended denial as recommended by staff} and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of. Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby deny the variance request for a detached garage as stated above. 2. The variance is denied for the following described property: 5308 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD, LAFAYETTE PARK, PART OF LOT 22, PID # 13-117-24 21 0041 3. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Michael Mueller and Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretaries Carla Wirth and Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Ed Mader, Jenifer Mader, Nancy Rigelhof. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE# 99-26: VARIANCE; GARAGE SIDE YARD & LAKESIDE SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION ONTO THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE WITH ATTIC SPACE ABOVE AT 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD; PART OF LOT 22, LAFAYETTE PARK, NANCY RIGELHOF, 61690 PID# 13-117-24 21 0041. Gordon presented the case. The applicant has submitted a request to replace an 18 feet by 20 feet detached garage with a larger 18 feet by 32 feet structure. The associated variance request is listed below. Garage Side Yard Garage Lakeside OHW Existing/Proposed Required Variance 2.3ft 6ft 1.7ft 38 ff 5O ff 12 ff The proposed garage would use the existing foundation with new structure added to the front. Existing side and lakeside setbacks would be maintained, the front of the garage would be setback 58 feet as proposed. As platted the lot is 16,550 square feet of which approximately 10,000 square feet is above the 931 contour. Hardcover as proposed is approximately 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of the lot area. Gordon commented that because the garage will be torn down, it seems logical to build the new one in a conforming location. There are no special conditions on the property that would limit its placement to the proposed location. Ample area exists in this sideyard to build it in a conformance with all side, lakeside, and front yard setbacks. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the Council a denial of the variance as requested and require the new garage be built in a conforming location. Glister questioned if a 931 elevation line is required on the survey and staff stated a 931 elevation is required. Gordon stated that it would appear from the drawings provided the 931 elevation is not shown. Sutherland stated that he has been out to the site about three times, and the slope looks appropriate and suitable to him. Chair Michael verified with applicant the reason for the variance request was to prevent trees from being removed and to prevent a patio from being decreased. Ms. Rigelhof stated she is not willing to move the current existing trees and stated there is no other location she is willing to put the addition. The applicant stated also she does not want to move her aged maple tree. The location of the addition appears to be about six feet away from her house. Ms. Rig~lhof also stated if she does have to move the location then she should just as well build a standard size addition than what she is requesting from the Planning Commission to build. Brown stated the scenario of the fact if the applicant would put in a smaller addition than what is being requested, then at some point down the road the applicant may want to build a bigger garage which would not be allowed without a variance. If the applicant would put the addition in a conforming location, she would have room for adding on without the inconvenience of a variap, ce, The applicant was interested in what Brown would like to suggest. Brown suggested to have the addition brought closer to the house and back towards the alley. The addition would be conforming and it would also save the applicant's tree. The applicant felt she would lose too much of her back yard and other trees she specifically did not mention previously Chair Michael stated that the lot is large and to offer a variance on this lot may be difficult. Voss stated the City could not allow a variance in this case for future purposes. He did not want to start a precedent that would not be conforming. He stated the trees that needed to be removed could always be replanted and will again flourish. The important fact to remember is a homeowner's responsibility to have conforming property. Brown stated there is precedent showing denials in cases exactly as the above applicant's. Voss suggested to possibly table this until the applicant finds a new location for the addition that would be conforming on the lot. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1999 MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to deny the applicant's variance according to staff recommendations. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0. Chair Michael stated that applicant's case would be brought up again at the August 24, 1999 City Council meeting. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-4H TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 12 1999 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Nancy Rigelhof CASE NUMBER: 99-26 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5 LOCATION: 5308 Three Points Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to replace a 18 feet by 20 feet detached garage with a larger 18 feet by 32 feet structure. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Garage Side Yard 2.3 f~ 6 ft 1.7 ft Garage Lakeside OHW 38 ft 50 ft 12 fl The proposed garage would use the existing foundation with new structure added to the front. Existing side and lakeside setbacks would be maintained, the front of the garage would be setback 58 feet as proposed. As platted the lot is 16, 550 square feet of which approximately 10,000 square feet is above the 931 contour. Hardcover as proposed is approximately 2500 square feet or 25% of the lot area. COMMENTS: Because the garage will be torn down, it seems logical to build the new one in a conforming location. There are no special conditions on the property that would limit its placement to the proposed location. Ample area exists in this sideyard to build it in a conformance with all side, lakeside, and front yard setbacks. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variances as requested and require the new garage to be built in a conforming location. 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, 1 0 1999 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'{-~-q ~ V"City Planner' ~-i5-C~ v/City Engineer ((~;1~ ~/Public Works Address --' . , Lot Block ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 Other Phone (H) : :; '-- ~ , ~.-" '; B-1 B-2 Bo3 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? t.)'yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. ,. - (Rex. 12-$0-~$) Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): /~' ,/i:~ Variance Application, P. 2 for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): .... . Otraq --- Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No'(-)~ If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) NSEW) NSEW) NSEW) NSEW) NSEW) : NSEW) Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard' Lakeside: Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. d'~'¢:~ ~ ft. -- ft. ft. /¢ ft. ft. ft. ,,27J ft. /, ¢ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~q ft. Il ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ~ ft. -- ft. sq ft /~ 5~ sq ft sq ft sqft ~¢~ sqft sqft .. Does the presen, t use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes .'N)%No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( !,soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage .?~) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 5[~ (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 (), No (,~,: If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship_f? 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? 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 Date Applicant's Signature .,' / Date (Rev. 12-30-98) 62 . 62 April 28, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-43 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DECKS AT 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD. RECEIVED JUN 9 1992 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. LAFAYETTE PARKt PART OF LOT 22t PID %13-117-24 21 0041, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-006 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to add two decks, each measuring 8' x 11', to an existing structure. Three variances are required: 1) recognizing an existing 2.3 foot side yard setback for the detached garage, 2) recognizing the principal structure's 47 foot setback from the ordinary, high water line (Oh"W), and 3) an 11 foot setback variance from the OHW to the new deck at the lake side of the dwelling; and WHEREAS, the proposed attached deck on the north side of the home seems to be a reasonable use of the property. The 8 foot encroachment represents a minimum size if a deck is to be allowed; and WHEREAS, the houses on either side of the subject property currently have decks which are closer to the shoreline that what this deck is proposed to be; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation; and WHEREAS, all other setbacks and lot area are conforming; and WHEREAS: the Planning Commissio~ has reviewed the re~aest and recommended approval with a vote of 5 in favor and 2 opposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 1.7 foot side yard variance to the existing detached garage, a 3 foot lakeshore setback variance for the principal structure and an 11 foot lakeshore setback variance for the proposed deck. These variances are approved to allow construction of two 8' x 11' decks at 5308 Three Points Blvd., contingent upon the condition that the well on the north side of the property be sealed according to Health Department standards. 64 April 28, 1992 Westerly, measured at right angles from the Easterly line of said Lot 22; thence Southerly along said parallel line to a point therein distant 49.? feet northerly, measured Township Road crossing said Lot 22, (now known as Wenonah Road); thence Northerly deflecting to the right 162 degrees, to said shore line; thence Easterly along said shore line to the point of beginning. All of the above, according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. This variance' Sh~ll be recorded'With'the'county Recorder or the ReGistrar of Titles in Hennep~n 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 Counci!member Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. Attest: City Clerk The following voted in the negative: none. ' <~ayor "~/// LAKE MINNETONKA (WEST ARM) (JENNIN$S BAY) l ROAD WENONAH BY REVISIONS REVISION ~ ~ CERTIFICATION ~ OK'D I aa a Licensed Land Surveyor under t~ lews.o~ the State ~f Hl~esota. BY SCHOELL & MADSOI~ ENGINEERS · SURVEYOF PLANNERS · SOIL TESTI! 10550 WAYZATA BLVD. CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: ..~ ~,~, ~ '--~],'~ r,"r¢ <. f' //~ ~.. ~// OWNER'S NAME: /// /~'/, ~ / / ~ov ~,,~ I~, 5~ ~. ry. x s0o, = ~Sor a,,ot,~ .............. ~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... 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 SO FT X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. -' · .i. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X ..... ~'~ -~ ~-~ ~ -~ ' TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... Design # 95648 ~,~L~,~~~~~® 6/3/1999 *** Take this sheet to the Building Materials counter to purchase your materials. *** selected a ga, ag. with these options: 'Wide X 32' Deep X~ H~gh Gable roof w! 8/12 pitch rafter construction. 12'~ gable/12" eave overhangs. 1/2" Fir Plywood Wall Sheathing. 1/2" Fir Plywood Roof Sheathing. 25 yr. Oakridge, Chateau Green Shingles. Cedar Soffit. Cedar Fascia. White Aluminum Jumbo Roof Edge. Cedar overhead door jamb. 8" Cedar Lap Siding. Front View Back View Today's cost for materials estimated in this design: $ 5643.21 Base garage without options:$ 1937.20 ~The base price includes: ~.~.Eave/O" Gable Overhangs, 2X4 Wall Studs, 7/16 OBS Roof Sheathing,~20 yr.~erglass ~,Clasaic - Onyx Black Shingles, Pine Fascia, Galvanized i~eguler Roof Edge, 8 Textured Vertical Hardboard Siding, No Service Doors, No Overhead Doors, No Windows, or Any Other Options. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE? ~ESJ/ LOT OF RECORD? CYEDI YARD ltOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF NO DIRECTION N S E W N g E W N S E w N S E W N S E W N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri 10,000/6b B1 7,500/0 R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/B0 R2 6,000/40 B3 R2 14,000/BO R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED :7xD +- /o / '7 10' OR 30' EXISt'lNG LOT SIZE:, LOT WlDIH: - LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE II GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIlED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E(W) SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF ~6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of fire [equirements outlined in fl~e Cily of Ivlound Zoning Ordinance. For furlher information, coulact Ibc City of Mound ',1' LO'f ,Z3 ', ," " (40) 1 HORES, Engineering · Planning · Surveying August19,1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Halstead Lane/WestEdge Bo~evard Storm Sewer MFRA#11379 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: As directed by the Council at your C.O.W. meeting of August 3, 1999, we have prepared a suggested method of assessing the cost to reconstruct the subject storm sewer from West Edge Boulevard, across Halstead Lane to the wetlands in Outlot B, Woodcrest of Mound. I have tried to formulate a fair assessment based on the informal discussions held between the Council and the owners of property adjacent to said storm sewer system. As suggested, all property within the drainage area was included in the suggested assessment. The four lots directly affected by improvements and thus receiving the most benefit were assigned a proposed assessment of $4,000 per lot. The two lots across Halstead Lane and adjacent to the outlet, we are suggesting pay $2,000 per lot. This would leave approximately $43,000 to be spread over the remaining properties within the drainage area. Approximately 46 percent of the remaining drainage area is comprised of City street right-of-way and 54 percent private property. These percentages were used to calculate a cost per square foot of $0.14 which was used as the suggested assessment rate for the private property. The suggested City share would be $19,780. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 19, 1999 Page 2 Enclosed is a drainage map which shows the approximate drainage area. Also included is a breakdown of the suggested assessment using the previously described method of assessing this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JRC:pry Enclosure s:\main:\11379~nayorS-18 SUGGESTED ASSESSMENT SPREAD HALSTEAD LANE/WEST EDGE BOULEVARD STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Parcel Lot 1, Block 2 Batdorf's First Addition W 150' of N 70' of S 330' of Government Lot 3 W 150' of N 95' of S 260' of Government Lot 3 W 150' of S 165' of Government Lot 3 Lot 4, Block 2 Westwood Lot 5, Block 2 Westwood Lot 6, Block 2 Westwood Lot 7, Block 2 Westwood Lot 8, Block 2 Westwood Lot 9, Block 2 Westwood Lot 10, Block 2, Westwood Lot 12, Block 2, Westwood Lot 2, Block 7, Woodcrest of Mound Lot 3, Block 7, Woodcrest of Mound Lot 4, Block 7, Woodcrest of Mound Lot 1, Block 2, Woodcrest of Mound 2nd Addition Lot 2, Block 2, Woodcrest of Mound 2nd Addition 2895 West Edge Boulevard Lot 1, Block 3, Westwood Lot 2, Block 3, Westwood Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound 2nd Addition Lot 7, Block 1, Woodcrest. of Mound 2nd Addition Lot 7, Block 6, Woodcrest of Mound Lot 8, Block 6, Woodcrest of Mound Lot 9, Block 6, Woodcrest of Mound Westonka School District Total Suggested Assessment City of Mound Street Right-of-Way Estimated Total Project Cost PID # 23-117-24 24 0029 23-117-24 24 0007 23-117-24 24 0008 23-117-24 24 0010 23-117-24 23 0111 23-117-24-23 0016 23-117-24-23 0017 23-117-24-23 0018 23-117-24-23 0019 23-117-24-23 0020 23-117-24-32 0028 23-117-24-32 0030 23-117-24-23 0059 23-117-24-32 0042 23-117-24-32 0043 23-117-24-32 0063 23-117-24-32 0064 23-117-24 32 0006 23-117-24 32 0031 23-117-24 32 0032 23-117-24 32 0056 23-117-23 32 0062 23-117-23 32 0039 23-117-24 32 0040 23-117-24 32 0041 23-117-24 31 0078 Suggested Assessment $ 910 $ 700 $ 700 $ 1,330 $ 700 $ 476 $ 588 $ 1,624 $ 1,540 $ 1,694 $ 1,582 $ 4,000 $ 1,148 $ 2,226 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 882 $ 560 $ 1,260 $ 1,260 $ 840 $ 476 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,800 $ 43,296 $19,780 $ 63,076 0 U ~ LOT ~ PUBLIC MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING- AUGUST 3, 1999 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON HALgTEAD LANE. Mayor Meisel stated she met with Councilmember Weycker, the City Engineer and Greg Skinner on Wednesday night in an informal setting regarding the Halstead Lane property drainage problem. The City Engineer stated there was discussion regarding the problem and reasons for this problem. He reviewed costs of repairing this drainage problem. The solution is to install a new pipe, but there is a possible expense for all residents concerned. Mayor Meisel stated that she would like the residents to come up with a number for each resident to pay for this project. She explained the residents are resistant in having to pay anything toward this project because they feel it has been existing for a long time. The cost of this project would be approximately $63,000. Kevin Beigler, 2820 Halstead Lane, stated the water is coming from Westedge and he believed that the cost should be divided amongst them also,-not just those residents on Halstead Lane. He also stated that the erosion problem has to be fixed immediately. The City Engineer stated the drain comes from Westedge, curves and then goes out into the wetland. He also stated that the pipe that currently exists is not big enough to handle the drainage so after rainfalls water ponds in residents' yards. The curb line also needs to be improved. The Acting City Manager stated that the tax forfeit lot that the State owns needs to be cleaned up. If this lot does not get cleaned up the waste on this property will continue to flow into yards causing hazards to those individuals living on Halstead Lane. James Kruse, 2830 Pine Road, stated that the residents want the property cleaned up. He stated he was happy to see the fight plan being considered but it is a complicated situation and each resident has different situations to address. He stated the residents would like the cost to be zero but he understands that is probably not feasible. He stated the Council needs to determine collectively what would be a reasonable cost. Mr. Kruse stated he supports the suggestion by Mr. Beigler that others be asked to share in the burden of the cost. He suggested residents be allowed to present a dollar figure they are comfortable with and then the Council can decide what they would like to do. Mr. Kruse stated he is in business and understands how the economics work and that the City has different constraints. He stated if there is a willingness on the Council's part, there is willingness on the resident's part but the threshold is low. Mayor Meisel stated that the City does need to take some responsibility. She would like a dollar amount that the residents attending tonight's meeting could pay towards this project. Mr. Beigler stated that the drainage from Westedge is coming into his yard and each year the problem only increases. There is ponding after every rainstorm in his yard. Also, the rate of flow is a problem. The water comes gushing down the hill at a dangerous speed unloading the debris from the forfeit lot onto his property and into his yard. Mr. Beigler 2 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - AUGUST 3, 1999 also stated that the ponding is due to drainage from Westedge and they should be held responsible also. Brown stated there was no budget increase for last year which is hurting the City currently. Brown stated he would like to talk this out with the residents and get this resolved in a very timely manner. He indicated this matter should not go any further and we as active Councilmembers should work with the people. Hanus stated the fact that there would be no budget for this project does not make this problem go away or excuse any one person involved. He indicated this is very serious and it needs to be worked out. Hanus stated other ways to get monies for this project would be to sell a bond and tax the people. Hanus raised the question of fairness in having other taxpayers pay for another person's problem. He indicated this type of project is typically assessed to those who live at the location and are then required to pay for the work that needs to be done. Hanus asked if the Westedge location would be nonexistent, would the Halstead property have this problem that currently exists today. The City Engineer stated that if Westedge was present, then the drainage problem at hand would probably not exist. The City Engineer stated that the assessment has been done correctly because history shows that the Haistead Lane residents were never assessed for drainage and the Westedge residents were assessed in previous years. The possibility of rerouting the drainage system to the corner of Pine and West Edge is not feasible either because the area is too flat. Mayor Meisel stated dollar figures need to be put together and she would like to see this project completed before the end of the year Joy Fleming, 2825 Haistead Lane, stated they paid assessment fees in the cost of the lot when they bought the house. The City Engineer agreed this may be true, but there is no documentation of payment for a storm drainage assessment. Mr. Beigler asked what the increase in his property value would be after this project is completed. Currently he has settlement cracks in his house that a person normally does not see until the house is 50 years old. Hanus assured Mr. Beigler that the property value would go up after the project is completed but he is not sure of an exact amount. Mr. Kruse stated the City has to come up with its lowest possible amount that they expect the residents to pay for this drainage pipe and then he is willing to discuss this issue further. Dean Fleming, 2825 Halstead Lane, stated his main interest is when the water comes rushing down the street during and after a storm and washes everything down from the top of the hill onto their property and also the serious danger that exists with such a rush of water coming down the street MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - AUGUST 3, 1999 Brown suggested the following proposal: Have the cost split 50/50 (city/residents) for the assessments and it can be paid off through a 10 year time period of less than $50 per month per resident involved in the Halstead area. Mr. Kruse stated this number was absolutely too high. He also stated the damage is because of the neglect on the City's part of maintenance. This problem has been existent for a long time. Mr. Kruse suggested the possibility of having a mediator find out the percentage of fault and possibly a monetary amount for those involved in this issue. He would like the most cost-effective solution. Mr. Kruse stated he realized that nothing is for "free" these days and he is willing to work with the City to find a solution. Brown asked if them was any other way to reroute this water and have it channeled off near Westedge away from the property in question. The City Engineer stated that this is not possible. Them is no other location to reroute this water and the solution is to put in a new pipe. Mr. Beigler stated sandbagging the house would not necessarily do the job. He again stressed the danger of the rushing water. Mr. Beigler also stated there are sink holes in five out of the six properties in question that need to be dealt with. Mayor Meisel stated she would like to have the Committee of the Whole meet amongst themselves to discuss what their expectations are from each property owner and then the Committee would meet with the property owners to discuss a solution. Mr. Fleming suggested before the meeting to have each member of the Committee walk from Westedge all the way down to see all the debris, junk, and erosion on their street due to water drainage~that currently does not function properly. Hanus requested a copy of the map with all the properties in question that the City Engineer was showing on the overhead tonight. A copy of the map was provided to everyone in attendance at the meeting. Mayor Meisel directed staff to get a legal decision regarding sink holes. They will meet on August 24, 1999, to discuss an offer in executive session within the Council meeting. After them is a decision, the Committee will then meet with the Halstead property owners involved in this project. 4 Engineering · Planning · Surveying August 19, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Norwood Lane - Supplemental Assessment MFRA #8614 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: As previously mentioned, when Change Order No. 1 was approved in June, this project cost considerably more than was anticipated when the project was assessed in March of this year. Attached is a copy of my letter of June 4, 1999 relating to these extra costs. The project is now complete except for the final bituminous wear course, which will be applied next year. We have separated out the City's share of the extra costs and arrived at an amount of $7,000 that should be added as a supplemental assessment. The developer of the plat "LYNMORE" should be responsible for $3,990 of the $7,000 and the remaining $3,010 could be assessed to the seven vacant lots. This would amount to an extra $430 per lot, which when added to the $4,270 already assessed results in a new figure of $4,700 per vacant lot. Attached is a copy of the original assessment spread that was adopted in March. The extra $430 per lot is entirely for the street portion of the project. John Dean and myself will be available at the August 24 City Council meeting to discuss the possibility of a supplemental assessment. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure s:\main:\8614\mayor8-19 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra.com Engineering ° Planning · Surveying June 4, 1999 Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Norwood Lane Street and Utility Improvements Partial Payment MFRA #8614 Dear Fran: Enclosed is Machtemes' Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through May 28, 1999 on the subject projeci. The amount of this payment request is $16,483.64. Also included is Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $15,488.75 for extra work necessary to complete this project. A number of items make up this change, the major two are the extra subcut and granular material, necessary because unstable soils encountered. The plans were prepared using the developer's original street design, with no soil borings and the assumption that soil corrections had been done. This was not the case and there was no choice but to make the decision during the construction to spend the additional money and direct the contractor to proceed with the necessary soil corrections. Some of the extra cost in the change order relate to the utility construction that we feel should be paid from the City's utility fund. This extra work was discussed with Greg Skinner of Public Works and we are in agreement that these extra costs should not be assessed to the property owners. We have discussed these extra costs with City Attorney, John Dean, who is presently investigating the possibility of a supplemental assessment for the additional costs: .... A report will be forthcoming that address the supplemental assessme' the costs that we recommend be included. We have reviewed this payment request and change order, and final recommend approval of the change order and payment in the above 1505023rdAvenue Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager June 4, 1999 Page 2 If you have any questions or need additional information, I will be available at the Council meeting on Tuesday, June 8, 1999. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure e:~nain:\8614\clark6-3 RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF ' PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE I1VI~ROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, costs h~ve been determined for the improvement of Norwood Lane ..... between ShorelineI~"X,e (County Road 15) and the Bartlett Blvd. and the con,et (bid) price for such improvement is $ 56.327.75 , and th~ en~n~;a in~urr~ or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $16.972.25 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $ 73.000.00. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the city is hereby declared to be $12.300.00 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $ 61.000.00 Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 1..0 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2000 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution.' The city clerk, with the assistance of the city consulting engineer, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 4. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the council thereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember ,and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Councilmember Hanus was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Enginee Planning · Surveying March 2, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Preliminary Assessment Roll Norwood Lane MFRA #8614 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed is a preliminary assessment roll prepared using the low bid of $56,327.75 received on Thursday, February 25, 1999. We have included the assessment section of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared in July of 1998 with the proposed assessment numbers adjusted to reflect the actual bid prices. This attachment will show that the property proposed for development will be assessed 51% of the cost of the project after deducting the City share. The remaining 49% is proposed to be assessed on a per lot basis which calculates out to be $4,270 per lot. This is $190 more than was projected in the original report. We believe the proposed assessment to be fair and equable and recommend adoption as presented. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:aam e:h'nain:',8614 :Lassess3 o2 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth Minnesota . 55447 phone 612,476-6010 · fax 612,,q76-$532 e-mail: mfra.~,mfra.com ASSESSMENTS It has been the City's policy to assess most of the cost of any street improvement to the benefiting properties. When the large reconstruction projects were done in the late 70's and early 80's, the City contributed I mil, which calculated out to approximately 1.5 percent of the total cost of the project. In 1976, the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy under Resolution No. 76-77. A copy of this policy is included in this report. The City does not have a policy in-place which covers utility improvements. From what we can determine, there has not been any utility projects assessed since the original sanitary sewer was installed in the 60's. We are suggesting that this project be assessed to the benefiting properties as follows: 1. The City's share of the project is proposed to be $12,300, which is the additional cost to loop the watermain through to Bartlett Boulevard. o Assess the developer of Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A 51 percent of the total project cost, less the City's share. This amount would be $15,845 for the utilities and $15,265 for the street improvement or a total proposed assessment of $31,110. o The remaining amounts would be assessed to the vacant property on the east side, Lots 12 through 17, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit A and Lot 7, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A, which is on the west side. If the remaining 49 percent of each of the utility and street costs are assessed on a per lot basis, the charge could be $4,270/per lot. We are suggesting the per lot method to assess these vacant lots, rather then the adopted street assessment policy which uses area, trait and frontage for the following reasons: The storm sewer is already existing; therefore, the square footage charge for storm sewer is not applicable; and The lots are very, similar in both size and front footage, thus a per lot assessment would be comparable. The following is a breakdown of how the total project cost was divided and the per lot charge calculated. SUGGESTED UTILITY ASSESSMENT Total Estimated Cost Less City Share Total Amount to be Assessed Amount Assessed to Developer (51%) Amount to be Assessed to Vacant Benefiting Property $ 35,200.00 + $ 4,130.00 * $ 31,070.00 * $ 15,845.00 * $ 15,225.00 * Per Lot Computations $15,225.00 + 7 lots = $2,175.00/lot * SUGGESTED STREET ASSESSMENT Total Estimated Cost Less City Share Total Amount to be Assessed Amount Assessed to Developer (51%) Amount to be Assessed to Vacant Benefiting Property $ 38,100.00 * $ 8,170.00 * $ 29,930.00 * $ 15,265.00 * $ 14,665.00 * Per Lot Computations $14,665.00 + 7 lots = $2,095.00/lot * TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT * Legal Description PID Utility Street Assessment Assessment Lots 1-6, Block 3 13-117-24 44 0032 $15,845.00 $15,265.00 Lot 7, Block 3 13-117-24 44 0033 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,095.00 Lot 12, Block 2 13-117-24 44 0026 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,095.00 Lot 13, Block 2 13-117-24 44 0027 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,095.00 Lots 14-17, Block 2 13-117-24 44 0091 $ 8,700.00 $ 8.380.00 Totals $31,070.00 $29,930.00 Total Assessment $31,1 lO'00~3t/qo' $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00- $17,080.00: $61,000:00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. + REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. * REVISED AS PER BIDS. / Two of the platted lots still create a unique situation. Lot 7, Block 3 is combined with Lots 8 and 9 as one tax parcel with an existing home located on it. It appears that Lot 7 could possibly be divided from the other two lots and become a buildable lot, meeting the City's zoning requirement. This being the case, we are proposing to assess this lot for both the street and utility improvements. One option that could be considered would be to defer the utility assessment ($2,175.00) until such time the parcel is divided. The street assessment, $2,095.00, should not be deferred because it is an immediate benefit. Lot 12, Block 2 is also a minor problem because it does not meet the City's minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet in a R-2 zoning district. At the present time it is also a separate tax parcel, but is owned by the same tax payer as owns Lot 13. Including the west half of the vacated alley on the east side of these lots, Lot 12 has 5,635 square feet and Lot 13 has 6,087 square feet. Combined together, they would still be short approximately 278 square feet from 2 - 6,000 square foot building sites. There has been some discussion about deferring all or part of the proposed assessments against the parcels along the east side of the proposed improvements. A suggestion would be to defer only the utility assessment until such' time the parcels are subdivided or a building permit is requested. The street assessment could be levied immediately. Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council June 8, 1999 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PARTIAL PAYMENT REQUEST #1 AND CHANGE ORDER #1 IN THE AMOUNTS OF $16,483.64 AND ADD $15,488.75 RESPECTIVELY - NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Cameron indicated that on page 2023 of the packet, there was a letter to Clark with the partial payment and change order request. He indicated that the project was done except for the sealing of the bituminous. He further indicated that on this project "anything that could go wrong, went wrong." One the used the developer's drawings and because of the wet conditions had to add two additional inches of material and bring in some granular material. Second, the utility connection was 6" in diameter and they needed an eight inch. The City's records were wrong on this item. Finally, on the south end, they lost the street when they started. They needed to replace part of the street on Bartlett. The project had already been assessed. A special assessment is being proposed. He recommended that the difference be assessed 1/2 to the City and the other half to the street in front of the development. Dean indicated that the ordinances allow for this, however, two issues need to be looked at prior to decisions. One was the agreement between the developer and the City to see if it precludes such payment. The second is a consideration of if the city is reaching the point where the assessable costs to the lots are greater than the benefit to the owners. He requested time to research and report back at a later point. The bottom line, he indicated is that they should approve the payment of the costs and the City cover at this point. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to pay the bill of $16,483.64 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. At this point, the Mayor returned to missed agenda item number four and asked if there were any community members wishing to address the council. There were none. 6 Jun. 4, 1999 9'iSAM ..... MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS .... Engineering No. 8652~P. 2/8 · Planning · Surveying June 4, 1999 ' Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Ma>wood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City ofMound NorwoodLane S~eetandUfiUtylmprovemen~Partial Payment MFRA#8614 Dear Fran: Enclosed is Machtemes' Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through May 28, 1999 on the subject project. The mount ofth/s payment request is $16,483.64. Also included is Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $15,488.75 for extra work necessary to complete this project. A number of items make up this change, thc major two are the extra subcut and granular material, necessary because unstable soils encountered. The plans were prepared using the developer's original street design, w/th no soil borings and thc assumption that soil corrections had been done. This was not the case and there was no choice but to make the decision during the construction to spend the additional money and direct the contractor to proceed with the necessary soil corrections. Some of the extra cost in the change order relate to the utility construction that we feel should be paid from the City's utility fund. This extra work was discussed with Cu'eg Skinner of Public Works and we are in agreement that these extra costs should not be assessed to the property owners. We have discussed these extra costs with City Attorney, Jotm Dean, who is presently investigating the possibility of a supplemental assessment for the additional costs related to the street construction. A report will be forthcoming that address the supplemental assessment along with a breakdown of the costs that we recommend be included. We have reviewed this payment request and change order, and final them to be in order, and recommend approval of the change order and payment in the above amount to the Contractor. 15050 23r~ Avenue North . Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476.8532 e-mail: mfra~mfra.com Jun. 4. 1999" 9:lSAM'-~"MCCOMBS FRANK R00S' Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager June 4, 1999 Page 2 No. 8652~P, 3/8' If you have any questions or need additional information, I will be available at thc Council meeting on Tuesday, June 8, 1999. Very truly yours, ~__ObiBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure e:~main:\$614~.lark6-3 Jun. 4. 199§ 9:i6AM MCCOMBS FRANK RO0$ No, 865£ P. 4/8 Jun. 4. 1999 9'16AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No, 8652 P, 5W8 Jun. 4. 1999 9'lVAM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No. 8652 P, 6/8 J~n, 4, 1999 9:I?AM MCCOMBS FRANK R00S No. 8652 P, 7/8 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CITY OF MOUND NORWOOD LANE STREET AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SANITARY SEWER Remove ~" PVC Sewer and Replace with 8" PVC DEDUCT Item ~4 - Connect 4" Service to Mauhole TOTAL - SANITARY SEWER (ADD) WATERMAIN ADD Item #7 - Bitum~ous Removal DEDUCT Item # 5 - Cu'~ular Foundation Material TOTAL - WATERMAIN (DEDUCT) STREETS Item #3 - Remove Concrete Curb and Cutler Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item #5 - SubgrMe Excavation #6 - Select Granular Borrow (CV) #8 - Class 5 Crravel 100% Crushed Quarry Rock #9 -Bituminous Base Mnr~OT 2331 Type 31 #10 - Bituminous Wear MnDOT 2331 Type 41 #11 - Geofabric #13 - Surmountable Curb and Gutter #16 - Seed and Mulch #17 - 4" PVC Dmin~e TOTAL ADD DEDUCT Item #12 - Bituminous Overlay TOTAL DEDUCT TOTAL - STREETS (ADD) $ 2,500.00 ($ 250.00) $ 2,250.00 $ 222.25 $ 630.00 ($ 407.75) $ 250.00 $ 1,900.00 $ g,00g.00 $ 967.60 $ 7O4.00 $ 731.25 $ 319.00 $ 451.00 $ 800.00 $ 734.40 $ 14,865.25 ($ 1,218.75) (S 1,218.75) $ 13,646.50 Jun, 4. t999 §'tTAM MCCOMBS FRANK DOS No. 8652 P. 8/8 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 SANITARY SEWER (ADD) WATEKMAIN (DEDUCT) sm~E?s (ADD) TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CI4ANGE ORDEK NO. 1 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 2,250.00 ($ 407.75) $ 13,646.50 $ 15~4~.75 $ 56,327.75 $ 15,488.75 $ 71,816.50 APPROVED: MACHTEMES CONSTRUCTION, INC. ACCEPTED: CITY OF MOUND BY: DATE: KECO~ED: McCOMB$ FRANK KOOS ASSOCIATES, INC. e:~ns.in:~ 614~.hangeordc~ 1 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: NORWOOD LANE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The City Engineer explained the background of this proposed improvement which was discussed in detail at the March 9, 1999, City Council Meeting. The Mayor opened the public hearing. John Haulton, 4900 Bartlett Blvd. stated he has not intention of splitting his lots and would like to have his utility assessment deferred until his Lot 7 is subdivided off. The City Attorney informed Mr. Haulton that even if the Council defers the utility portion of his assessment, it will continue to accrue interest until it is paid. The Council discussed deferring the utility portion of the assessment on Mr. Haulton's parcel until such time as the parcel is subdivided or a building permit is requested. The also discussed deferring Beverly Barkley's utility assessment under the condition that it be paid if her vacant parcel is sold and a building permit is requested. The City Engineer recommended that both the Haulton and Barkley property have their utility assessments deferred, at this time. The Council agreed this would be appropriate. Dave Moore, developer, spoke in favor of the Norwood Lane Improvement Project. He further stated the twin homes will be in the $150,000 price range and approximately 1500 square feet each. The Mayor closed the public heating. 266 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999 Hanus asked what the impact on the City will be with the deferments? The City Engineer stated that without the deferments the City share is $12,300 and too that you would add the age deferment on Lots 12 and 13 at $8,540; and if the utility deferment is given on Lot 7 that would add another $2,175 for a total of $23,015, which would add about 10,715. The City pays the entire contract price up front and is then paid back over 10 years plus 8% interest. 1.16 RESOLUTION AMENDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE HARDSHIP FOR SENIOR CITIZENS. Hanus moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//99-34 RESOLUTION AMENDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE HARDSHIP FOR SENIOR CITIZENS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. The City Attorney suggested the following language be inserted in the resolution adopting the assessment role: "The entire street assessment on Lot 7 (PID//13-117- 24 44 0033) of $2,095.00 will be assessed now and collected as set forth in this resolution. The utility assessment ($2,175.00) on Lot 7 will be deferred with interest accruing until such time as Lot 7 is subdivided from Lots 8 & 9, Block 3. split or divided from Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution with the above amendment as suggested by the City Attorney: RESOLUTION//99-35 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 13, 1999 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEME~ PROJECT The City Attorney advised the Council that they may be wise to make this award effective until 31 days from now, in case there is an appeal to the assessment. The City Engineer stated that the contractor is ready to start next week and if the award is delayed he would not be able to start until later this Summer and the bids are only good for 60 days and that runs out on April 25th. Brown moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #99-36 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 268 MOUND CITY COUNC1L MINUTES- MARCH 9, 1999 1.6 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR NORWOOD LANE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT (SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 13, 1999}. The City Engineer explained that the following is a preliminary assessment roll prepared using the low bid of $56,327.75 received on Thursday, February 25, 1999. He has included the assessment section of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared in July of 1998 with the proposed assessment numbers adjusted to reflect the actual bid prices. 199 5o45 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 9, 1999 This attachment shows that the property proposed for development will be assessed 51% of the cost of the project after deducting the City share. The remaining 49 % is proposed to be assessed on a per lot basis which calculates out to be $4,270 per lot. This is $190 more than was projected in the original report. The Engineer believes the proposed assessment to be fair and equable and recommends adoption as presented. ASSESSMENTS It has been the City's policy to assess most of the cost of any street improvement to the benefiting properties. When the large reconstruction projects were done in the late 70's and early 80's, the City contributed 1 mil, which calculated out to approximately 1.5 percent of the total cost of the project. In 1976, the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy under Resolution No. 76-77. A copy of this policy is included in this report. The City does not have a policy in-place which covers utility improvements. From what he can determine, there have not been any utility projects assessed since the original sanitary sewer was installed in the 60's. He is suggesting that this project be assessed to the benefiting properties as follows: The City's share of the project is proposed to be $12,300, which is the additional cost to loop the watermain through to Bartlett Boulevard. Assess the developer of Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A, 51 percent of the total project cost, less the City's share. This amount would be $15,845 for the utilities and $15,265 for the street improvement or a total proposed assessment of $31,110. The remaining amounts would be assessed to the vacant property on the east side, Lots 12 through 17, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit A and LOt 7, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A, which is on the west side. If the remaining 49 percent of each of the utility and street costs are assessed on a per lot basis, the charge could be $4,270/per lot. He is suggesting the per lot method to assess these vacant lots, rather then the adopted street assessment policy which uses area, unit and frontage for the following reasons: The storm sewer is already existing; therefore, the square footage charge for storm sewer is not applicable; and o The lots are very similar in both size and front footage, thus a per lot assessment would be comparable. The following is a breakdown of how the total project cost was divided and the per lot charge calculated. 200 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 9, 1999 SUGGESTED UTILITY ASSESSMENT Total Estimated Cost Leas City 5hare Total Amount to be Assessed Amount Assessed to Developer (51%) Amount to be Assessed to Vacant Benefiting Property 35,200.00 + 4,130.00 * 31,070.00 * 15,845.00 * 15,225.00 * Per Lot Computations $15,225.00 - 7 lots = $2,175.00/1ot* SUGGESTED STREET ASSESSMENT Total Estimated Cost Less City Share Total Amount to be Assessed Amount Assessed to Developer (51%) Amount to be Assessed to Vacant Benefiting Property $ 38,100.00 * $ 8,170.00 * $ 29,930.00 * $ 15,265.00 * $ 14,665.00 * Per Lot Computations $14,665.00 7 lots = $2,095.00/1ot TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT * Legal Description PID Lots 1-6, Block 3 Lot 7, Block 3 Lot 12, Block 2 Lot 13, Block 2 Lots 14-17, Block 2 Totals 13-117-24 44 0032 13-117-24 44 0033 13-117-24 44 0026 13-117-24 44 0027 13-117-24 44 0091 Utility Street Assessment Assessment $15,845.00 $15,265.00 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,095.00 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,095.00 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,095.00 $ 8,700.00 $8.380.00 $31,070.00 $29,930.00 Total Assessment $31,110.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 4,270.00 $17,080.00 $61,000.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. + REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. * REVISED AS PER BIDS. Two of the platted lots still create a unique situation. Lot 7, Block 3 is combined with Lots 8 and 9 as one tax parcel with an existing home located on it. It appears that Lot 7 could possibly be divided from the other two lots and become a buildable lot, meeting the City's 201 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MARCH 9, 1999 zoning requirement. This being the case, we are proposing to assess this lot for both the street and utility improvements. One option that could be considered would be to defer the utility assessment ($2,175.00) until such time the parcel is divided. The street assessment, $2,095.00, should not be deferred because it is an immediate benefit. Lot 12, Block 2 is also a minor problem because it does not meet the City's minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet in a R-2 zoning district. At the present time it is also a separate tax parcel, but is owned by the same tax payer as owns Lot 13. Including the west half of the vacated alley on the east side of these lots, LOt 12 has 5,635 square feet and LOt 13 has 6,087 square feet. Combined together, they would still be short approximately 278 square feet from 2 - 6,000 square foot building sites. There has been some discussion about deferring all or part of the proposed assessments against the parcels along the east side of the proposed improvements. A suggestion would be to defer only the utility assessment until such time the parcels are subdivided or a building permit is requested. The decision on the deferring the utility assessment can be made at the public hearing on April 13. The street assessment could be levied immediately. Ahrens moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION # 99-21 RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Ahrens moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $99-22 RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF NORWOOD LANE FOR APRIL 13, 1999 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 202 MINUTES- EDC - JULY 8, 1999 The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:10 a.m. by Paul Meisel. Members present: Paul Meisel, Stan Drahos, Mark Brewer, Jerry Longpre. Also present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Linda Kohl, Gino Businaro, Bob Brown, Michael Mueller, Fran Clark, and Bruce Chamberlain. Tax Increment Financing Bruce Chamberlain presented a packet on Tax Increment Financing Basics (TIF), prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. TIF is a redevelopment tool that cities have to do projects on properties that are already developed. It allows a city to capture the increment between the tax level currently being drawn from the property and the tax level that will be derived off the property once it is redeveloped. Two important terms to remember are Tax Increment Project Area and Tax Increment Financing District Boundary. The Project Area can be as large as the City wants to make it. Bruce suggested at least the entire downtown area to include the Lost Lake Area, Langdon District, Community Center, Coast to Coast area, Auditors Road, and possibly the Saliterman Property. The District Boundary includes any area that is contemplated for redevelopment. Bruce explained that you can draw TIF from the district to use anywhere within the Project Area. On June 22nd, the Council approved holding a public hearing for expanding the TIF district in Mound All members were encouraged to attend the HRA meeting on July 13, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. to hear Sid Inman. It is important that the EDC members give the same answers to questions asked by citizens and in order to do that, they must all understand TIF and the entire project. At 7:30 the Council will then discuss the TIF boundaries. The City will be establishing policies surrounding the use of TIF. The Planning Commission will then meet on July 27, 1999 to go over the HRA's. That will then be taken to the COW meeting on August 3rd. July 15th at 7:30 a.m. the City will hold a coffee and rolls for the business people to update them on the project. This will also give them an opportunity to ask questions and voice their opinions on the redevelopment and how it will affect them. ACT (American Coating Technology) ACT, Inc. is a paper coating company from Eau Claire, WI. that has a subsidiary called ACT II which cuts and packages (for private labels) coated paper and is moving into the Balboa Bldg. They will use 38,000 sq. ft. of the building. They will be receiving a Loan/Grant from the State of Minnesota Trade and Economic Development $100,000/$48,000. The City will be administering the $100,000 Loan portion over 10 years at 3% interest. The $100,000 will stay in the City for the City to loan out to appropriate businesses or to entice businesses to Mound. The Grant portion, $48,000 will be forgiven by the State of Minnesota as long on Act II provides 45 jobs by August 1, 2001. Buy a Brick Program There was discussion on how to get more citizens interested in this program. A general consensus was that once people start seeing the changes by the canal, they will be able to visualize what the brick walk will look like, giving them an incentive to purchase a brick with their name on it. Renaming Auditor's Road There was a discussion on the process for renaming Auditor's Road. The name should be chosen prior to the road being opened. The suggestion was to put an article in The laker, and give the citizens more information on the road development and ask for their input on the name. Relocation of County Road 15 MOTION by Paul Meisel, seconded by Mark Brewer to recommend that the City Council ask Hennepin County to move the County Road 15 project up by one year to 2001, and also to conduct a parking analysis on County Road 110, between Auditors and Lynwood Blvd. Discussion on the motion - The motion passed unanimously. Community Site and Sale/Post Office Relocation The City did not get the bid to purchase the Community Center. The City has requested information on who is purchasing the property so we can work with the developer to relocate the post office to that location. If they are unwilling to work with the City we could condemn a portion of that property for the post office or go back to the Langdon District to see if there is any feasibility of building it there. Mike Mueller related his concerns regarding preliminary zoning of the area where Coast to Coast will be built, the new location of the post office, and about the usage of the primary comer, that being County Rd. 15 and County Rd 110. Greenway/Trail and Landscaping Improvement Plans hopefully will be sent to MN DOT by October 1st. There will be a pedestrian trail with lighting, landscaping, irrigation, and native plantings along the wetland edge. Again, the post office is the concern in this project going forward.. Other Business Mike Mueller stated he is concerned about businesses that do not need to be relocated being enticed to move into the new Auditors Road area. It was pointed out both tenants and property owners have been invited to come to the City for special meetings which is intended to help keep them abreast of the progress of the new area, the relocation of businesses and tenants and working with the developers. Another concern was about traffic flow to the "old" downtown once the "new" downtown is established. It was explained that the City intends to mesh the new downtown area with the already established area into one large downtown, making the whole area "new". Linda Kohl from the Lake Minnetonka Chamber stated she receives many calls regarding requests for a hotel in this area. She is willing to keep track of the number of calls she receives in July if that will assist in a hotel being built in Mound. Brace explained that from the study done it went from the vision of a 60 room unit down to about a 40 unit motel. He explained that after some redevelopment takes place, Mound would be in a better a position for getting a nicer hotel. Adjournment A motion to dose was made by Brewer, seconded by Longpre to adjourn the meeting. The motion was unanimously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m. The next meeting will be on August 19th, 7:00 a.m. at the City Hall. Jerry Pietrowski to bring rolls. Respectfully submitted, Fran Clark, Acting City Manager /sh MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1999 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, Christina Cooper; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. Absent: Commissioner John Beise APPROVAL OF THE JULY 8, 1999 POSC MINUTES Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to approve the minutes of the July 8, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as amended: Page .5, Item 6, Paragraph 1 "...the distribution ~,'~ o_~f information." Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved with the following amendment: 1. Add 2A: Discuss: Community Center Green Space 2A. DISCUSS: COMMUNITY CENTER GREEN SPACE Park Director Fackler reported that a purchase agreement has been accepted from a developer. Their intentions are not known yet. Councilmember Weycker stated she has spoken with the developer, who stated he has no plans for the property as yet. Commissioner Casey stated if the City wants the property, they need to begin communication regarding how to go about obtaining the land, if at all possible. It is not too early or too late to examine any options. Commissioner Domholt suggested getting the public involved, especially the residents of the area in question. Commissioner Casey stated the City has the power to take a more aggressive approach to obtaining this land also. Councilmember Weycker stated no calls came from the public when the loss of this open space was published in the paper. Commissioner Domholt stated direct mail to the key people of each sports group, that those people will get the word out. This extra step needs to be taken. Once the network is established, less work would be involved. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 Councilmember Weycker questioned if this should be done as a Commission, or as an individual. Weycker stated she is fairly burnt out on trying to get the public involved, as she has been working towards that since the beginning. She would support the effort, but would rather not be directly involved any longer. Commissioner Casey asked if the City may, in retrospect, wish to buy the land. Councilmember Weycker stated she thinks not. The City bid under their own appraisal amount. Her belief is that the Council did not really want the land. Commissioner Casey asked if the Council could be convinced to spend any money to preserve the green space. Councilmember Weycker answered that she believes not. Commissioner Domholt reiterated public input can be started project wide, with this project. Commissioner Casey stated the green space only may be able to be broken off, and a Park Plan already formed would be an advantage when discussing with the Council. Councilmember Weycker recommended showing numbers from the Comprehensive Plan in support of keeping the green space, because it is needed. This approach would not throw a decision already made back at them so hard. Commissioner Domholt stated that at this point, if the public throws the decision back at the Council, that may not be such a bad thing. If the citizens in that neighborhood have the power to be heard, this could start the momentum for more neighborhoods to get involved, especially if this neighborhood can make a difference. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Cooper to include on the next agenda a meeting of concerned citizens to discuss the issue of acquisition of green space at the Community Center site, and to consider citizen input for a park plan. Also to recommend that the City of Mound direct mail a notice to the affected neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. 3. DISCUSS: PARKS RESOURCE GUIDE Commissioner Domholt stated that Mound has an opportunity to get the community involved with the parks and open space. With all the neighborhood parks that exist, a network of concerned citizens can be built if enough information is sent out to the right people. Also, the POSC can be a place for citizens to get information as well. The first notebook, the Neighborhood Resource Guide, can hold any information the neighborhood would need such as city meeting dates and names of city employees and officers. The second notebook, the Project Resource Guide, would hold information for the POSC to use 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 on projects, as many times questions arise again at a later date. Commissioner Domholt offered to keep the notebooks organized for at present. Commissioner Casey asked how past minutes and packets are stored. Park Director Fackler replied that information is retained, but he would have to check into the details of what is kept. Staff was cut back and there is no one who keeps everything on file and archived, so old files are not as organized as they once were. Commissioner Domholt suggested keeping the notebooks at City Hall and he will add information as it comes up. Commissioner Cooper questioned how these resources will be made available to the public. Commissioner Domholt replied that it could be distributed by park neighborhoods, and be included in a welcome packet for any new residents. Commissioner Casey cited the Neighborhood Revitalization Project in Minneapolis, which is almost totally public driven, and wondered if Mound could get to that point. Commissioner Domholt stated his belief that with hard work at the outset, public input could definitely become almost totally public driven. Commissioner Casey questioned if anyone would like to discuss this with the Minneapolis park department for pointers on how to begin. Commissioner Domholt suggested starting with the project just discussed; the green space at the Community Center site. 4. REVIEW: ENCROACHMENT POLICY Commissioner Meyer stated no new draft has been done yet. Commissioner Casey presented the following memo, which was sent to Building Official John Sutherland on July 9, 1999: "Last evening the Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission discussed the proposed revisions to Mound City Code Section 320.00, during which time we discussed legislative changes to the city's power to "amortize" non-conforming uses. For your review, I have enclosed Chapter 96 of the 1999 Minnesota Legislative Session Laws. In my opinion, this new law does not affect the city's ability to remove or amortize encroachment on its own property. Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance provides little guidance about how to remove or amortize encroaching structures. As we discussed at last evening's meeting, it is best to 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 draft ordinance language that specifies the criteria to consider when deciding to remove a structure or other encroachment. What are your thoughts about this and could you describe the criteria the city intends to use? Also, what is your latest advice on the city's legal power to remove encroachments? Finally, you mentioned that the city will formally "link" responsibilities for new encroachments to adjoining property owners in a way that will bind future property owners. Could you provide a sample legal document that reflects how this arrangement will be made? Thanks for your help." Commissioner Casey stated no answer has been received as yet. Councilmember Weycker asked if Building Official Sutherland should return to the POSC with answers to these questions. Commissioner Casey stated he would like to schedule Sutherland to attend the next meeting. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to include in the next agenda a meeting with Building Official Jon Sutherland to hear answers to the questions raised at the July 8, 1999 POSC meeting, and in the memo of July 9. Motion carried unanimously 5. DISCUSS: OTHER FUNDING SOURCES Councilmember Weycker questioned what is being done with the March for Parks funds, and suggested using it to ask for matching funds, as this seems to be a better way. Organizations like to see others contributing as well when asked for funds. Weycker suggested staff draft a letter asking for funds matching those that the Park Commission has raised, for additional trees. Commissioner Meyer stated a letter to the organizations (Lions, Jay Cees, VFW and American Legion) would be the first step, and attending a meeting would then be done on request. Councilmember Weycker suggested including in the letter all groups which were being approached for funds. Commissioner Meyer stated that the current $645 could be spend this fall on trees, along with any additional funds if received by then. Commissioner Cooper asked if any nurseries offer deals for buying trees in "bulk." 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 Park Director Fackler stated that 4 or 5 nurseries are called, and the best deal is taken. Commissioner Casey stated that at one point, a nursery donated a tree and planted it, basically for the media coverage and positive public relations. Commissioner Cooper asked if there are other ways to raise funds such as a booth at the Mound City Days, or something similar. Commissioner Casey mentioned that the state is looking for citizen input on where to spend some funding. He does not h'ave too much information yet, but can look into this. 6. REVIEW: NATURE CONSERVATION REGISTRY PROGRAM Commissioner Casey presented the draft of a non-binding program which suggests to people that their land has natural benefits for the community. This would give the City a chance to be involved in the sale process at the outset, rather than trying to catch up. Casey suggested presenting this draft to the City Council. Councilmember Weycker requested a sample of an actual form that would be filled out by someone willing to participate. Commissioner Casey stated this draft is the "idea stage" and the actual mechanics can be drafted if the idea is accepted by the City Council. Councilmember Weycker stated that she would actually like to see all the information before going to the City Council. Commissioner Casey stated he would work on the forms and mechanics of the program to add to the presentation to the City Council. These forms can be discussed at the September POSC meeting. Casey then summarized the program and consensus was very positive for Casey to continue with the additional information. 7. REVIEW: SWENSON PARK PLAYGROUND Park Director Fackler presented information on equipment and installation for Swenson Park, in the same area as the current playground, but expanded. Neighborhood input is now needed in September. Commissioner Meyer stated a public hearing could be scheduled for September, and then questioned whether the height of the swing set could go from 8 feet to 10 feet. Park Director Fackler stated he would check, but that could be considered at a later time also. 5 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 Se DISCUSS: THOUGHTS ON ADOPTING A NATURE CONSERVATION AREA REGISTRY PROGRAM See item #6. 9. POSC SEPTEMBER AGENDA Some items for the September POSC agenda are: 1. Green space at the Community Center - Public hearing 2. Public input on Swenson Park equipment proposal 3. Discuss: Encroachment policy 4. Review: Registry program 10, FOR YOUR INFORMATION: ae DCAC Minutes City Council Minutes Planning Commission Minutes LMCD Information Monthly Events Calendar 2000 Budget Minnehaha Creek Water Shed Information Shade Tree Advocate 11. REPORTS: a. City Council Representative Councilmember Weycker reported that the City Council has held many HRA meetings, and Downtown Redevelopment Project meetings, including discussion on the TIF district. Commissioner Meyer reported that 10 posts were put in at Swenson Park. Park Director Fackler stated that no complaints have been received about them yet. Commissioner Meyer then stated that Crescent Park and Three Points Park have made similar requests for posts, and he will discuss these requests with Fackler. b. Park Director Park Director Fackler summarized some difficulties with no City Manager and so on, but generally things are going along well. Fackler also mentioned some vandalism that has been reported recently, which is causing some additional staff hours. Fackler commended his staff on the good job they are doing dealing with these problems. The "wish list" Fackler had made was presented to the City Council, and received a lot of interesting comments. 6 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission August 12, 1999 Commissioner Meyer questioned the status of the historical registry for Island Park Hall. Park Director Fackler stated the Loren Gorden has the paperwork at present. Motion made by Cooper, seconded by Domholt to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 7 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 11, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES -7/14/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 7~28~99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member request discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. · Review of Adopted 2000 LMCD Budget. 1. Public Hearing. 2. Discussion and/or Consideration. Seton View Association, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to increase Boat Storage Units (BSU's) from six to seven at a conforming structure. 1. Public Hearing. 2. Discussion and/or Consideration. Mathew Herman, Consideration of variance application from LMCD Code for length and side setback requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. 1. Public Hearing. . ...... 2. Discussion and/or Consideration. 1. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (7/16/99 -7/31/99 & 8/1/99 - 8/15/99); B) June financial summary and balance sheet; C) Additional Business; a WATER STRUCTURES A) Ordinance Amendment, Discussion and consideration of an ordinance relating to boat storage density on Lake MinnetOnka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03 (Review of 7/14/99 & 7/28/99 Public Hearings); B) Additional Business; 3. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Staff update on 1999 Zebra Mussel Educational Campaign with Carmichael Lynch; B) Staff update on 1999 EWM Harvesting Program; C) Additional Business; 4. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) (*) Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; B) Ordinance Amendment, second reading of an ordinance relating to High-Water Restrictions; amending LMCD Code Section 3.021, Subds. 2, 3, 4, and 5; C) (*) Diercks Productions, staff recommends full refund of $50 application fee received for special event application that was withdrawn; D) Additional Business; S. SAVE THE LAKE 6. ADMINISTRATION 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 28, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. ROLL CALL Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Andrea Ahems, Mound. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Lili McMillan, Orono; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Babcock noted although there is not a quorum present, there are a sufficient number of Board members present to hold the scheduled public hearing. He added that no action would be taken on the proposed ordinance amendment. 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). Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. He noted this is a continuation of the public hearing conducted at the 7/14/99 Board meeting. He asked the public if they had feedback or comments. Jabbour asked for clarification on what constitutes a quorum. Babcock stated for action items, of which there are none this evening, a quorum of the Board is eight. He added he believed the by-laws require a minimum of three Board members to hold a public hearing. He noted there are enough Board members present to conduct the public hearing and that there are no other items on the agenda for the evening. Mr. Bruce Malkerson, an attorney from the firm Malkerson Gilliland Martin, stated he was in attendance at the meeting to speak on behalf of several marina owners on the proposed ordinance amendment. He emphasized he would like to focus his discussion on the proposed General Rule change and how it might affect the conversion of a marina facility to a housing development. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 28, 1999 Page 2 Kitchak asked Malkerson to clarify what marina owners he was representing for the record. Malkerson stated several marina owners did not want their names made public; however, he noted he was representing both Tonka Bay and Gray's Bay Marinas. He made the following comments regarding the proposed ordinance amendment: · He reviewed a chart that summarized elements of selected marina facilities including acreage of the site, lakeshore frontage, boat density, authorized Boat Storage Units (BSU's), and the number of BSU's that would be allowed if the General Rule is changed to 1:100'. · He added this chart illustrates it makes no economic sense for a commercial marina facility to convert its current use to residential. He noted that might be the position of the District. · He stated from his personal experience in providing legal representation to the Cities of Orono and Minnetrista through the mid 1980's, city councils in the past have preferred the conversion of marina facilities to residential, which would result in the reduction of slips on the lake, would result in reduced traffic in the immediate area, and would eliminate commercial facilities that are located in areas zoned for residential. · I-le noted the changing of the General Rule and the current conversion of use Code provisions would tie the hands of member cities because they would not be able to convert a commercial facility to residential, where appropriate, because is does not make sense financially. · He suggested the Board consider some form of language that would allow these types of conversions without requiring the development to come into compliance with the General Rule. He noted this could result in a less intensive use of the lake and would not be any different than how cities deal with non-conforming uses. · He questioned whether there might be validity to make application for variance from LMCD Code for these cases. LeFevere stated the District in the past has not granted variances from LMCD Code for density. Malkerson suggested the Board consider ad ~.ting some language changes to the Code that would allow the District to consider allowi:~ density that would exceed what is allowed by the General Rule. He stated the General Rule of 1:100' might be appropriate for vacant land that would be newly developed. Babcock questioned Malkerson whether he believed the impact on the lake is greater from vacant land than from commercial land that has been converted. Malkerson siated he believed that would depend on the types of uses, the frequency the boats are used, and the average number of people per family unit. He noted he has had involvement with the lake-for many years and that marina's fill up large portions of bays at times in Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 28, 1999 Page residential areas. He re-stated the need to have flexibility in the Code to allow both the cities and the District to resolve some of these situations. He stated there are concerns that have been raised from some member cities relating to the proposed ordinance amendment. He recommended the Board continue to look at the issue and to allow staff to draft some language that addresses some of the concerns he raised. Babcock stated any marina facility on the lake could redevelop to residential and make application under the current General Rule of 1:50'. He noted both the current General Rule and the conversion of use Code provisions have been on the books for over 10 years and have been longstanding policy of the District. He added both have been implemented for both developments and m-developments around the lake for many years. He concluded by questioning whether there is a justification for applying the General Rule for developments on vacant land but not on conversion of a commercial facility. Malkerson stated a couple of differences would include costs associated with buying a commercial facility and the possible removal of any facilities. Foster stated most current marina facilities have had the privilege of a license that has granted them a density that greatly exceeds Code allowances for several years. He noted he believed the District needs to take care of the marinas so they can prosper because they are valuable to the lake. He questioned whether it would be appropriate, though, to allow a marina to convert to residential housing with the grandfathered density it has been allowed to continue with for yeara. .~ Bal~ock stated he had not heard from any cities that have the position they would like to eliminate commercial marina facilities because they are in residential areas. Malkerson stated whether the General Rule is changed to 1:100', he believed the District should review conversion of use Code provisions. I-Ie noted this would provide the cities more flexibility to address commercial marina facilities that exist in residential areas. He added all properties on the lake have some vested, riparian rights to dockage on the lake. Babcock questioned whether it would be appropriate for a site to be allowed to continue a grandfathered density on public water when a conversion of use occurs. He added although the commercial marina facilities have some vested riparian rights, they are subject to annual licenses and reasonable regulations. Gabriel Jabbour, owner of Tonka Bay Marina, questioned whether the proposed ordinance amendment would accomplish the objective of the District relating to boat density. He noted he is licensed by the City of Tonka Bay for 222 boats in the summer and 355 boats in the winter. He added in Tonka Bay, there are three marinas within one-half of a mile, which has a large impact on the nearby residential area in a number of ways. He questioned whether the current use of the three marinas is appropriate, adding he believed the proposed ordinance would be counter productive if the Board desires to remove boat density from the lake. He added he believed the District should enforce boat storage at residential properties the same as Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 28, 1999 Page 4 multi-family residential. He concluded he had no intentions to convert his marina facility; however, he would like to have the ability to do so. Mr. Mark Thompson, a member of the Deephaven City Council, stated he was in attendance to speak on the proposed ordinance for the City. He stated the city council has discusse '~ ~he proposed ordinance amendment and does not support the elimination of dtiple docks ~vhen a commercial marina conversion occurs. He added the City Council also does not support the General Rule of 1:100' when a conversion doe~ occur because they believe it would prohibit the marina owner from developing the property properly. Babcock stated the District currently has a General Rule of 1:50', noting it is currently used when conversion of use and re-development occurs. Gilman questioned whether it would be good policy for the District to allow the same grandfathered density at a residential site after it has been conver~ed from a commercial marina. He noted the boat storage at the residential site would not be available to public anymore. LeFevere stated the majority of the testimony on the proposed ordinance amendment has been either from marina owners or relating to marinas. He noted it would be interesting to hear from other parties who this ordinance would also affect because the majority of the other commercial, multiple dock facilities are grandfathered with regards to density. He stated the question of economic feasibility probably would also apply when a restaurant or :;roup of single family homes are purchased with the intent of constructing multi-family homes without decreasing the number of docks. Jabbour clarified he would not expect all of his grandfathered docking rights to be carried forward if he decided to convert the use of his facility. He stated he would like to have the same playing field and rights as those that live in single family homes. He suggested a formula should be established that takes into account the average number of boats stored at a residence. Mr. Paul Pedersen, owner of Grays Bay Marina, stated he believed the Board needs to take into account more factors beyond the amount of shoreline at a commercial marina. He suggested the amount of land on the site should also be fled into the formula for multi-family residential. He explained he believed that the City of Minnetonka understands not to expect his facility to continue as a marina forever. He stated he believed it is no secret that the MN DNR is looking at purchasing his land to convert the facility to a public access. He concluded he has six acres on his site and that he purchased it for future potential, not only to operate a commercial marina. LeFevere stated staff has responded via correspondence to the City of Minnetonka relating to the purchase of Gray's Bay Marina by the MN DNR and the potential for municipal docks. He noted the proposed ordinance would have little affect on it because the City of Minnetonka could consolidate all of its shoreline towards a multiple dock license. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 28, 1999 Page Mr. John Senescall, a member of the Tonka Bay City Council, stated he was in attendance to speak on the proposed ordinance as a resident, not as a government official. He noted the City of Tonka Bay has generally not discussed this issue formally and has requested that no action men on it. He suggcst he waa in attcnclancc to gather facta and information. He suggested it might be appropriate to take an average of the number of boats per household at all 125 miles of shoreline. He recommended the District not take away cities' authority to negotiate relating to land planning. Babcock stated he believed the current General Rule is less restrictive than what is being proposed by taking into account the amount of shoreline on Lake Minnetonka and the number of boats stored on it. He noted he believed the reality in most situations is that three and four boats are not stored at residences because they do not want that density stored in front of their primary residence. He concluded the past studies conducted by District staff supports this. Ms. Jean Stark, Mayor of Woodland, stated she believed that the current General Rule of 1:50' is adequate. She suggested that there is a need to establish a Task Force to create a level playing field to allow for conversions at commercial marinas. Pedersen stated in Grays Bay and Libbs Lake, he is aware of many 50' wide lots that store four boats, of which not all are owned and registered to residents of the site. He noted his marina has 500' of shoreline on five acres of land. He added if he converts his property to residential, he could have between five and 10 boats depending on whether the General Rule changes. He suggested more boats could be stored on this property if it was subdivided into 10, 50' wide lots. He concluded he believed it would make more sense to have an outlot situation that would store fewer boats and would be more aesthetically pleasing. Babcock stated there is no real data that all single family homes would store the maximum number of boats in front of their residence. He added this ordinance amendment does not apply to single family residenCeS. Nybeck stated he believed staff would be able to provide the most up to date inventory in the near future on the number of residences that have thre~ and four boats stored. He noted this is part of the 1999 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Inventory. Mr. Terry Forbord, 265 West Point Road in Tonka Bay, requested the Board continue the public hearing and not make any decision on the proposed ordinance because he had attempted to contact the mayors, administrators, and planners of all of the cities on the lake to get their input on it. He questioned why the District is proposing the ordinance amendment, adding he believed the Board should not pass an ordinance that further restricts multi-family developments on Lake Minnetonka. He suggested he felt they are being singled out and that there is a need to have some flexibility in the ordinances to work with land planning. He concluded he believed there is a need to invite developers to a future meeting to get their input on it. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 28, 1999 Page 6 Babcock stated he believed from a procedural standpoint, the public hearing would be closed this evening with no action taken on it. He added the hearing could always be re-opened at a future date. Ahrens questioned whether the public hearing could be continued to a future meeting without a quorum present. LeFevere stated the Board has several options they could consider relating to the public hearing. He noted these could include closing the hearing tonight, to re-open it at a future date, or continuing it to a future date. Babcock stated he would prefer this decision be made by the full Board. Fordbord stated he believed the proposed ordinance amendment would adversely affect the value of undeveloped property. Babcock stated if the Board desires to adopt the proposed ordinance amendment, it would require a majority vote of the full Board or eight votes. Foster addressed the question from Fordbord on why the District is prooosing the ordinance amendment. He stated the focus of this ordinance amendment dates b~ ' to the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka adopted in the early 1990's. He noted one of the resounding goals in the long-range plan was to do away with the outlot type concepts on Lake Minnetonka for the benefit of the lake on the long-term. He added he was opposed in general to the outlot concept on Lake Minnetonka because the District needs to balance the uses of the lake for a balanced group of the community. He concluded the use of the lake is held in trust for the public by the State of Minnesota and that there is a need to adopt reasonable regulations to balance this. Pedersen questioned whether the Code would COnsider the purchase of a COmmercial marina a conversion of use ff a homeowners' association buys it. Babcock stated if the facility is COntinued to be operated as a public marina and is not tied to specified r/parian property, it would be allowed to be continued. LeFevere stated if the marina is purchased as a public marina, and is continued as a public marina, it would not be considered a conversion of use just because a homeowners' association purchases it. He added if priority is given to these slips to members of the homeowners' association, that would be a problem and could be considered a conversion of use because it is not available to the general public. Mr. Rich Anderson, owner of North Shore Marina, stated the proposed ordinance amendment does not affect him because he has no plans to COnvert his marina. He expressed concern that current ordinances, such as boat storage allowances at single family homes, are affecting his business more. He suggested there are several residences around the lake that are not Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 28, 1999 Page 7 conforming to the Code that allows for the storage of two boats at a residence without reference to ownership and up to four, provided all four are owned and registered to residents of the site. He concluded he believed the District should deal with boat storage issues at residences and enforce current ordinances. Kitchak stated the enforcement of boat storage at residences would be an administrative nightmare. He suggested there are two other elements to the proposed ordinance amendment and he asked the audience if they had any comments on them. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE AGENDA 8:30 A.M., Friday, August 13, 1999 LMCD Office 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven 1. Introductions and Welcome; 2. Review of Minutes from the 6/11/99 meeting; 3. Review of 1999 LMCD EWM harvesting season; 4. Review of 1999 LMCD zebra mussel plans; 5. Agency Reports: 6. Area wide lake association reports; 7. Old business; 8. New business; 9. Adjournment; LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. I)eephaven, MN 55391 745-0789 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER Gregory S. Nybeck August 11, 1999 Exotics Management: This project commenced on 6/14/99 and is planned through 8/13/99. To date, harvesting has been done in Phelps Bay, S. Upper Lake, W. Upper Lake, CookJ Bay, Emerald Lake, Seton Lake, Black Lake, Carman Bay, Old Channel Bay, Lafayette Bay, Echo Bay, Gideon Bay, Excelsior Bay, S. Lower Lake, N. Lower Lake, Wayzata Bay, Grays i~y, i~ffowns ~)~.y, Si~dii~ ~ay, CF~js~2LI B,i~-,~vi~. ca" ...... "J. nay,*' ..... ~,,~.,'~ ~,~,.~,~'T~k fi,~.~,,. .. ~.,---..-,-,*c .... ,.~ ..,.,~""*~ kaVe., been done in Grays Bay, St. Albans Bay, Gideon Bay, Carman Bay, and Old Channel Bay. Harvesting is planned to conclude in Phelps Bay and Spring Park Bay. Consistent with past years, haxvesting priorities have been based upon impediment to public boat navigation on the open water. Although there are areas of the lake with significant milfoil growth, we are not harvesting them unless they are impediv, public boat navigation. Feel free to have your office staff or re~iden': 'all the office if we can be of assistance. At its 6/9/99 meeting, the LMCD Board authorized appro~dmately $30,000 worth of funds to work with Carmichael Lynch in launching a public awareness plan for 1999. Elements of the public awareness plan include the production costs and space rental of four billboards on an eight-week cycle, the production costs of two print ads that could be displayed in local newspapers and other sources, and the production of a stencil that could used at public and private accesses around the lake. These expenditures, which will be funded from both the Zebra Mussel and Save the Lake budgets, should assist in creating public awareness in preventing the spread of zebra mussels from infested waters. proposed ordinance chant, e relating to boat storat, e denSity and multii~le dock facilities: 'l'l~e LMCD Board conducted a public '-- -' :'" '" '~ ,o,, · that would amend existing Code relating to boat storage density and ~' :dfiple dock facilities for new developments and re-developments on Lake Minnetonka. Three areas of the existing Code 'are'being addressed in this draft Code amendment. They include: 1) to minimize the impact of multiple dock facilities, that utilize an ouflot, on nearby properties, 2) to change the mechanism for measuring the amount of shoreline to credit when it is a meandering line, and 3) to change the General Rule from 1:50' to 1:100'. The Board continued the public hearing to its 7/28/99 meeting, in which continued public testimony was received. We will keep you informed on the status of this proposed ordinance amendment. Charter Boat Rules: At its 6/23/99 meeting, the LMCD Board updated its rules and regulations relating' charter boat activity and liquor licenses on Lake Minnetonka. A memo summarizing the changes in the rules and regulations was previously sent by District staff on 7/23/99. These rule changes, in addition to the mandatory annual training sessions for charter boat owners that was implemented this past spring, should be ' great assistance in ensuring EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLE~rF.,R, $/11/99, PAGE 2 that operations and activities on charter boats are being conducted as not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of Lake Minnetonka and of surrounding properties by riparian owners and by the public. Feel free to call the office if you have questions. 1~ Lake M|nnetollka Shoreline Count: Staff has conducted the field work for a shoreline storage count of watercraft for 1999. This management plan project, which was-conducted in 1998, is to be completed every two yearS. When the Report was presented last summer, staff was directed to conduct the project in 1999 to validate the results of the 1998 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Count. Further details of this project will be provided when available. 2000 LMCD Budget: The 2000 LMCD budget was certified by the Board at its 6/9/99 meeting and forwarded to it member cities on 6/25/99 in accordance with state enabling legislation. Minnesota State Statutes 103B.635 states the Board must on or before July 1 of each year prepare and submit a detailed budget of the District's needs, for tile s~ex[ c~Icn '~ year, to the governing body of each municipality in the District with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The approved budget has forwarded a total levy of $190,679 to the 14 member communities. It is anticipated that reserve fund accounts for Administration and EWM/Exotics will meet agreed upon policy levels by 12/31/99. The City of Spring Park has requested a public hearing be scheduled to allow cities to comment on the adopted 2000 LMCD Budget. A public hearing has been scheduled for the 8/11/99 Board meeting. Any changes to the approved budget based on this public hearing will be forwarded in a timely manner. On-going Licenses/Permits: Staff has completed the processing of all new and renewal without change applications for licensed multiple docks, charter boats, associated liquor licenses, and special event permits for Lake Minnetonka. Staff ha~ also generally completed - all multiple dock license inspections for 1999. Feel free to call the office if you have questions or concerns regarding a specific license/permit or a multiple dock license inspection. Bil Hawks Boathouse: The civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Hawks against the LMCD challenging LMCD Code Section 2.'12, Subd. 2 was dismissed in Hennepin County District court on 5/26/98. Also, the Court ruled favorably for the countersuit filed by the LMCD seeking an injunction requiring the storage boat to be removed from Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Hawks was directed to either remove the storage boat from Lake Minnetonka or to convert it into a houseboat, lVlr. Hawks appealed the 5/26/98 Hennepin County District court ruling and the case was heard by the Court of Appeals on 12/16/98. The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the 5/26/98 Hennepin County District court. Mr. Hawks petitioned the Minnesota State Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Minnesota State Supreme Court denied the petition from Mr. Hawks. WebPage: The LMCD WebPage address is: http://www.winternet, com/'lmcd/ 1 999 Metro ...... Regional Meeting Association of tlC opoli['all t,lunicipalit'ics Thursday, September 16, 1999 :3:00 - 8:30 p.m. New Brighton Family Service Center 400 10~ Street NW New Bri§hton, MN $35 per person Join us as the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) kicks off its 1999 Fall Regional Meetings by co-sponsoring with the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) a special program tailored to the metropolitan area. Mayors, councilmembers, and city staff won't want to miss this opportunity to visit with LMC/AMM staff, Metropolitan Council officials, and peers fi.om other cities. 3:00 3:05 3:35 4:15 5:00 6:00 6:45 7:15 Welcome and Overview of Day Legislative Prospective on the 2000 Session Gary Carlson, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, LMC Gene Ranieri, Executive Director, AMM Roger Peterson, Director, Legislative Affairs, AMM Affordable Housing Strategies and Programs Roberi' Odman, Director, Multifamily Housing Division, MHFA Tom McEIveen, Director, Housing and Redevelopment, Metropolitan Council Employee Health and Benefit Programs from LMCIT Ann Gergen, Employee Benefits Program Manager, LMCIT Social Hour Dinner Welcome from Host Mayor, LMC President, AMM President Includes remarks on LMC's new PR message "Shaping the Image of Minnesota Cities" Discussion of Legislative Review of Metropolitan Government Leadership from the House Local and Metropolitan Committee will discuss their planned review of metropolitan government during the 2000 session Invited speakers are: Representative Barb Haake Representative Peg Larsen 8:30 Adjourn Please mail the enclosed registration form and your payment to the AMM by Friday, September 10~. Map to New Brighton Service Center on the flip side! See you in New Brightonl! New Brigh~con F~mily Servlce Cen~cer 400 lO'ch Stree~c NV New ~righ~on, MN 55112 (651)638-2130 394 94 ~RIGHTDN MINNEAPOLIS 94 694 PAUL W AIRPORT / 494 ~ I~LOOMINGTON ~ ' ' ~ 694 35W Qy Rd E2 FROM THE NORTH' 35W SOUTH TD 694 WEST, EXIT LONG LAKE ROAD/lOTH STREET N~V, GO SOUTH (LEFT) ON 10TH STREET N~/, GO TO STOP LIGHT AT OLD HIGHWAY 8 N~/, THE FAMILY SERVICE CENTER IS JUST PAST THE LIGHT ON YI2UR LEFT FROM THE SOUTH, 35~/ NORTH TO COUNTY ROAD EE EXIT, ~/EST {LEFT) ON COUNTY ROAD E2, GO NORTH {RIGHT) AT STOP SIGN AT 5TH AVENUE N~/ (OLD HIGH~/AY 8 N~/), Gn RIGHT AT THE STOP LIGHT ON 10TH STREET N~/ , THE FAMILY SERVICE CENTER IS ON YOUR LEFT FROM THE EAST, 694 ~/EST, EXIT LONG LAKE ROAD/lOTH STREET MW, GO SOUTH (LEFT) DN lOTH STREET NV, GD TO THE STOP LIGHT AT OLD HIGHWAY 8, THE FAHILY SERVICE CENTER IN JUST PAST THE LIGHT ON YOUR LEFT ' FROM THE WEST, '94 EAST, EXIT LONG LAKE ROAD/lOTH STREET N~/, GO SOUTH (RIGHT) ON lOTH STREET N~/, GO TO THE STOP LIGHT ',...~..., OLD HIGH~/AY B, THE FAMILY SERVICE CENTER IN JUST PAST THE LIGHT ON YOUR LEFT : ~ ":