1999-09-28PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES ~ PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
A G END A
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 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
SWEARING IN OF THE TWO NEW POLICE OFFICERS, JAMI BURKE AND
MICHAEL BRUCKNER.
3 APPROVE AGENDA.
4. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1999, REGULAR
MEETING .................................. 3245-3258
*B.
CASE//99-32: VARIANCE; FENCE HEIGHT; TO CONSTRUCT
A 40 FT PRIVACY FENCE 6 FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE LOCATED
WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AT 3188 TUXEDO BLVD;
BLOCK 9, LOTS 24-25-26, WHIPPLE; KEITH HARRELL,
37970, PID# 13-117-24 21 0041 ..................... 3259-3271
*C.
CASE//99-34: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE;
BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, DEVON; PAMELA WEATHERHEAD,
37870, PID# 30-117-23 22 0019 @.@ ................. 3272-3297
*D. STREET LIGHT REQUEST ON ALEXANDER LANE ..... 3298-3300
*E.
*F.
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ASSESSMENT HEARINGS
1. DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER BILLS
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL BILL
UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL BILL ........... 3301-330~
2. CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE .................. 3308
3. NORWOOD LANE SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 3309
(SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1999)
PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... 3310-3324
3243
PLEASE TURN OFF ~LL CELL PHONES ~ P~OERS IN COUNCIL CHillERS.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA.
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-33: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION;
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT AT 4608 KILDARE ROAD; BLOCK 1 1, LOT 6,
SETON; BILL VOSS, 37950, PID # 19-117-23 21 0028 .......... 3325-3352
6. CASEd] 99-37: VARIANCE; LOT SIZE AND STREET FRONTAGE;
TO CREATE A BUILDABLE PARCEL AT 17XX WILDHURST
LANE; BLOCK 13, LOT 1, SHADYWOOD POINT;
DAVID & CAROL BABLER, 61980, PID # 13-117-24 14 0017..
7. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
3353-3368
Ao
L.M.C.D. m~lings .............................. 3369-3384
Notice from the State of Minnesota about a Local Government
Officials' Regional Forum to be held at:
Minnetonka City Hall
Thursday, October 7, 1999
7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M ...................... 3385-3387
Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 1999 ......... 3388-3406
3244
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, September 14, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting
City Manager Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director Gino Businaro,
and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present:'
Marshall Anderson, Orv Burma, Austin Carden, Becky Cherne, Sam Eikenburg, Paul Glynn,
Lori Ham, Greg Knutson, Mike Lastiglio, Duane Lunge, Tom Mickenbury, Gregory Metz,
Peter Meyer, Jim Ostman, Kay Ostman, Jay Petersen, Linda Skorseth, Bob Schmidt, Cliff
Schmidt, Connie Schmidt, Carolyn Smith, Gene Smith and Duane Leisinger.
*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.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:34 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to approve the Agenda and Consent
Agenda. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 1999, REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION.
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
*1.1 APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND SET BID DATE FOR
HALSTEAD LANE/WESTEDGE BOULEVARD STORM SEWER
IMPROVEMENT FOR SUGGESTED DATE OF OCTOBER 6, 1999. PLANS.
SPECS AND BID WERE HANDED OUT FOR APPROVAL AS WELL.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
'1.2
'1.3
'1.4
'1.5
MOTION.
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
APPROVE TEMPORARY ON-SALE BEER PERMIT AND PUBLIC DANCE
PERMIT FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL FOR
SEPTEMBER 18 AND 19. 1999.
MOTION.
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//99-33. UTILITY EASEMENT
VACATION. 4608 KILDARE ROAD FOR SUGGESTED DATE OF
SEPTEMBER 28. 199.
MOTION.
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ACTING CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE MERCER GROUP,
INC. TO RECRUIT CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION OF CITY
MANAGER.
RESOLUTION # 99-81
RESOLUTION 'AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND ACTING CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE
MERCER GROUP, INC. TO RECRUIT
CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION OF
CITY MANAGER.
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24.000 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION. PURSUANT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE
YEAR 2000.
RESOLUTION # 99-82
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT
TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEFRAYING THE COSTS OF
OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
'1.6
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND
FOR THE YEAR 2000.
MOTION.
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
0.7 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
Marshal Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard, stated he is the individual representing the
group that has a petition for a bond referendum for the property of the old community center
and the green space behind there. He is in attendance tonight because he has five questions
that he would like answers to regarding the petition. Marshal Anderson read the petition as
follows:
"Whereas, the entire 19+ acre "community center" property is an irreplaceable
community asset;
Whereas, the "community center" property is scheduled to be sold to a private
developer for $2.3 million, with a closing date tentatively scheduled for December
15, 1999;
Whereas, the Park and Recreation Section of Mound's Comprehensive Plan already
identifies a shortfall in the community's open space requirements;
Whereas, Minn. Stat. Sec. 205.10, subd. 1, requires that a question be placed on a
special election ballot if a petition is signed by" . . . a number of voters equal to 20
percent of the votes cast at the last municipal general election."
Now, therefore, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 205.10, the undersigned eligible voters
petition the Mound City Council to call a special election at the earliest possible date
to consider the following question: "Shall the Mound City Council issue general
obligation bonds in the amount of $2,500,000 for the purpose of acquiring the 19+
acre "community center" property, to be used as a community center and other park
and recreational purposes?""
Mr. Anderson stated after having read the petition, he would like to have the following
questions answered:
1. According to the City Attorney, is the petition in a legally sufficient form?
What are the estimated costs to issue a bond at this time which include attorneys fees,
insurance, etc. and will this be added to the cost of land?
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
o
Will the government unit provide an estimate of the tax impact of the referendum to
each household?
4. Will the City Council honor the petition and put it on a special election ballet?
5. Would the City provide a count of the voters at the last municipal election?
Attorney Dean stated he is not at this point completely "up to speed" on this matter. He
stated in response to the above questions, it is certainly appropriate for the City to provide
the petitioners with some of the things that were requested such as the estimated costs of a
bond, the tax impact, as well as the count of persons at municipal elections. Attorney Dean
is concerned about the City's involvement much beyond those three points. Attorney Dean
stated his reasoning for this decision is the school district has sold the property to a private
developer and the sale is scheduled for some time at the end of this year or early next year.
With the private entity attempting to secure builders, attempting to secure partners to
transfer the property to, Attorney Dean stated this may have a chilling effect on all these
activities. Attorney Dean stated also the school district has put the City on notice that it has
a claim against the City for activities involved in the last efforts to construct a community
center on the site.
Attorney Dean further stated that if the petfion falls under proper statute and contains the
required number of valid signatures, then the Council is obligated to put this item on for
special election.
Attorney Dean did not want to much beyond giving the statute number and other information
above-noted to assist the individuals with the petition because of the potential School District
claim against the City. Attorney Dean stated that if Mr. Anderson had a lawyer review the
petition and the lawyer is familiar with these types of petitions, then it is probably
appropriate. Attorney Dean stated again that he does not want to increase any liability to the
City at this point. Attorney Dean stated if the Council would like him to further address the
issue he would, but it would be his recommendation not to.
Attorney Dean stated in regards to the ballet question, the City could be granted authority to
go in debt for this reason. If the City Council decides to acquire the property for park
purposes, they could use the authority in the bond election to finance that acquisition but are
not obligated to proceed with the acquisition.
Mr. Anderson stated at this point then the City will not state an opinion regarding the
contents in the petition presented tonight.
Mayor Meisel stated at this point the City's involvement should be minimal. There is a valid
purchase agreement on the property. Mayor Meisel stated the City does not want to
intervene with the developer and cause friction with that whole process.
Councilmember Brown stated the City should give the public the information that it is
entitled to but to wait on further information that may cause litigation to erupt if proceeded
with.
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES = SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Mayor Meisel stated that she is working with the school district to keep a good rapport and
recognizes that the two bodies really need to work together in harmony.
Mr. Anderson asked if Attorney Dean could write a letter stating that the City does not have
an opinion about the petition at this point in time. Attorney Dean stated that he is more than
willing to draft this type of letter if the Council wishes for him to do this.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, directing Attorney Dean to draft a
letter to Mr. Anderson stating that the City does not have an opinion about the
petition at this point in time. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried. 5-0.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, a member of the Park and Open Space Commission, stated
the Park and Open Space Commission is devastated by the possible loss of the parkland
because this area is about 20 percent of total parkland in Mound. He referred to the POSC
Meeting of September 9th where this was discussed. He stated that the parkland guidelines
are already insufficient. Mr. Meyer stated the Park and Open Space Commission is
obligated to fight for this park area for the children of Mound. He stated if the sale goes
through the City of Mound will lose its only football field, its only outdoor hockey field, its
only two Babe Ruth's fields, its only soccer field, its only skating rink, the only area in
Mound where the bluebird has nested the past eight years. The meeting was attended by
approximately 50 individuals and 26 of the people spoke regarding the sale of the park space.
Mr. Meyer stated one individual who spoke wanted the development and the others that
spoke did not. The minutes of the September 9~ meeting are attached in the agenda packet as
information for the Council to review. Mr. Meyer stated parks are very important and
should be kept to today's standards.
Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alter Road, stated the Council needs to know the citizens have been
concerned about this development replacing the current ball fields. She stated she is not
trying to be conflictive but informative. She stated should the school just be able to sell the
property without the people's opinion. Ms. Skorseth stated maybe both groups should and
would like to take a different look at the situation with the information received tonight.
The Council took no action.
5.1
LETTERS FROM THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA FOR AN EMERGENCY
WATER INTERCONNECTION AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD
110 AND THE SOUTH SAUNDERS LAKE DEVELOPMENT (BASSWOOD
ROAD).
The City Engineer stated the Council's packet tonight contained two letters from the City of
Minnetrista dated September 8, 1999 regarding the above. It appears a significant difference
in the two letters is in Paragraph 2 where the sentence "this interconnection would take place
with no expense to Mound" has been removed from one letter but exists in the other. This
is a huge concern for the City Engineer.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
The Council was given a copies of Resolution//95-109 entitled, "Resolution Approving the
Joint Powers Agreement Between The City of Mound and the City of Minnetrista For the
Interconnection of Their Water Systems~ which was adopted October 10, 1995. The purpose
of that agreement was to provide an interconnection of the municipal water systems of
Mound and Minnetrista at Three Points Blvd., so the cities and their water utility users
would have greater assurance of continuing water service in times of emergency.
The City Engineer was concerned about what the City of Mound would be paying for this
project, if anything, and what the City of Minnetrista will be paying. The City Engineer
stated that the proposed interconnect for the South Saunders Lake area is actually more of a
benefit to Minnetrisrta than for Mound.
The City Engineer stated that if there is an interconnect the watermain would be down for
about one-half day.
Mayor Meisel asked what the expense for Mound would be and the City Engineer stated he
could not answer this question exactly because Mound is not sure what Minnetrista is
expecting of Mound because of the discrepancies in the September 9* letters, but also it
would depend upon where the temporary pipe was installed.
Brown asked if it would be possible to put in a temporary main above the ground while the
interconnection is being installed. The City Engineer stated there could be a temporary main
installed.
Councilmember Weycker stated if the development is considered and there would be a loop
put in would this interconnection feed the southwest part of the City. The City Engineer
stated it would aid the southwest part of the City and this would benefit Mound.
Councilmember Hanus stated the installation of the interconnection would only be used for
emergency purposes. The City Engineer stated this interconnection would not be used for
normal water supply to Mound or Minnetrista.
Councilmember Hanus related the following three benefits t~ Mound according to the City of
Minnetrista s letter dated September 13: ~ '
Supplying water through a variety of aquifers, thereby protecting residents from
contamination of individual aquifers.
Supplying additional water for use in fighting fires.
Supplying backup water in the event that sections of a water system are taken out of
The City Engineer stated again these benefits are minor for the City of Mound and without
exact numbers from the City of Minnetrista there is not enough information to determine if
Mound should enter into an agreement or not.
6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Mayor Meisel stated she would recommend tabling this request until further information has
been brought to the City of Mound regarding the expense to Mound and the exact benefits
that the City of Mound sees in this agreement.
The City Engineer stated if the City of Minnetrista is willing to do the connection with no
expense for the City of Mound then the benefit to Mound would be worth the installation
occurring.
Councilmember Ahrens asked if the $10,000 was an accurate bid for this interconnection and
from the City Engineer's knowledge it would be close. Although, if this project does not
occur this year, a new bid would have to be done again next year, the price would 'be more
expensive having bid them separately.
Councilmember Brown asked if the City Engineer could get the information on how much
Mound would be paying toward this project and what the benefits would be for Mound by
the Council's September 28~ meeting. The City Engineer stated he could certainly try and
accommodate this but getting Minnetrista to allow Mound to have this information could be a
challenge in itself.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to table this matter until September
28, 1999, when further information will be presented by the City Engineer which
is pertinent in this case. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-
0.
1.9 DISCUSSION: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS.
Councilmember Hanus stated this is an item that had been briefly discussed at meetings along
the way and was presented to the Dock and Commons Commission at it's July 15th and
August 19th meetings. There was a recommendation in the minutes of July 15, 1999, of the
Dock and Commons Commission. Councilmember Hanus stated the motion presented in the
minutes only pertains to multiple slip docks. Councilmember Hanus also stated these are
restrictive to size and such guidelines needed to be made for future purposes.
Orv Burma, 4811 Highland View Drive, stated he has always been proud of the work the
Dock and Commons Commission have produced, but he has a concern regarding restricting
the boat sizes at the multiple slip docks. Mr. Burma realizes it takes a dedicated group of
volunteers to make this a good program and appreciates their efforts.
Mr. Burma stated the decision to regulate the size of the slip to 24 feet by 8 1/2 feet was a
premature decision on the part of the commission. Mr. Burma stated this was an agenda
item but no materials were presented to the public and this issue was going to be a topic for
discussion at the July 15 meeting. He stated this decision is huge and affects a lot of people.
Mr. Burma stated Mound has a huge asset in the docks and commons program. Mr. Burma
stated proper procedure, such as staff finding out if there is a problem, then how widespread
is the problem and how many people will be affected by this problem, and thus coming up
with all possibilities to solve the problem, were not discussed in much detail. Mr. Burma
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
stated the decision by the Dock and Commons Commission was hasty and should be
reviewed again.
Mr. Burma suggested two solutions to solve this problem of size of slips. He stated a
scenario of charging boat owners the size of boat docks just as if you are charging a renter of
an apartment, i.e., you charge more for a bigger apartment versus a smaller apartment.
Mr. Burma illustrated another way of charging for multiple slip docks. In a situation with
77 feet of land with the proper setbacks, you can put in three dock figurations of 20 feet
allowing an additional 10 feet on each side of the docks, thus leaving 3 I/2 feet available
space between each slip to accommodate a 10 foot wide boat. These slips then could be up
to 30 feet in length without any encroachments in the setbacks.
Mr. Burma stated having a restriction of the length of your boat to be only 24 feet for
multiple slip docks does not seem long enough by any means.
Mr. Burma concluded there was probably not enough consideration in this decision. He
would recommend as a citizen to have the Council send this decision back to the Dock and
Commons Commission and ask staff to investigate if there is a problem or perceived to be
more a problem, what is the scope of the problem, what is the magnitude of the boats, and
what background materials have been made available to the people regarding this issue.
Councilmember Hanus stated they determined the length of the boat through the DNR rules.
The only restriction is that no portion can hang over the dock which would cause safety
issues. There are no restrictions of how much hangs out the back of the boat according to
the LMCD.
Mr. Burma stated if there was a perceived problem regarding boat lengths, there was no
definition of the problem or of its magnitude given to the public before a decision was passed
onto the Council.
Mr. Burma stated that when they went into the Avalon multiple dock program there were
promises given to the dockholders that are now being taken away. At the time staff stated
Avalon members could have 30 foot slips with a boat of any size smaller than the 30 foot
slip, and now the Dock and Commons Commission is stating that there are only going to be
24 foot slips and if you have a different size boat you will need to be put on a waiting list.
Councilmember Hanus stated that the Docks and Commons Commission will not change
anything at this point and this new change will take place for those Coming into the program.
Those that already belong would be grandfathered in.
Mr. Burma stated there are now restrictions if you change the size of your boat. It appears
that you cannot keep the same slip if you go up and down on boat sizes. Also, even though
the Avalon area was promised that if they change slips they would always be guaranteed their
old slip back, this does not appear to be the case anymore.
MOUND CItY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Councilmember Weycker stated that some public persons who were grandfathered into the
program evidently were never given the correct information and were mislead because the
Docks and Commons Commission knew the multiples were going to come down in size but
did not share that information at the appropriate time.
Mayor Meisel stated that if you have a 30 foot boat and as long you do not change your boat
size, you can keep that slip. This new rule is only put into effect if you change your boat
size.
Councilmember Brown stated that Mound is in the dock business and we should run this like
a business. He stated if Mound has the ability to make 30 foot slips, and as long as they
meet the setbacks, then why does Mound not build these slips in the appropriate areas.
Councilmember Brown stated that boats are getting wider beams and soon will not fit into 24
x 8 1/2 foot slips. This regulation set by the DNR uses what the boat is classified as an
average, but today boats are getting bigger all the time and are being measured in length
differently because of different things attached in the front and back of boats.
Councilmember Brown stated that Mound should get in the dock business and do it right.
Councilmember Hanus stated if we go that route the dock business will be a money-making
machine of profit.
Mr. Burma stated he has no problem with 8 1/2 foot wide lots, but the 24 feet in length will
not be suitable. He stated to make the 30 foot slips would probably be an added cost of
about $30 per boat.
Councilmember Hanus stated that if we go with the 30 foot slips then we will be reducing
the number of slips to a smaller amount available for the public. Mr. Burma stated he is
only recommending 30 foot slips where 30 foot slips would fit best. Mr. Burma is certain
there is space in Mound for such slips.
Councilmember Brown stated that our maximum inner boat slips are 24 feet. If we have the
space to accommodate a 30 foot slip then it should be made available. He stated that if you
chose to get a bigger boat from your current 24 foot boat size, then your name will go on a
list for the bigger slip and in the meantime your boat can be stored at a marina.
Councilmember Hanus stated he is unsure if this is completely possible, but if it is probable
then the City should possibly consider it.
Mayor Meisel stated this topic is up for discussion only. She stated that this should be sent
back to the Dock and Commons Commission and have it looked at in more depth and then
sent back to the Council with a recommendation.
Mayor Meisel stated in the agenda packet there are some well-defined rules and restrictions
used by other cities that should be considered by the City of Mound. Mayor Meisel stated
that the City of Mound also needs rules to apply across the board and not just for multiples.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES = SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Bob Schmidt, 4708 Island View Drive, asked if this item is going to be sent back to the
Dock and Commons Commission for them to consider the situation of grandfathering when
someone is forced into a multiple slip dock from their private dock, would they also be
grandfathered in? Mayor Meisel stated that as she reads this motion from the July 15, 1999,
minutes it appears that "yes" you would be grandfathered in. Mr. Schmidt also had a
concern about the restrictions from other cites if they are also considering, and at some point
Mound, having different restrictions for abutters and nonabutters.
Councilmember Hanus stated there are no abutters i stem/~for the multiples.
CoUncilmember Weycker stated the Council should keep in mind that it is important to keep
an eye of what other cities are doing, but not to forget the good things that are currently in
Mound that are going on with our lakeshore.
Tom Mickenbury, 444 Manchester, stated he bought his house with the intention of getting a
dock slip. Mr. Mickenbury in time was forced from his slip from a multiple dock system to
a single slip and now the City is stating that they want to control the size of boat he can
purchase according to the slip he has currently. Mr. Mickenbury stated there appears to be
30 foot slips available in his location and also stated that at Avalon the people were told they
could have 30 foot slips indefinitely.
Councilmember Hanus stated if an individual sells his/her boat you may not have the same
slip. Councilmember Hanus stated there is a serious management problem with slips and
half of the multiples had size problems this year.
Councilmember Brown stated if there are 30 foot slips presently used by the Avalon
individuals then if they sell their boat, they should be able to have any size boat as long as it
does not exceed the 30 foot slip length restriction.
Councilmember Hanus stated in order to grandfather others in, this rule was set up.
Mayor Meisel stated she would like to have staff address this issue of assigning boats to
which slip. She would like to know how this all works out and how it flows.
There was mention that individuals who have dock slips are suppose to be responsible
owners and report to the City when they assume a bigger size boat but, in reality, this does
not occur and that is the cause for restrictions coming about also.
Gene Smith, 4705 Island View, stated he was at the meetings several years ago regarding the
Avalon area. He stated the people were promised the finest, newest docks. They were also
told they could get their old dock back and get off their multiple system if they so chose at a
later date.
Councilmember Hanus stated he does recall this situation, but it was a trial period. When
the site was considered permanent, then the restrictions were changed.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Councilmember Weycker stated yes this area did become a permanent site and not a trial
site, but stated the rules did not change for the people at Avalon from what they were told
when they initially received their slips.
Mayor Meisel stated she would like to address the surplus fund for docks after being
mentioned briefly by Mr. Smith. She stated that there has been abuse in taking care of the
dock program. She also stated she believed spending the monies in the common area is
where it should be spent. Mayor Meisel stated lakeshore does need improvements and that is
where the surplus monies will be spent but at this point there has to be some decisions made
regarding how the money is spent before any action is taken.
Mr. Smith asked why parking was taken away at the same time boat slips were added at the
Pembroke Park.
The Acting City Manager stated they left four spaces because most individuals that use that
dock are in walking distance. She further stated there is no reason why someone cannot
drive down there and drop their things off. She stated those that use the dock really do not
use the parking. The Acting City Manager has asked the neighbors in the surrounding area
and they agree.
Councilmember Brown stated he did license plate checking also to see who visits the area the
most and he came up with parking spots being filled by Minneapolis, Stillwater, Golden
Valley, and most from the "larger boat" that is docked there.
Councilmember Hanus stated that this is a small local neighborhood park yet most of the
parking was being used by non-Mound residents, so by reducing the parking and giving the
park back to the people in that neighborhood, this will leave the residents content.
Cliff Schmidt, 3000 Island View Drive, stated the issue regarding the dock footage should be
sent back for more discussion by the DCAC and the people to make sure Mound starts
treating this like a business. Mr. Schmidt has been in the marina business his whole life and
he does not think it is appropriate that Mound penalize someone because their boat they just
purchased no longer fits their slip.
Councilmember Hanus stated there is a huge difference from multiple docks and a privately
owned dock so the same rules probably could not apply to both commons and multiples.
Mr. Schmidt stated again those residents of the Avalon site according to the petition they
signed could kept their slip forever. Councilmember Hanus stated he needs to look into the
minutes from the meeting Mr. Schmidt is referring to.
Kay Ostman, 2945 Island View Drive, stated when the City approached her regarding the
need for multiple docks it was because of setbacks. The owners were going to lose the dock
space because of the multiples. The neighborhood discussed the problem and came up with
the end result of having the 30 foot docks put in and the City complemented them on what a
nice group they were to work with. At that time the City gave permission to the owners to
go ahead with what was stated on the petition. She, as well as other neighbors, have bigger
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINLrrES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
boats and are working towards buying bigger boats because this whole Avalon area boats
frequently to other locations such as Lake Superior. She stated that many of the neighbors,
including herself, would like to keep the 30 foot docks which were promised to them in the
beginning.
Councilmember Hanus wanted to know what the slip sizes of the docks were and Mr. Burma
stated they were 20 1/4 wide x 30 feet long.
Jim Ostman, 2945 Island View Drive, stated he had a dock at Avalon and when the 30 foot
slips were installed for these residents of Avalon, they also signed a petition which stated
"the site holders may return to their original dock site any time in the future."
Councilmember Weycker asked that staff bring this topic back to the Docks and Commons
Commission for further research and recommendation. At that time staff should get copies
of tonight's minutes and the City ordinances. Staff should also have the minutes from the
original Avalon park meeting and a copy of the trial tape available. Staff should also
investigate multiple dock sizes that will fit up to a 30 foot boat and consider a price range
but yet allow individuals to move up and be put on a waiting list.
Mayor Meisel stated: this will be brought up to Docks and Commons Commission next
month.
1.10 DISCUSSION: POSSIBLE FALL LEAF DROP OFF SITE FOR MOUND
RESIDENTS.
The Acting City Manager spoke with the Public Works Superintendent and they came up
with tentative plans for Mound's drop site for leaves for this Fall to be October 23~ and 24~
, October 30~ and 31't, and November 6~ and 7~ at the Lost Lake site. After leaf drop off,
then the leaves would get trucked out to the regional park.
Councilmember Ahrens expressed concern that the City may be collecting the leaves a little
too soon. She recommends having the three weekend time period, but push back the dates to
begin the week of Halloween.
The Acting City Manager also stated the private compost site in St Bonifacius is probably not
going to open.
The Acting City Manager stated she would like to start publicizing the leaf pickup right
away.
Mayor Meisel stated the leaf pickup will begin october 30~ and 31st and end the weekend
November 6~ and 7~ If there is a need to stretch the leaf drop-off to one more week, the
City could use November 13th & 14th, weather permitting.
of
0.11
PRESENTATION OF 2000 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2000 PRELIMINARY
GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,174.950; SETTING THE
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $2.061,970 LESS THE HOMESTEAD
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT OtACA} OF $502.790. RESULTING IN A
PRELIMINARY CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1.559.182: APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2000; AND SETTING PUBLIC
HEARING DATES APPROVING PROPOSED BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY
LEVY.
The Finance Director presented the proposed budget for the year 2000. This budget can be
reduced and changed later. There will be further discussion at the October, Committee of
the Whole Meeting.
Councilmember Ahrens asked if the numbers stated are the highest they will go and the
Finance Director stated that the numbers can be changed but the levy cannot go any higher
than what is proposed.
Mayor Meisel stated when the Council meets in October with the department heads they will
go over their capital outlay line by line. Mayor Meisel stated the expenses appear to be real
close to what is expected, other than capital outlay. Councilmember Hanus stated it would
be wise to have department heads meet one department at a time when explaining capital
outlay.
Councilmember Weycker asked why had hospital and dental care increased so substantially.
The Finance Director stated there was such an increase because it is based on a percentage
and it is projected to increase at least 20 percent this year.
There was some general discussion regarding the levy. The Finance Director stated this is
about a 15 percent increase which may change.
Councilmember Weycker stated that this procedure was done somewhat different than what
was presented last year.
Hanus moved and Brown seconded the following resolution according to staff
recommendation:
RESOLUTION # 99-83
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2000
PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,174,950; SETTING THE
PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $2,061,790 LESS THE
HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA)
OF $502,790, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY
CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,559,182; APPROVING
THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR
2000; AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
13
5:3-67
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Councilmember Brown stated that since there will be a number of extra meetings the HRA is
required hold in the upcoming months, he would like to request that there be stipend
payment considered for the HRA.
Mayor Meisel stated a resolution will be put on the agenda for the next I-IRA meeting and
Attorney Dean will outline how this might work.
Mayor Meisel stated she is interested in taking a look at the statute to include a longer term
for Mayor for the City of Mound for her own benefit and for those in the future.
INFORMATION
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
6.
August Finance Department Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
EDC Minutes from August 19, 1999.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes from August 19, 1999.
DCAC Minutes of August 19, 1999.
LMCD Mailings.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes from September 9, 1999.
LMCD public hearing notice of Richard Oliver.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to adjourn the meeting.
was adjourned at 10:21 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor.
carried. 5-0.
The meeting
Motion
Manager
Attest: Council Secretary
Francene C. Clark, Acting City
14
September 28, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 99-
RESOLUTION TO DENY A NONCONFORMING HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A 6 FOOT
HIGH FENCE AT 3188 TUXEDO BLVD,
BLOCK 9, LOTS 24-25-26, WHIPPLE
PID # 13-117-24 21 0041
P & Z CASE# 99-32
37970
WHEREAS, the applicant, Keith Harrell, has submitted a request for a 2 foot
fence height variance to allow a 6 foot fence in the front yard facing Tuxedo BIvd; and,
WHEREAS, the request for the variance is to lessen the noise impact of Al &
Alma's restaurant which is located directly across the street from the Harrell's; and,
WHEREAS, the code regulates fence height to 4 feet when located in a front
yard measured from the existing grade; and,
WHEREAS, Staff finds it difficult to recommend in favor of this request given
the feasible alternatives available including combinations of berming, landscaping, and
fencing; and,
WHEREAS, the Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the request
and recommended that the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant;
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 as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
2. This variance is denied for the following legally described property as stated
in the Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOTS 24, 25, & 26, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael. Commissioners: Orr Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Absent and excused:
Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Michael Mueller. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: David Babler, Michele R. Berglund, Cathy Boyland,
Danny C. Hill, John Hughes, Richard Lillehei, Jim Olson, Dale Pixler, Tom Stokes, and
Pam Weatherhead.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-32: VARIANCE; FENCE HEIGHT; TO CONSTRUCT A 40 FOOT
PRIVACY FENCE, 6 FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD
AT 3188 TUXEDO BOULEVARD; BLOCK 9, LOTS 24-25-26, WHIPPLE; KEITH
HARRELL, 37970. PID# 13-117-24 21 0041.
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request for a 2 foot fence height
variance to allow a 6 foot fence in the front yard facing Tuxedo. The owner is requesting
the variance to lessen the impact of Al & Alma's restaurant which is located directly
across the street from the Harrell's. A second fence located in the rear yard on the
north side of the home with a 6 foot height is also planned.
The code regulates fence height to 4 feet when located in a front yard and 6 feet in side
and rear yards. The height is measured from the existing grade. The code does allow a
42 inch fence on a berm in front yards and does not regulate the height of the berm.
This is an alternative that would essentially provide the same level of screening that is
within code. Evergreens, hedges, and other landscaping would also provide protection
against exhaust fumes.
Staff finds it difficult to recommend in favor of this request given the feasible
alternatives available. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council deny the variance as requested.
Weiland stated there is a cement obstacle in front of the fence. Is it possible to
remove this obstacle so the applicant could gain extra feet without encroaching on
the road.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
Gordon stated this is possible, but this may run into City property. By doing this,
there is probably a little gain, but not a lot. It would probably involve more work
than what it would benefit. Gordon stated there is about 20 feet from the fence
and the deck, and if screening is the goal, maybe this will distract with plants as
stated above.
Brown asked if the shrubs would be more cost-effective.
Burma stated this would be a good idea, but there is an encroachment being
created and he is not sure this is the answer.
Voss asked how a berm or any other privacy would be considered in the future.
Gordon stated there is a small amount of room that could be added onto in the
future regarding the home addition but the lot is built out in many ways already.
Voss asked how to address the use of shrubs or bushes as alternatives. Voss
referred to the statement that the applicant has looked into trees and bushes as
alternatives but they are concerned about the salt in the winter and trees and
shrubs do not solve an immediate solution which they are looking for.
Gordon stated that the roadway is about 15 feet away and he feels that is enough
footage regarding salt concerns in the winter. Gordon stated that the cost of the
trees for the applicant is not the primary factor for the City to rely on because the
City is more concerned about the proper codes that need to be followed.
Gordon stated that if he was the owner of the property, he would want to do
something to screen from the commercial property.
Voss asked if there are other homes in the area that have a six foot fence. Gordon
stated he is not aware of any at this time.
Voss stated if this six foot fence would be granted then the City is setting
precedence.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to deny the variance according to
staff recommendations.
Michele Berglund, 5138 Hanover, the applicant's neighbor, explained the applicant
could not be present tonight so she would like to speak on his behalf. She stated
that one Saturday night, when it was a nice evening, she, her husband and two
twelve-year-old twins were sitting outside their home and a boat unloaded and
came onto the lot. They overlook the parking lot near the location in question.
She said they saw two men get out, and before she knew it, they were urinating
right before their eyes.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
Brown asked Ms. Berglund if she called the police.
Ms. Berglund stated that she did not call the police because "nothing gets done."
She also stated that the applicant did not show up tonight because he already got a
letter denying the variance. She strongly suggested to the Planning Commission
that things need to change in residential areas such as her neighborhood. She is
very frustrated.
Burma asked if the fence in question for the applicant would help screen her view
of the parking lot. Ms. Bergland stated that it would not but she is all for whatever
can help neighbors.
Brown stated again that if anything else does occur like this to call the police and
then after the officer has investigated the situation, he will let you know what was
done. Confidentiality of names will be kept by the officers.
Ms. Berglund stated in the past, the men tend to urinate and then they hop on the
bus and are gone. Brown stated again to make sure she calls the police and he is
certain someone will be right over.
Chair Michael asked staff why the City currently has a code which allows only a
four foot fence and not a six foot fence.
Gordon stated there are scale issues and safety issues to be considered.
Chair Michael expressed some concern why the City would allow a berm and a
fence which would be six feet tall and not just a fence by itself which is six feet
tall.
Gordon stated the effect of a six foot fence is the creation of a wall which creates
a corridor look. The zoning code in effect creates the aesthetic standards for
residential property to encourage the house to be a prominent feature from the
street. Gordon also stated that the lack of visibility of the people in the yard with a
six foot fence is a concern.
Brown stated if you build a three-foot berm and then put a fence on top of that,
what is the difference. Gordon stated the difference is the visual look. The code
does not want walls along street corridors.
Sutherland stated he had a discussion with the applicant and is very understanding
because he also has to deal with commercial property close to his property. Sutherland
stated to the applicant that to find flexibility in the code would be ideal, but not very
likely. Suthedand stated to the applicant there are few cases that he has not denied a
six foot fence. He stated perhaps it could be screened, but this process is difficult to
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
do,
Voss stated he is sympathetic towards the applicant but the applicant will have to come
up with a different solution than a fence.
Glister stated the applicant has a valid plea, but she does not want to upset precedent
as it exists to date.
Brown asked if the applicant would go with the berm and trees, would Al and Alma's
subsidize costs for the trees instead of the fence. Gordon could not give a definite
answer to this question.
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Brown suggested to have Gordon check into the possibility of Al and Alma's helping to
pay for the trees and shrubs if the applicant and other neighbors in his area are
agreeable to this plan.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
gill
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Keith Harrell
CASE NUMBER: 99-32
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 3188 tctm,d Vi,~,~
ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a 2 feet fence height variance to
allow a 6 feet fence in the front yard facing Tuxedo. The owner is requesting the variance to
lessen the impact of A1 & Alma's restaurant which is located directly across the street from the
Harrell's. A second fence located in the rear yard on the north side of the home built at a 6 feet is
also planned.
The code regulates fence height to 4 feet when located in a front yard and 6 feet in side and rear
yards. The height is measured from the existing grade. The code does allow a 42 inch fence on a
berm in front yards and does not regulate the height of the berm. This is an alternative that would
essentially provide the same level of screening that is within code. Evergreens, hedges, and other
landscaping would also provide protection against exhaust fumes.
Staff finds it difficult to recommend in favor of this request given the feasible alternatives
available.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
deny the variance as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
;,~lO,~(~_ City Planner i,~
~U-:._~ City Engineer
__~_~'~~ Public Works
Address
Lot
Block
Subdivision
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 - R-3
Name ~
Address
Phone (H)
Other
B-1
JUL 215 1999
CITY OF MOUND
Application Fee: $1 OO.OO
Case No.~'~ - ~ ;,,,.,,
DNR
Plat#
B-2 B-3
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
OWNER)
(W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
o
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NS EW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. 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~N:L No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Please
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ~},other: specify
(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 as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes ~"~ No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
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 ~-~
pplicant's Signature
Date
Date
qq
(Rev. 6-16-99)
APLLICATION FOR VARIANCE
KEITH AND JAN HARRELL
3188 TUXEDO BLVD.
MOUND, MN 55364
612 472 1043
JULY 26,1999
We are applying for a variance to the city of Mound to construct a 6 foot X 40
foot cedar fence which would run along a portion of the front of our property
and a 6 foot X 32 foot fence on the side of our property facing Al & Alma's
parking lot.
A fence will give us the opportunity to use our front yard and our front porch.
The reasons we are applying for the variance:
1. To provide some privacy from A1 & Alma's Restaurant.
To provide privacy from the high level of traflqc congestion. Buses of people
loading and unloading to go to the A1 & Alma's 6 cruise boats that are
parked at the Al & Alma's docks across the street. Convoys of cars looking
for parking places, stopping in front of our house, waiting for spots to open.
Or waiting for the parking lot attendants to tell them where to park.
3. To provide privacy from the high level of miscellaneous customers,
employees, deliveries that use A1 & Alma's restaurant.
4. To provide some noise abatement from the diesel engine buses and delivery
trucks loading and unloading at Al & Alma's restaurant.
To provide noise abatement from the large groups of people coming and
going to Al &Alma's to and from the beach to Al & Alma's parking lot and
buses. Large groups of customers mingle in front of Al &Alma's (which is
in front of our house) on the street and on the beach.
6. Some air pollution abatement from the diesel buses idling while loading and
unloading customers.
7. Security from the inebriated customers, strangers that stops to invite
themselves to our yard.
We have looked at alternatives, such as trees and bushes. However, the salt
applied in the winter to the street, which is a hill, makes it di~cult to maintain
any bushes. We are looking for an immediate solution. Planting trees and
bushes would not provide that.
Description: .
...~. .- ~ . .
~ 24, B~ock 9,
..WHIPPLE
· .;,-I
/
'/ ,
(~,. --.: _ . -
~'-,'~'~ebY certify,' that th~s ~s ~ t~ue and cq~ect ~ep~esentaUo~ of a su~ey o~ ~e.
:~:~a~es o~ ~e ~.~a .~e ~e~ba ~a o[ the Zo~.t~o. ot ~n ~.aa~, '~_~, t~e~?o~::
--. :';,,.' ~.. ' - , ' · · · 2~ -' .,' '~',' -'~
~: :~'>~.and.~l. visible encroachments, zf .any, from or on said l~. Dated th~s day;
CIFY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIlEET
9 C
Lo'r OF .~Co.t~? YES/ ,~o ~e~. ~
YARD I DIRECTION I
IIOUSE .........
~:RO~ ~a~ ~ s ~ w
SIDE ~S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S ~W
I.AKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
R1
C R1A
RR
R2
R3
REQUIRED
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE: ·
~o.ooo/~o B'~ 7,500/0 LOT WIDTH:
6,000~40 '~ ~32 20,000180
6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
14,000/80 LO'r DEPTH:
sE]~ OnD. Z:t 30,OO0/ZOO
I EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE
50'
10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUll. DINGS
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
FOP OF IIIMFE
4' OR6'
4' OR6'
4'
50'
10' OR 30'
IlARIgTOVER 30% OR 40%
This Zoning Informafiou Shec~ only summarizes a portion of d~e requirements omlined in tl~e City or Mound Zoning Ordinance. For furdmr information, contact thc City of Mound
Planning Departmem at 472-06(X).
O I
'O
0-%
Septernber 28, lggg
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, DEVON,
PID# 30-117-23 22 0019,
P & Z CASE #99-34
37870
WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela Weatherhead, has applied for a front yard setback
variance to construct a deck at 4640 Island View Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setback:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 18 ft 20 ft 2 ft
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 20
feet front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the deck would provide access from the front of the house to the garage; and,
WHEREAS, due to the slope of the property, a deck is a good alternative to a sidewalk;
and,
WHEREAS, all but a corner of the deck meets setback requirements; and,
WHEREAS, Hardcover is under 40 percent; and,
September 28, 1999
4640 Island View Dr - Weatherhead
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval
of the variance recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance listed below as recommended by
the Planning Commission in order to construct a deck.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 18 ft 20 ft 2 ft
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the
owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on Certified
Survey from Advance Surveying & Engineering Co:
LOTS 16 & 17, BLOCK 3, DEVON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
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.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael. Commissioners: Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Absent and excused:
Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Michael Mueller. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: David Babler, Michele R. Berglund, Cathy Boyland,
Danny C. Hill, John Hughes, Richard Lillehei, Jim Olson, Dale Pixler, Tom Stokes, and
Pam Weatherhead.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-34: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE; BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 AND 17, DEVON;
PAMELA WEATHERHEAD, 37870. PID# 30-117-23 22 0019.
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request for a front yard
variance to construct a deck. The associated variance is as follows.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 18 feet 20 feet 2 feet
The deck is planned in conjunction with a detached garage project. The property does
not currently have a garage, so the plan would be an improvement to the property. All
off-street parking occurs on a gravel area in front of the home. The deck would provide
access from the front of the house to the garage. Given the slope of the yard a deck is
a good alternative to a sidewalk. The second story would provide good views of the
lake. As noted on the plans, most of the deck will be conforming. An attempt to reduce
the encroachment is made by notching the encroaching corner. Hardcover after
construction of the garage and deck will be under 40 percent.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the
variance as requested.
Weiland asked the applicant if the big maple tree, that is currently there, was going to
be cut down. Ms. Weatherhead stated very strongly that all the trees are staying.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
Weiland asked if Ms. Weatherhead would be coming into the garage from the Island
View Drive side.
Voss questioned where the front yard and side and rear are located according to the
plat. Gordon went through the location of the house on the plat.
Voss then questioned the applicant to see the time constraints on this project and if this
was going to be one project or two projects. The applicant stated that this was going to
be one project by having the garage done first and then the deck. If the weather did not
permit both projects to be done before snowfall, then it may end up being two projects.
Sutherland stated the garage qualifies for the recent streamlining provision of the
zoning code. There is a question regarding possible utilities that need to be clarified on
the south side of the property.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to move according to staff
recommendations. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Front Yard Variance
OWNER: Pamela Weatherhead
CASE NUMBER: 99-34
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 4640 Island View Drive
ZONING: Residential District R-lA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a front yard variance to construct a
deck. The associated variance is as follows.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 18 ft 20 ft 2 ft
The deck is planned in conjunction with a detached garage project. The property does not
currently have a garage, so the plan would be an improvement to the property. All off-street
parking occurs on a gravel area in front of the home. The deck would provide access from the
front of the house to the garage. Given the slope of the yard a deck is a good alternative to a
sidewalk. The second story would provide good views of the lake. As noted on the plans, most of
the deck will be conforming. An attempt to reduce the encroachment is made by notching the
encroaching comer. Hardcover after construction of the garage and deck will be under 40
percent.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution'
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
City Planner DNR
City Engineer Other
Pub,c Works
1. 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.).'
(Rev. 6-16-99)
Variance Application, P. 2
Case No. C~, ~
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes .~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED
(or existin_g)
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
NSEW)
NSEW)
NSEW)
NSEW)
NSEW)
: NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
VARIANCE
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ,/, e..~ ~qft. ~.,~' ft.
sq ft ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes {~', No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~ existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
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 j~)'. If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No J~. If
yes,
explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, .list some other properties which
are
similarly
affected?
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.
O wner'sS,,,na,ure
s,,,.,.,,,,,.,,
(Rev. 6-16-99)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:/-/L~)
OWNER'S NAME: ...
· o~ ^.~?¥~.'F~o. ~. × ~o~ =
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40%
× ',,,%
(for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) ....... I
= (for detached buildings only) .. I////O,,~"],~_~ 7-~'
*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
SQ FT
DRIVEWAY, CARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS~.
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
DECKS Open decks (1/4' min.
opening between boards) with a
X ~
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
TOTAL DECK ..........................
OTHER X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~FI I~c~:~-'4C/FT-_~I~, ~1
I.INDER (~;R~ndicate difference) ............................... I /7z-,~''TI , /
R EPAREDBY ~~~~ ~~~~ DATE
0
AUG-08-1999 12:28
RDUANCE SURUEYING
6124748267 P.02/02
TOTAL P.02
~,~
¢,) 0
EXISTING DW£LLiNO i
i ,
/ / / / /., /I/ / , × 993.07
' S 89'49'~.3" E
987.89 " ---!11.40--- ~ 971.57
-: - ~' ~78 ~.-i07.00---
~ ~STORY FRAME q'
~ 982.06 .~ ~]0. ¢&640 ~ ~r~
/ /
-EXiS~NO DECK /
~ //// ~ /28.2 - / / /
~ ] 977.62 t '
I ~ 976.~2 ~ ', PROPOSED DE
. 977.7, X ' -- /
o I 975~95~76.46 ~X ~75~z /
5
972.2~ >~
CDOE OF!BlT. O~WE~
/968.82
968.66
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
inch = 20 ft.
RECEIVED
JOB NO. 981111
BUll. DING PERMIT APPLICATION
SITE
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
ARCHITECT
&/OR
ENGINEER
VALUATION
wo. :
SEP~ATE P~MITS ~E REOUIR~ FOR ~ECT~C~, ~UMSING, H~NG, V~NG OR ~R CONDITIONING.
PERMIT~ BECOME NULL ~D VOID IF WORK OR CON~RUC~ON A~ORIZ~ IS NOT COMM~CED ~IN 180 DAYS, OR IF CON'RUCTION OR WORK IS SUSP~D~ OR AB~DONED
FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ~Y ~ME A~ WORK IS COMM~C~.
TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPL~ION. ~ WORK TO 8E P~FO~ PURSUIT TO A 8UI~ING PERMIT OBT~N~ FOR N~ CON~RUC~ON, REP~RS, R~ODEUNG, ~D ALT~ONS
TO THE ~TERIORS OF ~Y BUILDING OR S~UCTURE IN ~ ZONING DI~CT ~L BE COMPL~ ~IN ONE (1) Y~ ~OM ~E DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBT~NING THE PERMIT ~D THE O~ER OF ~E ~OPER~ ~ BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPL~ION. A ~O~TION OF ~IS ORDIN~CE IS A MISDEM~OR OFFENSE. ~E CI~
COUNCIL MAY ~TEND THE ~ME FOR COM~ON UPON ~ REQUE~ OF ~E P~I~EE, ESTABU~ING TO THE R~SON~LE SATISFAC~ON OF THE CI~ COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMST~CES B~OND THE CONSOL OF ~E P~I~EE PR~T~ COMPL~ON OF ~E WORK FOR ~ICH THE P~MIT WAS G~TED. ~E ~T~SION SH~ BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN ~IR~ (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO ~E ~D OF ~E ONE-Y~ P~IOD.
I HEREBY CERTI~ THAT I HAVE R~ ~D ~INED ~IS ~CA~ON ~D KNOW THE S~E TO BE TRUE ~D CORRECT. ~L PRO~SIONS OF ~WS ~O ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS ~PE OF WORK ~ BE COM~I~ ~TH ~ ~ECIFI~ H~BN OR NOT. ~E G~NG OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORI~ TO ~O~TE OR C~CEL THE
PRO~SIONS OF ~Y OTHER ~ATE OR LOC~ ~W REGULA~NG CONDUCTION OR THE P~FORM~CE OF CON.RUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPMCANU~ SIGNATURE DA~
(~CEp. S~pNLY~ SP~IAL CONDITION~&20~MENTS: g~J~. p~[~ _
CONSTRUCTION ~PE: OCCUP~CY GROUP / DIV: M~ OCCUP~T LO~ COPIED ~PROVED
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The applicant is: ~owner contractor tenant
Contact Person ~ ~ ~
Address ~
Phone (H) (W) (M) ~
Phone (H) (W) (M) ~
ZONING
BLDG SIZE ISO FTI t STORIES RRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER
· U~TS YES I NO
PUSUC WORKS
ASSESSING
VARIANCE 'APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
534.1 Nlaywood Road, Mound, MN 55364-
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 47: -0620
Application Fee: ~ 100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date;
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
-.._~-~ '~ City Engineer
~)-2'1 '('~'/ Public Works
DNR
Other
1. 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 cbpies of resolutions.
2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
-0
/
/ ..~ j
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
SITE
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364'
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
Subject Address
The applicant is: ~_~.owner __contractor ~tenant
Company Name
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H)
(W) (m)
(W) (M)
CHANGE OF
' d ..- /
~ WORK: ~~ = ~'~~-~ VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTI~TING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED ~THIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A ~ER~OD OF 180 DAYS AT ~Y TIME A~ER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TiM E LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPL~ION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUIT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR N~CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATION S
TO THE EXTERIORS OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLIED ~THIN ONE [1~ Y~R FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPER~ SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLY]ON. A ~O~TION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEME~OR OFFENSE. THE CI~
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPL~ION UPON ~I~EN REQUEST OF THE PERMI~E/, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CI~ COUNCtL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES B~OND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMI~EE PREVENTED COMPL~ION OF THE WORK FOR ~ICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIR~ ~30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-Y~ PERIOD.
I HEREBY CERTI~ THaT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE S~E TO BE TRUE ~D CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF ~WS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS ~PE OF WORK ~LL BE COMPLIED ~TH WH~HER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. ~E GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORI~ TO VlO~TE OR CANCEL THE
PROViSiONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOC~ LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME AP
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////~//~///////~////////~~////~//////~/////////////////////////~~//////////////////////////////
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED I APPROVED
BLDG SIZE (SQ FT) # STORIES PRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED?
# uaffs YES / NO
: RECEIVED E~Y/DATE.': : pLANS CHE~KED B~: . APPROVED By'DATE: ::
ZONING
PUBLIC WORKS
ASSESSING ,
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
FRA
SURVEY REVIEW
FOR
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
RECEIVED
.qFP - § 1999
MOUND PLANJ~tN6 &
DATE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REVIEW COMMENTS
k3oT. (:MTo
p:~ns:~noun~sur-rev
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com
The Home Depot ~2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE, pLYMOUTH,
Sat Aug 14 10:52:52 1999 ~
The materials in this deck will cos~ $1587.74
This Price does not include any Special Order Items.
.le saved as: f:~dn~decks~814098BB.DEK
View
Please
RECEIVED
AUG 17 1999
MOUND PLA~I~II~G &
The Home Depot #2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE,
Sat Aug 14 10:52:52 1999 '
File saved as: f:~dn~decks~814098BB.DEK
Deck Layout
PLYMOUTH, MN
55441,
The Home Depot #2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS ~ANE,
Sat Aug 14 10:52:52 1999 '
File saved as: f:\dn\decks\814098BB.DEK
Post Layout for Deck 1
PLYMOUTH,
MN 55441,
Deck i
BasePoin~
The Home Depot #2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE, PLYMOUTH, MN 55441,
Sat Aug 14 10:52:52 1999 ~
File saved as: f:\dn~decks~814098BB.DEK
Deck Dimensions for Deck 1
Jeist Spacing = 16 in. c.c.
Railpest Spacing = 96 in. o.c., Baluster
Railing Height =
The HOme Depot #2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE,
Sat Aug 14 10:52:52 1999 ~
File saved as: f:~dn~decks~814098BB.DEK
Post Layout for Deck 2
PLYMOUTH, MN
55441,
-3'
BasePcint
The Home Depot #2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE, PLYMOUTH, MN 55441,
Sat Aug 14 10:52:52 1999 ~
File saved as: f:\dn\decks\814098BB.DEK
Deck Dimensions for Deck 2
~--23'
: :III
Joist Spacing = 16 in. c.c.
Railpost Spacing = 96 in. o.c., Baluster Spacing = 3 in., Toe Spacing = 3 in., Railing Height =
Stair 1: Rise = 7 in., Run = il in.
The Home Depot #2808, 1765 ANNAPOLIS LANE,
Sat Aug 14 10:52:52 1999 ·
File saved as: f:\dn\decks\814098BB.DEK
Post Layout ~or D~ck ~
PLYMOUTH, MN
55441,
Base~ :
9 ' 9 Deck
The Home Depot #2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE,
Sat Aug 14 10:52:52 1999 ~
File saved as: f:~dn\decks~814098BB.DEK
Deck Dimensions for Deck 3
PLYMOUTH,
MN 55441,
D e ~ k
Joist Spacing = 16 in. o.c.
Railpost Spacing = 96 in. o.c., Baluster
Stair 3: Rise = 7 in., Run = ii in.
':., 9, azlinq Heiqh~;
^DDR~S~f
RECORD? lYES J! NO
YARDk.~..~" [
IIOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R1
DIRECTION } REQUIRED
N S E W
NSEW
N S E W [~
N S E W
N $ E W 50'
10' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE: ·
lo,ooo/6o BZ v,SO0/O LOT WIDTIt:
6,ooo/4o.~ n2 20,ooo/00
6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
x4. ooo/oo LOT DEPTti:
SEE ORD. I1 30,000/'100
EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE
GARAGE, SliED ..... DETACiiED 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 BI.UFF
4' OR6'
4' OR 6'
4'
50'
10' OR 30'
~RDCOVER 30% OR 40%
This Zoning Informatiou Sheet only summarizes a portion of the teqmremcnts outlined in the City of IVlound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, collie! tile City of Mound
VIEW DR ,s",
(85)
0
0
0
c,4
o~ ~>
CITY OF
)dOUND
Date:
September 13, 1999
From:
Sgt. McKinley
Officer Ewald9~
Re: Street Light
In reference to the petition for the city to take over the maintenance and cost of an
existing street light located on a power pole at 3064 Alexander Lane, the street light
is a necessity in that particular area as it does light up a good share of Alexander
Lane down and across Donald Drive.
There is an existing city street light on a power pole on the north side of Donald
Drive and Dale Lane. There is a second existing city street light on a power pole on
the north side of Donald Drive and Dundee Lane. There is a power pole located on
the north side of Donald Drive at Alexander Lane if the city chose to erect a
matching city street light to the ones located at Dundee Lane and Dale Lane.
The existing privately owned street light at 3064 Alexander Lane is located just
between the lot lines of 3064 and 3048 Alexander Lane and appears to be in good
condition and operational.
My recommendation would be to erect a city street light on the north side of Donald
Drive at Alexander Lane to match the existing ones on Donald Drive at Dundee
Lane and Dale Lane.
From- T-~$3 P.OZ/OZ F-G42
September 3, 1999
City of Mound
Mound, Minnesota
Attention: Greg
In response to oar conversation of August 31, 1999, this letter is to petition the City of Mound to
take over the care and maintenance of the security night light that sits on a pole at the ~ge of my
property at 3064 Alexander Lane, Mound, MN 55364. Northern States Power has maintained it
for years and I ~a¥ a s~all fee for the electricity. However, it ha~ not been taken care o£properly
mas year, aha !anct my neiglabors are concerned because when the light is not on at night, the
street is very dm-k. I do not have the resources to ma~tain the light or replace fixtures when
burned out.
The light is a safety measure for those using the trails leading in and out of Swenson Park and
also creates a measure of safety against theft, damage to property for those homeowners who live
near and around the light.
Your immediate consideration would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,~_~¥~ ~ .~)~
Judith Furry
3064 Alexander Lane
Mound, MN 55364
This petition is also acknowledged by the following neighbors:
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REARING
ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS;
UNPAID TREE RF_~OVEL BILL;
INPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL BILL.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin
County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30
P.M. on October 12~, 1999, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any,
to the proposed assessments on the following parcels of land for:
UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1
YEAR
PROPERTY
IDENTIFICATION #
AMOUNT
13-117-24 21 0025 172.92
13-117-24 21 0092 405.23
13-117-24 12 0123 264.02
13-117-24 12 0052 422.57
13-117-24 12 0020 347.95
13-117-24 12 0042 227.31
12-117-24 43 0004 310:48
13-117-24 12 0189 353.38
13-117-24 12 0030 311.64
12-117-24 43 0001 417.22
13-117-24 12 0009 465.27
13-117-24 12 0014 269.77
13-117-24 12 0006 149.30
13-117-24 12 0202 427.92
13-117-24 11 0061 412.97
13-117-24 11 0055 171.381
13-1 t7-24 12 0231 408.27
13-117-24 14 0002 377.35
13-117-24 11 0056 286.14
13-117-24 14 0029 521.64
13-117-24 12 0083 262.93
13-117-24 11-0077 358.52
18-117-23 23 0004 431.89
18-117-23 23 0012 428.77
13-11%24 11 0122
13-117-24 11 0120
13-117-24-12-0075
13-117-24-12 -0072
13-117-24 22 0277
13-117-24 22 0276
14-117-24 42 0082
14-117-24 42 0010
14-117-24 42 0127
14-117-24 14 0043
14-117-24 14 0032
14-117-24 13 0004
14-117-24 42 0110
14-117-24-42 0117
14-117-24-42 0079
14-117-24 42 0077
14-117-24 42 0069
14-117-24 42 0016
14-117-24 42 0028
14-117-24 42 0035
14-117-24 42 0042
14-117-24 42 0041
14-117-24 31 0020
14-117-24 31 0031
14-117-24 31 0042
14-117-24 31 0043
14-117-24 32 0032
14-117-24 32 0015
14-117-24 34 0038
14-117-24 34 0015
14-117-24 44 0007
14-117-24 44 0032
14-117-24 44 0031
14-117-24 41 0015
14-117-24 42 0002
14-117-24 42 0023
13-117-24 32 0044
13-117-24 32 0057
13-117-24 32 0066
13-117-24 31 0077
13-117-24 31 0017
13-117-24 32 O115
13-117-24 31 0052
13-117-24-31 0044
13-117-24-31 0040
13-117-24-31-0068
13-117-24-31-0064
404.86
146.13
474.13
2113.65
214.05
239.91
560.65
140.09
417.89
235.90
202.27
213.85
675.36
527.78
217.99
520.14
236.42
559.52
602.27
244.21
812.15
357.98
1689.89
516.76
292.92
181.20
220.14
755.54
192.58
555.01
186.59
392.64
682.01
263.01
259.60
484.60
315.36
438.90
666.65
488.14
447.41
557.10
313.65
248.01
213.92
131.87
268.57
13-117-24-34-0014
13-117-24-34-0010
13-117-24 43 0063
13-117-24-43 0083
13-117-24 43 0086
13-117-24 43 0089
24-117-24 12 0055
13-117-24-43 0090
13-117-24 41 0053
13-117-24-41 0012
13-117-24-42-0014
13-117-24 42 0022
13-117-24 41 0030
13-117-24 41 0031
18-117-23 33 0030
18-117-23 33 0027
13-117-24 44 0095
13-117-24 44 0033
13-117-24 44 0007
24-117-24 12 0032
23-117-24 14 0013
23-117-24 13 0012
23-117-24 42 0002
23-.117-24 42 0005
22-117-24 44 0030
22-117-24 43 0010
22-117-24 43 0007
23-117-24 41 0018
23-117-24 41 0021
23-117-24 44 0007
23-117-24 44 0008
23-117-24 42 0028
23-117-24 42 0020
23-117-24 42 0045
23-117-24 31 0012
23-117-24 43 0008
23-117-24 34 0086
23-117-24 34 0036
23-117-24 31 0037
23-117-24 34 0090
23-117-24 31 0059
23-117-24 34 0102
23-117-24 24 0013
23-117-24 23 0005
23-117-24 24 0062
23-117-24 24 0008
23-117-24 31 0054
222.52
234.05
260.68
436.01
559.45
362.97
727.68
249.27
172.81
630.86
1280.07
231.41
190.43
342.06
248.57
481.95
450.20
447.43
156.04
230.36
386.84
526.97
400.07
479.33
370.19
491.32
2495.70
270.36
359.79
315.36
178.72
349.99
421.94
46O.69
297.35
586.45
396.24
386.35
411.59
318.08
895.19
492.82
316.05
330.94
127.75
355.07
464.74
3
23-117-24 34 0062
23-117-24 32 0025
23-117-24 32 0037
23-117-24 23 0095
23-117-24 32 0043
23-117-24 32 0050
23-117-24 32 0023
22-117-24 43 0007
22-117-24 44 0018
22-117-24 44 0021
23-117-24 31 0064
23-117-24 31 0066
23-117-24 32 0063
23-117-24 23 0109
23-117-24 23 0104
23-117-24 24 0058
23-117-24 13 0071
23-117-24 13 0046
13-117-24 24 0034
23-117-24 23 0004
24-117-24 32 0143
24-117-24 11 0006
24-117-24 11 0011
24-117-24 21 0005
13-117-24 34 0098
13-117-24 34 0098
13-117-24 43 0098
13-117-24 34 0098
13-117-24 34 0098
13-117-24 43 0022
13-117-24 43 0020
13-117-24 43 0025
13-117-24 44 0021
13-117-24 43 0032
24-117-24 13-0009
24-117-24 12 0020
13-117-24 43 0004
13-117-24 43 0006
19-117-23 23 0124
19-117-23 23 0124
19-117-24 14 0073
19-117-23 23 0135
19-117-23 23 0131
19-117-23 23 0082
19-117-23 24 0091
19-117-23 24 0022
19-117-23 24 0033
159.32
128.47
137.12
1489.94
352.95
1125.45
240.18
249.33
566.00
232.95
247.36
406.93
404.82
419.36
466.94
423.48
816.00
168.52
307.20
241.55
210.48
233.08
410.82
153.62
283.13
479.58
294.16
190.28
585.77
401.79
1095.21
392.59
397.84
182.27
1844.44
362.97
247.08
307.70
151.50
328.93
1224.89
304.01
570.33
321.39
532.82
357.02
692.63
4
19-117-23 32 0015
19-117-23 23 0064
19-117-23 23 0108
24-117-24 14 0061
19-117-23 23 0159
24-117-24 41 0198
19-117-23 24 0024
19-117-23 24 0031
19-117-23 24 0048
19-117-23 32 0033
19-117-23 32 0031
24-117-24 41 0192
24-117-24 41 0042
24-117-24 41 0176
24-117-24 41 0087
24-117-24 41 0032
19-117-23 32 0195
19-117-23 32 0204
19-117-23 31 0096
19-117-23 31 0101
19-117-23 32 0076
19-117-23 32 0077
19-117-23 32 0082
24-117-24 41 0162
19-117-23 31 0128
19-117-23 34 0100
19-117-23 34 0064
19-117-23 34 0099
25-117-24 21 0043
19-117-23 33 0172
19-117-23 33 0026
19-117-23 33 0051
25-117-24 11 0068
24-117-24 44 0051
24-117-24 43 0034
24-117-24 43 0079
24-117-24 43 0047
19-117-23 32 0210
24-117-24 44 0022
24-117-24 44 0021
19-117-23 34 0122
19-117-23 34 0044
19-117-23 34 0043
19-117-23 33 OOlO
19-117-23 33 0235
19-117-23 33 0232
19-117-23 33 0041
149.30
1565.95
1563.32
273.92
540.59
1454.74
1017.95
139.32
726.44
339.89
388.84
129.00
385.95
512.95
524.22
563.57
242.64
1652.95
601.07
342.26
461.32
548.82
372.56
324.17
531.32
171.41
2025.70
133.86
202.11
300.76
342.67
535.80
1559.19
242.54
397.09
291.23
364.63
347.30
323.42
367.39
323.11
405.76
515.82
302.39
496.07
228.30
315.98
5
19-117-23 33 0129
19-117-23 33 0179
24-117-24 44 0041
24-117-24 44 0187
24-117-24 44 0035
24-117-24 44 0061
24-117-24 44 0111
24-117-24 44 0182
24-117-24 44 0188
24-117-24 44 0028
24-117-24 44 0073
24-117-24 44 0027
24-117-24 41 0097
24-117-24 41 0182
24-117-24 41 0084
24-117-24 41 0102
24-117-24 42 0007
24-117-24 43 0019
24-117-24 44 0171
24-117-24 43 0017
24-117-24 41 0175
25-117-24 12 0125
25-117-24 21 0114
25-117-24 21 0029
25-117-24 21 0029
19-117-23 33 0033
30-117-23 22 0034
30-117-23 22 0036
25-117-24 12 0244
25-117-24 12 0200
25-117-24 11 0070
25-117-24 11 0023
30-117-23 21 0001
30-117-23 21 0007
30-117-23 22 0048
25-117-24 11 0035
25-117-24 ll 0043
25-117-24 11 0116
25-117-24 11 0115
25-117-24 21 0011
25-117-24 21 0114
25-117-24 12 0134
25-117-24-21 0007
25-117-24 21 0077
25-117-24 21 0080
19-117-23 32 0142
13-117-24 32 0091
432.26
254.65
797.32
878.26
183.10
300.02
1593.07
310.51
227.89
248.03
350.67
364.67
236.79
187.58
205.98
294.89
1859.94
1555.20
432.36
552.26
227.04
165.21
360.71
493.81
468.81
324.03
333.26
226.39
235.51
243.90
1636.07
392.77
373.01
378.84
160.15
254.43
292.80
142.78
136.75
151.27
568.69
398.89
497.96
208.84
1556.58
163.28
985.93
13-117-24 33 0073 342.85
14-117-24 44 0038 155.53
14-117-24 44 0036 443.53
13-117-24 33 0047 337.60
13-117-24 33 0057 179.69
13-117-24 34 0044 406.49
13-117-24 33 0014 188.66
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL BILL: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR
19-117-23 31 0138 718.88
UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL BILL: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR
13-117-24 44 0041 98.63
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all property lying within the above
described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment
is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be
considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the
proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days
after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made
unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City
Clerk prior to the heating or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the
hearing.
The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193
to 435.195, a resolution (//89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the
assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on
homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your
inspection.
Francene C. Clark,
Publish in The Laker Septembrer 25, 1999.
7
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED ASSESSM-ENT:
CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1999-2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin
County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Rd., at 7:30 P.M.
on October 12, 1999, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any, to the
proposed assessment. The general nature of the improvements to be assessed are as follows:
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1999-2000 Area
within the following boundaries proposed to be assessed:
Belmont Lane on the East
Lynwood Boulevard to the North
700 feet West of Commerce Boulevard
700 feet South of Shoreline Drive
Total Cost to be Assessed
$2,522.75
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all property lying within the above
described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment
is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will b.e
considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the
proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days
after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made
unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City
Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the
hearing.
The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193
to 435.195, a resolution (#89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the
assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on
homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your
inspection.
Publish in The Laker September 25, 1999.
Fran Clark, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NOTICE, is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound will meet in the City
Hall Council Chambers, at 5341 Maywood Road at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, october 12,
1999, to consider a Supplemental Assessment for the Norwood Lane Improvement Project
Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd., pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be supplementally
assessed for such improvement is both sides of Norwood lane between Shoreline Drive
(County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd. The cost of this supplemental assessment is $7,000.
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard
at this meeting.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429. t 10, all property lying within the above
described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment
is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be
considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the
proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days
after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made
unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City
Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the
hearing.
The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193
to 435.195, a resolution (#89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the
assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on
homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your
inspection.
Publish in The Laker - September 25, 1999
Mailed Notice on September 13, 1999
Fran Clark, CMC
City Clerk
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
BILLS
BATCH #
AMOUNT
#9080
$199,017.76
TOTAL BILLS $199,017.76
PAOF 1
AP-[02-Ci
VENDOR it:VC'l CE DuE HOLD
NO. I:';VUICE NM~R DATE DATE STATUS
AC062 l$79
9/28/99 ql2glOg
P U R C H A S E J 0 U K N A L
CITY OF MSUND
Ar"OuNT DFSCRIPTIqN ACCOUNT ~:U~SEH
175.7~ b~RE GRAPHICS', DECAL 0i-41~0-3c10
178.7~ JENL-CD !Gl0
INC VENDOR TOTAL i7a.78
AD'VA.CED GSAPHI×
AGi~i 34339~7 I1.66 29a-~058
2~.'75 55c-o52C,
36.57 590-4351,
30.57 590-435i,
36.5~ 590-c351,
52.39 955-~7~9,
2~.02 551-2!1~,
2~.02 5~i-o40!,
28.02 5gi-o404,
2b.02 5~.I-644g,
28.02 5~i-o441,
2C.02 5~1-6~2,
25.02 5~i-6443,
30.ii 5~i-~444,
.72 723-7560,
1.3~ 751-3572,
6.b5 751-3573,
6.06 875-4502,
9/2b/99 9/28/99 445.76 JRNL-CD
AIRT~JCH CELLULAR/bELLEVdE VENDOR TOTAL 445.76
A0353 143147 219,00 VEHICLE INSPECTIONS (5)
~/28/99 9/25/9~ 2!~.00 J~L-CD
APF E~E~.]~'~CY ~EP~IR VENDOR TOTAL 21~.00
A[3~'? 617~0! 23.00 PC'STAGE
23.00 POSTAGE
25.00 P[~STAGE
23.00 P~STAGE
23.00 PE'STAG£
7 6
7.08 POSTAGE
11.50 POSTAGE
11.50 POSTAGE
~/28/99 9/2c/99 153.36 JPNL-CD
ASCLX H~SLE~; MAILING SYSTE VENDS~ TOTAL t53.3b
~G5O& 9~0902 &2.00 MUFfLeR F~R 1957 CHEV
9/23/99 9/2b/99 F. 2.GO
SA5LZK AuTOM3TIVE V[~:DO~ TOTAL
00549 $S4717J0 177.95
9/2E/g~ g/2&/Om i77.95 J=NL-C2
172.52~00 o3~.10 LiNUOP
I,'~O ~USINARO C1-4090-3220
P/W 73-7300-3220
STRFE TS 0 ~.-,~ 2,bO- 3220
~ATER 73-73C~-3220
SE~ER 7~-78Ca-3220
P/I SUTfiERLAND 01-.190-3229
P~,T~OL =S45 02-4140-322u
2==I~.~ ~A~iL LiN ~i-~14~-3220
gLAZER 0i-41~0-3220
SCUA~ ~840 01-414g-3220
S~UAD ;~41 01-4!40-3220
5C'd ~D ;~42 01-4140-3220
SOUAD ~543 Ol-w14G-3220
SOd~D ;2~'4 - 0i-4140-3220
MOUND FIRE 01-4170-3220
~NGI~E ~18 01-4170-~220
MOUSED FIRE 01-4~70-3220
RESCUE TRUCK 01-4170-3220
22-4170-5150
10!o
01-4043-22~0
01-4090-2200
01-~140-2200
01-4190-2200
Ol-~3~O-321J
01-~2~0-220~
71-7103-3210
73-7360-3210
7~-7800-~210
1310
PICK-UP 73-7300-3m10
16!0
71-71U0-~550
!010
71-710C-9510
PAu£ 2
AP-Co2-Oi
NO. I~,VOICE NHbR
5ELL¢OY CORPoPATION
mCS~ ~71016
,~71017
,71018
W7!020
~71021
..,'?i 02 2
~71G23
~'TJ. S24
,71325
325007
32~071
32%120
5LAC~IAK A~D SO~
50611 99G917
INVOICE DUE HOLD
DATE DAVE STATUS
VENDOR TOTAL
9/2~/~9 9/28/99
9/2a/99 9/2~/99
9/2~/e9 9/25/99
9/2B/99 9/25/99
9/23/Q9 9126199
9/28/99 9/2~/99
9/2~/99 g/23/9g
~12EI99 9/26/99
~1~199 9t2&/99
~I2~19~ 9/25/9~
VL~,bOi,' TOTAL
9/2~/~ 9/25/99
9/2E/99 9/2~/99
g/25/99 9/2~/9~
VENDOR TOTAL
9/28/99 9/26199
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF ~3UND
A",OU NT DFSCHIPTIDN ACCOUNT NU,~gER
22.5B CA~ARY BE~CH SERVICE
22.5~ JRF~L-CD lOlO
2.58 CEi~TERVIE'J BEACH SERVICE 01-43~0-3900
2.58 JRNL-C~ ]OlD
2.58 HISHL~ND ~ARR SERVICE 0Z-4340-3900
2.58 J~:'~L-Cb !010
2~1.95 MOUNDS BAY mARK SERVICE 01-4342-3~00
2.58 PEM~ROK~ [lEACH 5[RVIC~ 01-4340-39r, 0
2.5~ J~NL-CD _u~O
2.5~ PHILBPOKE SERVICE 01-43~0-$900
2.56 SWEf~SON PARK SERVICE 01-4340-3~CG
2.58' JRNL-CD .....
2.58 THREE POINTS PARK, SERVICE 01-4340-39,
2.58 TYRONE PA~K, SERVICE 01-4340-2900
2.5~ JF NL-CD ' !0!0
2.5,~ ~,~YCH,'OUFJ ~EACH SERVICE 0i-4340-3900
2.5~ J~ ;'~L-CD ....... i~10
335.17
~7.G7 SANITATIOn., CANS ALONG STdE~T 01-~2~0-$750
67.07 JF NL-CD IOlu
17.76 S~NIiATIO': LI(~UOR STORE 71-710~-3750
17.75 J~ i'~L- CD 1010
31.66 5~NIiATION 2YD fONT SERVICE 01-428~-3750
31.66 SANITATION 2YD CUNT SERVICE 73-42b0-3750
-31.67 -5~WIT&7[O~I' 2YD f~NT-5'ERVlCE 7~-~280-3750
~4.9~ J~,NL-CD 1010
67.01 5ANITATIO~ KIPE DEPARTMENT 22-4170-3750
67.01 3PNL-CD IO1C
164.10 5ANITATIO~J PUF, LI{ WORK5 C1-43~0-3756
154.10 J~NL-CD 10lO
43O .93
1,050.00 EtEC TAKP SYSTEM 73-7300-5000
1,050.00 Jm~ NJ-CD i010
PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N
AP-C02-01 CITY OF mgdND
VENDOR I'~vOICE DuE mOLD
NO. lh~OICE ;,*'bP DATE DATE STATOS
990917
A L
A'~JUNT DESCRIPTION
512.24 PIT RJN STOCKPILE
9/2~/99 9/2&/99 512.24 J;'NL-CD
~OB ~IHKLEN VENDOR TOTAL 1562.24
C0~59 35~5o 37.26 SE~T COVE~
1.59 ~ULB
45.73 NUTS/TImE COVER
112.a7 MISC ITEMS
9/2~/99 9/2&/99 197.45 J~.L-C~"
CHA~FI3~ AuTO VENDOR IOTAL 197.45
CO&C~ 7~U205395 66.62 MATS
~/26/99 9/23/99 5~.~2 JP,~L-CD
CINTAS VENDOF. TOTAL 6~.62
C0920 990C~5 i'C. 23 WATER
9/2~/99 9/2a/99 1~.23 J~:NL-CD
CiTY DF ~qOUND VENDO~ TOTAL i&.23 -
~0970 646732~8 88.95 MISCELLANEOUS TAXASLE
COCA COLA 50TTLING-~4IDWEbT VENDOR TOTAL 8b.95
C20!9 1443 ~5~.00 INSTALL DIAHOND WALL
9/28/99 9/2S/~g ~5~.OO JR,;L-CD
CO,~CzPT LA',~LbCA~iUG, !NC. VZNDO~, TCTAL 5SS.CO
Cfi04 ~G907 4,717.50 PqJFESSIO~:AL SERVICE ~-OGdST
~/2g/o9 9/2b/90 4,717.50 JANL-CD
CiiZO ~9b~lO 1,025.00 R~O'vE AND RE~'LACE COR~
9/25/~9 972~/99 1,025,00 JFNL-CD '-
C~ETE ,'Or, KS INC VENDO~ TOTAL 1025.00
DlI54 53079 25~.65 bEER
9/2E/99 9/2E/99 259.05 J~NL-CD
~i154 122.40
9/2E/99 9/2.5/99 I22.40
uAHUr:El"i;~ ZI~T~IL:uTiNG CO V~t, dOR TOTAL 3~2.05
DllT2 3G07~5 Z3.37
9/2F./99 9/2~/99 83.37 J~NL-CD
DAY,KO E~'EPSE,CY E~%OIP~ENT VENDOR TOTAL 83.37
ACCOUNT NU~!BER
75-7300-2340
i010
7~-7800-23C0
01-4340-3~10
Ci-434~-3m!0
7~-7309-2310
I010
0i-4320-4210
i010
i010
72-7100-0550
1010
7~-7800-4200
1010
0i--110-3120
lO!0
i010
1O!0
71-715~-9530
1010
22-417~-22~0
1010
AP-CO2-C1
vENDOR INVO1CE OdE HOLD
NO. I':VOICE hM6R DATE DATE STATUS
01190 V90~31
DAVI£S ~ATER
D1200 7213O
72129
70:,70
71540
71539
E~UIPME;;T VENDOR TOTAL
9/28/99
P U R C ~ A S E J 0 U
CITY OF M2UND
A"uUNT D£SCKIPTIDN
1,460.00 WATER SUPPLIES
9/2F/99 9/2~/99 1,460.00 J~rcL-CD
1460.U0
41.25 MIS{ELLANEOUS
9/2~/99 9/2b/99 41.25 J~NL-CD
70~.10 ~EER
9/2~/99 9/2~/99 70g.IO JDNL-CD
36~.70 5E£R
9/29/99 9/2~/99 36a.70 JRqL-CD
30.40 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE
~/28/99 9/2~/99 30.%0 JRNL-CD
3,315.10 BEER
9/2&/99 3,3I~.I0 J~L-CD' '
V£hDOR TOTAL ~463.55
i07.00 200 SPECIAL
9/28/99 107.00 JRNL-CD
9/28/99
NEEDS FINDER
DAY DISTkI~dTING CO
E140~ i715
EAGLE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL
E142G 524346
9/2~/99 9/25/99
5Z2345
52555~
516773
~12~19¥ ~12b/99
9i2~/99 9/2~I99
~/2E,/99 9/2~/99
9/2E/99 V/2b/99
YE:JDOE TOTAL
9/25/99 9/26/99
EHLERS S ASSJCI~.TES I'qC VENDOK TOTAL
£i4c5 5YC3c4/527~9
P/kC/99 9/2~/99
EgOIPHE~T SUPPLY INC VLt~UOK 1OTAL
E15C2 252400
¢/26/99 9/28/99
107.00
5,3~1.50' bEEq .....
5,~1.50 JRNL-CD
532.10 BEER
532.10 J~NL-CD
3~o.50 BEER KECS
3~o.50 JPXL-CD
1,3~3.05 BEER
o~.50 BEER KE~5
99.50 JPNL-CD
7~22.6C
2,727.30 PF O~ESSIOr~AL SERVICES TH~U AUG
1,727.30 J;qL-CD
1727.30
i~.75 ~EPLACE5 FiLTErS ~hD ELLT5
!c.76
14.75
150.00 5E~IVCE 05-18-99 THRU 09-01-99
150.o0 JP:,L-CD
ACCuUt, T NU~JER
73-73a0-23~0
1010
71-7100-9550
lOlO
71-7!00-9570
i010
71-7100-7510
1010
71-7100-9550
lOlO
71-7100-9530
lOlO
22-4170-2200
10!0
71-7100-9530
I010
71-7100-9530
!~10
71-7!~0-9530
lOlO
7i-710~-o530
tulO
71-7100-9530
1~!0
55-5f~0-3i90
1~10
71-7105-3920
10!0
55-5~60-~100
1~!0
SERVICES CO vE:,DD~ ~CTAL
9/2E199
v£hDb.. TOTAL
~12~194 912oI~9
~I2X1¢~ 9/2EI99
3LE~ ,,~3u3
StP'~;. 5T~T£
v/2E/o9 912~/~9
~/2~/99 9/2c/99
YENOOE TOTAL
P u i: C mt. S E J C, U r; ~,, A L
CiTY OF M'JJqD
~ u .... T u.;SCL .'pT InN A 3'],~. L ',T
150.00
15.00 ~,'~,-STF._ 'JIL COLL-"CT!OI','
I5.UO JU,;L-C~ lt!O
15.60
31.1a ~ATS
3i.i~ :4:TS ....
3l.l~ ~ATS
92.99 ULiFORMS 9!-~2~3-22:0
~6.45- U~iFORMS -' 73-.2t0-2290
~e.45 Or, iFb~S 7o-~2:3-220S
19.B2 MISCELLANEOUS 7i-7iOS-~ZZS
.... ~2.57
220.:4
?a.aO
26.39
-
104.12
23~.25
2{'t.25
2ii. OC
211.00
.,,,. I'.,'Ci2: Nf'--:'R ~AT! un':'T£ STATUS
1CS701
:31977 olg.72~555
oIiC723L'93
9/2~/99 91281v9
9128199 9/2b/99
9/28/99 9/28199
VI2EI;9 912[199
~12~199 9/25/99
~/2~/99 9/2~/99
VENDOR TOT~L
~/2E/99 9/2~1~a
~/25/u9 9/25/9~
I;,TERhsTL ACS!,
J257) 11'i~242
i~22995
lti;24i
:'iR,_- C-iEF3 ','E:,~gCF,
9/2~/a; 9/2~/99
~/2&/99 912~1~;
;/25/99
912B/;9 9/29/~a
;/2~/Ca 912£199
P U R 2 M A S L J U b :~ N A L
~, , Y · MAUND
AuGuST, i~09
~U6CST 1979
AUGUST 1999
999~C0'- P'k0 S{RV 0~0!-99 THRO OffS1-o
~s9.O0 JRJL-Cb
t,l!i.~5 PPO S{RV Ao,SuST 1999
~,u~7.34 PF'O SERV AJSuST 1;99
2,2~7.50 PF'b S;r'' ' ~ ~ i°c9
15,!21.i~ J= :,L-~r
2].S3 J~ ,L-CD
ZS.OO
i,rji3.g7 LI~UOm
'i,J43.27 "JZNL-C~
32/-. 2& t I iL!,'O=
324.24 J=i,,L-'EO
i,315.n~ jr:~, ~D
1,417.3[,
i,.17.33
1,026.15 x!'IE
1,620.15 J=;~L-CD
lulC
71-71J$-~510
it!3
Iris
21-~34:3-]22L
71-7100-3220
ltlO
01-4190-~i00
!010
55-58&0-3i0C
55-5 ....
3t-5640-31~9
!t!~
71-716q'-:5]C
?i-7!07-s510
71-?Iu~-~520
i3!b
71-710~-o520
I010
V[NDuF~ iLvCiC-- DUE mOJ)
NS. Ihv?iC£ h~'zk bATE DAlE ~TAIcS
iC. iESE7
t?i~243
~12~199
JCH~:SON 5~OS L]:~dO; CO vENOOR TOTAL
~l~i
L 2 >, 7.' 2 115f522
~12~1~?,
VENDOk T~T. ~
¢ £ ~, [' .,~! TCT~L
~ E!.btk lOT-t:
C~-~.fE~--CS:~: ~E~(D3R TCTAL
CiTY OF
3~7.~9 w!N£ 71-71~0-~520
3~7.40 J::NL-CD icl0
57.30 J~ ~L-Cu
2,25~.50 LI~Uo~ ~l-?iu0-oSl0
2,25~ .50 J;: '~L-C,, !210
73~0.31
3,0Z~.3~ P:O:ESSIJ':AL SsR',ICis ~5-5~c3-71S0
2I~.SP P~OF£S. STO',~L $~=~]CES
Zi~.59 J~L-C3 !Oi0
l,i4o.eO
i5.6C. PZ. uF£SS i O'.AL SEDV;CE5 Ci-~liO-3i: 6
7Z.O0 PFO~ES5 I J"~L SERV]CES Oi-4110-Zl~O
020.00 PFUzESSI O':AL SErviCeS 8i-~CSS-Zl~O
c26.00 PROzESS!O:<AL SEgvICES 73-7303-3230
o20.00 PFOFEESIONAL SERV ! C,,S 7~-TgOO-ZlnO
504.00 PmOFESS !O~:AL SE=ViCES
...... 21.15 '
3,9gg.15 Jc'r~L-Cb !010
7s1.56 1 1/2"
7~1.5'~
7t1.5:?
IZ.74 Cf'L9~ CC:ILS ~be, STOAt: FxY ~g-~.7.-:z,.O
i3.74 J:~L-CD "' 10!0
37.07 F:P£~;/£'-VEL'3PE5 ~--~179-2130
37.07 Jr';L-C[ :ulC
51.,!
VE.;DbP if.;~6 I CE :)bE ~ O~.;;
NO. I-,VL:ICE N?".5~ DATE DAlE bTATL;S A':L,~;,T JESCFIPTI[.t',
i1¢763o
172.~2 SUPPL!ES
172.~2 St~PmLIES
!72.42 SUPPLIES
517.26
~12'¢,,1'¢9
?i.~C J:' ',t- C,.,'
LC',;3 LAq£ PD,~EP; 'c',.,';I,P~'.'E*.'T,..,~ , VENJO,,-, TOTAL
3!. 5f~
k:;03O ~4~946
9125199 9/2,*,/99 ~7.Z5 J= NL-CD
~4~.77~
1,774.P0 BEER
V/2~,/99 9/2~/99 2,774.90 JRNL-CD
.. o.~ ~, JL..' BEER"
9/25/99 9/23/99 ' ,02~..25 J~L-CD
~1375
1,;~5.45
'~12C/9Y P/2c/9¢ 1,9L5.45
v'E':DCF TSTZL 43T1.~5
~/2~/99 9/2~/~9
~o.OS
2,35i.00
I~3.00
ALT-*. S~:~V~-'r-'
3','-, r; CE ,.-tlS-
L"ST LA'il ,~Ai,~-L k--Ar,
C-'v.... ..... ~ ,"~Y, dATER SU?=Lv.
STu~r, S~.'--'& (*E,:GLEF. PROPERTY
E' ~INEE: i'~3 S-_-F:ViC:~S
ALTA
E'.' .; ! NEL F' I ~:G SE :; V 1,7 -25
REV!E~- FE",:. FLoOu
NE' ' ~ATERT3WE--, SKETCE OLAq
Jr~NL-C.;
"13i7C ?,3' J'3~2414
~,3~7.91 ~5TEW;TzR Sic,ICE lu-k9
54,C'57.9t JF'~L-Cb
~ET;S~OLiTAt; CGUNCIL ENVI:~ VE~¢3F TOTAL 540.%7.91
ACCUb,'r
31-42~.;-225~
7Z-7303-2153
71-71~{-o5~3
i~!0
71-71~0-P530
- - 71_7109_~533
IOlO
!{!O
27-5~01-3itt
76-7S67-319~
$5-5F-7-3i~[,
73-7109-I170
2clJ
IL. lO
0i-41%3-4170
vE''r',= )R .'Nvv'ICE
",3. i .v$1Ci N~z,R DATE
MFT:-u ~EST It:SPECTION
DUE ~gLD
L~AT£ 3TATdS
V~k6g~ ~C,T~L
TOTAL
~12&/99 9/2~i99
[TAT~ F~E ~EPT ~SSN V£NDOk T3T~L
15447 -
9/2~/99 9/2~/99
$/2c?c,-,
,:'-.'-:z~ 2L '~d,::;Til :S, I;,C VZhS~:F, TCTAL
-.' 12 ~ I ~;~;
~L-~A', Si'~'.S V£NDOR TOTAL
x Z .% '", ~ 9-7 i 3 C, 4
P :.J P, C h ,, S £
CITY OF
A~uUNT
375.00
53.43
I 5.98
37.2&
4!.71
17
~.W3
12
2li .CO
253.~0
70.00
23.~5
23 .q:.
?$.$a
2O .3~.
20.30
1,4~' t .71
21. ',' '~
],C~ .73
5(7 .22
1:7.52
33,..74
lt6.5!
15~.g!
1,50i.17
bE S C:-, I ~T j.
jr ::L-CD
1013
4&!2 CO'"~,E.~ L A Kg
LI:~uO~ STOKE
FIRE DEr'A;: T '"E r.T
C!TY ~ALL
5TREi T/'c'U~ L IC
w',~ T£F,/PU~L i C ',-'URNS
SE:.ER/"dbL i C ~,:d RK 5
J" :4L-£3
22-~177-4110
COL!FCN~; ~F z WATER
JR';L-CD
St LES J~DER
J.--'NE-CD -
73-730g-4Z15
i~I0
22-~I70-413C
2JlO
Ri_. 13 CCNT:- /~CT
~zb!d CS~,T-.4CT
J:,:,L- ::.
73-73bj-3950
~LP ~IGHT SY~
J:t,L-CD
Ci-~2:0-2360
NS:'-A'.ISFSr 19;9 CIT* bALL
i~;~'-A*t~,U$T 1979 LIQUOR
t,:S:-AUS'.;ST !?c; .~TTR
XSz-AU'3'jST I~9 P~F, KS
NSP-AUGUST 1909 ST~TS
~Sm-AUGUS1 !999
NSF-AUSL'ST 1999
kSP-AUSUST !9g~ ~/~ 5LbG
NSP-AL~GUST i9~ SE-ER LIFT ST
01--Z23-~710
~1-~152-37!0
71-7i0C-3710
73-7I~'-371u
?~-,17:-371S
01--3~r-3710
01-.2c~'-37!6
73'7~00-~710
Ar-C$2-Cl £Ii¥ ~F -~{q~ND
vE,~,3 :jR !!~vOtCE DbE 'tOLD
kC. I'.'v'OlC£ k'~bR DATE DATE STATUS ^'-3UtlT [;ESCi-:IPTI.'2~4 4CCOU',T
?I2~/~9 a12~,/99 b.236.41 - jnt-.,~-,"L,~ .1:!:;
:,CRTnER', STATES POSEN CO ViXDOR TCTAL
":~ 075~7L192/~0 62 3~ OFFICE SU~LIES 22-~173-21C0
C, 7725!72~C31 7.~2 JFFICE SUPPLIES C1-404C-22! 0
23.~5 3=FICE SUPPLIES
3FFiCE ::,E-abT ',/E:4E, C;'F: TOTAL 123.~,i
P39S7 :~ Gl :, :~ ~' 3 29.30
29.3!
712!'/o9 9/2.%/99 :7.92 JF' '-~L- CS ' "!O
PA~' 'OxPANIES VERDOF: TO?AL .~7.V2
P19';4 110215 "-&36.55 ;,"[~E ' - 71-7105-9520
:',:.,5.',~ 2~5;472C, 7~.05 gIX T~X~LLE 71-710r'-~53
9/2~/e9 0/28/99' ' ~C,05- J~ qL-'C 3 ..........
5~: 41 6
5;433?
TOTAL
9/ZL,'a; ;/lC/va
3P!-:ITS. ~ ','E',~L~Dk TOI,~U
,/27,'9~ 9/2o/~
70..65
E{:..be; ,~] ',f
2c~.0r, J: ,L-CL
2 ?~.. 7.= L .,' ~, UU~
95c.85 LI C. UOR
1071
635.06 C!3LRETTES
035.u6
If.GO CiGAR~
7,~ .SL C] 3~RETTE$
757.34
2~5J60 ~) 3C/TA):ARLE/CI GA~S -'
Z05.o0 J~ ,~L-CD
71- 713L,-%'52 C'
71-71~0-$510
'~'-7l',l-s52S
lCl3
71-710,-c55L
ld!C
71-7105-o553
P/,.~E ii
VENDOR I~:VDICE ~:b~ H¢¢LD
N'.). I',vSICE ~"5~ DATE DAlE STATUS
C: TV :DF
A" 5'JhT DEZ) CF, IPT In:,
~' C C?U';T ';,J'" :. E R
L7
aLU:'iKETT ' S,
'~4 17l 74~ 9c,£-00
75CLC1-20
7~23i7-30
75277i-30
vENDOF IGTAL
9/£~/99 O/2c/9Q
'- ?EwDOR TOTAL
9/Z3/~9 9/2~19c
9/2~/~9 9/25/99
JUALITY ~INS ~, SPI,~iTS VE;~SOk TOTAL
N242
9/25/99 9/2~/9o
~42~0 4~lSw
VEl!DOE TCTZL
;/Z~/~c
VELum-; I[,T;,L
34415
v E t;;,O[,, lOT :,L
5,iF. 2.97
~9.50
~.5~
70~7.5~
i24.00
O',SiTE OEOATIT5 B VACCINES
OMSiTE OE:ATITS B v~.C~Nc..~
62.0'0 O>.:SiTE OE~*TiTS' 5 ¢ACSINES
31,3 .gO Jr:NL-CD
3i
IS.4~
rS.4? Jr',L-ES,
: 7.2-' lfEtt'lSC
27~.,~ ici
i~.4F jr,,_,,,-*-,_. ' -
327.25
79.72 PEE-INK ST~ ~'S
Z3~ .46 J:xL-CJ
13?.4f;
Z,5~:.25 OCT
2,5¢6.25
25-~.25
2(' .~O
2ti.dO
72-?!~3-42~0
71-71J0-:510
?', .- 71:,5-~5 l 0
7i-7lOf-~5!j
01-~2g0-31~6
73-730S-3140
7~-750S-314C
i010
71-7!'"
i]!S
!OlO
71-7ig(-2;Sg
I~i$
Vf~,DC? Ih¥OiCE DUE
N~. !',, 5I[E ~:~P, DATE :SATE STAToS
P U R C H A S E J 0 U ,~ N A ~_
A< .;'J ~T D£SCi~ IPT iDN ACCSU ~T ~-UY 9, ER
74736 571
i ~, 77 ~, 1z5¥C5
Z7lLLl
27Lll/
173511
~/2a/99 101~o1~9
DEPA',TMEhT ,"[NOOF TOTAL
~12~,19~ 9/2~/v9
Cr~' Vi'bO:., ,, TOTAL
V£NDC. k TCT:L
FO;~SIC PSYC~ V£hDjP TOTAL
9/2&/99 9/28/99
V~,DOE TOTAL
,:/2-~/;; .:/2L/9c
912EI~9 9/2&/99
TI:':L SAvE~. 3FF
9f21!9~
SITE S~_C;~T* ,,z~_~.[)[)~ TOTAL
....::'.Un t':CIDE~<v, r~;~-l~',L_ q~.Vt.--~' gl-,,~_).,-,,..o'' '' ~'
5O.'JO J~,~L-CD iO!O
.,:=~,~e STRICT LISkTS §~--EgS-g7lO
Jm';L-CU !big
Fi-<E TRLC,: ='~.. SFZvlcz._ ~.
J[ ':L- :f- ici3
i.~fg.gR
1,469.g?
i29
~50
650 .~
53.93
~ ~.5~: ~E~P <ESS
30 3'g jm~L. ~''
17~.50
170
UTILITY E~S="SI~E';T VACATION 01-~190-3510
JmNL-CD !01
J.~ ':L-CS.
~: l b Cz L:.'- NE ~ :_'S TAkA:LE
J~ qL -C:~
71-7100-;530
I0!0
71-710C-95Y0
!610
71-71Or,-P55()
71-?!0C-~550
1010
i010
71-7120-7550
10!0
01-~3~9-~20~
1~i0
· --_r ~ ~- ~'TT , F) F ')bhD
VE:,Z.~F :'';',,iCE DUE ,dC;L/:
t,3. i' Vt'ICE ;,"=R LATE D,:TE STATUS A~d:JNT D--_SCR!PTi!'N
J 0 U R k A L
~12~1o9 ql2Elve
TOLL 3~5 ~ ~ELD!:;G SUPPLY VEkD3~ TOTAL
T,. ]-~TATE ~b'tP & CuN?~OL ! ~ELZ~O~. TC!T~z
T~5 222027-0
2Z345~-C
;012~199
T £ T:.A
~12~1'99 L~, 1~3!9g
SUPPLY CO
~r.7T ~,- .r- r,
~ .,~..,,,..~ILOI;~G ~AINT. VEqDO-6 TOTAL
iL2.2i
557.00 SJPmL!ES
5t7.O?
tT..:,~n P~F, KS CP~v., , ~APER 0Z-~34C'-2203
22.38 STqEETS CSPV :A~ER
~Z.OS Li ~UO;:, CDPY ~APER v*, _-~, _ C0-2230
33.5L ~TER COPY PAPER
]3.50 -STEER COPY PAPER '
447.30 JFNL-CD
- -29,Z~.
29.Z~ OsFICE SdnCLiES
7'TJL~ 5FFTCE-SU~PL~ET
2'~.Z~ OFFICE SdnPL!ES
~.72 OFFICE Sd~LIES
g.77 OFmiCE ~U~nL!ES
:a.~: OzzICE
2;.07 ,}~F]CE 5J:~L]ES
OrFI'- 5d}~ · ~,u
~; _iT~ ............. 01-4C43-2~
.S1-4!9S-22('0
¢l-,l~L-2200
251.35 J;~'iL-CD iul3
'_,'_2u.OO C3;,TR:.CT ?LEk~i,';C .SEPT !9~9
;l.!,,] C3~TF:~CT [_EAc,'';6 SEZ~T
~1.34 CCqT=,ACT CLEA'.i"iG SEPT 19:9
1,4:;{,. C~ jz ';L-Cb lOlc
i4SO.20 .....
':' u ~ [. H A $ :- J g L; .q r,, ~ L
VE:,DSR I f~'v'O ! CE DUE H r'dL~'
NC. I'.VJlC=- N~:z,F-. DATE DATE S'fATUS
A'~. 0 U NT~ ~r, ..... IPTI2N
9/2S/99 ~/2t/90 4'-&.JO JP';L-CD
27~i
9/2C/99 9/2P/99
ic2.~c T~'kEE Pr!'iTC~ ~$CS5 PIPE
it2.~, J~-' ,','L- C D
26£9
9/2~/09 9/2b/99
734 .~3 JF'NL-C3
,, i D;'EE i',C
VENDOE TC, TSL
295C.75
9/2E/99 ~/2~179
127.~? DU';P Ok
i17._~9 JZ NL-C5
c42:',7 i28.23 ,DU.~P 3!, LEFT
~/2~/99 9/28/79 .... 12~'.2-~ JmN'L-C~ - -
5,279 120.5C DUmP Oh ~fACd
'9/2~/~9 912g199 125.50 J~N%-CD
,~f' xd=.,qLz':R &
2r5: .,. /L,t
TOTAL
liS.u?
TOTAL ALL ',/E(b'SzS
1~9,3i7.7(
ACCUULT
7_, r _,.;~-3.,,, ~
ISiO
iS!O
0i-434~-2353
lOlO
7C-.27]-%iq0
iCZC
NOTICE OF RESCI-IEDULED
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
NOTICE is hereby given that the Mound City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting that
was scheduled for October 19, 1999 at 7:30 P.M. is hereby rescheduled for October 5 and
October 14, 1999. The purpose of these meeting will be to allow the Department Heads to
present their year 2000 Budgets to the City Council.
Fran Clark, CMC
City Clerk
PETITION FOR BOND REFERENDUM
WHEREAS, the entire 19+ acre "community center" property is an irreplaceable community asset;
WHEREAS, the "community center" property is scheduled to be sold to a private developer for $2.3
million, with a closing date tentatively scheduled for December 15, 1999;
WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Section of Mound's Comprehensive Plan already identifies a
shortfall in the community's open space requirements;
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 205.10, Subd. 1 requires that a question be placed on a special election
ballot ifa petition is signed by "... a number of voters equal to 20% of the votes cast at the last municipal
general election."
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 205.10, the undersigned eligible voters petition
the Mound City Council to call a special election at the earliest possible date to consider the following
question:
"Shall the Mound City Council issue general obligation bonds in the amount of $ 2,950,000.00 for the
purpose of acquiring the 19+ acre "community center" property, to be used to redevelop the property
currently zoned commercial and keep all of the current green space/playing fields for park and
recreational purposes, in perpetuity.
NAME (print and sign)
COMPLETE ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
I personally have circulated this page of the petition. All signatures were made in my presence. I believe that
the signers signed their own names and that each person who has signed is eligible to vote in a City of Mound
general municipal election according to Minnesota election law.
(signature of circuYator:
Dated: /~7t ~ ~ 1999.
September 28, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 99-86
RESOLUTION TO VACATE A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED AT 4608 KILDARE
ROAD, LOT 6, BLOCK 11, SETON
PID # 19-117-23 21 0028
P & Z CASE# 99-33, 91-055
WHEREAS, an easement in favor of the City of Mound ("City") is located on the
following described land:
Lot 6, Block 11, "SETON" ("subject property"):
WHEREAS, the easement burdened a 15-foot wide strip of the subject property
for sanitary sewer and watermain purposes; and,
WHEREAS, the easement was filed in the office of the Hennepin County
Register of Titles on November 29, 1966 as document no. 863484. Attached hereto as
Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the November 29, 1966 easement; and,
WHEREAS, the City has initiated the vacation of the easement because the
sanitary sewer and watermain services originally located within the easement
(hereinafter "Vacated Area") are no longer in use; and.
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements set
forth in Minn. Stat. 412.851; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota as follows:
1. The Council finds that there is no longer the public need for an easement
over Vacated Area.
2. The easement as described in Exhibit A attached hereto is hereby vacated.
This easement vacation shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the
Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute,
Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
4. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Brown, seconded by
Councilmember Hanus. All voted in favor.
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
RUG-04-99 ~J£D 10:~2 R~1
),)/,,cf
BU~HET TITLE
F~X HO,
8124750592
o! thc (.°o~4~W t.! .Ii~%lilop4 ~s .......... ~lt/le~ of. ....... ~~ .......................................
I Dtl, r~ct'a:,.~ e!~el:l,.u':~ ,. feet ~ %:idth l'r~:' :-:nlt';,;,~:
pub-pone: .gc.u~,!n, iht, ~_,.1.. ko ol, en, 1~;: ~u~,
~':-~c, ovcel,, u:Jdc~' and ~o=~ Lot ~') ~loclc !~. of ~bon~ lhe ~11to~ !i~c
02 ~,lfi e~&oc-mon~ ' c!n~ ~e:~cr!t. ud ~; cocmenc/il~ ~t ~ ~o!n~ ol~ the Sou~h
linc of said ~t 6, ~O ~eet E~ste~,ly of thc SoU:lmc:$ cornem
.n:.,.~ Hc. rtl~ea:';e~'ly ~o ~ point mn the North line ol' maid Lot 6, Y5 feet
'~: :to&,!y of l:}:~ i'Iortb3.~e~ly ao:'ner thereof ~d ~.i~ eonte~ llne there
TAX
AUG-04-99 gED 10:53 AN BURNET TITLE
~,~:~:T.,,~,'~' .,.-~=,,-'' w-.,.,~ :"....'z'.'F ~','.'r ....
FAX NO, 8124750592 P. 03
:
;e.,,l . ·,
...... ", QUIT CLAIM DEED
' ' ~'n * ~'~,~ · ~.:: %.~.~ . _ ......
., ,~ , ~,.~, ~..,
*TRANSFER ENTE,~E~
STATE. OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY 0~: HENNEPIN
Cq~r~lied to be a t, ue .',nd corred copy oI (he
AUD 0 ~ 1999 ,
~ON~L H. CUNNJFF. BEOIST~ OF TITLES
By ~' ~~ Oepu~ .
m
DECLARATION OF EASEMENT
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned, William D. Voss and Sharon A.
Voss, husband and wife (hereafter 'the Declarants''), being the owners of that real property
situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described as Lot 6, Block 11, "Seton"
(hereafter sometimes referred to as "Lot 6", and sometimes referred to as "the subject property''),
do now make the following
DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the Declarants are the owners of the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the subject property was burdened by an easement in favor of the City of Mound,
which was filed in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles on November 29, 1966
as document no. 863484 (hereafter "the original easement''); and
WHEREAS, the original easement burdened a strip of the subject property 15 feet wide for the
purpose of sanitary sewer and water main purposes; and
WHEREAS, the original easement ran largely through the middle of the subject property; and
WHEREAS, when the Declarants wished to build a single family residence on the subject
property it was necessary to relocate the existing sewer and water main that were then serving
Lot 5, Block 11, "Seton" (the neighboring lot to the north, which is hereafter sometimes referred
to as "Lot 5"); and
WHEREAS, the existing sewer and water main that were then serving Lot 5 were relocated to
the westerly 10 feet of Lot 6, as measured perpendicularly with the westerly boundary line of Lot
6 (which 10 foot strip of land is hereafter sometimes referred to as "the new easement strip'');
and
WHEREAS, the Declarants desire to burden the new easement strip with a perpetual private
easement for sewer and water main purposes in favor of the owners of Lot 5;
NOW THEREFORE the Declarants hereby declare as follows:
The new easement strip (being the westerly 10 feet of Lot 6, Block 11, "Seton", as
measured perpendicularly with the westerly boundary line of Lot 6, is hereby burdened
with a perpetual private easement in favor of th~ own~r(~) of Lot 5, Block 11, "~eton" to
install, repair, and maintain pipes for sewer and water service between, the southerly
boundary of Lot 5 and the City street lying to the south of Lot 6.
This easement is appurtenant to Lot 5, runs with the land, and shall inure to the benefit
of the present owners of Lot 5 and their successors in interest.
In all cases this declaration shall be governed by and interpreted according to the law of
the State of Minnesota.
This instrument is intended to become effective as of August 24, 1999, even if signed or
acknowledged on a later date.
IN Wl TN ESS W HEREOF the Declarants have signed this instrument with the intent that it
become effective as of August 24, 1999:
William D. Voss
Sharon A. Voss
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
The foregoing instrument Was acknowledged before me this August
William D. Voss, the husband of Sharon A. Voss, one of the Declarants.
,1999 by
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this August
Sharon A. Voss, the wife of William D. Voss, one of the Declarants.
,1999 by
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by
Reed and Pond, Ltd. (hb)
P. O. Box 9
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone: 612-590-9000
353O
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, '1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael. Commissioners: Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Absent and excused:
Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Michael Mueller. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: David Babler, Michele R. Berglund, Cathy Boyland,
Danny C. Hill, John Hughes, Richard Lillehei, Jim Olson, Dale Pixler, Tom Stokes, and
Pam Weatherhead.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-33: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION; LOCATED
WITHIN THE R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 4608
KILDARE ROAD; BLOCK 11, LOT 6, SETON; BILL VOSS, 37950.
PID# 19-117-23 21 0028.
Commissioner Bill Voss asked to be excused from the Planning Commission until
his case had been decided. Mr. Voss was present with the public.
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request to vacate a utility
easement and establish a new easement that benefits a single home. When the
applicant built his home in 1992 on Lot 6, relocation of utilities serving Lot 5 was
needed. The new utilities were relocated at that time and are located in the west 10 feet
of Lot 6. The vacation and establishment of a new easement benefiting Lot 5 was never
recorded. The resolution allows the vacating of the old easement and declaration of an
easement establishing the new easement in order to clean up these issues.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve of the
easement vacation as requested.
Weiland stated a concern about the filing procedures of Resolution No. 92-32 and if the
street assessments had been paid to date. It would appear that the appropriate papers
were not included in the file.
Gordon stated he believed everything was paid in full. He also stated that even though
proper proceedings were not followed with Resolution No. 93-32, a permit was granted.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
Mr. Voss wanted to know why the proper papers were not filed. The Registrar Office
recorded the variance and the Resolution was passed by the City Council which should
take care of questions concerning the building permit, but it wo~ld appear the permit is
not in the file.
Mr. Voss stated when the first easement was done, it should have been vacated
because there was a new easement of owners to Lot 5. It appears to be an oversight.
Mr. Voss stated that he had to get a variance when he built. He stated he needed a
permit because he was building a house of top of an easement. Mr. Voss stated that
the owners of Lot 5 were granted a permit.
Weiland stated both sewer and water easements should be granted to Lot 6.
Brown stated the new easement was recorded but it was recorded by a variance by the
County Recorder.
Gordon Stated this procedure should have been taken care of in 1992.
Mr. Voss stated the Resolution was filed by the recorder. Mr. Voss read from the
resolution but he is assured it grants the easement and building permit. Mr. Voss
stated the building permit was issued on March 4, 1992. Mr. Voss stated that it was
never assessed in 1966 but when he came in for a building permit, it was assessed
then.
Weiland stated he does not know if the easement was taken care of and that the
applicant received credit for it.
Mr. Voss stated if the old easement was still in existence and the new easement was
granted then why was the old easement still there.
Weiland asked why Mr. Voss paid the filing fee since it would appear the filing did not
occur.
Sutherland stated a procedural error has occurred and apologized to Mr. Voss. The
resolution cannot be permitted until filed, and it was filed. The permit states that the
easement can be vacated and now that the error has been noticed it will be corrected.
Brown stated Mr. Voss should not be put through an extra expense and be given back
the filing fee. He reiterated that the applicant should not have to pay for the filing fee
again.
Sutherland stated the City could have been more complete. It appears that the City did
not mention to Mr. Voss that the easement would have to be vacated. Sutherland
stated again that it would have saved time and hassle by Mr. Voss and he would take
care of this procedural error.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
Burma stated he wanted a clarification of a City easement, private easement and a
variance.
Gordon stated the easement being proposed is a private easement for purposes of
providing water and sewer service to Lot 6. The easement grants the owner of lot 6 the
ability to access those utilities as needed by a private agreement between the owners
of lots 5 and 6. The public easement is granted to the City and is up to the City to
maintain.
Burma stated if there are problems regarding the sewer and utility on Lot 6, then the
City is not accountable. Gordon agreed with this statement.
Burma stated a concern that the private easement should be 9 I/2 feet instead of 10
feet.
Mr. Voss stated if the owners of Lot 6 wanted to put in a fence then it would be the new
owner's fence and not his. Mr. Voss' attorney stated that this was a reasonable
solution for future problems of Lot 5 and Lot 6.
Burma asked if there was a broken water main, and the fence had to be moved, who
would fix the fence? Aisc, if the property got sold to other individuals, would there be
that 6 inch difference? Burma had no concerns with the vacation issue.
Gordon stated the applicant requested a 9 ¼ foot instead of a 10 foot easement.
Gordon stated there is no fence now and currently there is a large tree that exists
where a fence would go so this may preclude the new owner from putting in a fence.
Aisc, the original easement language had a mitigation clause for that reason and
counsel suggested that if something happens with the lot there would be a mitigation
procedure to resolve the dispute.
Burma stated to alleviate this problem, why not make it a 10 foot easement.
Gordon stated the City is not a party to the easement and staff felt a typical 10 feet
easement should be provided. Gordon stated the hesitancy of staff to enter the City into
the logistics of a private easement.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland, to approve the resolution as
presented by counsel according to staff recommendations but add that the
monies paid by the applicant be refunded.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
Chair Michael addressed to staff the question if the applicant would have to pay the
filing fee at some point,
Sutherland stated he would have paid the fee if the correct procedure were used in
992.
AMENDED MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hasse, to approve the
resolution as presented by counsel according to staff recommendations.
MOTION CARRIED: 6-1. Michael, Burma, Glister, Hasse, Brown-aye:
Weiland-nay.
Mr. Voss requested to move his case for review by City Council on October 12, 1999.
Commissioner Bill Voss returned to his chair on the Planning Commission.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #99-33
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION LOCATED
WITHIN THE R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 4608
KILDARE ROAD, BLOCK 11, LOT 6, SETON
PIDS # 19-117-23 21 0028
P & Z 99-33
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7'30 p.m.
on Tuesday, September 28. 1999 to consider the approval of a utility easement
vacation located within the R-1A Single Family Residential zoning district at 4608
Kildare Road.
~: !-' "" "-~.~a~,,~~ -
, 40,40T40;~C: ~0 40 j~j40~40,40o 2:34. g ~ .~ '
~ ? ~J ~ ' ~ ;; l= ~3L~' ~/ /
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this m~
~uist,JPlan~g Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on September 14, 1999
Published in the Laker, September 18, 1999
printed on recycled paper
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Inl
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Utility Easement Vacation
OWNER: Bill Voss
CASE NUMBER: 99-33
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 4608 Kildare Road
ZONING: Residential District R-IA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to vacate a utility easement and
establish a new easement that benefits a single home. When the applicant built a home in 1992
on lot 6, relocation of utilities serving lot 5 was needed. The new utilities were relocated at that
time and are located in the west 10 feet of lot 6. The vacation and establishment of a new
easement benefiting lot 5 was never recorded. The attached resolution vacating the old easement
and declaration of easement establishing the new easement is in order to clean up these issues.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the easement vacation as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
I
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 7, 1999
TO:
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Easement Vacation - Voss Property
4608 Kildare Road
Case No. 99-33
MFRA # 12604
As requested, we have reviewed the application for vacation of a permanent easement for sanitary
sewer and watermain over the subject property and have the following comments regarding the
proposed easement.
The description for the new easement covers the east nine and one-half feet of the west ten feet of
Lot 6, which excludes the west one-half foot. Normally, an easement such as this would cover the
entire west ten feet of the lot. I do not see any reason to complicate matters by not including this
one-half foot strip of land in the proposed easement.
Our recommendation iS for approval of the vacation of the existing easement.
s:\main:\12604\sutherland9-7
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra, com
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #99-33
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION LOCATED
WITHIN THE R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 4608
KILDARE ROAD, BLOCK 11, LOT 6, SETON
PIDS # 19-117-23 21 0028
P & Z 99-33
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at
7:30 p.m. on Monday. September 13. 1999 to consider the approval of a utility
easement vacation located within the R-lA Single Family Residential zoning district
at 4608 Kildare Road.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this m~
"K-rfC'~nqqj~:, ~4ning Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on August 24, 1999
Published in the Laker, August 28, 1999
5 5'8
pr~nted on recycled paper
Rev. 12-30-98
Application for
TREET (I::A iEMENT /ACATION
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
1 0 I999
Gr..,~ ~(~
CITY OF MOUND
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
~;~-- jO-Oiq City Planner
~-IO-c~c~ City Engineer
8-l.O-fl~ Public Works
_~00" .~ Minnegasco --(--~_P olice Dept.
~--{O"(~Fire Dept.
Application Fee: $250.00
NsP
'~ ~_O'~_GTE
Other
Please type or print the following information:
APPLICANT Name W/~ ~- i /'~ ~
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
(APPLICAN?S
PROPERTY)
Phone (H) /q/?
Adjacent Address
Na~ ~ Business
Lot
Subdivision
ZONING
DISTRICT
DESCRIPTION
OF STREET
TO BE
VACATED
REASON
FOR
REQUEST
IS THERE A
PUBLIC NEED
FOR THIS
LAND?
Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
(M)
Print Applicant's Name
Applicant's Signature
Date
Print Applicant's Name
Applicant's Signature
Date
CITY O]F MOUND, MIN~SOTA
RESOLUTION #
RESOLUTION TO VACATE ON EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT ~, BLOCK 11,
SETON, PID # 19-117-23 21 0025
4608 KILDARE ROAD
P & Z CASE NUMBER 91-055
WHEREAS. an e~semcnt in favor of the City of Mound ("City") is located on the
following described land:
Lot (5. Block 11. "5eton" ("subject property"):
WHEREAS, the easement burdencd a 1S-foot wide strip of the subject property for
sanitary sewer and water main purpo~s.
WHEREAS. thc easement was f'dcd in thc office of the Hcnnepin County Rcgister of
Titles on November 29. 19(5(5 as document no. $63zt$,~,. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true
and correct copy of the November 29. 1966 easement;
WHEREAS, the Ci~ has initiated the vacation of thc easement because the sanitary
sewer and water main s~rvices originally located within the easement (hereinafter "Vacated
Area") are no longer in use.
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the notice and hearing requ:xemcnts set forth in
Minn. Stat. 412.851.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council of the City of Mound.
Minnesota a.~ follows:
The Council finds that there is no longer the public need for ~n easement over the
Vacated Area.
2. Thc casement as described in Exhibit A attached hereto is hcv-~by vacated.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota. this 24th day of August,
1999.
ATTEST:
Pat Meisel. May,~r
Fran Clark, City Clerk
60E-~ ZO/ZO'8 9Z2-£
t~$:tt 88-0 i-9~.
ROGER W. REED
Real Property Law Specialist*
PAUL L. POND
Certified Civil Tdal Specielist*
REED & POND, LTD.
A'I-I'ORNEYS AT LAW
5424 SHORELINE DRIVE
P.O. BOX 9
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-0009
PHONE 612/472-2222
1-800-876-7080 (MN Only)
FAX 612/472-2254
* Ce~fified by the Minnesota State BarAs~ociation
HUGH J. D. BISHOP
Telephone: 612-590-9000
Fax:. 612-941-0419
SARA KAUFHOLD
Legal Assistant
August 24, 1999
Via telefax to:
Bill Voss Telephone:
Coldwell Banker Burnet Fax:
612-868-5323
612-473-3932
Loren Gordon Telephone:
City of Mound Fax:
612-472-0600
612-472-0620
Joe Yang Telephone:
Kennedy & Graven Fax:
612-337-9213
612-337-9310
Thomas Ulmen Telephone:
Ulmen Law Office Fax:
612-333-1900
612-333-8067
Re:
Kildare Avenue, Mound, MN
William D. Voss and Sharon A. Voss
Revision of new easement
Gentlemen:
Someone at the City indicated a desire that the easement in favor of Lot 5 extend to the westerly
boundary of Lot 6, rather than stopping short of a possible fence to be built on the westerly six
inches.
Accordingly, here is a new draft of the declaration of easement to incorporate this change.
Cordially yours,
Hugh J. D. Bishop
44
44
March 24, 1992
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92-32
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR
LOT 6, BLOCK 11, BETON, PID %19-117-23 21 0028
4608 KILDARE ROAD
P&Z CASE NUMBER 91-055
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for the following
variances: 726 square foot lot area, 10 foot front yard setback,
9 foot rear yard setback, and 15 foot frontage on an improved
public street, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a single
family dwelling with an attached garage, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single
Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code
requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard
setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 15
foot rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed dwelling will meet the required 50 foot
setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation, and;
WHEREAS, there is an unimproved platted right-of-way, Black
Lake Lane, between the subject property and the shoreline to Lake
Minnetonka, and Kildare Road is not improved in its entirety
extending to the lake, therefore the subject property is surrounded
by undevelopable open space, and;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and.
unanimously recommended approval with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The city does hereby approve a 726 square foot lot area
variance, a 10 foot front yard setback variance to the
required 20 foot setback, a 9 foot rear yard setback variance
to the required 15 foot setback, and a 15 foot street frontage
variance to the required 40 feet of frontage on an improved
street, to allow construction of a single family dwelling at
4608 Kildare Road, upon the following conditions:
That portion of Kildare Road used as a driveway to serve
Lot 6 should be improved to a minimum 5 ton design by
installing a 6" gravel base and 3" bituminous mat. Curb
and gutter would not be required and the width could be
held to 15 feet.
45 '
45
March 24, 1992
be
The deficient street assessment in the amount of one unit
charge at $1,170.90 must be paid at time of Building
Permit issuance. The charge of $318 for 40 L.F. is to be
waived.
Ce
The sanitary sewer service from Lot 5 be relocated across
Lot 6 with a new connection to the main in Kildare Road.
This would allow the proposed home to use the existing
service originally intended for Lot 6.
Private easements running to Lot 5 be granted to cover
both sewer and water services crossing Lot 6. These
easements should be made of record and copies furnished
to the City of Mound.
The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code
with the clear and express understanding that the use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a single family dwelling with an
attached garage per the attached Exhibit 'A'.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
LOt 6, Block 11, Seton, PID #19-117-23 21 0028.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Smith.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
46
March 24, 1992
The following voted in the negative:
none.
Attest: City Clerk
RESOLUTION //92-32
!
JlJJ
!
~ il,
March 23, 1993
RESOLUTION %93-33
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE EXTENSION
TO RESOLUTION J92-32
FOR LOT 6t BLOCK 11t SETON~ PID #19-117-23 21 0028
4608 KILDARE ROAD
WHEREAS, on March 24, 1992 the City Council approved
Resolution %92-32 entitled "Resolution to Approve a Variance for
Lot 6, Block 11, Seton, PID #19-117-23 21 0028, 4608 Kildare Road,
P&Z Case Number 91-055," and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant, Bill Voss, has applied
for a variance extension to Resolution %92-32, and
WHEREAS, the applicant was unable to start construction
of the subject project until his existing home is sold, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this
request and unanimously recommended approval as the application is
unchanged.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City Council does hereby approve a one year variance
extension to Resolution #92-32.
This variance is granted for the following legally
described property:
Lot 6, Block 11, Seton, pid #19-117-23 21 0028.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder
or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
0
The property owner shall have the responsibility of
filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying
all costs for such recording. A building permit for the
subject construction shall not be issued until proof of
recording has been filed with the city Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and
seconded by Councilmember
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
72
March23, 1993
Att'est: City Clerk
The following voted in the negative: none.
Mayo ~
73
March 24,
The deficient street assessment in the amount of one unit
charge at $1,170.90 must be paid at time of Building
Permit issuance. The charge of $318 for ~0_~..~ .... is
waived. ......
The sanitary sewer service from Lot 5 be relocated across
Lot 6 with a new connection to the main in Kildare Road.
This would allow the proposed home to use the existing
service originally intended for Lot 6.
Private easements running to Lot 5 be granted to cover
both sewer and wager services crossing Lot 6. These
easements should be made of record and copies furnished
to the City of Mound.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code
with the clear and express understanding that the use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a single family dwelling with an
attached garage per the attached Exhibit 'A'.
This variance is granted for the 'following legally described
property:
Lot 6, Block 11, Seton, PID %19-117-23 21 0028.
®
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Mennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording· A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Smith.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jess·n, Johnson and Smith.
August 31, 1999
Northern States Power Company
NSP 414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone (612) 330-2943
RECEIVED
SEP - 2 1999
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
Gregory Skinner
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Easement Vacation Case No. 99-33 4608 Kildare Road
Dear Mr. Skinner:
This is reply to an Application to the City of Mound dated August 10, 1999 by
William Voss to vacate an easement granted to the Village of Mound dated October
15, 1966 and filed November 29, 1966 as Document No. 863484 in the office of the
Hennepin County Registrar of Titles.
Please be advised that NSP has no objection to the release of this easement.
Sincerely;
Diane Ablan
Real Estate Representative
612 330-2943
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Distribution:
~;;~'iL~-CJC~ City Planner
~J'tO"~ City Engineer
8 qO-cjc) Public Works
.0 0"~.' Uinne§asco
~_Police Dept.
Application Fee: $25000
NSP
Other
Please type or print the following information:
APPLICANT Name ~/V/~- ~ i /4~ ~
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
~PPLICAN~S
PROPERTY)
ZONING
DISTRICT
Adjacent Address
Name of Business
Lot
Subdivision
Circle: R-1
R-lA R-2 R-3
DESCRIPTION ",. E ~ /'5 7-'/ /'J (~
OF STREET
VACATED
B-1 B-2 B-3
REASON
FOR
REQUEST
PUBLIC NEED
FOR THIS
LAND?
Print Applicant's Name
Applicant's Signature
Date
Thank you for the advance notice.
Steven Yon Barge~,y/'
Right-of-Way Administrator
Reliant Energy Minnegasco
SURm' F..E NO
LOT OF RECORD.?(,L YE5~,,,.,,/ NO
IiOUSE .........
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
CITY OF MOUND
DIRECTION J
E W
N S E W
N S(OW
N s
--~S E W
N S E W
ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R1 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0
~" Rln ~,ooo/,~o~ B2 2o,ooo/eo
R2 6, Ooo/~o B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIRED J EXISTING/PROPOSED
2.0
to' o~ ~o' -~ .~
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTIt:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACI1ED 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 ~
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
50'
10' OR 30'
IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
CONFORM,NO? ",'ES , NO'* lB": ,,~[__ IDATED: ~ --[,,.O.)-C,~ j
This Zoning Information Shccl only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact Ihe City of Mound
Planning Department at 472-0600.
~_~.~ro ~~, ~o _
(5)'ZZ~" ~ ,~' ' .
~ - ~.- ,~ --
/
/
/
/
September 28, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION # 99-
RESOLUTION TO DENY A LOT SIZE AND STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCES TO
CREATE A BUILDABLE PARCEL AT 17XX WILDHURST LANE,
BLOCK 13, LOT 1, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID # 13-117-24 14 0017
P & Z CASE# 99-37
61980
WHEREAS, the applicants, David and Carol Babler, have requested a variance
to lot area and width to receive status as a buildable lot for this lot of record parcel; and,
WHEREAS, the request requested variances are as follows:
Existing/Proposed
Required Variance
Street Frontage 57 ft 60 ft 3 ft
Lot Area 6,927 sf 10,000 sf 3,072 sf , ~ d-~J'~'
; and, t.~~°
WHEREAS, as platted the lot has over 10,000 sf but only 6,927 sf are above
the 931 feet contour used for determined lot area. Street frontage along Resthaven
Lane is just short of the 60 feet requirement at 57 feet; and,
WHEREAS, Sunset landing is unimproved public land used as an access point
to Harrison's Bay. The applicant proposes to use it as an access point to the parcel;
and,
WHEREAS, The variance request seems premature due to the lack of building
plans or buyer for the property. Because both lots are held by the same owner, the
potential exists for a combination that would secure its status as a conforming lot; and,
WHEREAS, the Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the request
and recommended that the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant;
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 as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
September 28, '/999
17XX W~ldhurst Ln - Babler
Page 2
This variance is denied for the following legally described property as stated
in the Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 1, BLOCK 13, SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael. Commissioners: Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Absent and excused:
Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Michael Mueller. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: David Babler, Michele R. Berglund, Cathy Boyland,
Danny C. Hill, John Hughes, Richard Lillehei, Jim Olson, Dale Pixler, Tom Stokes, and
Pam Weatherhead.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-37: VARIANCE; LOT SIZE AND STREET FRONTAGE; TO CREATE A
BUILDABLE PARCEL AT 17XX WILDHURST LANE; BLOCK 13, LOT 1,
SHADYWOOD POINT; DAVID AND CAROL BABLER, 61980.
PID# 13-117-24 14 0017.
Gordon presented the case. The applicants requested a variance to lot area and width
to receive status as a buildable lot for this lot of record. The variances are as follows:
Street Frontage
Lot Area
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
57 feet 60 feet 3 feet
6,927 sq. feet 10,000 sq. feet 3,072 sq. feet
The property is described as Lot 1, Block 13 of Shadywood Point. As platted the Lot
has over 10,000 square feet but only 6,927 square feet are above the Ordinary High
Water line of 929.4 feet used for determined lot area. Street frontage along Resthaven
Lane is just short of the 60 feet requirement at 57 feet. Sunset landing is dedicated
public land used as an access point to Harrison's Bay. It is unimproved with a gravel
surface.
The applicants reside in the home on Lot 2 and have owned and held both lots as
individual tax parcels since the 1970's. Their intent is to sell both properties as buildable
parcels although there are no building plans for Lot 1 at this time.
The owners are entering this process purely on a speculative means to secure the
status of Lot 1 as a buildable lot. Because both lots are held by the same owner, the
potential exists for a combination that would secure its status as a conforming lot. There
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
are no guarantees however, that the owner could build a spec home on the property. It
seems very premature to grant a variance on a lot whose future is uncertain of the need
for variances. A sale of the lot to another party also gives is not a guarantee that it
would be a buildable lot. Staff would recommend denial of this request based on the
lack of building plan information and the substandard size of the property.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance as
requested because it is so premature.
Voss asked if these are substandard lots and Gordon stated they are substandard
lots.
Brown stated the only access landing is at the surf side and the Sunset Landing is
only used in the winter.
Voss asked if there was precedent granting a case like this without a building
permit request.
Sutherland commented on three somewhat similar cases. He cited the Steve
Coden case on Bluebird, the Zilla/Tom Stokes case on Glen Elyn and the Bob Steele
case on Driftwood Lane. All three cases noted were eventually approved.
Brown stated these are two lots of record and both could be built on. Brown
stated the Steele case is basically the same as this one.
Sutherland stated he would not give a permit for a builder for the lot in the Steele
case if it were a do-over.
Brown asked how we can deny this case because all the neighbors have been
allowed to build with very similar circumstances.
Voss stated staff would deny this case because of the substandard size.
Gordon stated his concern of granting a variance when there is no plan in sight.
stated the City should wait until there is a plan and some building will take place
before granting a variance as the applicant is requesting.
He
Sutherland stated he agrees with Gordon. Sutherland is certain there is a legal right
by the City to deny this request. He stated there are three previous cases that are
similar, but there is still the opportunity for the City to deny if they deem so. He
stated that we could allow the applicant to put the house on the property as soon
as we address the plans, but not before. As precedent indicates, when the case
proceeds to the Council, it will probably get passed, but why not wait until it has
proceeded that far.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
Brown addressed the applicant to come forward.
David Babler stated he does not understand why they cannot build because he has
always thought it was a buildable yet vacated lot.
Voss asked why there was no building plan. Evidently the applicant is going to sell
the property to Mr. Stokes of French Hill Homes.
Tom Stokes of~omes stated he handled the Zilla case. In this case
Stokes stated that the Planning Commission did request and recommend approval
in the Zilla case. Mr. Stokes indicated he did have a customer at that time for the
house and the house was going to fit exactly in the footprint made.
Chair Michael stated that he does not understand why the Planning Commission
would have passed the Zilla case. Chair Michael stated that there was possibly
false information given to the Planning Commission which allowed them to approve
the Zilla case.
Glister stated she recalls the plan getting passed because the structure was going
to fit perfectly in the footprint.
Gale Pixler stated the property in question was sold to him. Mr. Pixler stated this is
a 10,OOO square foot lot but with the hardcover it basically is only a 7,000 square
foot lot. Mr. Pixler stated he had abided by the setback requirements and the
footprint he wants to use is doable. Mr. Pixler stated that he will follow the rules
of Mound and will have it noted that building can only occur on the footprint. The
driveway in this site has been discussed and Mr. Pixler is presenting a roadway of
some sort. He understands there is not going to be a variance request. Mr. Pixler
questioned why a gravel road would not be suitable on this property and for
emergency vehicle access.
Chair Michael stated that the fresh rock that gets kicked up from the emergency
vehicles may cause problems with the sewer system.
Sutherland stated there is a code for street frontage and to take the driveway out
would not have any concern with access on an unimproved street.
Chair Michael suggested that there be a motion to extend the meeting beyond
11 :OO p.m. tonight.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland, to extend the Planning
Commission meeting until 11:15 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Brown asked why we can, as a City, state that even though this is a 10,OOO
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
square lot, only 7,000 of it is for platting purposes.
Gordon stated because of the adoption of Shoreline Management and flood plain
this is the guideline for using only certain amount of square footage for the plat.
Brown stated also that even though the applicant has been paying taxes and sewer
and water on this property, only a certain portion is considered for platting.
Sutherland stated the lot was platted and the new ordinance took things away.
The same regulations would have platted it under the area of 931 feet. It does
have some rights, but the City has the right to zone and this supercedes the
property rights that are applicable. Sutherland stated the Becker case in support of
his statement.
Gordon stated the courts are more supportive of City's rights. Gordon stated there
was a court decision for a case in Plymouth that an ordinance supports the
upholding of the lot size or lot area requirement and the City won. Gordon stated
there is reason not to grant this variance.
Voss stated that if we grant this variance, the City still remains in control of the
situation because of decisions to be made in the future by the builder.
Sutherland stated that if the City supports the variance then the house would be
required to be built in all conforming ways.
MOTION BY Voss, seconded by Brown to approve the variance request.
MOTION DENIED: 3-4 (Brown, Voss, Hasse - aye and Burma, Glister,
Michael, Weiland - nay).
MOTION BY Glister, seconded by Michael to deny the variance according to
staff recommendations. MOTION CARRIED. 4-3. (Burma, Glister, Michael,
Weiland - aye and Brown, Voss, Hasse - nay).
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: David and Carol Babler
CASE NUMBER: 99-37
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 17xx Wildhurst, next to 1785 Wildhurst
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicants are requesting a variance to lot area and width to receive
status as a buildable lot for this lot of record. The variances are as follows:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Street frontage57 l°t 60 ft 3 ft
Lot Area 6,927 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 3,072 sq. ft.
The property is described as lot 1, Block 13 of Shadywood Point. As platted the lot has over
10,000 sq. ft. but only 6,927 sq. ft. are above the Ordinary High Water line of 929.4 feet used for
determined lot area. Street frontage along Resthaven Lane is just short of the 60 feet requirement
at 57 feet. Sunset landing is dedicated public land used as an access point to Harrison's Bay. It is
unimproved with a gravel surface.
The applicants reside in the home on lot 2 and have owned and held both lots as individual tax
parcels since the 1970's. Their intent is to sell both properties as buildable parcels although there
are no building plans for lot 1 at this time.
It seems very premature to grant a variance on a lot whose future is uncertain. The owners are
entering this process purely on a speculative means to secure the status of lot 1 as a buildable lot.
Because both lots are held by the same owner, the potential exists for a combination that would
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#99 - 37 Babler Variance Request
September 13, 1999
secure its status as a conforming lot. There are no guarantees however, that the owner could build
a spec home on the property given the need for variances. A sale of the lot to another party also
gives is not a guarantee that it would be a buildable lot. Staff would recommend denial of this
request based on the lack of building plan information and the substandard size of the property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
deny the variance as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
' 8
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 7, 1999
TO:
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Variance Request - Ba~er Property
Lot 1, Block 13, Shadywood Point
Case No. 99-37
MFRA #8902
As requested, we have reviewed the variance application for the subject property and have the
following comments regarding the driveway portion of the variance.
Sunset Landing is an unimproved street used as a boat landing in the summer and for vehicular
access to the ice of Lake Minnetonka in the winter. The survey submitted with the application has
only one elevation shown in Resthaven Lane, none for Sunset Landing, and only the three contours
on the lot. With this limited information, it is very difficult to determine if a driveway is workable
from Resthaven Lane because of the steep grade. The street plans from the construction of
Resthaven Lane indicate it would be almost impossible to construct a driveway directly from
Resthaven Lane to the north end of the proposed house footprint if the garage were set at the
minimum elevation.
With the incomplete grading information as provided by the applicant, we cannot make a
recommendation for the variance to allow a driveway to the unimproved street, Sunset Landing.
cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group
s:\main:\8902\sutherland9-7
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra.com
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
AUG 2 3 1099
CITY OF MOUNr~
Application Fee: $100;00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT Address
PROPERTY Lot ,/
LEGAL Block
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
City Planner~/ ~ -~~'
City EngineefV~-~,-~-4~ Other
Public Works
Subdivision . ~~..,.~
PID# /~,~ // ~ --~_,-/.(~/~/-~/p
ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3
DNR ~/
Plat #
B-1 B-2
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Address
Phone (H)
(W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed description of prol~o§ed cons~ction_Q~or.~teratioQ.~ize, number of stories, type of
~/._.~ use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), Non. if no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: RFQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
~ (or existing)
eOnt Yard:
ard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
:
NSEW
NSEW
NSEW
NSEW
NSEW
NSEW
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
nO ft. '~2.(~) t- ft. -- ft.
ft. -- ft.
(o ft. (~-- ft. ~ ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. -- ft.
,. ft. ft. ft.
/pC) ft. ~"] ft. ,_~ ft.
'sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in whicl~ it is
located? Yes~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
Please describe:
( ) soil
( ) existing situation
( ) other: specify
/
(Rev. 6-16-99)
Variance Application, P. 3
Case No. (~(~ r~'~~'~
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~;{Q. If yes, explain:
affected?
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
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature . '~
Applicant's Signature
(Rev. 6-16-99)
~ND SURVEYORS, INC. ~ ~,,,~ hr ~ l~ ~ ___.*y 0~ ~~ . ~9 ~. eo~-P~e
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
CiTY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
LOT AREA /_~,~17.,~/' SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA~/~ /~ ~-?.,2-~/ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached.buildings only) ..
*Existing i~ots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1 225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
X =
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X = ,~
×
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
,~--~ x /( =
x =
x =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ............ ~.~.~
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ........... ~ ...............
X =
X =
37 Y'
TOTALOTHER .........................
TOTAL biARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
OVER (indicate difference)
.TIFICATE OF
S¢~e t
/~¢~
~,~. d' l~ ,
'~ /i¥ ?,-";'~
,o~ ~~,~o~: ~ ~ ~,/ '~
. ro / 'x
. . ' .~ ~ ,',,%?
~z~ ~~' ~9~Z~ ~ · - V --
. ~/.- c. , I.'f~
. . '. ~/,,,~.o4,
7- I- 95 E~n~ aN:
(h~ houndor~e~ Of Ihe oho~ de~cr~ed land
2ND SURVEYORS. INC. ~
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET
ADDRE. SS:
/~ R1A
SURVEY ON FILE? YES I R2
LOT OF RECORD? NO R3
YARD [ DIRECTION [ REQUIRED
IIOUSF:., .........
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W 15'
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACItED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4' OR6'
SIDE N S E W 4' OR
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BI.UFF 10' OR 30'
ZONING D/STRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE:
10,000/60~ B1 v,500/O LOT WIDTH:
6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
14, ooo/8o LOT DEPTtl:
SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
I EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE
IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
CONFORMING? YES / NO ~ lB": ~ IDATED: 7--~--q~ ,
This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the ~e~ii~'~ts outlined in me City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information contact the City of Mound
Planning Departmen! at 472-0600. .
4"
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA ,-
7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 22, 1999
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
READING OF MINUTES - 9/8/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
· Mr. Richard Oliver, 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. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) Review of final draft 1999 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Boat Count;
B) Minnesota Lakes Association (MLA), discussion of MLA proposal to revise
Minnesota Statutes 86b, 'Surface Water Use Policy';
C) Additional Business;
2. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A) Review of 1999 EWM Harvesting Season Summary Report;
B) Additional Business;
3. FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers (9/16/99- 9/30/99);
B) July financial summary and balance sheet;
C) Additional Business;
4. WATER STRUCTURES
$. ADMINISTRATION
6. SAVE THE LAKE
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. ADJOURNMENT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 8, 1999
Tonka Bay City Hall
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista;
Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Lili McMillan, Orono; Andrea Ahems, Mound;
Sheldon Wert, Greenwood; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present:
Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative
Technician.
Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bob
Rascop, Shorewood.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
There were no Chair announcements.
READING OF M]NLrrF_~. 8/11/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting.
MOTION: McMillan moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the 8/11/99 Regular Board
Meeting as submitted.
VOTE: Ayes (5), Abstained (3; Foster, Dahlen, and Wert); motion carried.
PUBLIC COM]VIENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5 min.)
There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA- Dahlen moved, Partyka seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted.
Motion carried unanimously. Items so-a~prmu~d include: 3A, Minutes from the 8/13/99 EWM/Exotics
Task Force Meeting.
Ahrens arrived at 7:02 P.M.
1. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Stephen Fames and Steven Hicks letter, discussion of request for slow wake buoys
between Shorewood Peninsula and Deering Island.
Babcock introduced the agenda item, noting neither of the petitioners was in attendance. He
asked for comments or discussion from the Board.
Lake M~netonka Conservation Dim'itt
Retuhr
Page 2
Foster recommended the agenda item be moved to later in the meeting to allow the petitioners to
speak to their request if they show up later in the meeting.
MOTION: Foster moved, Dahlen seconded to amend the agenda and move item lA to later in
the meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Lt. Ken Schilling, discussion with Sheriff's Water Patrol and Orono city officials
regarding rafting activities around Big Island.
Lt. Ken Schilling, representing the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, provided
background on recent Big Island activities. He made the following comments:
· After discussions with District staff, Orono city officials, and Spring Park city
officials, he suggested the Board might want to consider a Code amendment on a
lakewide basis relating to rafting activities. He added he believed there should also
be discussion relating to establishing lanes, on the north end of Big Island, for public
safety reasons to get in and out of the cove.
· He suggested discussion of these two requests would allow the Water Patrol to better
control the activities on Lake Minnetonka, especially Crusiers Cove around Big
Island. He added he believed the rafting activities on Lake Minnetonka in the future
would not only be confined to Big Island.
· He stated the Water Patrol is not out to destroy the fun that has been taking place
around Big Island. He noted the rafting activities that have taken place this year,
and in recent years, have escalated to more organized events with a larger number of
boats. He added the end results of this activity are more public safety concerns.
· He reviewed the most recent event at Big Island in which the Water Patrol took a
proactive stance. He noted eight law enforcement boats were assigned to the event,
with the assistance of the Orono and South Lake Minnetonka Police Departments, in
addition to MN DNR Conservation Officers. He stated the Water Patrol contacted
the organizers of this event and advised them they would not be able to hold the
event because they did not have a special event permit.
· He stated immoral activities taking place have increased in recent years. He added
the amount of law enforcement that was visible at the most recent event sent the
message that these immoral activities would not be tolerated anymore.
· He suggested if the Board considers adopting a rafting ordinance that restricts the
number of watercraft that could be tied together, that number could be flexible. He
suggested allowing 10 to 12 boats to tie up together might be appropriate because
they are not nearly as outnumbered by boaters and it would allow them to maneuver
within the rafting area. He added creating lanes would also enhance the public
safety efforts of the Water Patrol by allowing them to maneuver within the rafting
area. He noted publicizing this, through an extensive public relations campaign,
would be essential to educating the public.
· He entertained questions or comments from the Board.
Lake ~innetonka Conservation
September 8, 1999
Page 3
Gilman arrived at 7:-10 PM.
Babcock asked if an ordinance was adopted that restricted the number of watercraft that could
be tied together, would the Water Patrol be able to enforce it.
Schilling stated initially, the Water Patrol would have to enforce the ordinance in order to get
the point across and educate the public. He noted the long-term goal of the Water Patrol would
be to get voluntary compliance. He explained at the most recent Sun Goddess event, there were
up to 70 boats rafted together around a houseboat that was in the center.
Wert asked how the promoters of the event made money on it.
Schilling stated in the most recent event, T-shirts were being sold and it was being promoted in
downtown Minneapolis bars. He explained that the promoters were told they needed a special
event permit for some of the activities and that they did not get one from either the LMCD or
the Water Patrol. He noted some of the activities, especially the live band, were cut off by the
law enforcement officers before they even got started.
Babcock stated he believed this problem is similar to what a city faces in parks when an event
takes place in a park that creates enforcement problems. He added he believed the challenge is
to adopt ordinances and put enforcement policies in place to address congregations that might
not need a special event permit.
Suerth stated another reason to consider a rafting ordinance would be relating to a fu'e in the
middle of the rafting area. He suggested he believed rafting is a serious problem and that there
should be a limit of three or four boats to be fled together.
Schilling stated he was in attendance at the meeting to spearhead possible solutions to the
problem.
Foster asked what has been going on that is illegal or immoral. He also asked why the
coordinators of these organized activities have not been informed they need a special event
permit.
Schilling stated in the recent activity, very little illegal or immoral activities occurred because
there were eight patrol boats in the area supervising the event. He noted at prior events, there
have been reports of proposition of prostitution, drug activity, criminal sexual conduct, heavily
intoxicated boatm's, and public nudity.
Babcock asked Schilling how many times during the. year he was aware there have been bands
in this location.
L~ke Mianetonk~ Conser~n District
ReZu~r ~ ~eeCu~
Septeml'er 8, 1999
P~e 4
Schilling stated there were two events he was aware of that had live bands scheduled. He noted
this is something that could be addressed in the Code because there are only restrictions for live
bands on charter boats.
Foster asked Schilling if these activities are contributing to a complaint previously received by a
resident in Tonka Bay relating to parking on city streets near Lindbo Landing.
Schilling stated he believed that is quite possible. He noted he had received some similar calls
from the people at Minnetonka Mist who have patrons using their docks as an access point to
the lake to get out to Big Island.
Nybeck stated staff has discussed this issue with Lord Fletchers and they have expressed some
concerns. He noted some of these concerns include people using their parking lots and facility
as a pick-up point, a high incidence of public intoxication when they come back from Big
Island, and in a few cases the need to shut down the establishment early. He added that
Mirmetonka Mist has expressed similar concerns. He concluded a letter from Lord Fletchers
has been included in the handout folder.
Schilling stated that is correct and these establishments are acting responsibly.
Nybeck stated these establishments have expressed serious concerns about liability when dealing
with these people. He added they have indicated an interest in finding a balance that would
work for all customers.
Babcock asked Schilling if he was aware if at any of these events there was live music taking
place from a licensed charter boat.
Schilling stated he believed live music had not been taking place from a licensed charter boat.
McMillan questioned how much of the activity is related to downtown establishments.
Schilling stated that is difficult to quantify; however, some of the establishments from
downtown were promoting the recent event that was to take place in Cruisers Cove.
McMillan stated she believed it is unfortunate that people who are aware of special event permit
requirements are not following up on them by securing a permit.
Schilling stated in the most recent event, the coordinators were aware of special event permit
requirements a week prior to the date the event was to occur. He questioned whether one week
was sufficient time to secure a permit and whether a permit would actually have been issued.
Foster questioned whether a charter boat was planned as the main boat in the center of the
rafting area.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distri--~
ard
September 8, 1999
Page5
Schilling stated the main boat was an unlicensed boat that is believed to be conducting charier
activities.
Nybeck stated staff recently had this brought to its attention and that a follow-up lettex~.ould be
sent out in the near future.
Gilman stated he has had an overall problem with enforcement on the lake. He suggested it
might be appropriate to establish a Task Force of Water Patrol and District members to address
this and other enforcement issues on the lake to come up with some solutions.
Babcock asked what the cost was the Water Patrol incurred in the increased enforcement at the
recent Big Island event.
Schilling stated an exact figure is difficult to substantiate; however, he noted the costs do add up
very quickly. He added in this case, the extra deputies he called in for overtime was covered in
his budget.
Orono Police Chief Gary Cheswick stated the City assisted in the recent effort. He noted he
had several officers on the boats with the DNR and the Water Patrol, in addition to other
officers on land to assist.
Schilling added that there were three or four officers from the South Lake Minnetonka Police
Department that assisted in the operation.
Suerth commended the proactive measures taken to address the recent activity.
Kitchak asked if Schilling believed it was the same people that promoted the last two events.
Schilling stated that there are a couple of different players involved in the events.
Weft stated he believed that a Task Force should be established to address the problems relating
to these activities. He added this task force could evaluate possible solutions and report back to
the full Board.
Cheswick stated the activities taking place are similar to a field party on the water.
Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour stated a letter was recently sent to the Sheriff stating the City of
Orono is interested and anxious for people to the enjoy the lake, provided that public safety is
priority number one. He noted in the recent ev~t.,, invitations were printed and sent out with
several bars in the City of Minneapolis promoting the event. He commended the proactive
stance taken by the Water Patrol in the most recent event in the attempt to secure a special event
permit. He concluded if the District decides to pursue a rafting ordinance and other means to
control the activities, it is not going to be a picnic because of resistance from user groups of the
lake.
Lake Minne~onka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September 8, 1999
Page 6
Babcock stated that is why he asked the question earlier to the Water Patrol regarding
enforcement of a rafting ordinance amendment. He noted some of the user groups who
participate in these activities might oppose any changes in the Code, thus making it difficult to
enforce them.
;labbour stated because of the activities taldng place, it is difficult for a few residents to either
leave or to get to their docks. He noted he believed drafting a rafting ordinance is imperative
and that it would greatly assist the Water Patrol in responding to public safety matters. He
added he would like to see the District approach the legislature to create boat licensing for
people that operate watercraft in Minnesota.
Babcock stated it appears as though some of the local communities suggested there might be a
need for extra law enforcement on the lake. He asked Mayors Jabbour and Rockvam if they
believed if there is an impetus for supplemental law enforcement at the local level, with the
costs being absorbed by the 14 member cities. He questioned how successful the District would
be to get additional funding by Hermepin County for this additional enforcement.
Schilling stated he believed one way to address this is to supplement the Water Patrol budget for
additional manpower since they already have the facility and equipment. He noted statistics
indicate the Water Patrol is out enforcing the laws, noting this contradicts some of public
perception because a deputy boat might not always be seen. He concluded in 1998, 29,000
manpower hours were dedicated by the Water Patrol for enforcement in Hennepin County
waters, of which 80% were dedicated to Lake Minnetonka.
Babcock complimented the efforts of the Water Patrol; however, he noted there are some
priority issues of the District that the Water Patrol does not have the manpower to enforce. He
asked the public officials that were present if they would support more funding for additional
law enforcement.
Jabbour stated he believed the City of Orono was proactive on this issue. He added he believed
it would be of great detriment to the lake if the special deputies were not able to enforce and
apply laws. He suggested it might be appropriate for each city to determine the level of
enforcement they would like to see on the lake. He concluded he believed a Mayors Meeting
should be held in the near future to discuss the issues at hand relating to Big Island.
Babcock stated without support from 10 of the 14 member cities, the District is limited on
maximum levy limits to the member cities. He noted these current levy limits would not allow
the District to supplement law enforcement efforts on the lake.
Wert re-stated he believed further discussion of these issues should be considered at a Task
Force level and then brought back to the full Board. He recommended the panel evaluate what
needs to be done to solve the issues, not what the related costs are. He suggested they could be
Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distfi~
Septexnl~.r 8, 1999
Spring Park Mayor Jerry Rockvam stated he was in attendance to speak to how these events
affect some of the businesses in the City of Spring Park. He noted at his own business,
Rockvam Boat Yards, the patrons who rented boats to attend the Sun Goddess event were
heavily intoxicated, were out of control, and it was a bad situation. He noted owners of some
of the restaurants in Spring Park have approached him and haye expressed some serious
concerns. He stated the City of Spring Park spends a good portion of their budget annually on
law enforcement because they want high visibility in the community. He noted after the Blues
Fest on Big Island this summer, there was a large fight at Lord Fletchers involving customers
that went to the restaurant from Big Island. He explained that after the Sun Goddess event at
Big Island, both the Minnetonka Mist and Lord Fletchers closed at 11:00 PM because of the
unruly patrons coming from Big Island. He concluded he believed there is a need to find some
sort of control over the situation because it is affecting the operation of some of the businesses
in the City of Spring Park.
Kitchak stated for newer Board members, discussion of these activities is relatively new. He
suggested in the furore when Mayor Rockvam is aware of boats that are being rented for these
activities, he might want to contact either the District or the Water Patrol to allow for more
proactive enforcement efforts.
Rockvam stated he believed the majority of the 14 cities on the lake are probably unaware of
this issue because it really does not affect them. He added that is why he:~_ttended to indicate it
is affecting the City of Spring Park and that they are concerned with it.
Foster asked Schilling if the Blues Fest that has alre_~,~y occurred was an illegal event because
they did not have a special event permit.
Schilling stated he believed it probably was illegal.
Foster asked LeFevere if there is a mechanism to prosecute an event, after the fact, because
they did not have a special event permit.
LeFevere stated the District could prosecute the viohators, provided there is sufficient proof. He
noted the problem would be to get a judge to pay any attention to it.
Kitchak stated the District could write all the ordinances needed to curtail the activity. He
suggested it might be more appropriate to educate the public of the current ordinances rather
than writing additional ones. He noted an employee of the District possibly could do it.
Babcock stated he believed over the course of the past five years, activities around Big Island
have changed. He added he believed some of the residents that previously used to drink and
drive have relocated to the water. He noted he believed it is time to address these changes in
the Big Island area. He added if there is a need to have more enforcement on the lake, there is
a need to supplement the budget.
I.llke Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
September $, 1999
Page 8
Kitchak suggested inviting the two local I-Iennepin Codnty Commissioners to one of the Task
Force meetings to discuss the pending issues and determine if they can help.
Babcock thanked those for attending the meeting and sharing their views on this issue.
The meeting was recessed at 8:20 p.m. and re-convened at 8:29 p.m.
A. Stephen Fames and Steven Hicks letter, discussion of request for slow wake buoys between
Shorewood Peninsula and Deering Island.
MOTION: Foster moved, Kitchak secot~ded to discuss agenda item lA.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Babcock introduced the agenda item by asking the petitioner to provide background of their
request.
Mr. Stephen Fames, 4400 Deering Island, briefed the Board on the request he and his neighbor,
Steven Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, made. He noted he had liRle to add to the letter, other
than public safety is the driving factor behind this request. He asked for comments and
questions from the Board.
Nybeck provided background on the request. He made the following comments:
· This request was reviewed by Board in June of 1998 and was tabled to allow staff to
verify the width of the channel and to check on the accident and citation history in the
· Staff worked with Denis Bailey from Hennepin County to verify the width of the
channel at it narrowest point on the ice and by a survey crew. He stated the width of
the channel, at its narrowest point, was determined to be 435'.
· Lt. Ken Schilling has indicated that the accident and citation history in this.area does
not abnormally stand out as compared to other areas of the lake. He indicated that
Schilling indicated one contributing factor to this is the higher presence of deputies in
this area.
· Because of the width of this channel, a Quiet Waters Area should be established if the
Board desires to place slow-wake buoys in the area. He noted a copy of the policy
was included in the packet for the Board to review.
Fames stated from dock to dock, he believed the width of the channel is less than 300'.
Babcock asked for some background on accident history in the area.
Schilling stated there has not been any accident history in this area that stands out from the rest
of the lake. He noted he believed there are potential public safety issues given the nature of the
area. He suggested it might be appropriate to consider a Quiet Waters Area at this location.
Lake lblinnetonkll Conservation Distr~
Regular Board
September 8, 1999
Page 9
Kitchak stated he believed the placement of slow buoY' will not help control erosion. He added
he believed the placement of buoys might actually cause more erosion because of boats slowing
down. He concluded he believed that it is up to the individual homeowners on the lake to
protect their own shoreline because this is a recreational lake.
Babcock stated he believed there needs to a balance how people use the lalce with what options
are available to protect the shoreline.
Fames stated the Board needs to consider other lake users, such as canoeists, kayakers, and
swimmers, which do not do well in wave situations.
Babcock responded that the state has designated Lake Minnetonka as one that supports larger
boat traffic. He noted there are other lakes that ~ of activity can easily occur.
Babcock asked the Board for further discussion or action on the agenda item
McMillan asked how many Quiet Water Areas have been established recently by the Board.
Babcock stated he believed the most recent ones would be in the high traffic areas of
Minnetonka Beach.
Suerth stated he believed any opportunity the District has to restrict ~ in a confined area, the
District should strongly consider it.
C. Review of draft 1999 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Boat Count.
Babcock asked staff to provide background on the draft 1999 T ~Ire Minnetonka Shoreline Boat
Count.
Winberg provided background on the draft 1999 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Boat Count. He
stated the data collected in 1999 seems to corroborate the data collected in 1998. He noted the
total storage count in 1999 was $,780 versus 8,608 in 1998.
Gilman stated he believed the classification for charter boats needs to be corrected because there
are more than seven charter boats on the lake.
Babcock suggested staff re-examine the data collected relating to charter boats and correct any
errors to the number of charter boats licensed by the District for 1999.
Nybeck provided additional background on this agenda item. He made the following comments:
· Staff was direct by the Board last summer to conduct this project this summer
because there was a large reduction on the total number stored for Lake Minnetonka
from 1996 (10,475) to 1998 (8,608).
· Two othe? elements were added to the study's methodology for 1999 that were not
included in 1998. First, the total number of residences on the lake with three and
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
September 8, 1999
Page 10
four boats stored at their docks were identified in this survey, 447. Second, the total
number of residences with an empty slip were also identified in this survey, 409.
He noted he contacted Clear Air, Inc., who conducted this survey in 1994 and 1996,
to see if these figures were used in the 1996 Shoreline Count. He indicated they
were not based on conversations with them.
Staff was commended on conducting the 1999 lake Minnetonka Shoreline Boat Count. The
Board directed staff to make the changes needed to the charter boat classification and to bring
the report back for review at the 9/22/99 Regular Board meeting.
D. Ordinance Amendment, second reading of an ordinance relating to High-Water
Restrictions; amending LMCD Code Section 3.021, sums. 2, 3, 4, and 5.
MOTION: Foster moved, Babcock seconded to approve second reading of the ordinance
amendment, to waive third reading, and to adopt the ordinance amendment.
Babcock stated he believed the automatic declaration of 930.6 feet NGVD is too high for the
immediate High Water Declaration. He suggested he could support a lower lake elevation for
this.
Partyka stated he concurred because the lake level of 930.6 feet NGVD has never existed on the
lake. He suggested the 930.0 feet NGVD should be changed by maintaining the existing 929.8
feet NGVD level.
McMillan stated she agreed with Party~ after reviewing lake levels for the past three years
from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District WebPage. She noted the highest lake level in
these three years was 929.88 feet NGVD.
Partyka stated he would like to see an immediate High Water Declaration when lake levels reach
930.0 feet NGVD.
Babcock stated he believed the level of 929.8 feet NGVD in the current ordinance is too low and
most residents on the l_ake would not want the 600' minimum wake restrictions at that point. He
added he believed that that 930.0 feet NGVD is sufficient and that the 930.6 feet NGVD should
be reduced to 930.25 feet NGVD. He recommended this as a friendly amendment. Foster
agreed to this.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (2; Partyka and Kitchak); motion carried.
E. Additional Business
Babcock stated he has been in contact with Mr. Bill Beck of the Minnesota Lakes Association
(MLA) regarding a proposed legishtion on a statewide basis based on a surface use task force.
He noted they are looking for comments from this organization and would like staff to include it
in the next Board packet for review and comments.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation Di.q. ri~
September 8, 1~
2. WATER STRUCTURES
A.
Page 11
Mathew Herman, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of variance
application for dock length, side setbacks, and adjusted dock use area.
Babcock asked the Board if they had any questions or comments.
MOTION: McMillan moved, Foster seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order as
submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Ordinance Amendment, second reading of an ordinance relating to boat storage density on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03.
Babcock asked the Board if they had any comments or questions.
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve second reading, to waive third reading,
and to adopt the ordinance amendment.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
LeFevere clarified that the March date reflected in the ordinance amendment would be ulxiated
to effective date of the ordinance.
C. Additional Business
There was no additional business.
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
B. 8/13/99 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting Report.
Suerth stated overall, the milfoil harvesting season went well after the equipment problems that
arose during the first few weeks were rectified. He noted all the bays that merited harvesting
were cut once, with a number of bays harvested twice. He added staff provided a late season
harvest in the southwest comer of the bay for the Carsons Bay HOA which had indicated an
interest in using Sonar. He continued preventative maintenance is planned and should be
completed this fall rather than next spring. He concluded some recommendations will be
brought back to the Board
Gilman oslced Nybeck if he felt the problems that arose early this summer have been worked out
or would they continue. '
Nybeck stated the problems that arose early in the season were difficult to detect by Air
Hydraulics because the machines had not been tested on the water. He noted when the machines
Lake Minn~onka Conservation Distri~
Page 12
were launched, there were problems relating to seals and fittings of the work conducted last fall.
He added once they were resolved, the machines worked well other than on-going problems
associated with this program. He concluded_ a final season harvesting report should be prepared
for the next Board meeting.
Gilman stated he believed the District needs to establish a harvester replacemei~t schedule.
Babcock asked for clarification on the Task Force minutes regarding new infestations of milfoil
in Buffalo and Centerville Lakes and how it could go from a new infestation lake in one year to
Nybeck stated he would check with Wendy Crowell of the DNR and get an explanation.
Weft left at 9:25 PM.
C. Staff update on 1999 Zebra Mussel Educational Campaign with Carmichael Lynch.
Nybeck utxlated the Board on the billboard campaign with Carmichael Lynch. He noted the
four billboards were placed on Friday, 9/3/99, at locations in St. Bonifacius, Long Lake,
Shorewood, and Plymouth. He added although the locations are not the best, they should allow
the District to get preliminary feedback from the public on the educational campaign. He
continued the hotline number and WebPage have been established and that staff will keep the
Board informed on feedback from the public. He concluded eight additional posters were
printed up for the year 2000.
D. Additional Business
There was no additional business.
4. FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers for payment (8/16/99 - 8/31/99 & 9/1/99 - 9/15/99).
Babcock reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted.
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for
payment as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. July financial summary and balance sheet
Babcock stated this would be an informational item and would be acted upon at the next Board
meeting.
C. Additional Businesz
I. ake Minnetonka CoeservafiOll Distl'~
September 8,
Page 13
There was no additional business.
5. ADMINISTRATION
A. Appointment of nominating committee for Board Officers.
Babcock asked if there were any volunteers on the Board to serve on the nominating committee
for Board Officers this upcoming year.
McMillan, Dahlen, and Gilman indicated they would serVe on this committee.
MOTION: FosU~' moved, Partyka seconded to approve the appointment of MclViillan, Dahlen,
and Gilman to the nominating committee for Board Officers.
VOTE: Mot/on carried unanimously.
l(,itchak left at 9:35 P.M.
B. Additional Business
Tbe~ was no additional business.
6. SAVE THE LAKE
McMillan stated she would be meeting with Ms. Stacy Kuebelbeck from Hennepin Parks in the near
future regarding Save the Lake Funds contributed to their projecL She stated she would report back
to the Board.
Kitchak cL~'ted at 9:35 PM.
7. ~ DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck stated he would be out of the office on the afternoon of 9/10/99 and the morning of
9/13/99.
8. OLD BUS]~~
The~ was no old business.
9. I~-'W"BUSlNESS
Suerth stated that he has been advised of the significant time spent early each week by Hennepin
Parks to fix vandalism from over the past weekend. He suggested this is an indication there is a
need for more law enforcement on the lake.
Lake Minr~onka Conservation Distri-~
September 8, 1999
Page 14
Gilman stated the Ci~ of Excelsior had a siwilor problem'~nd that increased police presence helped
resolve it.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:40 PM.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary
State 0~ Minnesota
Board of Govex-x-anent Innovation and Cooperation
~ Third Floor Centennial Building · 6~8 Cedar Street · Saint Paul~ Minnesot~ E$1$E · 651/282-2390 · F;~'C 6~1/296-3698
Please Forward A Copy Of This
Invitation To The Mayor,
All City Council Members
And Other Individuals
Who May Have An Interest
In Attending
Promoting Effective and Efficient Delivery of Public Services
State of Minnesota
Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
ltd Floor Centennial Building · 6~8 Cedar Street · Saint Paul, Minnesota ~$158 · 65~/2~2-2590 · Fa~ 6~I/296-3698
September 13, 1999
TO:
All Elected and Senior Appointed Local Officials
FROM:
Senator Steve Kelley
Senator Martha Robertson
Representative Ron Abrams
Representative Peggy Leppik
Representative Barb Sykora
Senator Gen Olson
Senator Ed Oliver
Representative Betty Folliard
Representative Jim Rhodes
PUBLIC SERVICES IN THE NEW MILLE~
A State-Local Dialogue On Effective And Efficient Public Services
As state legislators, we recognize your responsibilities have become increasingly difficult in recent years.
While citizens continue to support state and local tax reductions, the demand for high quality public services
continues to grow. In an effort to discuss opportunities for addressing the fiscal challenges we face,
we would like to invite you and your colleagues to a public forum on Thursday, October 7th. The
public forum will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Minnetonka City Hail. The Minnetonka City
Hall is located at 14600 Minnetonka Blvd in Minnetonka.
The purpose of the regional forum is to bring together county, city, and school district officials to discuss
our common goals. Representatives of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation, the
Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Polution Control Agency, and
other state agencies will also attend to hear your ideas as to how these agencies can work with you to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. A portion of the public forum will focus on
opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration as a means of improving the efficiency
of our public services. We will discuss grants that are available through the Board of Government
Innovation and Cooperation to help fund pilot projects that may serve as models for more efficient and
effective public services. This forum will also give local officials an opportunity to let us know what
the state can do to assist you in your effort to improve the quality and efficiency of the services you
deliver.
The public forum will be facilitated by Jim Gelbmann, Executive Director of the Board of Government
Innovation and Cooperation. This state Board was created by the 1993 Legislature to promote
intergovernmental cooperation and innovation in the delivery of public services. Jim will be on hand to
inform local officials about the various programs of the Board - programs that can be used by local officials
to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the services they deliver. The Board also has the ability
to waive state administrative rules and procedural laws that may impair the ability of local officials to
administer their programs in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Jim will share with us the
results of several of the projects the Board has sponsored in other areas of the state. If you have questions
about the forum, please feel free to contact Jim at (651) 282-2390.
We have enclosed an agenda for your review. Please extend this invitation to all elected and senior
administrative officials from your jurisdiction. We look forward to seeing you on October 7th.
enclosure
Promoting Effective and Efficient Delivery of Public Services
State of Minnesota
~oard of Government~ Innovation and Cooperation
Third Floor centennial Bulldln~ · 6~ Cedar Street · Saint Psul, Mlnne~ot~ ~$~85 · 65~/282-25e0 · Fa:c 651/296-3698
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS' REGIONAL FORUM
Minnetonka city Hall
Thursday, October 7, 1999
7:00 p.m. to '9:00 p.m.
PROPOSED AGENDA
7:00 P.M.
7:15 P.M.
7:25 P.M.
7:50 P.M.
8:00 P.M.
8:10 P.M.
8:30 P.M.
Welcome By Legislators
Introduction of All Attendees and Overview Of The Evening's Activities
Openning Comments By State Officials - What Resources Can State Agencies
Make Available To Help Improve The Efficiency and Effectiveness Of Public
Services?
Brainstorming Topics For Further Discussion - What are the major public
policy issues in the local area?
Break
Discussion of Selected Issues:
How can the State and local governments work together to address the
issues identified prior to the break?
A Preview of the 2000 Legislative Session - What issues are likely to
dominate? What issues are of most concern to local officials?
8:50 P.M. Closing comments by Legislators
Promoting Effective and Efficient Delivery of Public Services
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael. Commissioners: Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair
Hasse, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Absent and excused:
Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Michael Mueller. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: David Babler, Michele R. Berglund, Cathy Boyland,
Danny C. Hill, John Hughes, Richard Lillehei, Jim Olson, Dale Pixler, Tom Stokes, and
Pam Weatherhead.
Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 23, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Glister stated'some spelling errors for correction. There should be a global replace
done throughout the minutes on the following words: "Denvy" to "Denbeigh," "Landon"
to "Langdon," "Loss Lake" to "Lost Lake," and "Barlette" to "Bartlett." Glister also stated
on page 7, paragraph 10, she was referring to the high volume of traffic at 50th and
France in Edina which currently exists and it is controlled well with traffic lights.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Weiland to accept the August 23, 1999,
Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended above. MOTION
CARRIED: 7-0.
Chair Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He addressed the public
regarding the public hearing process. He stated that each applicant will have
his/her time to present his/her case following discussion by staff and the Planning
Commission.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-33: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION; LOCATED
WITHIN THE R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 4608
KILDARE ROAD; BLOCK 11, LOT 6, SETON; BILL VOSS, 37950.
PID# 19-117-23 21 0028.
Commissioner Bill Voss asked to be excused from the Planning Commission until
his case had been decided. Mr. Voss was present with the public.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request to vacate a utility
easement and establish a new easement that benefits a single home. When the
applicant built his home in 1992 on Lot 6, relocation of utilities serving Lot 5 was
needed. The new utilities were relocated at that time and are located in the west 10 feet
of Lot 6. The vacation and establishment of a new easement benefiting Lot 5 was never
recorded. The resolution allows the vacating of the old easement and declaration of an
easement establishing the new easement in order to clean up these issues.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve of the
easement vacation as requested.
Weiland stated a concern about the filing procedures of Resolution No. 92-32 and if the
street assessments had been paid to date. It would appear that the appropriate papers
were not included in the file.
Gordon stated he believed everything was paid in full. He also stated that even though
proper proceedings were not followed with Resolution No. 93-32, a permit was granted.
Mr. Voss wanted to know why the proper papers were not filed. The Registrar Office
recorded the variance and the Resolution was passed by the City Council which should
take care of questions concerning the building permit, but it would appear the permit is
not in the file.
Mr. Voss stated when the first easement was done, it should have been vacated
because there was a new easement of owners to Lot 5. It appears to be an oversight.
Mr. Voss stated that he had to get a variance when he built. He stated he needed a
permit because he was building a house of top of an easement. Mr. Voss stated that
the owners of Lot 5 were granted a permit.
Weiland stated both sewer and water easements should be granted to Lot 6.
Brown stated the new easement was recorded but it was recorded by a variance by the
County Recorder.
Gordon stated this procedure should have been taken care of in 1992.
Mr. Voss stated the Resolution was filed by the recorder. Mr. Voss read from the
resolution but he is assured it grants the easement and building permit. Mr. Voss
stated the building permit was issued on March 4, 1992. Mr. Voss stated that it was
never assessed in 1966 but when he came in for a building permit, it was assessed
then.
Weiland stated he does not know if the easement was taken care of and that the
applicant received credit for it.
2
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
Mr. Voss stated if the old easement was still in existence and the new easement was
granted then why was the old easement still there.
Weiland asked why Mr. Voss paid the filing fee since it would appear the filing did not
occur.
Sutherland stated a procedural error has occurred and apologized to Mr. Voss. The
resolution cannot be permitted until filed, and it was filed. The permit states that the
easement can be vacated and now that the error has been noticed it will be corrected.
Brown stated Mr. Voss should not be put through an extra expense and be given back
the filing fee. He reiterated that the applicant should not have to pay for the filing fee
again.
Sutherland stated the City could have been more complete. It appears that the City did
not mention to Mr. Voss that the easement would have to be vacated. Sutherland
stated again that it would have saved time and hassle by Mr. Voss and he would take
care of this procedural error.
Burma stated he wanted a clarification of a City easement, private easement and a
variance.
Gordon stated the easement being proposed is a private easement for purposes of
providing water and sewer service to Lot 6. The easement grants the owner of lot 6 the
ability to access those utilities as needed by a private agreement between the owners
of lots 5 and 6. The public easement is granted to the City and is up to the City to
maintain.
Burma stated if there are problems regarding the sewer and utility on Lot 6, then the
City is not accountable. Gordon agreed with this statement.
Burma stated a concern that the private easement should be 9 I/2 feet instead of 10
feet.
Mr. Voss stated if the owners of Lot 6 wanted to put in a fence then it would be the new
owner's fence and not his. Mr. Voss' attorney stated that this was a reasonable
solution for future problems of Lot 5 and Lot 6.
Burma asked if there was a broken water main, and the fence had to be moved, who
would fix the fence? Aisc, if the property got sold to other individuals, would there be
that 6 inch difference? Burma had no concerns with the vacation issue.
Gordon stated the applicant requested a 9 ¼ foot instead of a 10 foot easement.
Gordon stated there is no fence now and currently there is a large tree that exists
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
where a fence would go so this may preclude the new owner from putting in a fence.
Also, the original easement language had a mitigation clause for that reason and
counsel suggested that if something happens with the lot there would be a mitigation
procedure to resolve the dispute.
Burma stated to alleviate this problem, why not make it a 10 foot easement.
Gordon stated the City is not a party to the easement and staff felt a typical 10 feet
easement should be provided. Gordon stated the hesitancy of staff to enter the City into
the logistics of a private easement.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland, to approve the resolution as
presented by counsel according to staff recommendations but add that the
monies paid by the applicant be refunded.
Chair Michael addressed to staff the question if the applicant would have to pay the
filing fee at some point.
Sutherland stated he would have paid the fee if the correct procedure were used in
1992.
AMENDED MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hasse, to approve the
resolution as presented by counsel according to staff recommendations.
MOTION CARRIED: 6-1. Michael, Burma, Glister, Hasse, Brown-aye:
Weiland-nay.
Mr. Voss requested to move his case for review by City Council on October 12, 1999.
Commissioner Bill Voss returned to his chair on the Planning Commission.
CASE # 99-32: VARIANCE; FENCE HEIGHT; TO CONSTRUCT A 40 FOOT
PRIVACY FENCE, 6 FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD
AT 3188 TUXEDO BOULEVARD; BLOCK 9, LOTS 24-25-26, WHIPPLE; KEITH
HARRELL, 37970. PID# 13-117-24 21 0041.
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request for a 2 foot fence height
variance to allow a 6 foot fence in the front yard facing Tuxedo. The owner is requesting
the variance to lessen the impact of Al & Alma's restaurant which is located directly
across the street from the Harrell's. A second fence located in the rear yard on the
north side of the home with a 6 foot height is also planned.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - Seotember 13. 1999
The code regulates fence height to 4 feet when located in a front yard and 6 feet in side
and rear yards. The height is measured from the existing grade. The code does allow a
42 inch fence on a berm in front yards and does not regulate the height of the berm.
This is an alternative that would essentially provide the same level of screening that is
within code. Evergreens, hedges, and other landscaping would also pr(~vide protection
against exhaust fumes.
Staff finds it difficult to recommend in favor of this request given the feasible
alternatives available. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council deny the variance as requested.
Weiland stated there is a cement obstacle in front of the fence. Is it possible to
remove this obstacle so the applicant could gain extra feet without encroaching on
the road.
Gordon stated this is possible, but this may run into City property. By doing this,
there is probably a little gain, but not a lot. It would probably involve more work
than what it would benefit. Gordon stated there is about 20 feet from the fence
and the deck, and if screening is the goal, maybe this will distract with plants as
stated above.
Brown asked if the shrubs would be more cost-effective.
Burma stated this would be a good idea, but there is an encroachment being
created and he is not sure this is the answer.
Voss asked how a berm or any other privacy would be considered in the future.
Gordon stated there is a small amount of room that could be added onto in the
future regarding the home addition but the lot is built out in many ways already.
Voss asked how to address the use of shrubs or bushes as alternatives. Voss
referred to the statement that the applicant has looked into trees and bushes as
alternatives but they are concerned about the salt in the winter and trees and
shrubs do not solve an immediate solution which they are looking for.
Gordon stated that the roadway is about 15 feet away and he feels that is enough
footage regarding salt concerns in the winter. Gordon stated that the cost of the
trees for the applicant is not the primary factor for the City to rely on because the
City is more concerned about the proper codes that need to be followed.
Gordon stated that if he was the owner of the property, he would want to do
something to screen from the commercial property.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
Voss asked if there are other homes in the area that have a six foot fence. Gordon
stated he is not aware of any at this time.
Voss stated if this six foot fence would be granted then the City is setting
precedence.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to deny the variance according to
staff recommendations.
Michele Berglund, 51 38 Hanover, the applicant's neighbor, explained the applicant
could not be present tonight so she would like to speak on his behalf. She stated
that one S~b~'~,,night, when it was a nice evening, she, her husband and two
twelve-year-old twins were sitting outside their home and a boat unloaded and
came onto the lot. They overlook the parking lot near the location in question.
She said they saw two men get out, and before she knew it, theY were urinating
right before their eyes.
Brown asked Ms. Berglund if she called the police.
Ms. Berglund stated that She did not call the police because "nothing gets done."
She also stated that the applicant did not show up tonight because he already got a
letter denying the variance. She strongly suggested to the Planning Commission
that things need to change in residential areas such as her neighborhood. She is
very frustrated.
Burma asked if the fence in question for the applicant would help screen her view
of the parking lot. Ms. Bergland stated that it would not but she is all for whatever
can help neighbors.
Brown stated again that if anything else does occur like this to call the police and
then after the officer has investigated the situation, he will let you know what was
done. Confidentiality of names will be kept by the officers.
Ms. Berglund stated in the past, the men tend to urinate and then they hop on the
bus and are gone. Brown stated again to make sure she calls the police and he is
certain someone will be right over.
Chair Michael asked staff why the City currently has a code which allows only a
four foot fence and not a six foot fence.
Gordon stated there are scale issues and safety issues to be considered.
Chair Michael expressed some concern why the City would allow a berm and a
fence which would be six feet tall and not just a fence by itself which is six feet
tall.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13. 1999
Gordon stated the effect of a six foot fence is the creation of a wall which creates
a corridor look. The zoning code in effect creates the aesthetic standards for
residential property to encourage the house to be a prominent feature from the
street. Gordon also stated that the lack of visibility of the people in the yard with a
six foot fence is a concern.
Brown stated if you build a three-foot berm and then put a fence on top of that,
what is the difference. Gordon stated the difference is the visual look. The code
does not want walls along street corridors.
Sutherland stated he had a discussion with the applicant and is very understanding
because he also has to deal with commercial property close to his property. Sutherland
stated to the applicant that to find flexibility in the code would be ideal, but not very
likely. Sutherland stated to the applicant there are few cases that he has not denied a
six foot fence. He stated perhaps it could be screened, but this process is difficult to
do.
Voss stated he is sympathetic towards the applicant but the applicant will have to come
up with a different solution than a fence.
Glister stated the applicant has a valid plea, but she does not want to upset precedent
as it exists to date.
Brown asked if the applicant would go with the berm and trees, would Al and Alma's
subsidize costs for the trees instead of the fence. Gordon could not give a definite
answer to this question.
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Brown suggested to have Gordon check into the possibility of Al and Alma's helping to
pay for the trees and shrubs if the applicant and other neighbors in his area are
agreeable to this plan.
CASE # 99-34: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE; BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 AND 17, DEVON;
PAMELA WEATHERHEAD, 37870. PID# 30-117-23 22 0019.
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request for a front yard
variance to construct a deck. The associated variance is as follows.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 18 feet 20 feet 2 feet
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
The deck is planned in conjunction with a detached garage project. The prope~y does
not currently have a garage, so the plan would be an improvement to the property. All
off-street parking occurs on a gravel area in front of the home. The deck w.ould provide
access from the front of the house to the garage. Given the slope of the yard a deck is
a good alternative to a sidewalk. The second story would provide good views of the
lake. As noted on the plans, most of the deck will be conforming. An attempt to reduce
the encroachment is made by notching the encroaching corner. Hardcover after
construction of the garage and deck will be under 40 percent.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the
variance as requested.
Weiland asked the applicant if the big maple tree, that is currently there, was going to
be cut down. Ms. Weatherhead stated very strongly that all the trees are staying.
Weiland asked if Ms. Weatherhead would be coming into the garage from the Island
View Drive side.
Voss questioned where the front yard and side and rear are located according to the
plat. Gordon went through the location of the house on the plat.
Voss then questioned the applicant to see the time constraints on this project and if this
was going to be one project or two projects. The applicant stated that this was going to
be one project by having the garage done first and then the deck. If the weather did not
permit both projects to be done before snowfall, then it may end up being two projects.
Sutherland stated the garage qualifies for the recent streamlining provision of the
zoning code. There is a question regarding possible utilities that need to be clarified on
the south side of the property.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to move according to staff
recommendations. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
CASE # 99-35: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS FROM
EXISTING ONE; BLOCK 8, LOTS 8-20-21-22, THE HIGHLANDS; 6033
CHERRYWOOD ROAD; RICHARD LILLEHEI, 61610. PID# 23-117-24 34 0011.
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request for a minor subdivision
to create one additional lot from an existing lot of record. The property consists of Lots
20, 21 and 22, Block 8 of the Highlands with a total lot area of over 22,000 square feet.
An existing dwelling is located on Lots 21 and 22 which is accessed from Cherrywood
Road. The south half of the lot is considered bluff, the top of which is approximately at
the 988 feet contour.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
As proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Lot 1 would be the existing home
and Lot 2 would be for the proposed home. Because of the bluff on the south half of the
property, access must occur from Cherrywood. The applicant proposed a cross access
easement to secure access to Lot 1. Both Lots would meet all lot area, width, and
setback requirements for the R-lA District.
Although the proposal meets bulk requirements, it is essentially a flag lot. The lot
configuration and home placement does maintain a good relationship with existing
setbacks along Ridgewood Road. Driveway access needs to occur from Cherrywood
because the Shoreline Management ordinance will not allow a driveway on the south
half of the lot.
The applicant revised his plans to address the City's Engineer concern regarding the
bluff setback. The City Engineer did have a concern with the applicant's bluff
delineation and therefore the applicant revised his plan to be consistent with the
engineer's interpretation of the location of the bluff.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor
subdivision as requested.
Gordon stated if it could be recognized up front the work that needs to be done that is
going to impact the bluff, it seems very similar to trying to keep the setback. The house
is built back already into the slope.
Burma stated it would have to be stated somewhere if this l0 foot setback exists on
parcel A and if a house was built, it would have to include the setback.
Voss stated if the property does not get subdivided, Parcel B is conforming and Parcel
A is nonconforming according to the bluff line. Voss stated that the City has never
allowed a variance to be created and in this case the variance is already there for
Parcel B.
Gordon stated anything can be built on the property to date. If it gets subdivided then a
variance would be needed for Parcel A.
Sutherland stated a person could not build anything on the bluff setback according to
Shoreline Management.
Gordon stated the setbacks apply to the subdividing property.
Sutherland stated if an individual came to build on the south side, the new addition
would have to be conforming to the current code including the bluff setback.
Gordon stated again that a house can be built on the bluff side, if subdivided.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
Brown stated that if we let the applicant put a house on Parcel B, this now would make
Parcel A nonconforming. Thus, anything further done on this property would have to
be approved by the City because it is already a nonconforming parcel.
Burma stated that again we have never recommended approval if it created a
nonconforming situation. Burma is wondering how we can recommend approval of this
situation because of code. Burma stated that the city should deal with what is at issue
now and not make problems in the future for the owners of the future Parcel A.
Sutherland stated that the bluff line on Parcel A is really an existing nonconforming
situation and generally intersects the house. Basically this will not change anything on
Parcel A and he does not want to create any nonconformities.
Burma had legal concerns regarding the building of the property further down the road.
He would like the following questions answered before he feels he can adequately
make a decision regarding this case:
If the subdivision goes through, will it create a variance on Parcel A for the bluff
setback?
Can an owner on Parcel A after a subdivision build further into the bluff without
requiring a bluff variance?
If the new plan handed out tonight does show a bluff line for deliberation?
4. How will a driveway be added to Parcel A?
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Voss, to table this case until September
27, 1999, so the above questions can be properly addressed by staff.
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Gordon stated after hearing these questions he can answer the above questions
tonight.
Burma stated since there were inconsistencies with Gordon and Sutherland, he does
not want to pass the above case.
Brown stated the house is going about 988 for the bluff line on the plans that were
handed out tonight. The first drawing which was the original before tonight showed the
bluff line 979 and then it goes down to 973.5. Brown would like to know which is the
correct bluff line. Brown stated that if the configurations above are correct then Parcel
A should be the conforming one and Parcel B should be nonconforming.
Mr. Lillehei, the applicant, stated that the bluff line was decided by figuring from any
slope at the top that was 30 percent or greater. He stated there is an average slope of
30 percent. The City Engineer stated that this was an average slope according to the
10
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes - Sel~tember 13, 1999
applicant and it was figured this way according to Mr. Parker, the applicant's attorney,
and the City Engineer because of the 30 percent average guidelines they followed.
Brown stated he would like staff to investigate the possibility of having Parcel A to be
nonconforming and have it stated in the resolution. Gordon stated this thought may be
possible.
Voss at this point in the discussion felt this matter had been tabled and further
discussion should be considered at a later date.
Burma again stated the three questions he addressed above have not been answered
in the best way possible and he also feels there is lacking agreement amongst the staff
to have an agreement.
Sutherland stated to Burma that he expressed his opinion but that Gordon's opinion
carries more weight.
Chair Michael stated to the applicant that if there was not a motion to table, he would
have voted to turn this case down. The City does not want to create a variance.
Weiland stated to Sutherland a concern about the possibility of putting in a driveway on
Parcel A. He stated if this is an R-1 zone and it is 60 feet, how many driveways can the
owner have off from the property.
Gordon stated both lots are conforming even though there is only one driveway.
Gordon restated that you cannot put a driveway in the bluff.
Weiland stated if there is anything in the code that allows Parcel B to become a legal
piece of property thus then leaving Parcel A without code for a driveway. At this point,
could Parcel B gets its driveway from Parcel A. Gordon stated that this is a good
thought and a good suggestion for planning.
Weiland stated that the City would be landlocking Parcel A. Gordon stated that the
code does allow this to occur.
Richard Lillehei, the applicant, stated he has been friends with the interested property
owners for several years. He assured everyone that Parcel B will not lose any trees
and he is very conscientious of this. The reason for the bluff line at a 30 percent
average is because of the trees. From the beginning, he has tried to conform to all of
the City's codes. He does want to get this conformed with as little impact on the
property as possible. He stated he would also consider granting the subdivision to put
the slope into a conversation easement. Therefore the owners could not add
construction of hard service to the property. He restated this is a very nice location with
very nice property.
11
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
CASE # 99-36: VARIANCE; FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, AND LAKESIDE
SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A 3 SEASON PORCH OVER EXISTING DECK AT
5816 GRANDVIEW BOULEVARD; LOT 1, MOUND SHORES; JOHN HUBLER,
61870. PID# 14-117-24 13 0003.
Gordon presented the case. The applicant submitted a request for a lakeside variance
to construct a nonconforming porch on an existing deck. The associated variances are
as follows.
North Front Yard House
North Front Yard Garage
South Side Yard House
Lakeside Deck
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
3.8 feet 20 feet 16.2 feet
3.6 feet 6 feet 2.4 feet
5.8 feet 6 feet .2 feet
36 feet 50 feet 14 feet
The proposed porch would be built on the existing deck which received a variance in
1996. The resolution recognized the existing setbacks from Grandview and the lake
access drive along the side yard. The proposed porch would encompass the deck area
which is 14 feet by 20 feet. The hardcover calculations provided are from the previous
deck submittal which show the hardcover short of the 40 percent maximum by 141
square feet. The porch would add 280 square feet to the property putting it over the
limit by 140 square feet. Given the current hardcover situation, a 10 feet by 14 feet
porch would be the maximum allowable. Aside from removing additional hardcover to
keep the property under the 40 percent threshold, staff cannot support the proposal.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance as
requested.
Voss stated there appears to be no permit for the lower deck. Sutherland stated that it
was an existing, nonconforming deck prior to 1969 by the previous owner.
Sutherland stated that when the applicant got a variance for the garage and second
floor of the house, the deck was on the survey then.
Voss wanted clarification of the City of Mound for not permitting a nonconforming deck.
Voss referred to Resolution No. 96-74 where it states "the existing deck will not be
modified as part of this request."
Gordon stated it would appear the owner did not want the existing deck to change.
Gordon stated they would be also approving to justify the hardcover issue. Gordon
stated there does not appear to be a good reason to expand the deck.
12
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
Brown stated if we keep allowing decks to be built in this fashion then we will be soon
allowing three-season porches to be built in the same fashion.
Voss addressed staff to show that the hardcover currently is not over 40 percent but
with adding the deck it would be over.
John Hubler, the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Hubler showed 2-
3 pictures of his house as it exists to date. Each Planning Commissioner looked at the
pictures presented. He stated in the past he requested to add a split level entry and it
was approved. He assured the members that this did not increase or decrease the size
of the house. He also stated that the conditions stated with the split that the crawl
space be capped off, which it was. As his deck currently exists, he stated there is an
infringement for him to enjoy lake side because of high intensity sunlight and
mosquitoes, causing him to be unable to entertain business guests.
Mr. Hubler stated after receiving the City's letter that this porch would be nonconforming
because of size, he would be willing to build a 10 x 14 porch which would be allowable.
This then brings the discussion down to the issue of hardcover. The applicant realized
he does still need a variance and feels to get his variance he does fall under special
circumstances and situations as cited in the code. These circumstances to him would
be deprivation of outdoor effect, enjoyment of property, and this addition would not be
detrimental to the public welfare or public safety use. The applicant stated he would
like to be grandfathered in and granted the deck. He stated his evenings are deprived
because of mosquitoes, too much sunlight, and he cannot entertain business guests,
which are appropriate concerns for him to be grandfathered in.
The applicant demonstrated with pictures of 19 homes that have 3 season porches in
his area. The applicant stated that the traffic would not be a hindrance with this deck.
Mr. Hubler stated that according to his figures the location in question is 140 feet short
of today's compliance for hardcover. He is concerned why residents need to comply
always and commercial appear like they do not--examples coffee house and the
Marquette Bank. Mr. Hubler's solution for hardcover is to put under his proposed 3
season porch a 24 across by 14 deep above-ground manifold system. This system
would take moisture from roof and disburse it under the deck.
Chair Michael stated the hardcover is one issue in question regarding the applicant's
case. Chair Michael stated the applicant also wants to increase a nonconforming
proposal.
Mr. Hubler stated the hardcover needs to be addressed and he would like them to be
brought outside for a complete demonstration of the ground manifold system.
Chair Michael again stated to the applicant that he wants to expand a nonconforming
item. This is a huge issue, more than the hardcover at present. Chair Michael stated if
13
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
the City would approve this variance they would be increasing the nonconformity that
currently exists.
- Voss stated it appears the lot size has decreased to 7,160 square feet.
Sutherland stated if the surveyor lotted the area as such then this is what it is to date.
He explained when the surveys were first completed they would figure lot size and then
calculate the results with a plus or minus sign. The surveyor to date clarified this and
the surveyor is correct.
Sutherland stated the lot area is measured to the flood plain elevation. If we use the
7,160 square feet then it conforms to the City's figures.
Voss stated there are more issues at hand regarding this case. Not only 'is th'e request
nonconforming, but if there would be a 3-seaon porch added on, they would at some
point want it to be changed to a 4-season, and then if a new owner comes along, they
will want to add a deck on to the porch. These would all be nonconforming cases.
Brown stated again that the three season porch is nonconforming.
Voss stated when we grant variances, we look at hardship and practical difficulties and
there is no hardship or practical difficulty in his eye.
Mr. Hubler again stated he cannot barbecue because of the heat, does not entertain
because of any shelter and temporary screen houses blow down. He wants to
permanently enjoy the lake 100 perceat versus nothing now. He again restated that he
would like to demonstrate the hardcover issue at hand outside and is certain it would
alleviate the hardcover problems.
Chair Michael stated the applicant could bring his case up to the Council if he so
wished. He stated that this case will be tabled until September 26 where the idea of
expanding a nonconformity could be addressed. Chair Michael assured Mr. Hubler that
it is not only a hardcover problem.
Voss stated to the applicant that he has now listened to the Planning Commission and
their thoughts and asked the applicant if he would favor a table and do more research
which could then be presented to the Council.
Mr. Hubler wants to know if City Council "will buy it."
Brown stated it is very rare a variance which exceeds hardcover or variance on
nonconforming lots get passed but he can certainly do more research and come back
to present his case further.
14
Mound Planning Commissien Minutes - September 13, 1999
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma, to deny the variance according to
staff recommendations.
Voss reiterated his reasoning for the Motion at hand. Voss stated there is no hardship
and no practical difficulty that he sees currently. He stated that by expanding more
nonconforming property that at some point it will eventually be a full four season porch
which will be nonconforming. Voss stated that if this was a garage or one-bedroom
home to add onto the house, then there would be practical difficulty but to date he does
not see that either.
Weiland stated maybe that the applicant is now overbuilding and should put some
thought into overbuilding in the future.
Mr. Huber stated that he would like to have the matter tabled for a later date.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Voss because applicant requested to have his
case tabled.
Mr. Huber stated that he would like to have the matter tabled until February, 2000.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma, to table the above case for review
by the Planning Commission until February, 2000, allowing applicant time
to come back with other comparisons and information to support his case.
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
CASE # 99-37: VARIANCE; LOT SIZE AND STREET FRONTAGE; TO CREATE A
BUlLDABLE PARCEL AT 17XX WILDHURST LANE; BLOCK 13, LOT 1,
SHADYWOOD POINT; DAVID AND CAROL BABLER, 61980.
PID# 13-117-24 14 0017.
Gordon presented the case. The applicants requested a variance to lot area and width
to receive status as a buildable lot for this lot of record. The variances are as follows:
Street Frontage
Lot Area
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
57 feet 60 feet 3 feet
6,927 sq. feet 10,000 sq. feet 3,072 sq. feet
The property is described as Lot 1, Block 13 of Shadywood Point. As platted the Lot
has over 10,000 square feet but only 6,927 square feet are above the Ordinary High
Water line of 929.4 feet used for determined lot area. Street frontage along Resthaven
Lane is just short of the 60 feet requirement at 57 feet. Sunset landing is dedicated
public land used as an access point to Harrison's Bay. It is unimproved with a gravel
surface.
15
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - Seotember 13, 1999
The applicants reside in the home on Lot 2 and have owned and held both lots as
individual tax parcels since the 1970's. Their intent is to sell both properties as buildable
parcels although there are no building plans for Lot 1 at this time.
The owners are entering this process purely on a speculative means to secure the
status of Lot 1 as a buildable lot. Because both lots are held by the same owner, the
potential exists for a combination that would secure its status as a conforming lot. There
are no guarantees however, that the owner could build a spec home on the property. It
seems very premature to grant a variance on a lot whose future is uncertain of the need
for variances. A sale of the lot to another party also gives is not a guarantee that it
would be a buildable lot. Staff would recommend denial of this request based on the
lack of building plan information and the substandard size of the property.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance as
requested because it is so premature.
ross asked if these are substandard lots and Gordon stated they are substandard
lots.
Brown stated the only access landing is at the surf side and the Sunset Landing is
only used in the winter.
Voss asked if there was precedent granting a case like this without a building
permit request.
Sutherland commented on three somewhat similar cases. He cited the Steve
Coden case on Bluebird, the Zilla/Tom Stokes case on Glen Elyn and the Bob Steele
case on Driftwood Lane. All three cases noted were eventually approved.
Brown stated these are two lots of record and both could be built on. Brown
stated the Steele case is basically the same as this one.
Sutherland stated he would not give a permit for a builder for the lot in the Steele
case if it were a do-over.
Brown asked how we can deny this case because all the neighbors have been
allowed to build with very similar circumstances.
Voss stated staff would deny this case because of the substandard size.
Gordon stated his concern of granting a variance when there is no plan in sight.
stated the City should wait until there is a plan and some building will take place
before granting a variance as the applicant is requesting.
He
16
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - September 13, 1999
Sutherland stated he agrees with Gordon. Sutherland is certain there is a legal right
by the City to deny this request. He stated there are three previous cases that are
similar, but there is still the opportunity for the City to deny if they deem so. He
stated that we could allow the applicant to put the house on the property as soon
as we address the plans, but not before. As precedent indicates, when the case
proceeds to the Council, it will probably get passed, but why not wait until it has
proceeded that far.
Brown addressed the applicant to come forward.
David Babler stated he does not understand why they cannot build because he has
always thought it was a buildable yet vacated lot.
ross asked why there was no building plan. Evidently the applicant is going to sell
the property to Mr. Stokes of French Hill Homes.
Tom Stokes of French Hill Homes stated he handled the Zilla case. In this case
Stokes stated that the Planning Commission did request and recommend approval
in the Zilla case. Mr. Stokes indicated he did have a customer at that time for the
house and the house was going to fit exactly in the footprint made.
Chair Michael stated that he does not understand why the Planning Commission
would have passed'the Zilla case. Chair Michael stated that there was possibly
false information given to the Planning Commission which allowed them to approve
the Zilla case.
Glister stated she recalls the plan getting passed because the structure was going
to fit perfectly in the footprint.
Gale Pixler stated the property in question was sold to him. Mr. Pixler stated this is
a 10,000 square foot lot but with the hardcover it basically is only a 7,000 square
foot lot. Mr. Pixler stated he had abided by the setback requirements and the
footprint he wants to use is doable. Mr. Pixler stated that he will follow the rules
of Mound and will have it noted that building can only occur on the footprint. The
driveway in this site has been discussed and Mr. Pixler is presenting a roadway of
some sort. He understands there is not going to be a variance request. Mr. Pixler
questioned why a gravel road would not be suitable on this property and for
emergency vehicle access.
Chair Michael stated that the fresh rock that gets kicked up from the emergency
vehicles may cause problems with the sewer system.
Sutherland stated there is a code for street frontage and to take the driveway out
would not have any concern with access on an unimproved street.
17
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - Seotember 13. 1999
Chair Michael suggested that there be a motion to extend the meeting beyond
11:00 p.m. tonight.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland, to extend the Planning
Commission meeting until 11:15 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Brown asked why we can, as a City, state that even though this is a 10,OOO
square lot, only 7,000 of it is for platting purposes.
Gordon stated because of the adoption of Shoreline Management and flood plain
this is the guideline for using only certain amount of square footage for the plat.
Brown stated also that even though the applicant has been paying taxes and sewer
and water on this property, only a certain portion is considered for platting.
Sutherland stated the lot was platted and the new ordinance took things away.
The same regulations would have platted it under the area of 931 feet. It does
have some rights, but the City has the right to zone and this supercedes the
property rights that are applicable. Sutherland stated the Becker case in support of
his statement.
Gordon stated the courts are more supportive of City's rights. Gordon stated there
was a court decision for a case in Plymouth that an ordinance supports the
upholding of the lot size or lot area requirement and the City won. Gordon stated
there is reason not to grant this variance.
ross stated that if we grant this variance, the City still remains in control of the
situation because of decisions to be made in the future by the builder.
Sutherland stated that if the City supports the variance then the house would be
required to be built in all conforming ways.
MOTION BY Voss, seconded by Brown to approve the variance request.
MOTION DENIED: 3-4 (Brown, Voss, Hasse - aye and Burma, Glister,
Michael, Weiland - nay).
MOTION BY Glister, seconded by Michael to deny the variance according to
staff recommendations. MOTION CARRIED. 4-3. (Burma, Glister, Michael,
Weiland - aye and Brown, Voss, Hasse - nay).
CASE # 99-11: MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO RELEASE A PORTION OF TAX
FORFEIT PROPERTY TO BE SOLD TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, XXXX
HANOVER ROAD, BLOCK 9, LOTS 29 AND 30, WHIPPLE, CITY OF MOUND, 37970,
PID# 25-117-24 12 0064.
18
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - Seotember 13. 1999
Gordon presented this issue. Gordon stated that this plan is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended it could be considered by designating this
plan as Iow density.
Gordon recommends approval of the minor subdivision with some provisions as stated
in his original report of recommendations dated May 10, 1999.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss to accept staff recommendations of
the minor subdivision. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1. (Burma, Glister, Michael,
Hasse, Voss, Brown - aye and Weiland - nay.)
DISCUSSION
1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: COMMUNITY CENTER SITE
Gordon presented the building plan for the Community Center site by showing detailed
colored maps of the downtown area. Gordon stated there would be a mix of auto
destination district and pedestrian district for the center. There would be shopping
available, but on a middle-size scale such as the Coast to Coast site. There would be
large tenants and smaller shops that would consist of grocery stores, clothing stores,
etc. The terms of setbacks are consistent with the residential setbacks along
Glenwood. The look of the area would be a more suburban view.
INFORMATION
Monthly report from August;:~'t999.
City Council minutes from August 24, 1999.
Dock and Commons minutes from August 18, 1999.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Glister, seconded by Burma, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED: 7-0.
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 11'15 p.m.
19
CITY of ORONO
Municipal Offices
Street Address: Mailing Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 C~stal Bay, MN 55323-0066
September 23, 1999
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board Members
c/o Gregory S. Nybeck, Executive Director
18338 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391
Dear Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board Members:
This letter is in response to a letter received from Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director,
regarding the appointment of the City's LMCD representative. The letter indicates the LMCD
appointments are made in October, and the appointment is for a three-year term. It is the City's
understanding that the LMCD enabling legislation was changed several years ago to provide that
appointments are for one year rather than three years. Also, Orono, as well as most or all other
cities, makes its annual appointments at the first of the year. The October appointment date does
not coincide with any other appointment process or schedule. It would be helpful if the LMCD
would coordinate its appointment schedule with the annual appointment schedule generally used by
the member cities.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Moorse
City Administrator
RJ1M~sv
cc: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Member Cities
Telephone (612) 249.4600 · Fax (612) 249-4616
C h
:n
ARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www, kcnnedy-graven.corn
JOE Y. YANG
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9213
email: jyang~kennedy-graven.com
September 27, 1999
Pat Meisel, Mayor
Fran Clark-Leisinger, City Clerk/Acting City Manager
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1627
Re:
William R. and Dorothy E. Netka v. City of Mound
Court File Nos. MC99-000526 and CD2525
Our File No. BE295-53
Dear Fran:
Enclosed please find the Order that we received from Judge Porter today dismissing the Netka's
inverse condemnation and tortuous interference claims against the City. The Netkas will have 60
days from the date that judgment is entered to appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Judgment should be entered within the next few weeks.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Mac LeFevre at any time.
Very truly yours,
.Y & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
g.~ang (~'%~
:sms
Enclosures
YANGJO-169370
BE295-53
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
William R. and Dorothy E. Netka,
VS.
City of Mound,
Plaintiffs,
Defendant,
99
HENN CO
cOURT ~Ot
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No: CD 2525 & MC 99-
000526
ORDER
The above-captioned case came on for motion for summary judgment before the undersigned on
August 23, 1999. Timothy A. Sullivan, Esq. was present and representing plaintiffs and John M. LeFevre, Jr.
and Joe Y. Yang, Esq. were present and representing the defendant.
Based on the arguments of counsel and on all of the records and files herein, the Court hereby makes
the following Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of identifying facts that support their allegations that the
City of Mound tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs, nor have Plaintiffs proved that the City's
actions resulted in a taking of Plaintiffs' property.
2. There was no intent by Defendant to tortiously interfere with Plaintiffs' business
relationship. The November 25, 1997 letter had a good-faith basis. Further, the clarifying
letter mentioned that the proposed acquisition of the property-would occur sometime, maybe
never.
°
Defendant's actions were not a taking. The City did not directly and substantially invade
Plaintiffs' property, nor have Plaintiffs shown that they have been deprived of all economic
use of the property.
ORDER
The tortious interference claim is eliminated by the good-faith basis for the f~st letter and
the language of the clarifying letter.
Defendant's actions did not constitute a taking.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated:
,1999
Ch le~. PoN, Jr. -
Judge of District Court