The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-06-27PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONF.q AND PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2000, 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. ?here 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 APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not liste and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. *3. CONSENT AGENDA: *A. APPROVE TIlE MINUTES: JUNE 13, 2000 REGULAR MEETING .... 2617-2637 *B. SET PUBLIC IIEARINGS: 1. POSTPONED HEARING FOR LANGDON BAY SUBDIVISION: JULY 11 *C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: CASE #99-49: MINOR SUBDIVISION - MILTON HENTGES, 6400 LYNWOOD BLVD, LOT 6 AND NORTH 106' OF LOT 7, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-117-24 32 0059 .. AND CASE #00-26: VARIANCE MILTON HENTGES, 6381 WALNUT ROAD LOT 6 AND NORTIt 106' OF LOT 7, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-117-24 32 0059 ............................ 2638-3684 e CASE #00-28: VARIANCE - TOM FABICK, 2017 ARBOR LANE, LOT 3, SKARP & LINQUIST RAVENSWOOD, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 2'"' FLOOR ADDITION WITII CONNECTION TO EXISTING DETACilED GARAGE PID# 13-117-24 41 0002 ............. 2685-2711 e CASE #00-30: VARIANCE - MARTIN MILLER, 6058 LYNWOOD BLVD, LOT 5, BROOKTON, 1N ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A NON-CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK, PID # 14-117 24 31 0005 ' 2712 2724 2615 e ® o e 10. 11. 12. 13. I'LI~ASE I URtN O1~1~ ALL LI~LL I'IIL}INI~b AND 1AGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, o CASE g00-34: VARIANCE - SHAUN TANCHEFF, 5174 TUXEDO BLVD, LOT 20, WlIIPPLE SHORES, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A DWELLING WITI! A NON-CONFORMING LAKESIDE SETBACK. FID #Z4-117-24 ;~4 0004 2725-2744 *D. APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS .......................... 2745.2763 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON TIIE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.) ]'UBLIC HEARINGS: Ae CASE g00-29: HASBRO/CITY OF MOUND - STREET/EASEMENT VACATION OF TIlE SOUTtlERN PORTION OF MORTON LANE, LOCATED BETWEEN BLOCK 9 AND BLOCK 10, OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK ................... 2764-2803 Be ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO DOWNTOWN ZONING ........................................... 2804-2822 PI.ANNING COMMLqSION REcoMMENDATIONS: Ae CASE g00-32: VARIANCE - JOIIN VOLGSTROM, 2350 DRIFTWOOD LANE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WlTll A NON-CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK, PID #13-117-24 44 0059 .................................. 2823-2889 Be CASE #00-33: SIGN VARIANCE - KEN CUSTER, 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE, GLASS PLUS ENCLOSED PORTABLE SIGN, PID# 13-117-24 33 0076 ................................. 2890-2900 STAFF UPDATE ON STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND BUFFERING MATTERS RELATING TO RAY MAR PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND AGREEMENT FOR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING LIQUOR STORE PROJECT .................................. 2901-2911 DISCUSSION ON POLICY FOR AVOIDED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ......... 2912 COST ESTIMATE FOR RENOVATION OF ISLAND PARK HALL ......... 2913-2915 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS B. C. D. ge Financial Reports ...... , .... ... ...................... .. 2916-2918 AMM Fax News ...................................... 2919-292! Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Minutes - May 10, 2000 ....... 2922-2939 Westonka llealthy Community Collaborative Minutes - May._!9, 2000 ..... _.__29._4_0 Mound Police Department Monthly Report - May 2000 ............. 2941-2946 Fundamentals: How to Become a Better Governing Board Member ..... 2947-2948 2616 COUNCIL BRIEFING June 27~ 2000 #6.B. Glass Plus Portable Si~,n Council Members are cautioned about allowing this portable sign. This sign was erected without City approval and Custer applied after the fact when reported to the City. Making portable signage permissible via this approach opens the door to all types of sandwich signs and other unknown, unique types of signage, making it the acceptable norm in the redeveloped downtown. It is questionable if that is the image that will mesh with the new doWntown. It is also a questionable method of receiving approval. It is important to send a message at the onset here. #7. CBD Parking Agreement It is the recommendation of Staff that the Council extend the CBD Parking Agreement for an additional year. Allowing it to lapse before the mediation can be completed could bring about unanticipated complications. Even though our service to the District is minimal this time of year (i.e., garbage pickup), extending it would be a safeguard against having no agreement in place when demands for service increase (i.e., snowplowing). Though the ideal situation would bc for those affected to strike their own agreement for services, wc cannot be assured that that will happen. Thc extension would be the safety net to guarantee uninterrupted service to the District. If you extend the agreement, you may want to reconsider the need to mediate since the parking issue may dissipate at the end of one year if the development plans proceed as expected. #10. Cost Estimate for Renovation of Island Park Hall This item is at the request of members from an earlier meeting. Jim Fackler will be present to discuss the topic. #8 Liquor Store Project The Staff has considered several sites. The list has been narrowed to two. The feasibility of both is being studied. It would be advised that site not be discussed at this meeting since the affected property owners have not been contacted as of yet. Thank you. Other: How to Shorten Council Meetings Workshop Because Mayor Meisel will be unable to attend this meeting, the workshop on 'How to Shorten Council Meetings' will be delayed until a July meeting. Beard Group Developments Bill Beard announced this week that he will do the Langdon and Auditor's Road projects simultaneously. The Final Development Agreement will be signed about Aug 1 and those affected will be contacted within weeks following that. Thanks to the Council Thank you, Mayor and Council Members, for the warm welcome to Mound and your kind patience and support while I learn my job. Your understanding is appreciated. DRAFT MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 13, 2000 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, Mound Visions Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, James Prosser of Ehlers & Associates and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present: Walter and Janea Carlsen, Ron Helmer of The Rottlund Company; Richard Palmiter of The Rottlund l~ompany; Peter Meyer, Linda Skorseth, David Deters, John Royer, Steve Wagner, Lorri Ha~, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Annie Schmitt, and Greg Knutson. *Consent Agenda: Ail. 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 Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Acting City Manager Clark stated that asked to add two additional licenses for trees to Agenda Item B, Rob's Tree Service & Matt's Tree Service. Councilmember Hanus asked have Item C removed from the Consent Agenda. The Acting City Manager asked that Item E. 1 & 2 be pulled from the Consent Agenda. This item was replaced with Item 1.3. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the removal of Item C, Item E being pulled from the Consent Agenda and replaced with Item 1.3. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 APPROVE MINUTES: MAY 23, 2000, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. *1.1 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 APPROVAL OF MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES. DRAFT MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. *1.2 SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO DOWNTOWN ZONING. (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 27. 2000. MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. *1.3 SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE STREET/EASEMENT VACATION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF MORTON LANE. LOCATED BETWEEN BLOCK 9 AND BLOCK 10 OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK P&Z CASE//00-29. (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 27. 20003 MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. · 1.4 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION. Ahrens, Brown, unanimously. 1.5 APPROVE DOCK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR MARK HANUS AT 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1. AVALON. DOCK SITE 33525. Councilmember Hanus stepped downand did not paarficipate in discussion or vote on this issue. Councilmember Ahrens stated that this is straightforward issue. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the permit as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT SUBJECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.} Amy Klobacher, Hennepin County Attorney. has been visiting City Councils around the county. Ms. Klobacher stated that Mike F~Sstall is Mound s liaison to her office and she will be sending a follow up letter with contact information. Ms. Klobacher is here tonight to discuss what her office does and to answer any questions. Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT Mayor Meisel asked about juveniles sentenced as adults. Ms. Klobacher stated the youngest juvenile sentenced as an adult to date was 16 and all were 16 or 17. Councilmember Hanus asked about the success ratio of extended juvenile programs. Ms. Klobacher stated that there were statistics available on these programs, but she did not have them with her tonight. Councilmember J$r~ about a boot camp type of sentencing. Ms. Klobacher stated that Cheryl Ran~stgad Vq~s~would be the person to ask about this. She further stated that most juveniles We, re-~mUout of state, as Minnesota does not have this kind of facility. 1.6 REPRESENTATIVES FROM ROTTLUND HOMES PRESENTING CONCEPT PLAN FOR LANGDON BAY SUBDIVISION. Tim Whitten, Vice President of The Rottlund Company, spoke to the Council about their concept for the Langdon Bay subdivision. He mentioned that he has gone through the project with some of the members individually. Mr. Whitten stated that originally he had hoped to bring the issue to the Council in a few weeks, but the Planning Commission has a few more questions that need to be answered and Rottlund will need to appear before the Commission again. Mr. Whitten explained the general layout of the project and indicated the location. He stated that Rottlund had originally proposed building town homes on this site, but the property owner wanted single-family homes to be built. The original proposal was to build over 80 units, but after investigating the grades and the size of the wetlands, the proposal was reduced to 75 sites. Rottlund plans to develop the entire site. Several different home styles will be offered. Examples were shown. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund is looking for variances to the standard ordinances for setbacks. This flexibility is necessary because of the topography of the site. Rottlund is proposing a typical lot size of 10,000 sq feet with a 70-foot wide minimum. Rottlund is looking for a 50-foot wide right of way, a 25-foot front yard setback (the standard is 30) and side yards of 10 feet and 6 feet instead of 10 feet and 10 feet. This is being requested in an effort to pull the houses closer to the street, which allows a larger backyard. A typical lot will be 75 ft wide and 144 feet deep. Mr. Whitten stated that he has been working with Staff on all the issues. He has had a neighborhood meeting, two meetings with the Park Commission, and informal and formal meetings with the Planning Commission. Two major issues are the improvement of West Edge Blvd. where half the road is in Mound and half is in Minnetrista. There are also issues with the County on Lynwood Blvd. involving site lines and a left turn lane. Mr. Whitten stated that there is a meeting scheduled with Rottlund's engineers, Hennepin 3 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT County, and Staff to discuss the issues. Rottlund has also worked with the Park Commission to determine the best location for park dedication land. The Planning Commission has requested information on examples of setbacks, more information on what Hennepin County's position is on turn lanes, and there is a question on the existing fight of way of a public street on the edge of the property. Mr. Whitten pointed out that as the single builder on this project, Rottlund can control the architecture; and can limit depth, width and sizes of the homes to better fit on the lots. The theme of the development is craftsman style and front door friendly. Rottlund will be promoting front porches. They are proposing sidewalks to tie into the trails, and a sidewalk in the boulevard with trees. Rottlund is proposing that utilities go through the streets. Councilmember Brown stated that the he had visited the Centennial Lakes project designed by Mr. Whitten and thought it was beautiful. Mr. Whitten wished to clarify that he had designed the Centennial Lakes project before he was associated with Rottlund. Councilmember Ahrens asked if on planned unit developments, there was an opportunity to alter setbacks. Councilmember Hanus stated that there were tradeoffs involved with this. The City Attorney stated that hardship issues would not be prevalent. Councilmember Hanus asked if Rottlund intended to adopt a homeowner's association. Mr. Whitten stated that they are open to that if the City desires it. Councilmember Hanus stated that he had heard comments some time ago from Council that there was some interest in using the dedicated parkland to create a ball field rather than small parks. Mr. Whitten stated that this idea was brought up in the early stages and was discussed in front of the Park Commission, but the current concept is thought to take better advantage of the site. Councilmember Hanus stated that the City is under pressure to create ball fields and this may be one of the only sites left that is large enough for that purpose. Mr. Whitten stated that they are doing the improvement of trails as the .7 acre portion and the remaining land is 2.5 acres. This fulfills Rottlund's parkland obligation. Council mMember Brown questioned the possibility of a 2.5-acre ball field. Councilmember Weycker stated that the Park Commission had considered this, but that it wasn't enough land. Mr. Whitten stated that because of the amount of wetlands on this site, the overall layout is greatly affected. Councilmember Hanus stated that he would like to hear the actual numbers on the ball field possibility. Councilmember Brown stated that Rottlund had decided to look at the lots individually to try to save trees. Mr. Whitten stated this would not be possible in every case, but where the road and the lot were close to the same elevation, they would do this. 4 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13, 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Brown asked about the possibility of moving the original home onto the parkland. Mr. Whitten stated that the house was too costly to remodel and it was the Park Commission that had considered moving the building onto the park site. He further stated that the Park Commission is investigating this option. Councilmember Weycker stated that the it was not feasible to move the building and use it as a park building; but possibly the fireplace could be saved or a mock up used. The Park Commission is interested in finding a way to highlight the Terry Redlin painting that was done on the site. Councilmember Hanus asked how the Council could get the data for the ball field numbers and the site areas that could support this idea. Councilmember Weycker stated that the City Planner might have those numbers or that possibly the Mound Visions Coordinator would have this information. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that they would get that information to the City Council. Mayor Meisel stated that there was enough land early on, but the City Planner felt that the lay of the land did not lend itself to a ballpark. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund would analyze the land, contact Staff, and get the information to the City Council. Richard Palmer, of Rottlund Company, asked if parking would also be an aspect of the ball field. Councilmember Hanus stated that parking in some fashion would be necessary. Councilmember Brown confirmed the location of existing ball fields. Councilmember Weycker stated that a referendum in September would determine whether some of these ball fields would be kept. Councilmember Hanus asked what Rottlund was proposing in regard to the improvement of West Edge Blvd. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund was flexible as to the amount of improvement done to the road. He stated that the current difficulty was that Minnetrista was not planning to participate. Mr. Whitten stated that Rottlund was trying to find a proper solution and this is still in the early stages of the discussion. Mr. Whitten stated that he is aware of Staff's position and they need to respond. Mayor Meisel asked about abutting neighbors concerns. Mr. Whitten stated that some neighbors had previously requested an improvement to West Edge, but it was still a touchy issue. Councilmember Hanus stated that it is difficult when only one side can be assessed the cost and it was the City's plan to assess only the regular amount and the balance for the connector road would fall to the developer. Councilmember Brown stated that at the prior evening's Planning Commission meeting, it was suggested that blacktop curb could be used and not concrete curb and gutter. Mayor Meisel stated that she wanted to hear from the City Engineer before making those decisions. Mr. Whitten stated that he felt this was premature to discuss this at this time. Mound City Council Minutes, June 13. 2000 D~FT Councilmember Hanus stated that he was impressed with a tour of a similar neighborhood and the Council agreed with this. Councilmember Weycker stated that the preliminary plans for railroad abandonment had been received and Minnetrista may work more with Mound after this is settled. 0.6 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING, TO INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF CBC PARKING AGREEMENT AND BRAINSTORM PARKING FOR WEST COMMERCE BOULEVARD BUSINESSES. Mayor Meisel opened the discussion on this issue. She stated that page 2472 of the meeting packet references last year's action to terminate CBD parking and this is a brainstorming session. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that he wanted to discuss the site plan, the concept drawing, and also to talk more about the CBD program. Mayor Meisel stated that a letter had been received from Mueller/Lancing stating that they did not want to participate in the renewal of the CBD parking program. James Prosser, Ehlers & Associates, stated that he felt it would be worthwhile to get the businesses together with a facilitator to discuss the timing of the improvements and to get feedback for potential solutions. Mr. Prosser stated that this issue had a lot to do with redevelopment and that interim and permanent solutions will be needed. Mayor Meisel asked what business people Mr. Prosser was referring to - the whole downtown or just those involved with the CBD Parking Program. Mr. Prosser stated they had not discussed it that far and wanted feedback before making that decision. Councilmember Brown asked whether there was any consideration given to helping the businesses on the west side of Commerce and the south side of the railroad tracks (Langdon DistficO that were in need of more parking. Councilmember Brown stated that currently eight spaces were available in this location. Mr. Prosser stated that these would be the type of issues that needed to be explored. He felt that the problem with the redevelopment was to create density and value to make this project work. Mr. Prosser stated that the Mound Visions Coordinator would work with the City Planner to analyze this. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that this was on the discussion list. Mr. Prosser requested that the City Council not make assumptions about what issues were being discussed, but to call the City Manager and let her know of any issues. Mayor Meisel stated that she liked the idea of getting together with the businesses snd getting their input. The City Attorney asked Mr. Prosser how a facilitator situation would work. 6 Mound City Council Minutes, June 13. 2000 DRAFT Mr. Prosser stated that the redevelopment could cause concern and disruption and retaining an independent facilitator or mediator to work through the issues would be helpful. Mr. Prosser stated that the mediator could be used in a limited capacity. He explained that he had a relationship with a mediator from the Mediation Center in St. Paul, and that would be one option. Mr. Prosser stated that Staff or another project team member could also do the mediator job, but that person might not appear as neutral. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that one issue that had been brought out was the True Value development and the parking on that block. He stated that on Commerce Boulevard on-street parking is being added. Some other possibilities include a vacant lot to the west of the property that could be developed to add two parking bays and a drive lane. At this time, the curb cuts are too close to the intersection, but the County would remove the cuts if the building were demolished. Councilmember Hanus asked about access to the current driveway in the rear. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the County is concerned about narrowness of the lot and there would not be space to do curb work to make it a right turn only exit. Councilmember Hanus asked about backing out and exiting the same way you came in. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that scenario would create a difficult situation and the County suggested reversing the direction of the traffic flow off of Commerce Boulevard allowing people to loop around easily to find a parking spot. It was also discussed that if the railroad goes away, this parking lot could be connected with the lot across the tracks, which would eliminate the need for the curb cut. Potential cost for this is $200,000, but the cost is dependent upon soils and wetland mitigation. Councilmember Hanus asked whether TIF could be used for parking. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated yes, but no TIF is being generated on this project. Councilmember Hanus stated that there was a 25 % rule that could be used. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the funds might not be them. Councilmember Brown stated this issue was very important as these owners had been in Mound for years and stuck it out during the hard times. Mayor Meisel stated that there would be parking, but possibly it would not be choice parking. She further stated that she is concerned about paying $200,000 for a parking lot. Mr. Prosser again stated that it would be beneficial to meet with business owners early in the process. Mayor Meisel asked if the public wished to comment on this discussion. John Royer, 2281 Commerce Boulevard, stated that he was glad to see progress. He has been in business there for 28 years and has invested about $100,000 in parking in this area. Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT He feels it is unfair not to have parking close by. Mr. Royer stated that any consideration would be appreciated and he liked the idea of a business owner meeting to discuss the options. Mayor Meisel stated that the redevelopment needed to work for both new and existing businesses. Mr. Royer stated that he had an additional concern in that he did not know where all the employees would be parking. He stated that he felt the new plans were 40% short of parking space. Mayor Meisel stated that the new plans meet criteria based on code. Councilmember Hanus stated that the code might be weak and need updating. Mayor Meisel stated that it was the City's desire to be creative with solutions. The Mound Visions Coordinator commented that it would be beneficial to have two meetings including one for all businesses and one to focus on the John's Variety block. Mayor Meisel asked who should have the first meeting. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the John's Variety block would be more immediate and suggested setting something up next week and he would set this up. Mr. Prosser stated that if a facilitator was going to be used, it is best to let him make the contact. Councilmember Weycker questioned when CBD expired. Mayor Meisel stated the expiration was June 30, 2000. Mayor Meisel reviewed the letter from Mueller/Lansing. She stated that the point the letter was making was his fear that the new True Value building would take away from his tenant's parking. Councilmember Hanus stated this concern would be valid, but when Mueller/Lansing does redevelop, they will need alternative parking unless they plan to use City parking at that time. He felt this step was being taken because they would no longer be paid. Councilmember Hanus stated that termination of the CBD program doesn't mean that the City cannot continue the program if the City picked up the cost. On a case-by-case basis, it may pay for one year to continue to maintain the lot. Mayor Meisel asked why they should do this when the lot is going to be cut up once the right of way issues are resolved, and the new tenants cannot wait. She felt that the point is that Mueller is better off not being tied up and keeping their land available for what they need to do. Councilmember Hanus debated whether it does any business any good to restrict parking only to their business. Mayor Meisel stated that years ago the old bank building was in the CBD parking program 8 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT and she petitioned to have it pulled out. A deal was made to pay toward rental and snow plowing. Councilmember Hanus stated that this may not be equal money, but Mueller/Lansing may have an interest. The City Attorney stated that he could contact Mueller/Lansing to see if they would wish some type of temporary extension, as it would be good to know before meetings with business owners if this land is available. Councilmember Ahrens and Mayor Meisel both agreed to see if Mueller/Lansing had any interest at all in this. Mayor Meisel stated that they would leave CBD alone until the last meeting in June with direction to Staff to set up meetings. The City Attorney asked about selecting a facilitator tonight. Mr. Prosser stated that he knew Amy Gullett from the Mediation Center who is trained as an attorney and a mediator, and that she is his recommendation. Mayor Meisel asked if he had spoken with the City Manger about this. Mr. Prosser stated that he had spoken with her briefly and he would again speak with her on this issue at the next team meeting and he would also have Ms. Gullett present to talk about her ideas. Councilmember Ahrens asked if any free mediation services were available. Mr. Prosser stated that these types of services are good, but this is a more difficult and sustained activity. Councilmember Ahrens stated her concern about TIF money being spent. Mr. Prosser stated that the Staff would not be present at these meetings and would, therefore, not be paid. Only the mediator and the business owners would attend. Mayor Meisel asked about the cost. Mr. Prosser thought a limit of $1,000 would be reasonable or it would be possible to try to find a free service. Mayor Meisel suggested spending up to $1,000 after a free mediation service has been researched. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she would also like to wait to look for a free mediator and then go with the $1,000 cap. The City Attorney confirmed that this plan would be discussed with the City Manger. Ken Custer, 5533 Shoreline Drive, stated that he did not have all the information from the last meeting, but he had understood that one year ago, the parking was tied in with the realigning of County Road 15. He stated that he wanted to participate in a snow removal plan as he feels that mounds of snow will cause site lines to be a problem if everyone plows their own lot. Mr. Custer likes the current program because it removes the snow from downtown. 0.7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Mound Visions Coordinator introduced Dan Parks, storm water management consultant. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that he has been meeting with the Watershed District to discuss issues. He discussed a memo written to the City Manager about the Lost Lake 9 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13, 2000 DRAFT canal project. He then distributed a follow up memo. The Watershed District Board Members have changed and the permit process has to be redone. The permit application will be made in the next two weeks. The Mound Vision Coordinator stated that the other issue is the approval of a storm water management plan. The Watershed staff has reviewed this and they are looking for the buffer requirement. Once this plan is in effect, the City will have permit authority for the Lost Lake project. All of this is directly related to the downtown redevelopment project. Councilmember Hanus asked if buffers were a variance type of issue. He wondered if the City could adopt the buffer requirement, ignore it, and just grant variances. Dan Parks stated that if the buffer requirement were not upheld at some point, the Watershed District would come in. Mr. Parks stated that the main reason to enact a buffer ordinance was so that the City could make these decisions not the Watershed. He further stated that the Watershed uses the numbers as a minimal requirement, but the Council could use the numbers as an average. Councilmember Hanus asked if the Watershed has come up with statistics that what they are doing is working. Mr. Parks stated that they are currently doing some studies to determine this. Mr. Parks stated that the buffer is only required on new projects and redevelopment projects. Councilmember Hanus stated he could see this growing to include all projects. Councilmember Brown agreed with this statement. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the buffering process is already in place. In reference to the Council's concern that this requirement would become more extensive, he stated that the only way to control the growth was to take control of the requirements. Councilmember Hanus stated that this requirement is out of synch with the purpose of the Council. The Mound Visions Coordinator suggested taking a bus tour to look at buffers in the area. Mr. Parks stated that there might be some buffers in town on the west side of Long lake. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the greenway project does include a buffer, which is a perennial garden. Councilmember Ahrens asked how restrictive the requirements were. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated that the Watershed uses "unmaintained" as the qualifier, but every buffer has to be managed. Councilmember Ahrens asked if the buffer intended for Lost l.ake was unmaintained. The Mound Visions Coordinator said no, it will be very garden like. Councilmember Brown stated that he had previously suggested that new developments put buffers in, but not require it. He does not believe landowners should be told what to do with 10 Mound City Council Minutes, June 13. 2000 DRAFT personal property. The Mound Visions Coordinator stated the requirement is currently in place. Mayor Meisel stated her concern that this would be only the start. Councilmember Weycker stated that the ordinance is already in place and the issue is whether the Council wants to be determining this or if the Council wants to let the Watershed do it. Councilmember Weycker stated that the Council is being asked to take a role to determine what happens in the City. Councilmember Brown asked what would happen if the City didn't take control of this. Councilmember Weycker stated that then the Watershed would. Councilmember Ahrens asked whether the Watershed would review the City's decisions if they took control. Councilmember Hanus asked what other cities were doing. Mr. Parks discussed ordinances from Chaska and Plymouth. He stated that the Plymouth ordinance specifically identifies what needs to be in the wetland, the seed mix to be maintained, and what noxious weeds are to be removed. Councilmember Hanus stated that these were good examples, but he wants to see examples from this lake. Mr. Parks stated that Excelsior recently adopted the Watershed ordinance and Shorewood had developed ordinances based on the quality of the wetland. Councilmember Hanus asked if there was a way to write this ordinance and still leave it open and ambiguous. Mr. Parks stated they would need to meet the minimums, but most cities are going beyond this. Councilmember Hanus confirmed that Wayzata had adopted specific requirements. Mr. Parks stated that no, the Planning Commission made recommendations on a particular area using a sliding scale depending on the quality of the wetland. Councilmember Ahrens asked whether wetland referred to the entire lake or just the marshy stuff. Mr. Parks stated that most water bodies have a fringe wetland. Councilmember Ahrens asked if the Spring Park boat landing was wetland. Mr. Parks stated that it probably was not. The Mound Visions Coordinator defined wetland as emergent vegetation. Councilmember Weycker asked if there was something about core samples in the definition. Councilmember Hanus stated the level of groundwater was an issue. Mr. Parks stated it would be very difficult to prove something was not a wetland. Councilmember Hanus confirmed that this would then apply to lakes. Councilmember Weycker gave the example of a sandy beach and asked if that would be a buffer zone. Parks stated that this ordinance is not recommending destroying beaches and the word "unmaintained" comes from the Watershed and is a poor word to describe what should happen. Mr. 11 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Hanus asked about areas where dredging is in front of property with emergent weeds. Councilmember Weycker suggested looking for a 2-acre property in Mound that would qualify and taking a look at it. The Mound Visions Coordinator addressed questions regarding his memo. He stated that basically if a property were left alone, the buffering requirement would not be in effect. Requirements of the plan could be no more stringent than the Watershed was now requiring; it was just a matter of taking control. Mayor Meisel asked how often the Watershed gives a variance. The Mound Visions Coordinator did not know. Councilmember Weycker pointed out that the senior center would not have had to go to the Watershed if the City had adopted this. Councilmember Hanus asked if the Watershed would take control back, if they did not like the City's interpretation. The City Attorney stated that if this was adopted, the Watershed would lose jurisdiction, but they could challenge a variance similar to the DNR's ability to challenge. Mr. Parks commented that the City Council could go for some time before ruling on a buffer. Councilmember Ahrens asked if other cities were accepting this without question. Mr. Parks stated that Minnetrista struggled with the issue for a while, but felt it would improve environmental issues that were already being imposed in the city. Councilmember Ahrens asked if this could hold up a project. The City Attorney stated that this buffer is currently required whether the City is involved or not and the City could limit the size of the buffers. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she did not want to relinquish control. Councilmember Hanus asked that the Watershed requirements be restated and Mr. Parks provided these. The Mound Visions Coordinator suggested doing as Plymouth did as in addressing specific plants and maintenance requirements. Councilmember Hanus asked if the Watershed would view this as a violation. Mr. Parks stated that the Watershed would strongly recommend this. Councilmember Weycker asked for clarification on the direction needed. Mr. Parks stated that comments from the Watershed and consultants are waiting for final comments from the Met Council and he will distribute that when he receives it, but the Watershed has definitely pinpointed the buffer issue. 12 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Hanus stated that the direction from Council was that they want to know what other cities are doing in relationship to this. Mr. Parks agreed to provide copies of the ordinances from the other lake cities. Councilmember Hanus also asked Mr. Parks to call cities that had not yet made a decision and find out what their thinking is. The City Attorney suggested finding out what pages had been struck from the proposed plan and possibly putting those back in as originally presented. The City Attorney asked if this would be another amendment that would require public notice. The Mound Visions Coordination did not know. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to table this until the next City Council meeting so that further information could be obtained. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Mayor Meisel called a 10-minute recess at 9:47 p.m. Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 10:02 p.m. 1.8 CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT ON OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE STUDY. Mr. Prosser addressed this issue. He stated that there was a parcel size and location discrepancy regarding the exact area and space under consideration in that the task force thought it was about 11 acres. 1.8 acres of the athletic field area are zoned commercial and the City Council should talk to the task force about this. Mr. Prosser felt there could be an issue regarding how much property could be acquired with the $1.3 million. There is also an issue regarding the minimum improvement level including code issues and building code updates that need to be made. He stated that typically when changing use it is preferable to be in a position to know the costs of bringing it up to code so that it can be considered as part of the purchase price. Another option is to fund this from an external source such as a second bond referendum question. It is necessary to have an inspection. The City Manager has had the league of Minnesota Insurance Trust out and inspect the property and they made a list of what needed to be done. There is still a question of whether code can be met. Mayor Meisel stated that she was surprised that bleachers were not part of the issue. Councilmember Hanus asked if the property was purchased, would they need to keep the cell tower and if not, would the City need to pay back a portion of the monies paid to the school district. The first developer had stated they would maintain the tower. Councilmember Weycker agreed that this was part of the original purchase agreement with the developer. Councilmember Brown asked if $1.3 million was the bond referendum, was more money beyond that going to be required. Mr. Prosser stated that one issue was taking the property 13 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT as is; the second issue was the minimum improvements needed to bring the property to code; and the third was a complete redevelopment. He stated that it was necessary to gather information on all three issues so that a decision could be made. Mayor Meisel stated the general public needs to understand the issues first of buying and then secondly, bringing it up to code and then maintenance of it afterward. Councilmember Brown stated the maintenance budget is over and above the $1.3 million. Councilmember Weycker asked what information was used to come up with the maintenance number. Mr. Prosser stated the task force looked at existing users that are contributing to the maintenance in addition to information from the school and City Staff. He feels that the numbers are reasonable for minimal use. Councilmember Brown asked if there was consideration given to minimal costs for upgrades such as bleachers, concessions, and a parking lot. Mr. Prosser stated that the task force feels if money were available, those would be great things to do. Mr. Prosser recommends that if money is spent on improvements, money should be spent on design to provide maximum use. Councilmember Hanus confirmed that because the referendum petition concerned using the $1.3 million to acquire the land, whatever improvements were done would need to be part of a second referendum. Mr. Prosser stated that the City Attorney's opinion was that code and safety issues could come out of the $1.3 million, but that would limit the money available for purchasing the land. Councilmember Hanus asked if $1.3 million would cover the 11 acres according to the appraisals. Mr. Prosser did not know this, as he had not seen the appraisals. Mayor Meisel asked how the appraisal played a part. Mr. Prosser stated that they pulled information out of the appraisal to see what costs should be. He stated the developer was willing to talk about options. Mr. Prosser is concerned that the developer will want to keep the commercially zoned portions of the athletic fields. Councilmember Brown asked if there was a way to find out how the $1.3 million would affect property taxes. Councilmember Hanus stated this would be part of the information distributed prior to the referendum. Mr. Prosser stated that the key question would show a model for several values and he would like a recommendation on what increments the Council wishes to use for this. Mr. Prosser stated that the task force recommendation was to identify what the method of public information would be and to fill this in more. He suggested a newspaper article, an open house including distributing a draft of a question and answer, and a final question and 14 Mound City Council Minutes, June 13.2000 DRAFT answer to be sent out prior to the election. He suggesting timing the open house so there is enough time to make changes to the question and answer before the final is distributed. Mayor Meisel stated that she was in favor of having two questions on the ballot so that if the project goes forward, the money to maintain it will be there. Councilmember Ahrens agrees with this. Councilmember Hanus stated that the second question could cover the issues of maintenance and safety. Mr. Prosser stated that the considerations are: (1) More information on minimal improvement levels ($2000 cost); (2) Review of the appraisal ($2,000) including the cell tower antenna; and, (3) the communication issue. Councilmember Brown asked what would happen if the price of the land goes up after the ballot question. Mr. Prosser stated that the City could come up with the additional money or the City could not proceed with the levy, but it would be best to try to work this issue out ahead of time. Mr. Prosser stated that the language from the petition is ambiguous and he is not sure if it was meant to include the commercial portion. Councilmember Brown stated that it was his understanding that the issue was referring to all of the fields. Mr. Prosser stated that the actual acreage including the commercial portion is 13 acres. Mr. Prosser suggested meeting with the task force again to work through some of these issues. Councilmember Brown wondered if the current owner is interested in negotiating a price range at this time. Mr. Prosser stated that if the property is over priced, condemnation could be involved. Mayor Meisel confirmed the costs involved in the three points Mr. Prosser had stated. Acting City Manager Clark stated that there was a timing issue of September 12, but the ballots need to be ready August 12 for absentee voters. Mr. Prosser stated he, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk should discuss and develop a schedule for Council to work with. The Acting City Manager stated that the first week or two of July might be the deadline. Councilmember Ahrens asked what would happen if the drop dead date was not met and wondered if the general election ballot would be an option. Mr. Prosser stated that there is a state law that limits when the issue could be brought before the voters and he would check on this. He further stated that most issues were in good shape, but the toughest part was the second ballot question. He stated that he was hoping to allow the Council two weeks to consider the question. 15 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Prosser if the referendum were passed and completed, would this put the entire Visions program in jeopardy financially. Mr. Prosser said it was too soon to say, but the City had relatively Iow debt levels. TIF impact was not counted on for this. He further stated that it was the Council's judgment on the issues regarding the costs, but the people would know upfront what the levy cost would be. A directive to Mr. Prosser for his three points to cap at $7,500 was discussed. Councilmember Hanus asked where the money would come from and Mayor Meisel agreed that this was a problem. Councilmember Ahrens stated this would end up coming out of the 35 % cash flow and this would need to be addressed in the second question. Councilmember Hanus asked for a cap on the amount spent. Councilmember Weycker stated a concern that if there were not enough money allotted, it would affect the timing. Mayor Meisel agreed and stated that good numbers were necessary. Mr. Prosser stated that communication estimates could be available at the next meeting. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to direct Mr. Prosser to proceed on: (1) Obtaining more information on minimal improvement levels ($2,000 cost); (2) Review of the appraisal ($2,000) including the cell tower antenna; and, (3) The communication issue, all of which are not to exceed $10,000 total. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Discussion: Councilmember Brown directed a question to members of the task force as to what was intended regarding the original acreage on the petition. Linda Skorsarf stated that the figures were calculated at a previous Council meeting and included the commercially zoned property. Councilmember Ahrens stated the $1.3 million price was not valid because the property was valued as to what the commercial property was worth for the entire parcel. Councilmember Weycker stated that this needed to be discussed with the developer. 0.8 CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT ON STORM WATER RATE STUDY. Mr. Prosser stated that the Council had previously directed looking at funding for a storm sewer ram. The cost is supported over a 15-year term of debt. Also added to the cost are maintenance and improvements projects. The information includes estimates. The implementation plan recommends communication first, a question and answer, and an open house; all to be completed before a public hearing is held. Mr. Prosser has provided a time frame for this. Revenue for this will not be available for three months. Mr. Prosser stated that timing is important and the Council may want to wait for another cycle. He offered the possibility to table this until the end of the year and stated that a decision does not need to be 16 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 made right away. Mayor Meisel asked how long this has been put on hold to date. Councilmember Hanus stated it has been on hold for a few years because costs were not known. Councilmember Ahrens stated that there was a concern at the public hearing as to the cost. Mayor Meisel stated that costs are rising as these are put off. Mr. Prosser clarified that the rate structure would allow doing all the projects listed in the next year or two. The proposed tax is $1.63 per month on residential property. Councilmember Ahrens clarified that a loan to do the projects would be needed and then the money would be collected. Mr. Prosser agreed with that summary and said that although interest would be paid on the borrowed money, the cost of the projects would be in today's dollars. He further stated that a pay as you go option was possible. Councilmember Hanus asked what percentage of projects needed does the current list represent. The City Engineer stated that these were the projects that they felt needed to be done and he was not aware of any other projects at this time. Councilmember Hanus stated that a 15-year term seemed very long to him, as more projects would be added over the years before this first money was repaid. Councilmember Brown brought up the fire department and well needs for the future. Mayor Meisel pointed out that these were capital improvements. Councilmember Weycker confirmed that maintenance numbers were included in these estimates. The City Engineer confirmed this. Mr. Prosser pointed out the option of cutting the term to 10 years and simply doing the projects that would fall within that time period. Councilmember ^hrens asked what would happen if projects were changed during the term of the loan. Mr. Prosser stated this was more of a political issue than a legal one. Mr. Prosser stated the Council should talk about the implementation plan. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to entertain the rate structure as printed on p. 2540 of the meeting packet and to use that structure to try to achieve the projects listed on p. 2541 of the meeting packet including the implementation. Discussion: 17 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Ahrens stated that she doesn't understand the motion and asked Mr. Prosser for clarification. Councilmember Hanus asked if both 10 and 15-year terms could both be brought before the public hearing. Mr. Prosser said that would be possible, but it would make communication more confusing. Mr. Prosser stated that a 10-year term would require dropping the last two or three projects. Mayor Meisel confirmed that the last three projects would be dropped because of the dollars funded guarantee. Mayor Meisel stated that she preferred it to stay at a 15-year term for now. Councilmember Hanus stated that he preferred to gather data and bring the issue to a public hearing and go from there. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 0.9 STAFF SEEKING DIRECTION ON DCAC FEES. MOTION by Brown, to set dock fees at $300 across the board. Motion died for lack of second. Councilmember Ahrens stated that about 18 months ago she had sat down with the County Assessor and found that houses were valued differently. She recently saw dock prices on neighboring cities and the lowest was about $500 -700 per year. Mayor Meisel stated that it was attempted to take information to the Dock Commission including suggestions and some ideas, but it died at the meeting. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she raised the issue at the last DCAC meeting and they do want to be involved, they are looking for a reason to look at the fee structure. Councilmember Brown stated that he had the impression that DCAC wants to make a decision. Councilmember Ahrens stated they wanted some recommendations. Councilmember Brown suggested that DCAC look at the fee structure and raise it for 2001. Councilmember Ahrens agrees that the structure needs a change, but would like to look at it. Mayor Meisel suggested an implementation of January 1. Councilmember Ahrens stated she wanted to hear the recommendation and the rationale behind it. Councilmember Hanus agreed that DCAC would want to know the Council rationale. 18 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Ahrens stated that she needed to know what is trying to be accomplished with the program and what this is funding. Councilmember Weycker stated that property values have nothing to do with dock fees. Councilmember Ahrens stated that houses are paying the same amount of taxes to the City, but one may not be paying the dock fee because private property owners do not have to pay the City for a dock. She stated that she felt people living on common lakeshore were paying twice. Councilmember Weycker stated that this argument could be used with any fund. Councilmember Hanus stated that the reason they were paying more was because of their proximity to the lake. Councilmember Brown stated that the easy way to solve this was to use the example of a marina where a boat owner is paying the same price per foot where ever the boat is docked. He stated that he felt the DCAC should charge the same price for a dock no matter where you live. Councilmember Weycker stated that people know in advance that they are not buying the lakeshore and should not be treated the same as a private property owners. The Acting City Manager pointed out that the Legislature dictates what the Assessor assesses. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker ask the Dock Commission to come up with a fee structure and to bring the recommendation back to the Council. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 0.10 STAFF PROPOSAL FOR REVISION TO SECTION 320 OF CITY CODE: CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND. Councilmember Ahrens asked why a 4/5 vote was still included. Councilmember Brown stated that the Council had asked for simple majority. Mayor Meisel stated that the City Attorney is comfortable with this proposal. Councilmember Brown stated that he liked the proposal, but wanted the 4/5 voting requirement changed to a simple majority. Councilmembers Ahrens and Hanus were comfortable with the proposal except for the 4/5 voting requirement. Councilmember Weycker stated that she would like to keep the 4/5 voting requirement. Councilmember Hanus stated that the problem with the 4/5 voting requirement was that when a Councilmember had to abstain from voting in certain situations, it would not always be possible to act on the issue. 19 Mound City Council Minutes. June 13. 2000 DRAFT Councilmember Weycker asked the City Building Official what would happen on split issues regarding public buildings. The City Building Official could not think of any in the past that were not unanimous. The City Building Official doubted this would allow encroachment without City Council approval. He also stated that these were soft changes that would be used as a method to speed up the system. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to direct staff to draft this proposal in ordinance form, but to use a simple majority voting requirement instead of a 4/5 voting requirement. Discussion: Councilmember Weycker asked the City Building Official how this would affect planting gardens on public land. The City Building Official stated that would require a permit, but Adopt a Green Space does not require a permit. Acting City Manager Clark stated that some lots are leased for gardens. The City Building Official stated that his intention was to cover dedicated commons areas. Councilmember Hanus stated this was not prohibited in the past and has never been a problem. Councilmember Hanus also stated that by striking the line requiring a 4/5 vote, simple majority would become the default. Councilmember Weycker asked how this would help to link responsibility from one property owner to the next for encroachments. The City Building Official stated that this does not change the current policy or add to it and the City Council could still apply legal and reasonable avenues to solve these issues. Councilmember Ahrens stated that precedent has been set for the City to pay to remove encroachments that property owners won't remove. Councilmember Weycker stated that she thought the point of this ordinance was to tie the property owner to any encroachments on their property whether or not they were the initiator. The City Building Official stated that these issues would be handled on a case-by-cam basis. Councilmember Hanus stated that this ordinance would only include encroachments that exist, not anything added new. Councilmember Weycker stated that she wished to tie the encroachment to the current property owner. The City Building Official again stated that this would be handled on a case-by-case basis and this ordinance would not take away from this type of enforcement. He further stated that he does not recommend adding this specifically to the ordinance because it would make all of the cases more difficult. Councilmember Hanus stated that it was less expense for the City to pay for removal of an encroachment then to fight the owner in court. Councilmember Weycker stated that she had 20 Mound City Council Minutes, June 13. 2000 DRAFT thought the City Attorney would comment on this issue. The City Building Official stated that the City Attorney could be asked about this is the future. Councilmember Hanus suggested sending the proposal through and talking to the City Attorney at a later date. Mayor Meisel called the question. AYES 4 NAY 1 CvVeycker) Motion carried. It was confirmed that the City Building Official would bring these questions to the City Attorney's attention. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS 1. Financial Reports through June 1. 2. AMM Fax News. 3. LMC Friday Faxes. 4. Draft 2001 LMCD Budget. 5. LMC Dues Increase. 6. Hennepin County Letter on Open Book Board of Review. 7. Notice of Awards for Westonka Senior Center. 8. LMCD Minutes - April 26, 2000. 9. DCAC (Dock & Commons Advisory Commission) Minutes, May 18, 2000. 10. POSC (Park and Open Space Commission) Minutes: May 11 & May 18, 2000. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager 21 RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL LOT FROM ~ PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6200 LYNWOOD BLVD., LOT 6 AND TI:fF~ NORTH 107 FEET OF LOT 7, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID # 14-117-24 32 0059 P & Z CASE # 99-49 AND 00-26 WFIEREAS, Milton Hentges, owner, has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create a lot from an existing parcel and a variance to unimproved road frontage for the parcel fronting on Walnut Road; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Zoning District that requires a 10,000 square feet lot area, 30 feet front yard setbacks, and 10 feet side yard setbacks for non lots of record. The existing parcel has approximately 33,200 square feet of lot area; and, WHEREAS, the existing home straddles the municipal border that forms the western property line of the parcel. The home is considered to be within the City of Minnetrista. A driveway access is also located in the Minnetrista; and, Wl:rEREAS, the proposed lot division would create an additional parcel with frontage on unimproved Walnut Road; and, WHEREAS, the two parcels would meet lot area minimums for the R-1 Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, Tract B fronts on Walnut Lane is proposing to gain access via a private driveway access; and, WltEREAS, Tracts C and D would continue to retain access to County Road 15 via the private driveway on Tract D; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the minor subdivision and variance as recommended by staff. NOW, TI:W~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subdivision 1.B with the following conditions: no Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. Provide utility and drainage easements along all new lot lines as follows: 1. Tract A - Five (5) feet wide along the west and ten (10) feet wide along the north line if deemed necessary by the City of Minnetrista. Fifteen (15) feet wide utility easement along the east line granted to Tract D for new sewer service. 2. Tract B - Five (5) feet wide along the east and south lines and ten (10) feet along the north line. Grant an easement for sanitary sewer service o to Tract D across the northwest corner of Tract B as approved by the City Engineer. Tract C - Five (5) feet wide along the east, north, and south lines. Tract D - Five (5) feet wide along the east and west line and ten (10) feet wide along the south line if deemed necessary by the City of Minnetrista. c. The applicant shall be responsible for all driveway improvements as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. d. The applicant shall be responsible for providing all private water and sanitary sewer connections to the property. Size and location to be approved by the City of Mound Public Works and the City Engineer. e. No building permits be issued until all street and utility assessments for the property are paid. f. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: PROPOSED TRACT B: ALL THAT PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, ACCORDING TO THE RECODED PLAT THEREOF LYING NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTH 25.93 FEET THEREOF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PROPOSED TRACT C: THE NORTH 106.00 FEET OF LOT 7 AND THE SOUTH 25.93 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 10 MOUND TERRACE ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution and easements with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE # 99-49: MINOR SUBDIVISION, MILTON HENTGES, 6400 LYNWOOD BLVD LOT 6 AND NORTH 106' OF LOT 7, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-117-24 32 0059. CASE # 00-26: VARIANCE MILTON HENTGES, 6381 WALNUT ROAD LOT 6 AND NORTH 106' OF LOT 7, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-117-24 32 0059. The City Planner stated that this was a tabled item and now they have a new submission from the applicant. Tracts B and C are in Mound, and tracts A and D are in Minnetrista. The existing house straddles the property lines of tracts D and C. The proposal is to leave the existing home and subdivide the north half of the lot to create a building site for a new home located in Mound. The access is Walnut Lane. The idea is to have the driveway easement come up through property and be accessed through Walnut Road. The City Planner stated that he would ask the applicant to further explain what he wants to do to Walnut Road. Utilities would still be gained from Walnut Road. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision and variance as requested with the following conditions outlined below and those included in the City Engineer's report. 1. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be submitted at time of building permit. 2. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's recommendation. 3. Provide water and sanitary sewer services as recommended by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant be responsible for all costs for the construction of the driveway and related drainage improvements. 5. Pay any deficient utility and street assessment charges that may exist. 6. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance. DRAFT Milton Hentges, 6400 County Road 15, explained where the current sewer lines on the property were located. He stated that a driveway to Walnut Lane was a big concern because of the cost. Mr. Hentges stated that he agrees with recommendations 1 and 2, but doesn't understand recommendation 3. Mr. Hentges stated that in reference to recommendation 4, he felt that the other property owner should share the costs. Mr. Hentges also stated that he didn't know what recommendation 5 was about. The City Engineer stated that he questions the applicant's request of a street improvement when only two properties would benefit. There is a need to petition the City on this and he does not feel it is feasible. The City Engineer stated that he has previously recommended no more than two services or two driveways on this street, but now a second person is asking for a private driveway and long water service. The City Engineer stated that there is a concern about sufficient water pressure. The City Engineer recommends to allow the second water service and the second private driveway, but the property owners need to work out the driveway issues. The City Engineer clarified that recommendation 5 referred to the possibility of delinquent utilities, which would require a search, but he has no idea if there are any. Weiland asked if there was a charge even for a private driveway to add more usage of road. The City Engineer stated that usually the improved road would have to front the property and this does not happen here. Weiland confirmed they had to take care of sewage to the point it hooks into the main sewage line. The City Engineer stated that this was true. Mueller asked about the recommendations in the June 6 letter to the City Building Official asking for a specific size of the lines and wondered if that can be requested on Minnetrista property. The City Engineer stated that he didn't know why not. Mueller asked if the utilities would favor any city. The City Engineer stated that the utilities would favor the city they were in. Mueller stated that the City Attorney should review this to be sure it is not improper. Mueller asked if there were other properties that this has been allowed on. The City Engineer stated that he was not aware of any that were built on. The City Engineer stated that there is still City right of way and the City will not maintain the road beyond end of blacktop. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to accept the Staff recommendation. Discussion: Brown stated that he felt this was setting a poor precedent and that other property owners in Mound have had to improve public right of ways in order to improve their property. DR FI' Chair Michael called the question. AYES: 5 (Burma, Hasse, Voss, Weiland, Brown) NAYS: 3 (Michael, Glister, Mueller) MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variance OWNER: Milton Hentges CASE NUMBER: 99-49 and 00-26 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 6200 Lynwood Blvd. ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant, Milton Hentges, has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create one additional lot from an existing lot of record and a variance from code requirements of frontage on an improved public street. The property is located at 6400 Lynwood Blvd, legally described as Mound Terrace, Block 10, Lot 6 and the north 107 feet of lot 7. The lot has approximately 33,200 square feet of area as is currently held. The existing house straddles the Mound/Minnetrista city boundary. Mr. Hentges owns parcel 3 in Minnetrista and parcel 59 in Mound. Property taxes on the house are paid to Minnetrista and services come from Mound. Mr. Hentges would like to leave the existing residence and subdivide the property to create an additional lot having driveway access from Walnut Lane. As proposed, the property would be split into two lots on the Mound side. Tract B would be a new homesite that Mr. Hentges son would like to purchase. It is approximately 20,500 square feet in lot area and has 104 feet of frontage on the unimproved Walnut Road. Mr. Hentges would retain the existing home site. Minnetrista is reviewing the subdivision of Tract A and B as shown on the survey. The proposal is to have Tract A & B and Tract C & D under the same ownership. Staff has been and will continue to coordinate with Minnetrista during the review process. This case is largely a policy issue. Allowing the subdivision of lots without public street access has been allowed in cases where unusual circumstances with access, platting and topography are 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99-49 and 00-26 Hentges Minor Subdivision and Variance June 12, 2000 present. The Kakos property to the north received minor subdivision approval about 2 years ago that allowed a private driveway access from the unimproved Walnut Lane. It was felt at that time, that given the number of lots available for development did not make it economically feasible for public street improvements to serve the abutting vacant lots. Additionally, the development pattern in Minnetrista is such that the continuation of Walnut Lane was probably impractical. The two parcels in Minnetrista will remain undeveloped and could likely remain that way according to Minnetrista staff. With 66 feet of width minus a 20 feet driveway easement and a 20 feet side yard setback, home construction is most likely precluded unless variances or other lot combinations occur. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision and variance as requested with the following conditions outlined below and those included in the City Engineer's report. 1. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be submitted at time of building permit. 2. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's recommendation. 3. Provide water and sanitary sewer services as recommended by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant be responsible for all costs for the construction of the driveway and related drainage improvements. 5. Pay any deficient utility and street assessment charges that may exist. 6. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED J U N 0 '7 2000 MOUND PLANNING & INSF MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 6, 2000 Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer ~ City of Mound Minor Subdivision Hentges Property, 6400 County Road 15 Cast #99-49 MFRA #12750 Comments General A survey with more detailed grading drainage and erosion control will be required when application is made for a building permit. The original lots as platted did not include any drainage and utility easements along the lot lines; therefore this minor subdivision should include these easements along all new lot lines. The original sewer and watermain assessment records should be checked for any deficient changes. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Jori Sutherland, Planning and Zoning June 6, 2000 Page 2 Utilities The proposed new sewer service shown for the existing home across Tract A actually crosses private property before connecting to the existing sanitary manhole. This line will need to be located within Tract B at the northwest comer and then connect to the City manhole. It appears a minimum of two cleanouts will be required between the manhole and the existing house. Additional plans will need to be provided showing details of the proposed water service connection to the City watermain. This water service may need to be larger than the standard 1" diameter due to the long mn and the low watermain pressure in this area. Access It appears the applicant is requesting the improvement of that portion of Walnut Road adjacent to his property. If that is the case, then he would need to file a formal petition requesting a street improvement project. This petition would need to be signed by a minimum of 35 percent of the property owners abutting the proposed project. Another solution may be a private driveway located within the Walnut Road fight-of-way. At the present time the only other vacant property abutting the unimproved portion of Walnut Road is the Kakos parcel on the north side. The Kakos property was granted the right to construct a private driveway in the Walnut Road right-of-way under Resolution//98-66, a copy of which is attached; however, in reviewing this resolution, it is not totally clear to me whether a second private driveway would be allowed. Enclosed are copies of two engineering reports, the first dated June 1, 1998, which relates to the previously mentioned Resolution//98-66 and a second written July 8, 1998 addressing the Kakos minor subdivision which was approved by Resolution//98-77. In both of these reports, I recommended that the use of this unimproved right-of-way of Walnut Road for private driveways be limited to two (2). My recommendations also include a limit of two (2) long water services from the end of the watermain in Walnut Road. These letters and resolutions also contain a number of other conditions that should be included in any resolution considering approval of this minor subdivision of the Hentges property. If a private driveway is allowed as part of the minor subdivision a variance will also be necessary since this would be the same situation as the Kakos property, whereas the newly created parcel does not front an improved street. As previously stated in our reports, the ideal solution to the access and water service problems for both the Kakos and Hentges property would be to extend the City watermain and construct Walnut Road; however, this may not be economically feasible. I Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning June 6, 2000 Page 3 Recommendations We recommend the following conditions should be included if the minor subdivision is approved: 1. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. 2. Provide drainage and utility easements on new lot lines as follows: Tract A Five (5) feet wide along the west line, and ten (10) feet wide along both the north and east lines. Tract B Five (5) feet wide along the east and south lines and ten (10) feet wide along the north line. Tract C Five (5) feet wide along the east, north, and south lines. Tract D Five (5) feet wide along the east and west line and ten (10) feet wide long the south line. 3. The applicant be responsible for all driveway improvements as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant be responsible for providing all private water and sanitary sewer connections to the property. 5. No Building Permits will be issued until all street and utility assessments for the property are paid. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. s:\main:~lou 12750:\CorrespondenceXsutherland6-5 CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF I-mNNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION//98-66 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT FRONTAGE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW A BUILDABLE LOT DESIGNATION ON AN UNIMPROVED STREET, AT XXXX WALNUT ROAD, LOT 2 AND ADJACENT VACATED STREET, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID 14-117-24 32 0025, P & Z CASE//98-34 SEAL Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on June 23, 1998. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 2nd day of July, 1998. CITY CLERK TRANSFER ENTERED HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES June 23, 1998 RESOLUTION ~/98-66 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT FRONTAGE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW A BUlLDABLE LOT DESIGNATION ON AN UNIMPROVED STREET, AT XXXX WALNUT ROAD LOT 2 AND ADJACENT VACATED STREET, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID 14-117-24 32 0025, P & Z CASE ~98-34 WHEREAS, the applicants, Stephen and Elizabeth Kakos, have applied for a lot frontage variance to allow for a buildable lot designation on an unimproved street located at the end of Walnut Road, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, and; WHEREAS, the subject lot is located at the comer of Walnut Road and vacated Forest Lane. The west property line is on the Mound/Minnetrista border. The lot encompasses approximately 21,500 sf which exceeds the R-1 district standard, and; WHEREAS, the improved section of Walnut Lane ends at approximately the southeastern corner of the property, and; WHEREAS, the property is wooded and a relatively steep slope from west to east. A ravine cuts across the southeastern and east portions of the lot in the vacated Forest Lane right-of-way draining the area north to Maple Road. There are no drainage easements in the vacated right-of-way, and; WHEREAS, currently the City has no plans for extending the street into the unimproved section of Walnut Lane. WHEREAS, the proposed driveway would continue from the improved portion of Walnut Lane through the ravine before curving north onto the property. A culvert would carry water under the driveway to the north. The amount of water that drains through here is uncertain. Sizing of the culvert will need to be reviewed by the City Engineer, and; WHEREAS, a sanitary sewer line is located in the Walnut Lane right-of-way and is available for service. The nearest water service would come from the hydrant on the south side of the improved street. The owner would need to extend a private water line to the property, and; WHEREAS, if other adjacent lots would want to have access, both properties would be required to pay typical street and utility assessments. The City would assume no responsibility for the removal of the private drive if a future street were required, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with additional conditions, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lot frontage variance of 60 feet with the following conditions: The applicant be responsible for all driveway improvements as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. bo The applicant be responsible for providing all private water and sewer utility connections to the property. Co The City Engineer reviews and approves a drainage plan for the property before building permit issuance. do A drainage easement be provided for the gully will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. so No Building Permits will be issued until all street and utility assessments for the property be paid as determined by the City. No Building Permits shall be issued for improvements on the property until the Fire Marshall is satisfied that there is sufficient water pressure to fight a fire. go The applicant will enter into a driveway use and maintenance agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. ho The variance shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect if and when the City improves the portion of Walnut Lane abutting the applicants property. 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 the nonconforming lot area of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: June 25~ 19c~8 4. Lot frontage to allow a buildable lot designation on an unimproved street. 5. This variance is granted for the following I~ally de~ribed pro~ as ~te~n th~ Hennepin ~un~ Pro~ Info~tion Sy~em: LOT 2 INCLUDING ADJACENT 1/2 OF VACATED STREET, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, 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. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Weycker and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jensen was absent and excused. Attest: City Clerk SS/BOB POLSTON Mayor Engin ng · Planning · Surveying MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB~ECT: CASE NO.: FILE NO.: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer June 1, 1998 City of Mound Variance Request- Lot 2, 'Block 4, Mound Terrace 98-34 12070 As requested, we have reviewed the information submitted with the request to allow a private driveway and recognize said parcel as a buildable lot withom the required 40-foot frontage on an improved street. There are other issues that need to be addressed when reviewing this request which are also contained in the following comments and recommendations: It is possible that the private driveway as requested could serve Lot 24, but the problem of drainage in this area would need to be addressed. The drainage from the low area to thesouth of this lot flows in a gully which is located in the general vicinity of unimproved pine Lane (,platted as Forest Lane) to a storm sewer inlet at Maple Road. When this fight-of-way was vacated in 1954 there were no provisions made to retain a drainage easement for the gully. Such an easement would need to be obtained as a condition of any approvals. 15050 23rd Avenue North . Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Jon Sutherland, Planning June 1, 1998 Page 2 Zoning Development of Lot 2, parcel (25) would leave one vacant parcel (59) on the south side of unimproved Walnut Road. It is presently owned by the same individual that has a home on parcel (3) located in Minnetrista. In fact, we believe this house may actually set on the municipal boundary line. Potentially parcel (59) could be subdivided since it is approximately 34,000 square feet. If this were to happen, access would be required from Walnut Road. This could cause a problem if the private driveway to Lot 24 is already in-place, unless some type of condition is tied to the variance requiring a street extension if more than one, possibly two private driveways are required to serve new building sites. The ideal solution is to extend the City street with a cul-de-sac at the end. The property to the west in Minnetrista has been platted and built on, so there should be no reason to extend the street past the Mound border. 3. The sanitary sewer is in-place; therefore all that is needed is to install the actual services. Water service is a problem, since the City main terminates at a hydrant located on the lot line between Lots 4 and 5. Ideally, the main should be extended for much the same reasons as the street. However, if only one service or possibly two are required, they could be mn from the end of the main. If the distance from the main to the home is too far, the size of the service should be increased from 1-inch to possibly 1-1/2-inch. Water pressure in this area has been a problem for many years. o The question of assessments will need to be addressed, dependent upon what happens with street and utility extension. Neither Lot 24 nor Parcel 59 has paid for any street improvements. We are in the process of verifying what these parcels have paid towards sanitary sewer and watermain. Enclosed are copies of the half section map and aerial photos, both with and without the lots shown. Enclosure CC: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group Greg Skinner, Public Works, City of Mound e:Lmain:\12070XsutherlandS-29 July 29, 199B RESOLUTION ~8-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 6381 MAPLE ROAD, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PIDS 14-117-24 32 0024 & 14-117-24 32 0025, P & Z CASE ~)8-40 WHEREAS, thc applicants, Steve and Elizabeth Ann Farley Kakos, have submitted a Minor Subdivision request for a boundary adjustment that is in full compliance with the City Zoning Code, Section 330:20, Subd. I.B; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, the property located south of Maple Lane, north of Walnut Lane and west of vacated Forest Lane and is recorded as two separate tax parcels; and, WHEREAS, the lot line separating thc parcel is proposed to be moved 20 feet south of its present location and would maintain two (2) parcels that meet all zoning code requirements for lot area; and, WHEREAS, lot 2 has recently been granted a street frontage variance with the approval Resolution # 98-66 which would provide the opportunity for residential development; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the minor subdivision as 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 minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subd. 1.B. with the following conditions: a. A drainage casement be provided for thc gully on lots ] and 2. T.~ 1: Lol I and dm Nc~h 20 ~ of T~t 2, Blo~ 4, MOUND ~C~ md ~t Im~ of tim w~stedy ~ of ~ F~ Lmo ~ lira tm~m~ ~!~ msady ~xtmsiom of d~ ~ lira I4-117-24 ~2 0024 Lot 2: Lot1, Block 4, MOUND T~,RAC~, of ~ N~ ~ ~ of ~d ~ ~ 'I~ prope~ owner shall hav~ g~e ~pmsib,~it7 of filing ~ ~lulion with Hermepin County taxi l:~yi~ all oasis for ~'~ ~xdin~. A buildi~ permit for g~e sub~:~ comm~lion .~II not be issued un~I proof of ~c~nfmg tm been filed with the ~t~ Clerk Tlz fo~oi~ ~ludon was moved by Co~c~lme~ber I-I~us, ~ ~oad~i by ~mber Auesc Ory CIe,'~ ' -FRA Engineering. · Planning · , Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CASE NO.: MFRA FILE NO.: July 8, 1998 Jori Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound Minor Subdivision, Kakos Property 9840 12112 As requested, we have reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: Both of these platted lots are well above the minimum lot size as required by the City's zoning code; therefore, the proposed lot line adjustment will not adversely affect the square footage of either parcel. In fact, it would make the proposed parcels closer to the same size. The same conditions need to be attached to the approval of a minor subdivision as were required in the variance approval for the private driveway under Case #98-34 and Resolmion #98-66. This would include, but not limited to the following conditions: a. Drainage easement to cover the area of the gully which runs from south of Lot 2, northerly to the storm sewer inlet at Maple Road. b. Street extension of Walnut Road would be required if (1) the new parcel formed from Lot 2 is ever subdivided or (2) more than 2 private driveways are ever requested from the end of improved Walnut Road. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota . 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-maiL' mfra@mfra.com Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning July 8, 1998 Page 2 Co The City watermain would need to be emended if(l) the new parcel formed from Lot 2 is ever subdivided or (2) more than 2 services are ever requested from the end of the existing City. watermain in Walnut Road In addition to the drainage easement previously mentioned for the exiting gully, utility and drainage easements should be provided along all lot lines, five feet in width on interior lot lines and ten feet wide abutting platted right-of-way. Resolution #98-66 approving the lot frontage variance contains a condition under 1 f. which states 'no Building Permits shall be issued for improvements on the property until the Fire Marshall is satisfied that there is sufficient water pressure to fight a fire". We have not heard if the fire department has determined whether the existing hydrants in this area have sufficient pressure and volume to meet the recommended standards. About 10 to 12 years ago flow tests were taken which indicated some of the hydrants in this area had flows that were borderline. At that time it was determined the most feasible solution to Iow pressures was to finish looping the 10" main in West Edge Boulevard. This would give a direct connection between the Dutch Lake area and the water tower on Evergreen Lane and should greatly improve the water pressure and volume as required by the fire department. We believe the burden of providing fire-fighting capabilities should be the responsibility of the City and not one individual residential property owner; therefore, the aforementioned condition should not be a requirement of the approval. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group Greg Skinner, Public Works, City of Mound e:~nain:\\12112ksntherT-7 TO: FROM: DATE: APPLICANT: PROPERTY: REQUEST: FILE #: CITY OF MINNETRISTA Mayor and City Council Steve Moore, City Planner RECEIVED J V14 0 5 2000 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. May 31, 2000 Meeting Date: June 5, 2000 Milton Hentges, property owner 6400 County Road 15 Sketch Plan Review- Class III Subdivision with variances in iot size and width. 00-22 The applicant has submitted a request for a sketch plan review for a two-lot subdivision adjacent to the Minnetrista/Mound border. The minimum lot size in the R-2 district is 20,000 square feet; the proposed subdivision would result in two non-conforming lots. The minimum lot width required is 100 feet; the applicant's property is currently a legal non-conforming lot of record at 66 feet in width. The subdivision would create two non- conforming parcels in terms of width. Chapter 21 of the city code contains the following criteria by which requests for subdivision variances are evaluated: Sec. 21-12. Variances. (a) Where the city finds that extraordinary hardships or practical difficulties may result from strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter, other than the procedural provisions, and the purposes of this chapter may be served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal, the city may approve variances to this chapter so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured, provided that such a variance shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of this chapter; and further provided the city shall not approve variances unless it shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case that: (]) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other property; and (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property; and Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific land involved, a particular hardship to the land would result, as distinguished from an inconvenience or hardship to the subdivider, and it is found that the strict enforcement of this chapter would result in an environmentally unsound development of the land; and The variances will not in any manner vary the provisions of the comprehensive municipal plan; and The variances will not in any manner vary the .minimum requirements for a lot as set forth in chapter 23 as applied to the entire subdivision; and The variances will not in any manner vary the procedural requirements of this chapter. The sketch plan proposed would vary the minimum requirements for a lot in the R-2 zoning district and therefore would not satisfy #5 thereby justifying denial of the sketch plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The planning commission was concerned regarding the lack of access for the northern parcel and the non-conforming lots that would be created (The applicant has since drawn in a driveway access to public right-of-way in Mound). The planning commissioners preference was that the property in Minnetrista not be subdivided. Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 534d Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commissioni?ate:. 1 ~jtj~. I'Z '?~)(.,~ ~') ' Distribution: ~..~ ,,2~. i' ~'~City Planner ,~, ~} ~' DNR c..,, ~1 - CO Public Works ~'? , .'Z'l, C;0 City Engineer SS364 RECEIVED 3 0 2000 Application Fee: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? $75.00 r~'l°"~q~ $1,000 ,o~l. ~'~' Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address ~O,'~ 8 / (/./~r,~ //2 Vt INFOEMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision Block /~) Plat # ZONING //~ DISTRICT Circle: R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: /owner other. Phone(H)~)/-'~-~'~:?'~"~? ON) ~--~/-~;;~.~5'~ (M) OWNER Name (if other than applicant) Address Phone (H) (VV) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, condfdonal use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property?.,~yes, ( ) no. If yes~ list. dat~(s) of ap, p!icatio, n, action taken, resolution number(s) and prqvide COpies of resolutions. ' . Thi~ ~pplic~§~n/nu$! .be signed by ~ owners o~ l~e ~l~b]~'~ ~roperty, 'or en explenefion given w~y I~i$ j$ no~ ~e ¢~e. ~:)w_~;"r'~ignatur~e ~-"~---~'--- D~//F // '" CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 4O% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. J = (for Lots of Record*) ....... J = (for detached buildings only) .. J *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ~- X _~ = /~-~ ~' X DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ~ :~ ~ X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = x = /gO TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... DRIVEWAY, ~ AREAS, SIDEWALKS, DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate di~ffe~e.~ce) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE RECEIVED NAY 3 0 2000 IvlOUND PLANNING & City Of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 To: The Planning & Zoning Commission I am submitting a new application for a simple subdivision as requested by, Loren Gorden. I first submitted an application on Dec. 21, 1999 and since that time I have presented three (3) different proposals to the city planner and there always have bccn changes required and it has cost me additional hundreds of dollars to have my surveyor come out take new readings and redo the drawings. My odginal intention was to annex the Minnetrista property into the dty of Mound and then subdivide but I was told by the Mound city planner that Minnetdsta wasn't to interested in this proposal. I also was planning on building a house on lot 7, but since that time I decided not to build. I wanted to subdivide my property and sell the North portion to my son who wants to build a house on this property. The odginal intent was to have access to Walnut Rd with a drive way and possible City improvements on this plated out right of way with assessments to all benefiting property owners. The dty planner gave me the impression that the City wasn't about to take that route in approving this subdivision. I then thought we could get access to this property by using a shared drive way coming off county road 15, I was told I needed a variance for this and submitted an application for that. I finally got on the planing commission agenda for May 8, 2000, i sat threw this meeting from 7:30 P.M. until 11:30 P.M. and then my headng was asked to be tabled because the City planner wasn't prepared owing to the fact that I had derided not to build a new house on lot seven and had changed the location of the proposed shared ddve way. I agreed to the tabling of the headng and expected to get back on the next agenda. VVhen I called to find out ill was on the agenda I was told wasn't. I then called the City planners office and le~t a message, he never got back to me. I then called the city office and left a message asking if they could leave me know when I was going to get back on the Planning Commission agenda. Rhonda, called and le~t a message with my wife saying I had to fill out a new application. 2 I went down to city hall picked up an application and asked why ! had to fill out a new one. I was told by Loren Gorden, that I had to tell them exactly what it was I wanted because I was changing my mind all the lime. Well ! went before the Minnetfista Planning commission on Monday 5-22-00 and they wouldn't make a decision on the subdivision and I have to appear before the Minnetfista City Coundl on June 5, 00. One of the issues the Minnetfista planning commission was concerned with was the drive way access out county 15, they would rather see Walnut Rd utilized. So with all this said what I really want is to have the property subdivided as shown on the drawing with the driveway going out Walnut Rd with the City improving the street seeing as the Kakos property'is also using this as a driveway, and all abutting properties be assessed for these improvements. In my estimation it would be cost prohibitive for one property owner to pay for the upgrade of this street. The water and sewer connections for this subdivision would have to come off Walnut Rd. Sincerely Milton Hentges IRA('! A (bvemme,t IN I. Seclbn 15. lowadfip 117. ~n,~e 24. I lennepin ('(tunly, Minnesota lying nmlhedy .f Rdh~w~ ('mm,e.cin~ 81 lhe m.lhwe~l comer of ~aid Ro.th 29 rod~. the,ce ,n ,f~ ,~,f.ed heroinR of ~t,tlh el..p the We~f line ~nicl Es~t 4 fmh s distance of 20t.07 feel Io the p,i,t ,f l~pin.i,8 of tim line t. be described Ihence mimtleq 0.1 ~ec(md~ Ea~I t. Ihe East line of ~aid gm'etnmenl ami lhe~e lemfinalin8 ~uhjecl Io any and all ea~emenl~ IITA('I' !! All Ihnt pm! of l.nl 6, block II). Kit!tend 1 e. flce. accm(li,g ti, lhe ~ec(,ded plnl thereof lyin~ ,oflherly .f lite ~Otlth ~f.~ I~l Ihefe,f I RAt' I (' I he Ns,ih In6 UU Feet .f I.ot 7 attd die ,':;.,Ih 7.~ ~,3 Feel itl 6. llhsck I(! Khmnd '1 etrnce acco!ding lit lite fecl)tded plat Iheseof '1 RAC I' I) fi,m (24I, ~Ve~t. Town of MinneIHstn Except thai pail ,,Ps,id F.~',l ~L~ ~ -G~.~ ~-' 4 fo(l~ Ivi,g N,flh of n line described n~ rollow~ ('m, mencing .1 .- '~ fl' ~ ' thence ,n an a~umed'heaH,g of Soulh along the We~l line ~aid ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~ l:.~l 4 ts,d~ n distnnce ,f 201.07 Feet Ihe li.e Itt lie de.~cribed- the.ce North ~:ecnnd~ l!a~;I !~ lhe Ea~ li.e .f said ~ovemmenl I.nl .1 and Ihete te..inaling ~.bjecl Ir~ mtv and all ea.~emenl.~ PROPOSED U'I !1.1 I'Y EASEME. N I' A drainage nnd utilily e~emettl over. ttnde~ and acf.~ lite We,q I0 flit Feel ,f Ihe ER.~I 15 flu reel of lite North 2Il IJ Feel of lite ~s,,th 20 tod~ of (;ovemntenl I.ol I. Seclio. 15. Im,,'nddp 117. Range 24. ! letmepin ('ounl¥. Minne~ola RECEIVED $ 4~#~e.~ ~ee'"lr HAY30 2000 .. ,-r / ~ MOUND PLANNING & INSt. _ _ D AFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle (excused at 10:15 p.m.), Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. The following public were present: Sue Almquist, Terry Almquist, Cathy Bailey, John Beise, Kristen Beise, Ron Christensen, Steve Coddon, Ken Custer, Robert J. Davis, Cathi Dioszeghy, Tom Dioszeghy, Bruce Dodds, Patti Dodds, Mike Empson, Angela Femanoez, CaHos Fernanoez, Jennifer Garder, Martin Garder, Brian Gulrud, Theresa Gulrud, Milton Hentges, Tom Kirk, Linda Kladsrup, Steve Kladstrup, Phil Lansing, Randy Lee, Peter Meyer, Mike Mueller, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Brad Nordgren, Deb Olson, Lowell Olson, Bill Plume, Travis Rapie, Roger Reed, Tom Reese, Jeff Ruhr, P.M. Ruhr, Mary Steen, Tom Turner, Jack Weist, Roger Westman, Dave Willette, Ben Withart. CASE #99-49: MINOR SUBDIVISION; MILTON HENTGES, 6400 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, LOT 6 AND NORTH 106'N OF LOT 7, BLOCK 10, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-117-24 32 0059. Milton Hentges, 6400 County Road 15. Mr. Hentges stated he started working on this property back in August. He stated he was originally going to annex it from Minnetrista to Mound. He stated he had a surveyor out on the property, but later throughout this process, the City Planner later told him the City of Minnetrista was not interested in annexing the property. He stated because of the problems he encountered, he still would like to divide the property but then he would like to sell it. Gordon stated the applicant's first request was to divide two lots in Mound to make a Tract B and Tract C. He further stated access would be on Tract D. stated the utilities would come off of Glenwood to serve house B and C and sewer would come from Walnut. He Gordon stated now he is not prepared to give a recommendation because of the changes that have occurred on this case. He suggested to have this matter tabled until further investigation can be done on this matter. Chair Michael asked the applicant if tabling his case would be suitable to him. Chair Michael explained because of the recent changes that have occurred in the case, staff has not had sufficient time to review it and by tabling the case, this DRAFT would give staff more time to review the case and give a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hentges agreed to have his case tabled until staff has reviewed the recent changes in data on the case. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss, to table the minor subdivision for further review by staff. MOTION CARRIED. 8-0. CASE #00-26: VARIANCE; MILTON HENTGES, 6381 WALNUT ROAD, LOT 6 & NORTH 106' OF LOT 7, BLOCK 7, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-117-24 32 0059. See discussions from Case #99-49 above. City Of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2000 MOUN£} PLP, NNiIVL~ & .INSP. To: The Planning & Zoning Commission This memo is to inform you that things have changed on my part concerning the sub division of our property (14-117-24 32 0059) in the city of Mound, address of the property 6381 Walnut lane. I still want to subdivide as originally planned and sell the north portion of lot six (6) to my son Matthew. The big change is my wife and I have decide not to build at this time on lot seven (7) and remain in the house on the Minnetrista property. I will still need a new sewer hook up to the old house but no new water line will be needed, so I think for my son's house the water hook up should come from Walnut Lane. The house will be sitting close enough to Walnut lane that the distance to the water hook up would only be 250 feet versus 450 feet coming off Lynwood Blvd., if my memory serves me right this property was assessed for a Walnut Lane water extension back in the 50's. There are other issues with the water coming offLynwood, and the are, #1 cost, #2 easements, there would have to be an easement from the Mark Logelin property for the water line, and another easement for the water line to go across lot 7 and trenching across this property that is no benefit to this property. The location of the proposed driveway has also changed which the variance request is for. Them is a new plat drawing showing these changes, sorry for the short notice, but my surveyor couldn't get to me any sooner. Sin, cerely,//~/~/~. ~ IRA('I A Ilelmepin ('mlld~, Minnesol. lyin~ noHheHy ill I:c[imli.[ of Ih~ line I(~ I)~ (Icscrib~: Ihence ~(iflh R~ (Ir[fr~ }7 nmi lhele IctmhiMin[ Subject Io any 8nd I IT^(' I II All Ihal pml or 1.~1 6, bluck Iff, Muund ']~ace, ac¢oldinl~ h: Ih~ ~ecmded plal Ihe~enf ]vine nnilherly of Ihe s~mlh 20 lilt feel lhefe()f I P,^('I(' Itc N(,lh 1()6 I)0 feel of I.ol '/ arid Ihe ~[mlh 2Il ill) feel IIIock It) KIound 'l ellflCe aCCol(lirlg h) the fcc. Hied pint IRA(' I' l) Ibe l?a~l Frail (4) r()d: (if the South 1wanly-nine (2q) (i(:~elnmenl I.ol One (I), excepl mad. ~tion Fi~een mvnship ()ne Ilun(hed Sevenleen ( I 17). Nollh, Ranffe '1 (24), We~L 'lown of Milmelrisla ExcepI Ihal part rods lying ~orlh GE fl line described a~ follow~ ('mmnencin~ die mrflllwest corner of said East 4 rods of the South 2q l(~ll~, thence (m an assumed hearing of South IiIong the We~:t lille ~:aid F.a~t 4 teds n distance of 207 GO feet to the r~inl lhe line lu be described thence Norlll Ro deFrees second~ East to lite East line r:f said govemmenl I,(:l :Il and Ibefe leHninalin[z ,C;ubject Io mLv and all easements PROPOSF. I) U I ILl IY I:.ASEMI':N I A d~ainape and ulilily ea~:emenl over, under and act(i~:s lite We,;I Itt tit) Feet i~f Ihe I~.ast 15 fft) reef of the North 2117 (tO feel ell-Ihe ~mdh 2q H:d~ of (;ovemmenl I,ol I, Sediml I ~. Itlwn':hip I 17. P, an[~e 24. I lennepin Cmlnty. Klinnesola MAY 0 $ UO0 ' MOUND PL NNH JU INSP. ~ I hereby certify thai Ihls plan, survey or report was JOBI SCHOBORG .,.p.,ed by me or under my dl,.cl ,upa,vision and thai I am ~ ~ ~ a duly Regl~lered La~d Surveyor un, er Ihe law~ of Ihe Stale ~ND SURVEYING. O' MInne,oI,. X~ /~2 / / Book-Page PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. It"4H TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variance OWNER: Milton Hentges CASE NUMBER: 99-49 and 00-26 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 6200 Lynwood Blvd. ZONING: R- 1 Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant, Milton Hentges, has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create one additional lot from an existing lot of record and a variance from code requirements of frontage on an improved public street. The property is located at 6400 Lynwood Blvd, legally described as Mound Ten'ace, Block 10, Lot 6 and the north 107 feet of lot 7. The lot has approximately 33,200 square feet of area as is currently held. The existing house straddles the Mound/Minnetrista city boundary. Mr. Hentges owns parcel 3 in Minnetrista and parcel 59 in Mound. Property taxes on the house are paid to Minnetrista and services come from Mound. Mr. Hentges would like to tear down the existing home and build two new homes on Tract B and C in Mound. As proposed, the property would be split into two lots on the Mound side. Tract B would be a new homesite that Mr. Hentges son would like to purchase. It is approximately 20,500 square feet in lot area and has 104 feet of frontage on the unimproved Walnut Road. Mr. Hentges would like to build a new home on Tract C which contains approximately 10,600 square feet. It has no public street frontage. Minnetrista is reviewing the subdivision of Tract A and B as shown on the survey. The proposal is to have Tract A & B and Tract C & D under the same ownership. Staff has been and will continue to coordinate with Minnetrista during the review process. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99-49 and 00-26 Hentges Minor Subdivision and Variance May 8, 2000 This case is largely a policy issue. Allowing the subdivision of lots without public street access has been allowed in cases where unusual circumstances with access, platting and topography are present. As proposed the two homes would share a driveway located on Tract D in Minnetrista. Staff has indicated that any type of access from Walnut Lane would be difficult given topography, drainage, and existing platting patterns. Water and sanitary sewer for Tract C would come from Lynwood Blvd. Tract B would receive water service from Lynwood and sanitary sewer from Walnut Road. Utility easements would be needed for Tract B and C for the services coming from Lynwood over Tract D. Staff has indicated that the proposed home on Tract B could not encroach into Minnetfista and would need to conform all setbacks. The two parcel in Minnetrista will remain undeveloped and could likely remain that way according to Minnetrista staff. With 66 feet of width minus a 20 feet driveway easement and a 20 feet side yard setback, home construction is most likely precluded unless variances or other lot combinations occur. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision and as requested with the following conditions outlined below and those included in the City Engeneer's report. 1. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be submitted at time of building permit. 2. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's recommendation. 3. Provide water and sanitary sewer services as recommended by the City Engineer. 4. The proposed houses meet all setback and hardcover requirements. 5. Park dedication fee of $1000 be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering · Planning · Surveying RECEIVED MAY 0 2000 BOUND PLANNING & MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 3, 2000 Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound Minor Subdivision and Variance Hentges Property, 6400 County Road 15 Case//99-49 and 00-26 MFRA//12750 Comments General 1. Surveys with more detailed grading, drainage and erosion control should be submitted when application is made for a building permit. 2. The original lots as platted did not include any drainage and utility easements along lot lines. Therefore, this minor subdivision should include drainage easements along all new lot lines. 3. The original sewer and watermain assessment records should be checked for any deficient charges. 4. The plan as submitted, shows the proposed house on Tract B across the dividing lien between Tracts A and B. This line is also the corporate boundary between Mound and Minnetrista. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-ma#: mfra@mfra, com Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning May 3, 2000 Page 2 Utilities The existing home is connected to Mound utilities, the sanitary sewer to the main in unimproved Walnut Road and the water to the main on the south side of County Road 15. The applicant has not shown how he intends to provide additional sanitary sewer and water service necessary for a second unit except to provide a utility easement through Tract A ending at the north property line. Walnut Road, as platted, ends at the corporate limits of Mound which is the line dividing Tract A from Tract B. The proposed easement on Tract A ends at private property and does not connect to the Walnut Road right-of-way. Greg Skinner and myself have discussed how these two new parcels should be served and recommend the following: Tract B Sanitary Sewer - Connect to the existing sewer service that presently serves the existing home. Water Service - A new 1-1/2" water service should be connected to the City watermain in County Road 15. We are suggesting to oversize this service because of the distance from the City main and also the Iow main pressure in this area. Tract C Sanitary Sewer - A new 4" service will need to be installed to the City main in County Road 15. Access Water Service - The existing 3/4" service to the existing home will need to be replaced. City code requires a 1" service and we are recommending it also be oversized, because of the length and low main pressure. A 20 foot wide driveway easement along the east side of Tract D will be required for access to Parcels A, B, and C. This easement should extent 100 feet into Tract A to provide access to Tract A. 2. Some type of agreement should also be included that addresses future maintenance of the driveway. .Ion Sutherland, Planning and Zoning May 3, 2000 Page 3 Recommendations We recommend the following conditions should be included if the subdivision is approved. 1. Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. 2. Provide drainage and utility easements along new lot lines, as follows: Tract A Five (5) feet wide along the west line, ten (10) feet wide along the north and the east line, and twenty (20) feet of the south 100 feet. Tract B Five (5) feet wide along the east and south lines and ten (10) feet wide along the north line. Tract C Five (5) feet wide along the east, north, and south lines. Tract D Five (5) feet wide along the west line, ten (10) feet wide along the south line and twenty (20) feet wide along the east line. 3. Provide driveway easements over Tract A and D for access to both Tracts A, B, and C. 4. Provide maintenance agreement for driveway within the easement on Tract D. 5. The new sanitary sewer and water services either be installed from the City mains to the right-of-way lines or some type of financial guarantee provided such as cash escrow or performance bond. 6. Any deficient sanitary sewer or watermain charges shall be collected. s:\main :hMou 12750:\CorrespondenceXsutherland5-3 RECEIVE[ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 534t Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Ph0ne: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 -¢~"~.--/' d~ City Planner ~"/. ~.~J City Engineer 5'./ (~J Public Works .ri 2000 Application.Fee:- $100.00 Case No. (~?0 - ~ ~7 DNR Otl"re-r ~-'~>--IC S Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER Address ~ ,"~ )~/ Lot ~n D ~ Block Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R-2 R-3 B-1 Plat~ B-2 B-3 (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (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. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stodes, 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 (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (~exis~) 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. ff. ff. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ff. : (NSEW) ff. ft. ff. Street Frontage: ff. ft. ff. Lot Size: sq ft sq ff sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 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 describe: /~,~ /"J~/~,~///'~ /:Y/] ~ /,,-~2g~'f,-'~;~/' ~ Va.,'iar~ce Al:mlica'~3n, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after- the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~.~<~~~ Date Date IRA('I A All thai pall of lite East 4 muds of lite 5tmtit 2q md'~ (;ttvelnlllent lot I. ~cclbon I~, 'lownnhip 117, Rnn~e 24. I lennepht Connly, Minnesoln lying mnlhelly of n line (le~fihed ns ('ommencing al tile nmliiweM comer of ~nid EnM ,I md~ qff Ihe Smith 2q md~. thence m~ nn assumed heroing of Smdh nhm~ We~t line said FMI 4 fils a dislance of 207 ~) feel lo the point be~imlin8 or the line to be (lescfib~: thence Nmlh R~ de~ees 57 mimde~ ()) seconds East to lite East line or enid ~oVefllnlenl I.~*t .1 and Ihei~ le.ninalin8 Subject Io any and all easements I RAt' I I! All that pail imf I,ol 6, block I0, Mmmd 'lennce. according Io lite lecotcled plat theleof lying nmthefly (ff the ~oulh 2()()() I~et Ilie~e~ff IRA(' I (' I lie Nntth IO6 O0 feel iff I,ol 7 and the .5oulh 711 Iltl Feel iff I.td fi. lilt)ok lO htound '1 ellnt'e accol(lin~ to the lecofded plat II(A('f l} I I~e l?nRt font (4) Iml~ (ff the South '1 weary-nine (2Q) ~ml~ ~f ~ Go~emmenl I.o1 One (I). exeepl mad. S~ion Fi~een (15L %~' I nwn~hip ()ne Ilumhed ~eventeen ( I 17), Nmlh. Range '1 weary- E tim[ (24), WeM. 'iowa (ffMilmehiMa Except Ihal pall ~ff~aid EaM ~1¢. 4 md~ Ivin8 Nmth (ff a li.e described es rollow~ ('mmnencln~ al Ihe no[IhweM cmne~ of Mid East 4 rods of Ihe South 29 lode, Ihe~e m~ an a~nmed heroin8 of ~oulh along Ihe WeM line Mid EaM 4 ids a distance of 207 OU {eel lo ll~e ~inl of beglnning (ff Ihe line ID he described Ihence Nmlh 8~ de~ee~ 57 minnlc~ 0t ~eco.d~ ~asl Io Ibc EaM line of ~id 8ovemmenl I.ol ] and Ihe~e terminating S(Ib~ecf fn afly ~nd all eascmer~s of r~fd PROP(~SI:'I) UI ILl'l'¥ EA.SEIq, IEN I' A drainage and ulilily easement ovem, under and acmes lite We,q I(I (xI feet itl-the East 15 IX) feel of the Noilh 207 OO feet of Ihe smith 2q iD(Is of (iovelnment I,ot I, Redion 15, Iown~hiI) 117, Range 24, Ilennepin ('oUlll)'. Minnesota °.,~' (~'~. RECEIVED ' HAY 0 I~ ZOO0 NIOUND PLANNING & INSR " ;. ~ I hereby certify that this plan. survey or report was SC~O~O~ prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered La~d Surveyor unqer the taws of the State ~ND SURVEYING. ot~lnne~o~a. .~7 ~ .'7~/ JOB # ~ook - Paga q7- TraCT ^ All that part of the Easl 4 rods of the South 29 rods of Govennnent Lot I, Section 15, Towuship 117, Range 24, llemmpin County, Minnesota lying northerly of a ilne described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said East 4 rods of South 29 rods, thence on an assumed hearing of South along the West line said East 4 rods a distauce of 207.00 feet to the point of beginning of tile line to be described: thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 03 seconds East to the East line of said government Lot 3 and there ternfinating Subject to any and all easements of record. TRACT B All that part of Lot 6, block i0, Mound Terrace, according to the recorded plat thereof lying northerly of tile south 20.00 feet thereo£ TRACTC The North 106.00 feet of Lot 7 and tile South 20.00 feet of Lot 6, Block l0 Mound Ten'ace according to the recorded plat thereof. the line to be described: theqce North 89 degrees 57 minutes 03 seconds East to the East line of said govemmant Lol 3 and there ternfiuati,~g Subject to any and all easements ofrecord. PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT A drainage and utility easement over, under and across tile West 10.00 feet of the East 15.00 feet of tile North 207.00 feet of tile south 29 rods of Govermnent Lol I, Sectioo 15, Township ! 17, The East Four (4) rods of lira South Twenty-nine (29) rods of ~ 0 ' ~ " Govemnle~t Lot One (I) except road Section Fifteen (15) XI- 4'1~ .fife [~ / .'.... Township One llundred Sevent~n (117) Noah Range Twenly- .p Lt,, ~ ] ~ / .......... ~'" /oz~: p rom (24),West, TownofMinnetrista Exceptthat p~of~idEast ~4~ Iff?t.' I ~.~,~ '~ Z' _ East 4 rods a distance of 207.~ f~l 1o the point of ~gianing of . x , ~/o/i.i ~o/~,t ' ~q Range 24, ilennepin County, Minnesota. SCltOSOflO LA'~ 6-~ UfiVg_.¥ih G ~ INC. Book - Page RECF~VED HAY U, ?UOB k'i!i!)!']:' I-,' S~; f lierel)y cefllly trill Il(j! pla., lUfvoy or fepofl woe I)fepafod by fne or under mydhecl lupefvlllon and Illal l Dill · (July Roglsleted Llfld Surveyor~nder Iho lawl of Iho Stale o, u.,,,.,o~~ ~.,.: ~. ~,17~ noo~,,,..o,,.o. Milton Hentges 6400 CO RD 15 Mound, MN 55364-8323 City Of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 To: The Planning & Zoning Commission I'm writing this letter requesting the following subdivision of the property we own on the west village limits on CTY RD 15 in the city of Mound & the city of Minnetrista. The property I. D. #s are, Mound (14-11%24 32 0059), the Minnetrista property I. D.(15-117-24 41 0003) .Would like the Minnetrista property annexed into the city of Mound to make it easier to acquire building ~ermits, access to a city street and city utilities. The subdivision would consist of the north 200 feet of lot 6 in the city of Mound and alike amount of footage of the 66 foot width that is presently in the city of Minnetrista. This would then create a lot of 166 x 200 feet with access to the plotted Walnut Lane (not up graded). I had this land surveyed and have a drawing of what I would like to do with this properly, this is the tract A part. (Copy enclosed ) My son would like to purchase this piece of property if the subdivision is approved and build a house on the north west portion of'this property. The reason for building in this location is this is an open level part of the property and none of the large trees would have to be disturbed on the rest of the property. The other reason for building on this part of the property is that a sewer line runs diagonally across lot 6 from the NW comer to the SW corner where it connects into our house that sits partially in the city of Mound and mostly in the city of Minnetrista. The house that is planned for this piece of property is approximately 36 x78 feet in size with an estimated value of 140 M $. I would like to get tSom the city if at all possible an estimated figure for the up grading of Walnut Lane if needed. The reason for the estimate being if a private driveway wasn't allowed on the plotted Walnut lane as it now exists. The existing shed on the tract "A" property would be tom down and a new shed built on the tract "B" property. Also in the plans if the subdivision is approved is the existing house on the tract "B" property would be replaced with a new house on the north part of existing lot 7, or the North East comer of tract "B". I contacted the city of Minnetrista on this matter of subdividing the 66 foot strip and a possible annexation of this property into the city of Mound, but at the time they had a moratorium on any subdivisions and I haven't contacted them since, because I was waiting for the surveyor to survey my property. I have attached a copy of the letter 1 sent to the City of Minnetrista. Would appreciate your attention on this matter, and would like to know what other information is needed to get this in the system. Sincerely, .: Page I of 2 Milton Hentges 6400 Co. Rd. 15 Mound, MN. 55364-832." August 30 1999 City Of Mirmetrista 7701 County Road 110 Minnetrista, MN 55364 Dear Timothy Cruikshank: I am writing this letter in regards to subdividing our property, namely the north 201 feet of the property shown in yellow on the plat map. This property along with the north 200 feet of lot 6 in the city of Mound would be sold to our son so he could build a house on the Minnetrista property with access to Walnut road in Mound. I have talked to the city officials of Mound about extending Walnut road and they are working up an estimate on this. The reason for wanting to build on the Minnetrista property is this is an open area an would have a closer access to Walnut road. There is another hindrance to building on the Mound lot besides having to remove some large trees is the fact that the only open building site on the Mound lot has a sewer line running diagonally across the lot from the north east comer to our house which straddles the two cities property lines. I am in the process of having this property surveyed showing all of the existing and proposed structures, the surveyor I have contacted to do this is, Schoborg Land Surveying Inc. The reason for our selling of this property to our son, is many fold, (1) I am 71 years old and to it is getting harder to maintain this property. (2) The money realized from the sale of this property would allow us to build a new house on north portion of lot seven. (3) By subdividing and selling the north portion of the properties we have retained property to build on with out having to acquire a new piece of land. (4) The reason for building new on our part is the present structure is in dire need of major renovations, and building new is the most economical. (5) By selling to our son we have a choice in our neighbors, and it benefits him in acquiring a choice piece of property. 2 page 2 of 2 December 20, 1999 We have lived on this property since 1957, and prior to this it was owned by Vincent & Edna Logelin. I have spoken with, Stephen Moore about this matter and he suggested I write to you detailing what we had in mind. I know the city has a moratorium on subdivisions, but this would not inv. oLve the water or sewer matters that this moratorium addresses. This would involve possible variance requests, or annexing the piece of property to the city of Mound so it can be utilized. I have enclosed a plat map along with a tax statement identifying the properties. The approximate dimensions of the house our son is considering building are 36x78 in the $140,000 range. Please give this matter your consideration and inform me of your concerns. I can be contacted by phone(472-3384) or by letter at the listed address, Sincerely, /Milton Heh~gds Enclosures: 2 250 ?14.55 NO~TH , ~j]~..j~ ]:' / CITY OF M]NNETR)STA ~ 479 ~ NORTH ~ ~ . ~ . _ --I · ~_ _ ~1,~.4 tT0 8 ?4Z 7 ~ ~JO 6 : .... ~/~-...~4.03 ~ -. _ ~ , ~ ~,; e.-..::. ~/J~ _~ ~, .... ~/~ o o. _ ~ .~ .... - ' ~ · _ ~ .~., ....., ~ ,. ~ 2g~. _ ...... ~___ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ', ~ ~//~ .~ ~3.~ w z~.~ ~' ~ '"¢ I ' ~ ~ , ~ .~//// ~. ~ ~ ~ ... · , u. //~ i ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ".~, . [}t~-[A~ ,4~.~,~j~ ; ,~ ~ v/ ,~ ~ '~t. I ~ ' m52.~ ; 122 _ ~ ~.~'~ ,282 ~' ' ........ ~'"/~ , ~37 ~ ~ ~ -,~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ --- '~ -' , ~ :~) ~ ~ '~ ~4 CII'Y OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET SUR"EY ON FILE?/Y/~/ NO LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD IlOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF DIREC'FION ] N SEW NS E W NS E W N $ E W N SEW N S E W L~NING~DISTRICT~..LOT SIZEIWIDTH: ~',~JJ;l;t';~ B~ ';, 500/O ,,~,~ o, uoo/4O B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 '100000/60 R2 .14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED 15' 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTIt: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... 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 BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES/NO/? ]BY: J DATED: J This Zoning Information Sheet oul¥ summarizes a portion of the requiremenu~ oullincd in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Deparunenl at 472-0600. _~ - -. 30:1o) (~} (s) ' ~ =" 117.6 ~..-----, ,. R-Z6._B ,~, , --,'.'', · .03 ,=, .. \;(2~.). ', ~s s-~ -"6 ~,. ~, ,- ~,,,, _ ~t;} '.,, ~:'.z~.6 ,:~.a ~ :~ c; _.9_. ~,~.5 ~-...x , WALI'IUtr ,L~.~RE ~ ".-:5. s. ~.~7'~'w ,,,';-.".: "' ~oo.~ ~ , x ' ~. /.. ~-'~' . ~ : ,o ,, .~ ~ ~,= s ,,,, ~ ~ ~oa~ ..- (55) ~..,,,~-,,.~ .. ." , ' ~ "'~- '"' ,oo (~ ,, '"" "' '"": ,- : , '~'::~ (3) ~ ,,: ~ ~-7 -~ (%'~)~ (~6) "' "" ~ ,d_' ~ ,.,, ._j (60) %~,2 ~ zs~.s -- o ~6'T3'3~' £ ~ o co ~ ko .- ~ ~ -,, ~- , · * ~ -...1 -- ....'. "" 7 "~b:..7 ~,e-~[-~.~¢." ~ - r ,~ ::-J ..... :--'t'-'"/ ;' - RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES FOR REMODELING OF THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 2017 ARBOR LANE, LOT 3, SKARP & LINDQUIST RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24-41-0002 P & Z CASE #00-28 W[Ilr~REAS, the applicant, has requested a front and side yard variances to remodel the home located at 2017 Arbor Lane. The associated variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 15.3 feet 20 feet 4.7 feet Side Yard (south) 2.5 feet 6 feet 3.5 feet SideYard (north) 3.7 feet 6 feet 2.3 feet ; and, WltEREAS, the property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet fi'ont yard setback and 6 feet side yard setbacks for lots of record; and, Wlt-EREAS, the proposed improvements include a 2"d story addition, connection of the detached garage to the home and removal of hardcover; and, WHEREAS, the existing north wall is less than the 3 feet minimum from the property line as required by the Building Code for fire separation. The existing first floor has windows which do not meet current fire protection requirements; and, WltEREAS, the proposed 2nd story addition would be required by the Building Code to have a 3 feet property line separation if window openings are within the wall system. A setback of less than 3 feet would require fire protection with no openings; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the variances as requested with the exception of the 2"a story addition that must meet a 3 feet setback; and, NOW, TltEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the variances with the following conditions: a. The north wall meet all building code issues for fire safety and protection. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 3, SKARP & LINDQUIST RAVENSWOOD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE # 00-28: VARIANCE, TOM FABICK, 2017 ARBOR LANE, LOT 3 SKARP & LINDQUlST RAVENSWOOD, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 2ND FLOOR ADDITION WITH CONNECTION TO EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE, PID# 13-117-24 41 0002. The City Planner stated that this is a variance for a substantial remodeling project that will increase a single story to a two story and change the current detached garage to an attached garage. Detailed plans have been provided. Setbacks are the issues. Staff has issue with the south side yard. Window openings on the south side are too close to the lot line and the building code overrides. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 15.4 feet 20 feet 4.8 feet Side Yard 2.6 feet 6 feet 3.6 feet SideYard 3.8 feet 6 feet 2.2 feet Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: 1. Maintain a 3 feet north side yard setback. Weiland asked how an existing building is attached to garage and still meet the building code. The City Building Official stated the footings would have to be updated and a fire separation would need to be provided. Also openings that are less than 3 feet from lot line will need to be covered. Gloria Anderson, 2039 Arbor Lane, stated that she does not understand the variance on the property lines because the houses are very close. The City Planner stated the setback would be maintained. Ms. Anderson asked what the three-foot variances meant. The City Planner stated the variances were existing. Tom Fabick, 2017 Arbor Lane, stated that it is currently a partial two story and they are adding 1/2 floor. Mr. Fabick stated that he has analyzed the window issues and is working with the City Building Official on this point. Mr. Fabick DRAFT stated that records received when the house was purchased indicate frost footings were placed. The City Building Official stated that when the foundation to connect the two structures is dug, it will be easy to check on this and he is working with the applicant on this point. Weiland asked for clarification on the recommendation about windows. The City Planner stated that if the applicant wants to go forward with his plans, he needs to have three feet. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland, to approve the staff recommendation. Discussion: The City Building Official confirmed with the applicant that no new walls could be less than three feet from the property line. The City Planner stated that the existing walls could not remain and if they want to go forward, they need to have the whole wall at three feet if windows are kept. The City Building Official confirmed that no walls with windows would be less than three feet from the property line. The applicant stated that the foundation was at 2.4 feet from the property line and this was impractical and impossible. The City Building Official stated it was Staff opinion that construction should not be less than 3 feet. The applicant stated that this was a pre-existing condition. The City Planner stated that this was the process to address these issues to meet the standards. The applicant confirmed that if there were no windows, they could go ahead. The City Building Official stated that they felt it was not desirable to build without windows because it would not be esthetic. Mr. Fabick said that would mean the project is impossible and the esthetic issue is strictly an opinion. Michael stated that the basis of the building code is 6 feet and this is to try to bring people into compliance and that Staff is giving a concession by going to 3 feet. Brown brought up a property that was refused recently. The City Building Official confirmed that this was essentially a denial of the request, but an approval of 3 feet. The applicant asked if it was possible to do this without moving the basement. The City Building Official stated it could be done without moving the existing foundation wall. The City Building Official stated that the first floor wall could be reconstructed. Brown stated that if the applicant could do nothing, the house would go downhill. Brown suggested allowing the second story as long as it was not any closer than 3 feet. Brown wondered if it would be possible to do a lot line rearrangement, as he preferred that to a variance. D AFT Brown asked the applicant if he would like the issue tabled so that he could get more information rather than having the request denied. Tom Fabick stated that they would try to do something to accommodate the three-foot requirement. Hasse asked how many variances were currently on the property. The City Planner stated there were currently three variances and this would not add to that total. Hasse stated this lot was already overbuilt. The City Planner stated that, no, in terms of hardcover it was not overbuilt. The City Planner stated that the recognition that this street corridor is difficult played into the Staff recommendation. The tendency is for houses to get bigger and there is a need to protect these houses. The City Planner stated that seven feet between 2 story homes increases fire issues. Mueller asked if Staff has worked with the applicant to follow the lot lines and if this was a possibility to discuss with the neighbor. The City Building Official stated this would be a subdivision and the neighbor would have to sell a slice of property to him. The applicant stated he would prefer to try to move the wall back a little. Brown stated that he is leaving his Motion on table, although he is not happy with it as he feels that houses keep getting bigger and bigger on smaller lots. Weiland withdrew his second to the Motion. Michael seconded the Motion for the sake of further discussion. Tom Fabick stated that the house was not built with proper setbacks in the first place. He is not increasing the footprint, but is improving his hardcover. Chair Michael called the question. Mueller clarified the Motion with the City Planner. Hasse stated that Mr. Fabick would need to tear the house apart anyway. The City Building Official stated that it would be conceivable to remove the top two rows of blocks and put in a new foundation. New measurement would be to the new foundation wall. Brown withdrew his Motion. Burma asked how the Commission could require a person to move an existing structure 6 inches after the Council approved a garage 15 inches from the street. Burma felt that because this was not increasing the hardcover, it was unfair. VVeiland stated that he concurred with Burma, but volume is an issue. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to approve the staff recommendation subject to no improvements closer than three feet DRAFT with no openings allowed. Discussion: Weiland asked if Mr. Fabick would like the issue tabled for further discussion with the City Building Official. Mr. Fabick answered no to this. AYES: 4 (Burma, Glister, Hasse, Mueller) NAYS: 2 (Weiland, Michael) ABSTAIN: 2 (Brown and Voss) MOTION CARRIED. Brown stated that the work rules required adjournment at 11:00 p.m. He stated that he has recommended to Staff that this not happen again and spoke with the Mayor requesting that the agenda not be this full. MOTION by Glister, seconded by Brown to extend the work rules to 11:30 p.m. AYES: 6 (Mueller and Voss were not in the room at this time) MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Application APPLICANT: Thomas and Dene Fabick CASE NUMBERS: 00-28 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 2017 Arbor Lane ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a variance application for front and side yard variances associated with the remodeling of his house. The variances are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 15.4 feet 20 feet 4.8 feet Side Yard 2.6 feet 6 feet 3.6 feet SideYard 3.8 feet 6 feet 2.2 feet The project entails remodeling of the first floor, addition of a full 2"d story and connection of the existing detached garage. Existing building setbacks will be maintained as the foundation will remain unchanged. Hardcover is currently over the 40% maximum by 89 sf and will be reduced to 32% with the removal of driveway surface. The building plans indicate there will be windows on the side yard walls. The building code does not allow any wall openings (windows) less than 3 feet from the property line. Staff would suggest the building plans be modified to remove the windows if the side yards are to remain as proposed. If the windows are to remain, the north side yard needs to be a minimum of 3 feet. Since this is a building code issue, it is not varianceable. Staff would like to encourage the applicant to meet a 3 feet side yard minimum to allow for windows to help provide additional building detail in this dense neighborhood. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 g00-28 FabickVariance .June 12, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approval of the variance as requested with the following condition: 1. Maintain a 3 feet north side yard setback. recommend Council 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:_472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: '~t~ / ~, / City Council Date: Distribution: :'~'"'~ '~' :'.' '_"000 Applicati?n_ F_ee_: $100.:00 City Planner ~. ~.; 0 0 ONR City Engineer Public Works Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER Address Lot Block Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 Name ~Ho~5 ~ ~/ ~A~L~ Address Phone Plat~ B-2 (M) B-3 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) ON) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~)~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): V'~,'mncm Application. P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all-area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district- in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or ~) Front Yard: ( N S ~)W ) ~ fL 15' - ~- fL d - & fL Side Yard: ( N~)E W ) (~ fL ::Z- ~ ff. ,~- ~, ft. Side Yard: (~S E W ) ~ ff. //- o fL *- ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ff. fL ff. Lakeside: (~.S E~) ~'0 ff. -'/,~ - o ft. "' ff. .= w ) fL fL .2. P. ft. Street Frontage.~ ~ fL ~ O ft. ft. Lot Size: (,~.p~ A ~ sq ft ~ E) ~ ~ sq ft --- sq ft Hardcover. ~.J~l~___.sq ft ~ ;2/1/q sq ft -- sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district, in which it is located? Yes ~, No ~, If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too nan'ow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage 1~ existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other:, specify describe: ~C~ 5 P-. ~.5 ~'~ ~ &'T~ ~ ~, J..,~rJ~- ~VIA. t~ G ¥~.riance Applica'don, 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 11~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship 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 of'tidal of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. .. Apj31icartt's Signature~--~~J~'~~.,~ Date <~"'-~2- OD Date ~::~- C) Z. ~C~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERV. I..OUS- SURFA. CE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ............. ' LOT AREA {~ ~'3. ~'~'SO. FT. X 40%..= (forLotsof Record*) ....... I.%~-~5; ~' I :.,_ :,:::?;.':", ,..!: · ...... · LOT AREA SQ. FT. '.X ;.'1..$.%. =..(for detached buildings only) . .' · Existin~ Lots of Record may have 46'percenf c°Vera~e provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350: i 225,Subd. 6. g. 1. {see back). A plan must be' sUbmitted approvea- -J Lo¥_ the" "~' -~u~amg Official..>.' .' . ..: ...... 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 LENGTH..' '. ..WIDTH SQ FT ×~ ¢" x ~. ~"~ = ..¢?. TOTAL HOUSE ............... ; ......... TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X' -= TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X ~ TOTALDECK · OTHER ' X = TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER/~indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE SITE DEMOLITION PLAN I I I ,jJjj: ~ it ] I-., ,., lJ,,,:,j iiii lJ 2017 ARBOR LANE Moul~ Minfl~ala 55364 ,,.I 2017 ARBOR LANE FIRST FLOOR DEMOLmON PLAN AddllJan and Aimmlom m 2017 ARBOR LANE Mound, Minn~X~ 55364 ilit°-= ['[ tf II I I IIIII 1 t... ..... SECOND FLOOR DEMOLmON PLAN Addilion ~1 ~ te 2017 ARBOR LANE Maunfl, Mhmelalz 553~4 BASEMENT F~ r~R P~ AN 2017 ARBOR LANE t- II 11 2017 ARBOR LANE ~:~ r'~',,-, ,-,~ ' ~, 2017..,'~_ BOR LANE e ~nl? ArrnR I ANF I:::::=41 / I! 2017 ARBOR LANE i '~1'117 ' DI~(~ q I ' I1=- / ,~- t CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTit: SURVEY ON FILET. YES I NO LOT OP RECORD?~ NO YARD ~ I IIOUSK ......... N S E W FRONT FRONT N S 1~ W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF DIRECTION R1 10,000/60 B1 T,500/o ff'R1R ~,000/40~ ~2 20,000/~0 R2 6,000/40 B3 10.000/60 R2 1¢,000/e0 R3 BE~ ORD. XX 30,000/100 REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: ' LOT HID I LOT DEPTIi: VARIANCE GARAGE, SliED ..... DETACllED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W =SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W 10' OR 30' TOP OF BLUFF IDATEI): This ?.onln$ Information Sheet only summarizes a i~nion of die requhcmcnm outlined in tltc City of Mound Zoning Or~' Planning~Del~_ttment at.~472-_._0~0_,~..~' ........................................... ! ' '~ · ' ARBOR LA 14 mmm mm mm mm m mm mm mm mm mm ~. II BUILDING RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AT 6058 LYNWOOD BLVD., LOT 5, BROOKTON, PID #14-117-24-31-0005 P & Z CASE #00-30 Wl:i'EREAS, the applicant, has requested a front yard variance construct a detached garage on the property at 6058 Lynwood Blvd. The associated variances are as follows: Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 23 ft 30 ft 7 ft ; and, WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 feet front yard setback and 6 feet side yard setbacks for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the proposed garage would front on Southview Lane and maintain the same 23 feet setback as the house; and, WHEREAS, the existing attached garage would be converted to living space and the driveway would be removed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the variance as recommended by Staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the variance request. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepm County Property Information System: LOT 5, BROOKTON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 D2AFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE # 00-30: VARIANCE, MARTIN MILLER, 6058 LYNWOOD BLVD, LOT 5, BROOKTON, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A NON- CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK, PID# 14-117-24 31 0005. The City Planner stated that the proposal was to maintain the existing 23 feet for the proposed garage. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 23 feet 30 feet 17 feet Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse, to approve the Staff recommendation. AYES: 7 (Mueller was not in the room at this time.) MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Application APPLICANT: Martin and Brenda Miller CASE NUMBERS: 00-30 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 6058 Lynwood Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a variance application for a front and yard variance associated with a proposed detached garage. The variance request is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 23 feet 30 feet 17 feet The plans are to convert the existing single stall attached garage to living space and build a new 24 feet by 22 feet two stall detached garage in the rear yard. The proposed garage setback is 23 feet from Southview Lane which matches the house setback. A 6 feet separation from the home will be maintained. The proposed location will avoid impacting the sanitary sewer service line serving the home. Staff finds the line up with the house setback will not increase the existing encroachment along Southview Lane. 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 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Applicati~lC~j= ~ ,,~]J)~D00 ,3ud ?..0o0 ~ '1 ~'~)0 City Planner ~", ) %' ~ Ci~ Engineer ~, I Z '~ PublicWo~s CaseNo. O0- ~0 DNR Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER Address Lot 5 Block Subdivision PID~ I~ - ZONING DISTRICT Name Address Phone (H) 0005 Pla~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 957.- 4-TX-IR:Z~ (W) (M) B-3 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) (VV) (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.): Varience ApplicalJon, P. 2 Case No. 00'30 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or exi~ng) Front Yard: ( N{~E,~.W ) 30 ft. 57' ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E~) ,%0 ft. ?-3 ft. "/' ft. Side Yard: ( N S(~W ) IO ft. ~2. ft. ft. Rear Yard: (I~ E W ) 15 ft. ~ ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: fl. ff. ft. Lot Size: sq ff ~OC)o~ sq ff sq ft Hardcover. ~OC~ sq ff sq ff sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 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 ~/ariance Application, P. 3 Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA '~,O(~9~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I ~OC) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/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 LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ~.7 X ~%,7 = 17-47__ X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ~,~r x R.~ = ~0 X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. 5x3 : 15 TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. 17- x I~ : /91 X : TOTAL DECK .......................... t~ x /Z- : X = TOTALOTHER ......................... ?0 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE /OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY '~~~~ DATE ~737 Pror osed hardcover Martin & Brenda Miller 6058 Lynwood blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Lot 5 Brookton 14-117-24 31 0005 R-1 Garage House Driveway Sidewalk Sidewalk Total Length 22 14 23 6 4 Width 24 2 20 3 3 Sq Ft 528 28 460 18 12 1046 N ~9°44~r'jS"E ; , IlaJG7.2 --- M. EDGE. or= ~ITUMI~OUQ BITUMINOUS ROADWAY LYNWOOD I RECEIVED MAY 1 1 2000 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. '"'"'BLVD. JOB 'NO.~'~O"/'60 CH'Y OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES/~NO_) 'R.tA $,000/40 B2 20,000/80 ~ R2 6,000/40 B3 3.0,000/60 ' R2 14,000/80 LOT OF RECORD? NO Ra SeE ORD. TZ 30,000/100 IIOUSE ......... FRONT N ~EE/~ ~ / FRONT N / ~KE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLU~ / lO'OR 30' GARAGE, 811ED ..... //DETACI IRD'BuILDI NOS FRONT SIDE 4' OR 6' REAR f NSS E W 4' LAKE Iq $ E W TOP OF BLUFF ~I0~R 30' LOT WIDTH: VARIANCE RESOLUTION # 00- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO REMODEL THE RESIDENCE AT 5174 TUXEDO ROAD, LOT 20, WllIPPLE SHORES, PID #24-117-24-34-0004 P & Z CASE #00-34 WI:IEREAS, the applicant, has requested a lakeside setback variance to remodel the house at 5174 Tuxedo Road. The associated variances are as follows: Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 19 ft 50 fi 31 ft ; and, WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback and 6 feet side yard setbacks for lots of record; and, Wl~REAS, the current home is a one story home with a walkout to Tuxedo Blvd. with a concrete block single stall garage. Both structures are in poor condition. The new home meets all zoning requirements except the lakeside setback; and, WHEREAS, the proposed residence is a two story design with a tuckunder garage. The existing foundation will be utilized with a new foundation to be added; and, WltEREAS, the lakeside deck extends to 19 feet from the OHW. A stairway system connects the deck to the dock and is in poor condition; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the variance; and, NOW, TI=IEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the variance request with the following conditions: a. The deck shall conform to a setback that is consistent with a line of sight between the structure setbacks on adjoining properties. b. Need to submit revised elevations as a part of a revised grading and drainage plan. c. The existing stairway and landing system be removed and rebuilt to code. 2. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 20, WHIPPLE SHORES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE # 00-34: VARIANCE, SHAUN TANCHEFF, 5174 TUXEDO BLVD, LOT 20, WHIPPLE SHORES IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A DWELLING WITH A NON-CONFORMING LAKESIDE SETBACK, PID# 24-117-24 34 0004. The City Planner presented the case. Staff has been to the site and landing and deck are currently a safety hazard. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 19 feet 50 feet 31 feet Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Need to submit revised elevations as a part of a revised grading and drainage plan. 2. The lakeside setback be limited to 30 feet. 3. The existing stairway and landing system be removed and rebuilt to code. Weiland asked if a 30-foot variance was considered excessive. The City Planner stated that the stair and wall system in place were in bad shape and that the erosion is quite bad. The City Planner pointed out where the decks on the adjoining properties were placed. Mueller asked about line up provisions in current codes. If they approved the lineup situation, would Staff be okay with that. The City Planner felt he would be closer if he cut back. Mueller clarified stated he was saying if he lined up with neighbors. Gordon stated that would be all right. He did not have a distance on the decks on the adjoining properties and he would need additional survey information. The applicant stated that there is a landing deck put there by the prior owner. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Glister, to extend the work rules to 12:15 a.m. AYES: 8 MOTION CARRIED. DRAFT Mueller asked if the applicant had concerns about the Staff recommendations. The applicant stated that he would go along with the recommendations. Voss stated that the reduced deck would still be a good size deck. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Mueller, to accept the Staff recommendations with the line of site deck being equal to decks on the adjoining properties. AYES: 4 (Burma, Glister, Hasse, Mueller, Brown) NAYS: 3 (Weiland, Michael, and Voss on the basis of no practical difficulty shown) MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. illla TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Shaun Tancheff CASE NUMBER: 00-34 HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 5174 Tuxedo Road ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to remodel an existing home, demolish a detached garage and provide an attached tuck under two stall garage. The variance request in the application is incorrect as the setback was taken from the house rather than the deck. The correct variance request is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 19 feet 50 feet 31 feet The current home is a one story home with a walkout to Tuxedo Blvd. with a concrete block single stall garage. Both structures are in poor condition. The new home meets all zoning requirements except the lakeside setback. Hardcover is below the 40% maximum for the property. Staff has two concerns, both related to the lakeside deck and stairway systems. The existing deck is approximately 19 feet from the lake. Staff would recommend the narrow section closest to the lake be removed to lessen this yard encroachment and line up with adjoining properties. This would leave a deck of about 15 feet by 25 feet and a 30 feet lakeside setback. The stairs and landing are dilapidated and should be condemned as a safety hazard. A rebuilt system will need to meet code requirements, meaning the landing adjacent to the dock would be limited to 32 square feet. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 g00-34 Variance Request- 5174 Tuxedo Blvd. .lune 12, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Need to submit revised elevations as a part of a revised grading and drainage plan. 2. The lake side setback be limited to 30 feet. 3. The existing stairway and landing system be removed and rebuilt to code. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 RECEIVED Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 13istribution: VARIANCE APPIICATION CITY OF' MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 City Planner City Engineer ~Public Works SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN oWNER) Address 51'7q '"7-uS~,e~o ~lt/~. Lot ~o Block Subdivision I.~ k ~'l~j~ t~ ~[ e,~ ~.5 ZONING DIS~ICT R-1 ~R-1A ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 Phone Name Addm~ Phone (H) ~ DNR -{~lher ~ ~ Pla~ B-2 B-3 (M) (M) Has an application ever been n~de for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, {~ n~ 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 stodes, type of use, etc.): Revised 10-26-99 ~,~ ~,~/~ uu ,',~: Z8 ~¢n:ce Application. P. 2 UI £¥ OF · ,UUND ~]011 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~K')- If no, specify each non-conforming use {describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SFTBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) ~_ Front Yard: ( Ni~E W ) ~._C:>' ft. ft. ft~ Side Yard: ( N S(]~W_) r,,' ft. ft. ~ft. Side Yard: ( NSE~ t',, ' ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N__S E W ) ft. ft. f't. LakesiOe: (~.,~IB E W ) ~"o' ff. 4/4/' ft. ~_o""ff' (NSEW) ft. ft. ~. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ,ff sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes (.), No j~. 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 (X') existing situation ( ) other: specify W/4/26/00 23:30 FA][ CITY OF I~0UND / 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: . 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar oniy to the prcpe.~y desc,'i, bec r- this petition? Yes J~, No (). If no. list some other prope~ies which are simiiady 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 offidal 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 ReVised 10-26-9g CiTY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} WPROPERTY ADDRESS: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SCL FT.'X 30% = (for all lots) .............. SCL FT. X 4O% I I = Ifor Lots of Record*) ....... I ~.¥'43- J SCL FT. X 15% = .(for detached buildings only) .. *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are 'utilized, as oul~ined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official, HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS ;E/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks {1/4' min. opening be:ween boards} with a pervious ~urface under are not counted ee hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT 2,V'.- on x 2,5",.-~," = 5'82- X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDG$ ................. X = TOTAL DflI~/EWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X 57! TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER '/OVER (indicate difference) ............................... [ 05/16/00 21:34 FAX CITY OF MOUND 6x8;6 TEE ¢' G.V. 6" PLUG ~ 001 e 0 © m m ~ m "4 m 0 0 rm- ITl C Z -~ ..... 0 C ? ii aAOg¥ al'!lq ~JOO']:t -J ~Ja!'!MO ~.g VNNV -.EYT. E RJ Ol~ t'ITFI~tOI~ r- 0 Ut ID Al'lOt,~ -:.ITE~OR N~HDJ. I'~ E.U.:INId ! , l ~00~ ONIAI'I ¥';t~¥ CNLL.L. IG / '~21-"J~O ,,( :'c ~.e ¢ ,.8 ~NOO~d~ I ')12'qd ~V~t MINNE' CERTIFICATE SHAUN OF LOT 20, HENNEPIN OF SURVEY FOR TANCHEFF WHIPPLE SHORES COUNTY, MINNESOTA EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE GR~EL (135.3) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 20, WHIPPLE SHORES (,,,.~ S ;:=i$: :~:ti:;r::rot elevotion, i'neon seo level datum ---970 .... : denotes existing contour line. mean seo level datum the Ioc~i~ of on existing house ~nd get,ge. ~d the Iocotion of ~11 visible "'h~dcover" th~eon. It does not purport to show ~ny other improvements or e~r~ents. C- I ~ aa'lily lb~ this save)' was Fqx~ed by me or under my &eot supeF- ~ON.E ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of t~ State of ~t~ DATE 11--~99 I~1 ~k ~ ~M~to~~ 127~ 9~3 SU.VE ' OS FILE? LOT OP RECORD? YES I NO YAIU) [ DIRECTION ,lOUSE ......... FRONT .~)B W ~ N S E W ~ OF BLU~ ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 10,000/£~.~ B1 ?.S00/0 .('-~IA 6.ooo/4o~ 32 2o.ooo/6o R~ ~,000/4~Y'" 33 X0,0O0/60 R2 14,000/80 R~ S~B OR,D, I1 30,000/100 It~,~UIRED I KXI~NGIPROPOSED 10' OR EXISTING LOT SIZE:' LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPI H: VARIANCE GARAGe. illlq} ..... DETACllED BUILDINOS FRONT N S B W FRONT N S E W SIDE N $ E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W lAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' I0' OR 30' PAYMENT BILLS DATE: JUNE 27, 2000 BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BATCH # #0061 AMOUNT $189,336.03 TOTAL BILLS $189,336.03 PAGE 1 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER AO050 101273 - - 2,600~-~---~'0-1~-3i=9~ ~'~IF-iED AUDIT 01-4090-3130 2,500.00 THRU 12-31-99 CERTIFIED AUDIT 71-7100-3130 6/27/00 9~?/___oA ........ _S~I_gg.,.~o___._J~k~C.D_.__ .................. lOlO ABDO ABDO EICK & MEYERS LL VENDOR TOTAL 5100.00 A0111 000531 6/27/00 6/27/00 11.71 05-00 296-9058 5.43 05-00 590-4351 5.43 05-00 590-4351 SKINNER, GREG SKINNE~._~REG .... SKINNER, GREG HANSON, KANDIS PUBLIC__WQ~KS .... PUBLIC WORKS PATROL ~845 HAR.~LL~_~EN BLAZER 5~UAD #840 SgUAD #841 SgUAD #842 SgUAD #843 SgUAD #844 MOUND FIRE ENGINE #18 HOUND FIRE RESCUE TRUCK 5.42 05-00 590-4351 30.03 05-00 965-6789 11.04 05-00 554-6520 ~I.03 05-00 554-b520 27.08 05-00 581-2110 27.88 05-00 581-640! 27.08 05-00 581-6404 27.08 05-00 581-6440 27.08 05-00 581-6441 27.08 05-00 581-6442 27.08 05-00 581-$443 33.25 05-00 581-6444 .39 05-00 723-7560 1.34 05-00 751-3572 2.64 05-00 751-3573 7.81 05-00 875-4502 315.88 JRNL-CD 01-4090-3220 01-4280-3220 73-7300-3220 7~-7800-3220 01-4040-3220 73-7300-3220 78-7800-3220 01-4140-3220 01-4~40-3220 01-4140-3220 01-4140-3220 ~01-4140-3220 01-4140-3220 01-4140-3220 .01-.4140-3220 22-4170-3220 22-4170-3220 22-4170-3220 22-4170-3220 1010 A ! ~l OU CH CE LLUL-A~-/-B'EI_~V-LTE'--glZ~N~-O-R--T~)TA-L 315.88 A0397 325090 ASCOM 6/27/00 6/27/00 HASLER MAILING SYSTE VENDOR TOTAL 23.00 o7-0i-oo THRU 09-30-00 POSTAGE oi-~o~o-22oo ~b--~--~-~-~~o--POSTAGE'-' 01-4090-2200 23.00 07-01-00 THRU 09-30-00 POSTAGE 01-4140-2200 23.00 07-01-00 THRU 09-30-00 POSTAGE 01-4190-2200 23.00 07-01-00 THRU 09-30-00 POSTAGE 01-4340-2200 7.67 07-01-00 THRU 09-30-00 POSTAGE 01-4280-2200 7.~7 07-01-00 THRU 09-30-00 POSTAGE 71-7100-2200 li.51 07-01-00 THRU 09-30-00 POSTAGE 73-7300-2200 il. S1 07-0~-00 THRU 09-30-00 POSTAGE 78-7800-2200 153.36 JRNL-CD lOIO 153.36 ................................. 269'~-~7 '--MOl~hb -~XY '-PORT-ABL-E ToiL'ETS 6/27/00 6/27/00 269.17 JRNL-CD 01-4340-3950 1010 ASPEN ~NVII~I)NI'TENfTA~[ 'V EN1)DI~- -'r O~T-A'[' ~-9:-17 B0540 F51-16868 53.24 BATTERY 6/'2770'0---~-/~'7/-~0 ........... 01-4140-2200 1010 BATTERIES PLUS B0549 19031000 VENDOR TOTAL 53.24 2,005.05 LIeUOR 6/27/00 6/27/00 2,005.05 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9510 10 PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY Of HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 31996400 I9076800 6/27/00 6/27/00 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 1,646.00 JRNL-CD 6/27/00 6/27/00 _20~.i5 __ __ H I_~__ ~_N_D_ M]~_E LL~ N.E g US__ ........ 208.45 JRNL-CD 2,452.09 LIQUOR 6/27/00 6/27/00 2,452.09 JRNL-CD ...BEAL~g¥__c_o~P_OR~T_IO~N ........ V~gg~_T~T_Ak ........ 6~11..57 C0859 D38165 4.77 CUPHOLDER AND MISCELLAENOUS 6/27/00 6/27/00 ~.77 JRNL-CD D39059 21.28 MISCELLANEOUS 6/27/00 6/27/00 21.28 JRNL-CD D43913 91.56 FRONT MAT 6/27/00 6/27/00 91.56 JRNL-CD D39040 HAMPION AUTO C0920 000615 CI'T¥ OF MOU~D C0960 000531 BLACK, ETC 24.44 ROLLER 6/27/00 6/27/00 24.44 JRNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 142.05 30.21 6/27/00 6/27/00 30.21 VENDOR TOTAL 30.21 05-00 WATER/SEWER JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER iOlO ?i-TiOO-9S~o 1010 ?i-?i00-95i0 1010 140.68 2.56 16.95 444.89 6/27/00 6/27/00 1,074.64 73-7300-2200 lOlO C0970 61374080 01-4140-3810 iOlO 61382133 0i-4 340-3810 1010 01-4280-2310 __1010 . 71-7100-3740 1010 64.12 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 19.72 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 46.98 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 46.98 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 37.38 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 46.99 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 64.43 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 20.52 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 44.14 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78.30 MISCELLANEOUS SU~JE~ ...... MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MI_SCEL~AN~.qU$_SU~P~.IES_ . MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES JRNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 1074.64 0/27/00 6/27/00 265.04 JRNL-CD MIX. ......................... JRNL-CD 244.16 6/27/00 6/27/00 244.16 COCA COLA BOT TL I N.G_TM~I_D_WE__ST_._V_EN~D_OR__TD_~ _A_L ........ 50 _9_..20_ ...................... Di154 67901 320.40 BEEP 01-4340-2200 01-4340-2300 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 .... 01-4140-2200 78-7800-2250 78~7800-220D... 70-4270-4210 73-7300-2200 01-4340-3820 01-4280-2300 78-7800-2300 01-4280-2360 22-4170-2200 iOlO 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9530 PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE MOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 6/~ ~0'---6~ 2-~ / 00 326.40 JRNL-CD - 101~ 68332 ........... 39_ 2_, _0. O___B_E_E R__ 71-7100-9530 6/27/00 6/27/00 302.00 JRNL-CD 1010 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO VENDOR TOTAL D1200 98266 3,340.70 BEER 71-7100-9530 o/27/00 6/27/oo .~£0~_7_~0_45~=£~ .............. 1010 98267 15.75 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE 71-7100-9550 6/27/00 6/27/00 15.75 JRNL-CD ........... lOlO 99064 795.05 BEER 7i-7i00-9530 6/27/00 6/27/00 795.05 JRNL-CD ............... lOiO. 99065 18.40 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 6/27/00 6/27/00 18.40 JRNL-CD ........... 1010 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 4169.90 D1280 15861 6/27/00 6/27/00 146.38 PAINT 01-4280-236 146.38 JRNL-CD 1 148.62 PAINT 01-4280-2360 I48.62 JRNL-CD 1010 357.33 PAINT 01-4280-2360 357.33 JRNL-CD 1010 129.15 PAINT 01-4280-2360 i29.i5 JRNL-CD 1010 15969 6/27/00 6/27/00 16625 6/27/00 6/27/00 16668 6/27100 6/27/00 VOGEL PAINTS VENDOR TOTAL 781.48 D1300 032798 6127/00 6/27/00 5 _. _8_!_ _~S_ E~ _C R_E_T_.A R__y .__P L__A__T_E ....................... 01-4020-2200 . 5.81 JRNL-CD 1010 DIXCO ENGRAVING VENDOR TOTAL E1420 638544 639644 6/27/00 O/27/00 640238 6/27/00 640239 5.~ ...................................... 358.00 BEER 6/2~7 ~ .......... 35_~ ~9___J~_N~D ...... 3,737.50 BEER 1,387.30 BEER _~L~.Z~_~ ............. !~ ~? ~_ _~-~_D ................... 42.40 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 641599 358.00 BEER 6/27/00 6/27/00 358.00 JRNL-CD 64254~ 8.~0 BEER 71-7100-9530 lOlO 71-7100-9530 lOlO 71-7100-9530 lOlO 71-7100-~550 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71--7100-95' PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 6/27/00 6/27/00 8.10 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER iOiO 642549 3,997.50 BEER ..................... ~-2~-~ '~,7-2 ~-) ~ O-- ........... 3~'9'9='Z-~-5-O----J~ L--~C--D ............. 71-7i00-9530 iOiO 643267 1,187.80 JRNL-CD 71-7100-Q530 lOiO 643268 27.I5 MISCELLANEOUS 6/27/00 6/27/00 27.15 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 1010 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL 11103.75 Ei450 i7384 300.00 6/27/00 6/27/00 300.00 i7385 4,710.00 6/27/00 6/27/00 05-00 DOWNTOWN REDEVEL DISTRIC JRNL-CD 05-00 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JRNL-CD 55-5880-3100 lOlO 55-5880-3100 1010 17386 6127/00 6127/00 i57.50 05-00 COAST TO COAST 157.50 JRNL-CD 55-5880-3100 ................. 1010.__ I7387 6/27/00 6/27/00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC VENDOR TOTAL 78.75 05-00 SCHOOL 78.75 JRNL-CD 5246.25 DISTRICT PROPERTY 55-5880-3100 ...... 1010_ hl4/z 1090~ 6/27/00 6/27/00 531.00 JULY-DEC 2000 SIREN MAINTENANC 01-4150-3260 531.00 JRNL-CD 1010 EM~kDUkD' SYSIEMS-lq~C. F1560 68919 -6-/277 IFO-- -672?7-0-0 1~7.87 SERVICE/FILL 167.87 JRNL-CD FIRE EXTINGUISHER 01-4140-2270 1010 68926 40.00 ANNUAL SERVICE ~-/'2~'/-/~'~--~7~0- 40.00 JRNL-CD 8 EXTINGUISHERS 01-4320-3830 ........... ~o~o 68927 157.69 ANNUAL SERVICE 6-/2~00--~7~??~0 -~7~'9-~NL-CD REPAIR DEPOT 01-4340-2330 lOiO FIRE 68928 102.46 ANNUAL SERVICE AND REPAIRS 1~'2=46 ANNUAL SERVICE A~'R~AIRS 102.47 ANNUAL SERVICE AND REPAIRS 6/27/00 6/27/00 307.39 JRNL-CD CONTROL EXTINGUISHER VENDOR TOTAL 672.95 01-4280-4200 73-7300-4200 78-7800-4200 1010 10.50 06-06-00 MATS 10.50 06-06-00 HATS 24.26 06-06-00 UNIFORMS 24.26 06-06-00 UNIFORMS 24.26 06-06-00 UNIFORMS %72~7'0-0---6727'/~0 .......... lO~.28--~RN~CD ............... 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 01-4280-2240 73-7300-2240 78-7800-2240 lOiO PAGE 5 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION --'--354056 36.89 05-30-00 MATS 6/27/00 6/27/00 36.89 JRNL-CD -- 358701 98.29 06-06-00 MATS 6/27/00 6127/00 98.29 JRNL-CD P ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4340-2330 1010 01-4320~4210 1010 363312 20.65 6/27/00 6/27/00 363310 363309 6/27/00 6/27/00 G & K SERVICES G1761 6?86 GME CONSULTANTS INC G1BO0 47956 0/27/00 6/27/00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/27/00 06-13-00 MATS 71-7100-4210 20.65 JRNL-CD 1010 .... 3 4~i-----~6L 1'--3 ~6 -~-A~'~ ............... 01 - e 3 4 0 - 2 3 3 0 34.41 JRNL-CD lOlO 20.57 06-i3-00 MATS 0i-4280-2250 20.5? 06-13-00 MATS ?3-7300-2250 20.57 06-13-00 MATS ___ 78-7800-2250 24.26 06-13-00 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 24.26 06-i3-00 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240 24.27 06-13-00 UNIFORMS ........ ?8-7800-2240 134.50 JRNL-CD 1010 429.02 550.00 04-01-00 TH'RU 05-20-00 CONSULT 30-6000-310 550.00 JRNL-CD _. . 550.00 6/27/00 VENDOR TOTAL 868.15 REPLACE WAFER PUMP 48025 6/27/00 6/2?/00 868.15 JRNL-CD 1010 843.78 FULL SERVICE ON LADDER TRUCK .... 22-4170-3820 843.78 JRNL-CD 1010 253.73 REPLACE CABLE/HOUSING ON SPEED 78-7800-3'82~ 253.73 JRNL-CD 1010 1,080.40 REPLACE AIR ~AG 78-7800-3810 1,080.40 JRNL-CD 1010 347.89 INSTALL FUEL PUMP, ETC 73-7300-3810 347.89 JRNL-CD 1010 48053 48240 48299 -" ~-~5---D-i-~ ~E-[-- ~91 C E G1886 000620 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 VENDOR TOTAL 3393.95 B18.44 CONFERENCE -- 38.00 MEETING EXPENSE 16.25 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT GINO BUSINARO VENDOR TOTAL 872.69 -~-?-7~ ......................................... 4~'~O~-'--RE~~-w--I~'~TE'L-~ ......... 6/27/00 6/27/00 472.00 JRNL-CD -- GLASS PCO5 ............... VE~DO~-TbT[~ ....... ~7~ ............................... 01-4090-4110 01-4090-4120 01-4090-3340 1010. 73-7300-4200 1010 PAGE 6 ,RP-C02-01 P U -V-E-ND 0 R I NVOI CE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NM~R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT &1905 50501 89.60 29.60 ........... ~Z 2~_/_0__0 _ _ 6Z.27_/~0 0 ......... 1_7_9~. 2_o__ GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, INC VENDOR TOTAL 179.20 R C H A S E J 0 U R N CITY OF HOUND DESCRIPTION 05-00 LOCATES 05-00 LOCATES A L G1972 221605 6/27/00 6/27/00 599.75 WINE 599.75 JRNL-CD 222770 6/27/00 6/27/00 255.87 LIQUOR 255.87 JRNL-CD 221427 1,723.69 6/27/00 6/27/00 1,723.69 ACCOUNT NUMBER 73-7300-3125 7d-7800-3125 1010 225371 1,513.20 6/27/00 6/27/00 1,513.20 --226174 308.46 0/27/00 6/27/00 308.46 71-7100-0520 1010 71-i100-9510 1010 LIQUOR .... 71-7100-95i0 JRNL-CD 1010 WIN~- ................................. 71-7100-9520 JRNL-CD 1010 LI@UOR 71-7100-9510 JRNL-CD 1010 228277 1,228.29 WINE 0/27/00 6/27/00 1,228.29 JRNL-CD 228~78 29.50 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 6/27/00 6/27/00 29.50 JRNL-CD COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 5658.76 71-7100-9520 1010 ---~i~i~o:~5~ ...... 1010 S1977 O00601-A 6/27/00 6/27/00 _!_6_5_.__3_9_ T___H__R_U__0A_-_0_!_-0_0___47_2_-._3__SSS ...... 22r4170-3220 165.39 JRNL-CD 1010 O00601-B 139.i5 THRU 06-01-00 472-3093 6/27/00 6/27/00 i39.15 JRNL-CD 21.42 THRU 06-01-00 472-0646 ..... 71-7100-3220 1010 000601-C -67~? 00 6/27/00 21.42 JRNL-CD 01-4340-3220 1010 G T E MINNESOTA VENDOR TOTAL 325.96 H2061 DM41212 20.00 CONTAINER CHARGE FOR 4 6/27/00 6/27/00 20.00 JRNL-CD CONT. 73-7300-2260 ...... 1010 ...... 263452 765.77 HYDRO-FLUOSILICIC ACID 73-7300-2260 6/27/00 6/27/00 765.77 JRNL-CD lOIO HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT VENDOR TOTAL 785.77 H~'3'--2-0~7~ ......................... ~L~--65~O~'~T~ORK-~HARG-~'- 6/27/00 6/27/00 39.99 JRNL-CD 01-4095-3800 1010 H~ENN~P-["N--C T Y .~ I N F~O--T E C H V E~DO ~--~T O~T ~-I] ........... 39.99 H2241 000608-A 8,229.45 05-00 MOUND VISIONS 6727¥06 .... ~£2 %/oo ......... ~,'22 ~.-~ ~'-}~E-~ ................. 55-5880-3100 1010 PAGE 7 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND .......................... i~ ~d~ ~ E .... ~6~ ~ 6[6 ................................ VENDOR N A L NO. INVOICE NM6R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 000608-B 3,506.99 05-00 MISCELLA,'JEOUS pLA~'~i-NG- 0/27/00 6/27100 3,506.99 JRNL-CD 3,479.70 05-00 TIF 3,479.70 JRNL-CD 000608-C 6/27/00 6/27/00 000608-D 1,933.75 05-00 6/27/00 6/27/00 1,933.75 JRNL-CD HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP,~ VENDOR TOTAL 17149.89 RELATED WORK ACCOU~;T NUMSER 01-4190-3100 1010 55-5880-3100 lOlO MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING 01-4190-3100 1010 H2283 0011329 26.50 MISCELLANEOUS 67~/~0 6/27/00 26.50 JRNL-CD HOME DEPOT/GECF VENDOR TOTAL 26.50 I2309 23670667 43.40 06-10-00 THRU 6/27/00 6/27/00 43.40 JRNL-CD 23670627 297.50 06-10-00 THRU 6/27/00 6/27/00 297.50 JRNL-CD IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL 340.90 IZ3fO OOO609 --51.35 PUELICATIONS 0/27/00 6/27/00 51.35 JRNL=CD INIE~NAIL 12400 5265 24.81 BATTERY 24.81 BATTERY 24.81 BATTERY 6/27/00 6/27/00 74.43 JRNL-CD 5299 i83.00 REPAIR GENERATOR 6/27/00 6/27/00 I83.00 JRNL-CD 5379 13.00 REPAIR FLAT TIRE 6/27/00 6/27/00 13.00 JRNL-CD 4988 48.00 SQUAD REPAIR 6/27/00 6/27/00 48.00 JRNL-CD 4992 61.86 SQUAD REPAIR 6/27/00 6/27/00 61.86 JRNL-CD 07-10-00 COPIER 01-4340-2200 1010 01-~320-3800 ......... ~OlO. 5014 33.84 SQUAD kEPAIR 6/27/00 6/27/00 33.84 JRNL-CD 50&8 25.86 SQUAD REPAIR 6/27/00 6/27/00 25.86 JRNL-CD 507i 219.89 SQUAD REPAIR 6/27/00 6/27/00 219.89 JRNL-CD 512~ 25.86 OIL CHANGE 07-10-00 COPIER 01-4320-3800 lOln ........ o~_&o~O_~17-6- - 1010 01-4280-381~ .................. 73_7300&3810 78-7800-3810 1010 78-7800-3810 1010 Oi-~2BO-3BiO lOlO 01-4140-3810 1010 01-4140-3810 lOlO 01-4140-3810 1010 01-~140-3810 1010 01-4140-3810 1010 Ol-&l&O-381C PAGE 8 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND --"~l~ INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 6/27/00 6/27/00 25.~6 JRNL-CD 1010 5202 ...................... .... 25_~86.__Q~_[H~.NGE ....................... 01-41~0-3810 6/27/00 6/27/00 25.86 JRNL-CD 1010 5239 25.86 6/27/00 6/27/00 25.86 g I L___C H_A N__GE ........................ oi-414o-38io JRNL-CD 1010 5276 25.86 OIL CHANGE .................... 01-4140-3810 0/27/00 6/27/00 25.86 JRNL-CD 1010 5284 ...... 13.00 FLAT TIRE REP~_~R ........... 01-4140-3810 6/27/00 6/27/00 13.00 JRNL-CD 1010 53Ol ......... AAZ~A2 RS)_R__~S_~S~O9 .............. o1-~14o-381o 6/27/00 6/27/0~ 437.92 JRNL-CD 1010 ISLAND PARK SKELLY VENDOR TOTAL 1214.24 J2509 000607 103.67 K-9 TRAINING/SCHOOL REIMBURSEM 01-4140-4110 _6/27/00 6/27/00 103.67_Z_ JRNL-CD ............ lOlO ASON SWENSON VENDOR TOTAL 103.67 573 217916 G.87 DUNDEE PARK FLOWERS 6/27/00 6/27/00 8.87 JRNL-CD JOHNS VARIETY & PETS VENDOR TOTAL 8.87 1010 J2579 1123558 1,834.07 LIQUOR o/27/00 6/27/00 1,834.07 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9510 1010 1123559 761.20 WINE 6/27/00 6/27/00 761.20 JRNL-CD 71-_7100-9520 1010 ii26i5o .... ~,_s~3_.7o LIQU__OR 6/27/00 6/27/00 i,587.70 JRNL-CD .......... 71-7100~9510~ 1010 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR VENDOR TOTAL 4182.97 J2610 000606 72.00 COUNCIL DOUGNUTS 6/27/00 6/27/00 72.00 JRNL-CD JUBILEE FOODS VENDOR TOTAL 72.00 01-4020-4120 . _ 1010. k~699 332~ 1,269.36 05-00 WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTE 36.00 05-00 MORTON LANE STREET VACAT 45b.60 05-00 COMM CTR BOND ELECTION 1,9~1.90 05-00 EXECUTIVE i08.00 05-00 ADMINISTRATIVE 30.00 05-00 PUBLIC SAFETY ................................. 767.34 05-00 PUBLIC WORK§ --- 33~.00 05-00 PLANNING AND ZONING 33288 447.40 05-00 HISCELLANEOUS BILLABLE oz-411o-37oo ol-23oo-zo89 o~-41~o-31oo oi-4iio-3ioo oi-~iio-3ioo oi-428o-3ioo oi-4i9o-3ioo ioio 55-5880-3100 PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J 0 U AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR R N A L INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION .......................... ~-'6~'~---~':~-~Eg~L~-MEN~-~R E A #1 ~ 33.~0 05-00 CONDEMNATION ......................... 291.50 05-00 LANGDON DISTRICT CONDEMN 374.00 05-00 MOUND MAINSTREET CUP 2,09_~.~__~_5-O0_~OU.~D_._~A~9~E._COHTRACT 264.00 05-00 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 0/27/00 6/27/00 7,i37.I9 JRNL-¢D KENNEDY & GRAVEN VENDOR TOTAL 12122.39 K2702 000609 KENNETH BECK L2811 10908 6.0_.Lp_O.__ R__U_N NJ~G _ S_H .0_ E_S_ 6/27/00 6/27/00 60.00 VENDOR TOTAL __ 60~0~ 6/27/00 6/27/00 JRNL-CD 28.11 2-PART MEMO FORMS 28.11 2-PART MEMO FORMS 28.11 2-PART MEMO FORMS 28.11 2-PART MEMO FORMS 2~.i1 2-PART MEMO FORMS 9.37 2-PART MEMO FORMS 9.37 2-PART MEMO FORMS 14.05 2-PART MEMO FORMS 14.04 2-PART MEMO FORMS 187.38 JRNL-CD 0/27/00 6/27/00 139.57 SUPPLIES 139.57 SUPPLIES 139.58 SUPPLIES 418.72 JRNL-CD L2822 1331740 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 418.72 -iq-',',3~l-6--7~d~ i43.50 06-02-00 D/27/00 6/27/00 143.50 JRNL-CD 23.80 06-05-00 6/27/00 6/27/00 23.80 JRNL-CD 6/27/00 6/27100 112.70 JRNL-CD 16.10 06-12-00 6/27/00 6/27/00 16.10 JRNL-CD 79.I0 06-15-00 6/27/00 6/27/00 79.i0 JRNL-CD -' Mg~R'l~--I N- F$-- TR O-C K- [N'~ ........ 9-£-~ D-O~ - T~T-A-L- ....... M3030 156952 1,219.79 BEER 6/27/00 6/27/00 1,219.79 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 55-5880-3100 55-58~0-3100 55-5880-3100 55-5880-3100 55-5880-3100 55-5880-3100 55-5880-3100 iOlO 01-4140-2240 1010 01-4040-2200 01-4090-2200 01-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 01-4340-2200 01-4280-220 71-7100-220 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 1010 0174280-2250 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 ............... 1010 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-710~'£9600 1010 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600 1010 DE L]~%~--~G'~ .... 71- 71 ooL 9600 1010 DELIVERY CHARGE 7i"7i00-9600 1010 DELiVER~C~A'R~E .......... 71_7100_9600 1010 71-7100-9530 10~ AP-C02-O1 VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR P U R C H ~ S E J OU;' NA L CITY OF INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS A:~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 156953 73.50 HISCELLANEOUS TAXAFLE ~/27/sC 6/27/00 7~.50 JRNL-CD i3-~9: ~ ........................ z,~ 6%-. 9~ ~E~ 0/27/00 6/27/00 2,604.90 JRNL-CD ~5~5 ..... 219.00 MISCELLANEOUS 0/27/60 6/27/00 219.00 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 1010 ?i-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 15~-~ g2.00 BEER 71-7100-g530 ~/27/00 6/27/00 92.00 JRNL-CD 1010 HARK 33334 534.20 05-00 SEAL COAT PROJECT 27-5800-3100 6 ?~-? ~-o 6-- '6-£2 t'7'O-o ........... -53Z J 2-0- -J~i~.-L ~ D- ..................... 101o 33335 1.~ 6__.__0 . 0__ _0_5 .-._O.O__E.:N_G_I_!! E__E_RI. NG SE_Ry I~ C_CS- ~ / ~7/~-~-~-2-? / 00 196.00 JRNL-CD 01-2300-1066 ioiO 33336 43.00 05-00 MISC EN~GI.__N_E_ER__I__N_~__S~ER_V_I_C_E ........ oi-Ai9o=]ioo ~-/~-~-0~--~-7 ~ 43 . 00 JR NL - C D 10 10 33337 430.00 05-00 ENG FOR 5LDG/INSPECTIONS .... 01-419~0_-3~00 _ . ~ / 2-T 0-/~-~-- -6 ?~?~ 43 (~ .~0-0- JRNL-CD 1010 33338 55_~_._O_O~__D_5_-~OO__E.N_G__~.L._AN__~_~.!_NG~_AN_D_ .Z_ON!NG . . ois~ivo-3ioo 559.00 JRNL-CD ioio 33339 ~3.00 05-00 ENG SERVICES STREET DEPT 01-4280-3100 1010 33~40 150.50 05-00 ENG SERVICES WATER/SEWER 73-7300-3i00 ......... %727/¢0 6/27/00 i50.56-'-J~[:-c~ .................... lOiO 33340-6 150.50 05-00 ENG SERVICES WATER/SEWER 78-7800-3100 6'/2-77~--67'2'77~ .......... 1~-0-~-56---J~-~[~-~ ................ 1010 33341 43.00 05-00 ENG ..................... ~f2T/0 O --'~-72~?~- ............ ~'~'--- Z~'~ [=~D SERVICES PARKS DEPAR 01-4340-3100 1010 33342 286.50 05-00 AUDITORS RD MSAP 145-1o8 26-5700-3i00 33343 910.40 05-00 ALTA SURVEY LANGDON DIST 55-5880-3100 1010 33344 492.00 05-00 SURFACE WATER ~ANAGEMENT ........................ %727/~6 6727Y~0 ........ 4~2.06 'jRNL'-CD 01-4190-3100 1010 33345 43.00 05-00 HAPLE MANORS SUB-DIVISIO 01-2300-1046 1010 i29.00 05-00 STORM WATER UTILITY 01-4190-3100 1010 PAGE il P U R £ H A S E AP-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL 33347 347.30 05-00 GRADING PERMIT APPLICAT¥-- 6/27/00 6/27/00 3~7.30 JRNL-CD 33348 43.00 05-00 METRO PLAINS PROPOSE~-D£ 6/27/00 6/27/00 43.00 JRNL-CD 33349 185.00 6/27/00 6/27/00 185.00 ACCOUNT NUMBER - o1'~0~:10,~ - 1010 01-2300-1096 lOlO 33350 3,703.70 0/27/00 6/27/00 3,703.70 33351 381.00 05-00 5212 6/27/00 6/27/00 381.00 JRNL-CD 33352 1,471.00 6/27/00 6/27/00 1,471.00 JRNL-CD 33355 594.30 05-00 SENIOR 6/27/00 6/27/00 594.30 JRNL-CD 33356 43.00 05-00 GUBRUD 6/27/00 6/27/00 43.00 JRNL-CD 33357 5,375.20 0/27/00 6/27/00 5,375.20 33353 309.00 05-00 CNG SERV cfF~-~}~-D~E[ .... 55"58'80-3100 JRNL-CD 1010 05-00 COAST TO COAST DISf'RI--~ ...... ~5258~0'3100 JRNL-CD 1010 LYNWOOD SUB-DI¥~'i'~--- 01~2300-1097 1010 o5-o0 AUDITORS RD ALi~--~£Y---- 55~5880'3100 1010 CITIZEN CENi-E~- ....... 0i:2300-1oB~ 1010 PROP'~TY sOB---Df~I '- ~i-2300'1091 1( 6/27/00 6/27/00 309.00 JRNL-CD 33354 1,095.00 05-00 REX ALVIN PROPERTY 6/27/00 6/27/00 1,095.00 JRNL-CD MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCI* VENDOR TOTAL 17557.60 05-00 BOUNDARY AND TOPO SuRvE~ ...... 5~"~88~-31O0 - JRNL-CD 1010 05-00 MINOR SUB-DIVISION ....................... Oi:~300-io~s lOlO M3170 0000700523 .... 2~.~ 2~_m~ 0 07-00 0/27/00 6/27/00 29,826.00 JRNL-CD ..... 01-2300-1095 1010 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVI* VE_ND~O__R__TO__T__A_L_ ....... 2_9~_2_8_.0__0__ .............................. M3250 000602 53.57 04-19-00 THRU 05-17-00 5801 BA ..... 9.~.12 .... O__~_4~.~9__-~_.~H~U_Q~l~O~_~81~ C.U_. 32.80 0~-19-00 THRU 05-17-00 LIQUOR 3,567.71 04-19-00 THRU 05-17-00 FIRE ST 380.09 04-19-00 THRU 05-17.-00_ 5341 .MA ........................................................ ~'~- O~-~"YHRU ~5-17-00 STREETS 22.63 04-i9-00 THRU 05-17-00 WATER 2~.05 04-19-00 THRU 05-17-00 SEWER ......................... 6/27/00- ~27)0~-- - ~;220~7~--'J~-CD ' ' ' MINNEGASCO VENDOR TOTAL 4220.79 M3312 000619 124.80 CONFERENCE REIMBURSEMENT 6/27/00 6/2?/00 124.80 JRNL-CD MEISEL. PAT VENDOR TOTAL 12&.80 78-7800-4230 1010 01-4340-3720 01-4340-3720 71-7100-3720 22-4170-3720 01-4320-3720 01-4280-3720 73-7300-3720 7~-7800-3720 iOlO 01-4020-4110 1010 PAGE 12 PURCHASE JOURNAL AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION M3436 000613 40.00 07-01-00 THRU 06-30-01 DUES 5/27/00 6/27/00 40.00 JRNL-CD FINANCE VENDOR TOTAL 6/27/00 6/27/00 MUNICIPAL CLERKS & N3800 O00529 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO VENDOR TOTAL 03894 155979 6/27/00 6/27/00 TTEN BROTHERS VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 21.99 04/28/00-05/29/00 0466-607-223 469.95 04 / 28/~0 ~-_0_5_L2_9/_00 _ 191_4_- 601- 425 4,095.25 04/28/00-05/29/00 0217-606-329 419.45 04/28/00-05/29/00 2184-407-147 .__ 2_0_ 2_._7~6__ _0_4 _/28/__0_0 r 05./2.9/_00__ Q 04 ?-_ 00~ ~ 229 101.48 101.48 101.47 1,302.67 309.38 8,356.64 8356.64 15.98 15.98 15.98 ~4/28/00-05/29/0~ 086&-50~-832 04/28/00-05/29/00 0864-508-832 04/28/00-05/29/00 0018-802-634 04/28/00-05/29/00 0009-604-835 JRNL-CD SOD JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4020-4130 1010 01-4320-3710 01-4150-3710 71-7100-3710 78-7800-3710 22-4170-3710 01-4340-3710 01-4280-3710 73-7300-3710 78-7800-3710. 78-7800-3710 01-4280-3710 1010 P4021 614655 644.65 LIQUOR 6/27/00 6/27/00 644.65 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9510. 1010 614656 563.55 WINE 71-7100-9520 1010 614657 87.00 MIX ~?~7-/00 6/27/00 87.00 JRNL-CD ........... 71y7100-9540 . _ 1010 616872 1,044.35 WINE 0/27/00 6/27/00 1,044.35 JRNL-CD __71-7100-9520 101~ 616873 ........... ~'?~-~---~? ~ 7 / o o 111.75 MIX NON-TAXABLE 111.75 JRNL-CD PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS, * VENDOR TOTAL 2451.30 PG036 31360 909.15 CIGARETTE5 6/27/00 6/27/00 909.15 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 31367 31.95 0/27/00 6/27/00 31.95 31634 858.73 6/27/00 6/27/00 858.73 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 1799.83 -T4049 6274~ ......................................... ~ .-~ 0-- --' 6/27/00 6/27/00 38.90 MISCELLANEOUS JRNL-CD CIGARETTES JRNL-CD JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-4200 1010 PAGE 13 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION PLU)JKETT'S, INC VENDOR TOTAL 38.90 ACCOUNT NUMBER P4118 7401 6~27100 6127/00 iO0.O0 JRNL-CD 01-4140-5000 1010 34171 841216-00 6/27/00 6/27/00 73.70 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9540 1010 841440-00 1,356.73 LIQUOR 6/27/00 6/27/00 1,356.73 JRNL-CD ........ 71-7100r9510 1010 841786-00 6/27/00 6/27/00 68.31 WINE 68.31 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9520 1010 841215-00 6/27/00 6/27/00 2,199.64 LIQUOR 2,199.64 JRNL-CD .w 71-7100-9510 _ 1010 B43460-00 6/27/00 6/27/00 44.69 MIX 44.69 JRNL-CD ........... ?l:71oo.r.?S4Q ..... 843477-00 b/27/00 4,467.30 LIQUOR 6/27/00 4,467.30 JRNL-CD ..... 71-7100.-951~ 1010 845603-00 %-T277-0~72 7 / 00 2,783.72 LIQUOR 2,783.72 JRNL-CD ............... _71_T710p:g510 __ 1010 846066-00 100.50 LIQUOR 0/27/00 6/27/00 100.50 JRNL-CD .................. 7.1,71.00-9510 1010 840164-00 0/-2-~0 6/27/00 85.64 WINE 85.64 JRNL-CD .... 71-7100-9520 ...... 1010 QUALITY WINE g SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 11180.23 R4199 000612 136.70 REPLACE 6/27/00 6/27/00 i36.70 JRNL-CD BALLAST DISPLAY CASE 01-4340-2330 lOlO 000616 R.C. ELECTRIC, INC. 6/27/00 223.68 REPLACE RECEPTICLES DEPOT DECK 6/27/00 223.68 JRNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 360.38 01-4340-2330 1010 '--R-z~ 91T--6~g 0-0 155.61 ICE 6/27/00 6/27/00 155.61 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 1010 6/27/00 6/27/00 186.42 JRNL-CD 71-7100~9550 1010 6-4-~99' " Y28.84 ICE ....................... 6/27/00 6/27/00 128.84 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 1010 6~5'v~ .................................. -~3-;-~-'--~CK ............... ~/27/00 6/27/00 85.99 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 PAGE AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE CITY OF HOUND VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION RON' S ICE COHPANY VENDOR TOTAL 556.86 JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER S4349 2015549 SCHARBER & SONS 55.55 BELTS ..... 01_4340_3800" 6/27/00 6/27/00 55.55 JRNL-CD 1010 VENDOR TOTAL 55.55 S4390 000627 SHORELINE PLAZA S4400 2119 2,576.64 JULY 2000 L_!.~U~_~_~AL.~PA.CE .... 7~-7100-3920 ._ 6/27/00 6/27/00 2,576.64 JRNL-CD 1010 VENDOR TOTAL ....... 2~.6.64 90.10 VEHICLE SIGNS 01-4320-2200 6/27/0~__6/J_7_/_~ .......... _9_O~O___J~L-CD ..... 10~0 SIGNS OF THE SEASON VENDOR TOTAL 90.10 54434 90070728 6/27/00 6/27/00 SOUTHERN MINNESOTA CONSTR~ VENDOR TOTAL ~4448 000627 6/27/00 6/27/00 SPORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL S4498 613303600272 6/27/00 6/27/00 STA~ TRIBUNE --~ 862 2,825.00 TUB GRINDER 2,825.00 JRNL-ED 1010 2825.00 325.00 07-00 DOG_~E~NN_E~__.~_E_~ ................. 01~4140,4270_._ 325.00 JRNL=CD 1010 325.00 416.00 AD FOR CSO 06-04-00 416.00 JR_N!z~D_= VENDOR TOTAL 416.00 01-4140-3410 ............ 1010 31.83 05-13-00 BUSINESS SUBSIDY 01-2300'1093' 31.83 JRNL-CD 6/27/00 6/27/00 ~727/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 33.71 05-13-00 BUSINESS SUBSIDY 33.71 JRNL-CD 18.73 05-13-00 NOT~E-RE~6NI-N~- ' - 18.73 JRNL-CD 14.98 JRNL-CD ....... 8"73 ......' ........................ 1-4:-98-- 0/27/00 6/27/00 14.98 JRNL-CD ~/27/00 6/27/00 44.94 JRNL-CD 993 -- ......... 6/27/00 6/27/00 621.67 06-10-00 SUMMARY ~i'~CE ~bPPo 621.67 JRNL-CD o/27/00 6/27/00 187.25 JRNL-CD 994 01-2300-1093 lOlO 012230021088 101o 01-2300-1088 lOlO 01-2300-I088 1010 01-2300-109~ lOlO 01-4090-~510 lOlO 73-7300-3510 1010 PAGE 15 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 899 59.92 06-03-00 CUP REZONING 1000 ROB 0/27/00 6/27/00 __ 59__. 9_2_ J_R ~L_r_C D 900 59.92 06-03-00 STREET EASEMENT VACAT 6/27/00 6127/00 59.92___J~N_L_r~_D 991 THE LAKER T473i 322 THE LAKER/PIONEER T4770 195395 59.92 06-03-00 STREET EASTMENT VACAT 6/27/00 6/_?_7J90 ...................... 59.92 _J.RNL~ C D VENDOR TOTAL 1147.85 306.00 04-17-00 ADVERTISEMENT 0/27/00 6/27/00 306.00 JRNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 206.00 183.30 MISCELLANEOUS 6/27/00 6/27/00 183.30 JRNL-CD 19540i 4,332.30 BEER 6/27/00 6/27/00 4,332.30 JRNL-CD 167612 281.00 BEER KEGS 6/27/00 6/27/0~ 281.00 JRNL-CD 168069 303.00 BEER 6127/00 6/27/00 303.00 JRNL-CD _ 196136 60.50 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 6/27/00 6/27/00 60.50 JRNL-CD i96137 4,858.35 BEER 6/27/00 6/27/00 4,858.35 JRNL-CD THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL 10018.45 T4790 40330 2.95 TAX ON INVOICE #40329 6/27/00 6/27/00 2.95 JRNL-CD THURK BROS CHEVROLET VENDOR TOTAL 2.95 0/27/00 6/27/00 122.75 05-18-00 POSC HEETING 122.75 JRNL-CD 12740 110.75 06-08-00 POSC MEETING 6/27/00 6/27/00 110.75 JRNL-CD --T i-R E--S-A~-E~R-- d i: F 'S i 1' E'-'.S~'CJ~ E'~-V-E N-ffCf ~ '--l' 0 T Al- ............ ~-~'.-~0-- T495i 061105 ........................... 2~t~ ._~U_L~.C..H_6IN, ETC 6127/00 6127100 21.77 JRNL-CD ._.T_ _R_U_E . y_A ~ _U _E .................. _V E N.D O_R_ _T_O] A_L- ....... 2~.o77 .................. T4985 258866-0 25.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-2300-1090 - lOlO 01-2300-1090 lOlO 01-2300-1089 1010 ~i'7i0o-35o0 1010 71-7100-9550 .... 1010 71-7100,9530 ...... 1 1010 ....... 71-7100-9530_ 1010 71-7100-9550 1010 ............... ~1~71U0.~530 1010 01-4280-2340 1010 0i-4340-4200 "- 1010 01-4340'4200 1010 01-4340-2300 1010 01-4040-220 PAGE 16 P U R C H A 5 E J 0 U R N AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND ...................VENDOR ~-N-VO-I ~E- ..... ~-I:I~E-- -' H O-L-I~ ................................. NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION TWIN A L 258359-0 259067-0 258424-1 0/27/00 b/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 25.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES ............... 25-~___OF~[~_.SUP~E_S_ .......... 25.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.48 OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6/27/00 169.67 JRNL-CD 2.65 DRAWER FRAME 6/27/00 2.65 JRNL-CD I22.48 FEMININE PRODUCTS 6/27/00 122.48 JRNL-CD 79.23 CASSETTE TAPES 6/27/00 79.23 JRNL-CD 259029-0 40.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 40.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 258424-0 6/27/00 6/27/00 40.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 40.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 40.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.58 OFFICE SUPPLIES i3.58 OFFICE SUPPLIES 20.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES 20.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES 271.58 JRNL-CD 48.85 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2.81 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6/27/00 6/27/00 2.81 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.22 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.22 OFFICE SUPPLIES 363.16 PODIUM 459.79 JRNL-CD 12.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES .............................................. 12.6i-- OF~-I~-sOP-~['[ES ......... 12.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES ....................................... ~-.O~---O~-F~E ~b~[~ ......... 6.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES ........................................ ~..~-~-~I'ZE~; S'~A-~,--~Y-C ....... 4.75 TAPE FLAG POST ITS 6/27/00 6/27/00 96.34 JRNL-CD CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENgOR TOTAL i201.74 ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4090-2200 01-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 01-4340-2200 01-4280-2200 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 1010 01-4090-2200 1010 01-4320-2200 1010 01-4020-2200 i010 01-4040-2200 _ 01~09Q~2200 01-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 ............ 01T4340-2200 01-4280-2200 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200_ 78-7800-2200 IOlO ....... oi'%o40-22o'o- 0~-4090-2200 . .o1-4t4o-21oo .... 01-4190-2200 Ol-4S4o-2~oo __ 01-4280-2200 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 __ ~78-7800-220~ _ 01-4320-2200 1010 01-4040-2200 01-4090-2200 01-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 01-4340-2200 01-4280-2200 71-7100-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 01-4040-2200 01-4190-2200 1010 PAGE 17 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER U5102 31.95 07-00 ~ALBOA PARKING ........................................................ 3~..~ ...... 0~-~0 BALBOA_~ARKING ........ 31.95 07-00 BALBOA PARKING 6/27/00 6/27/00 95.85 JRNL-CD ...........................JNITED PROPERTIES ~ E-~ ~ ~--~ ~A~ .......... 01-4280-4200 7~-7300-4200 78-7800-4200 1010 V5160 000608-A 6/27/00 6/27/00 i3_i_,53 ._W_A__T¢_H~__S_T~E_GRAND _RETIREMENT. 0i-4020-4i00. 13i.53 JRNL-CD 10~0 000608-B 97.-_06..._P_L.A_~U_E_,__.ST_E.VE __GRAND RET IREMENT 01-4140-4100 6/27/00 6/27/00 97.06 JRNL-CD 1010 ~5450 000709 12.00 PUBLICATION oi-~o90-4i?o 19.95 EARTHLI~K_JNT~RNE_T_MONTHL~__ 22-4170-4i30 239.40 HARRELL, INTERNET ANNUAL 0i-4i40-4i30 40.15 FINANCE CHARGE 0i-4090-4100 6/27/00 6/27/00 311.50 JRNL-C~ .......... 1010_ WELLS FARGO W5630 VENDOR TOTAL 3ii.so 3345 350.00 05-19-00 DUG uP-~ff~t'-P~P~ ......... 73-730'~13800 6/27/00 6/27/00 350.00 JRNL-CD iOiO 3~-~6 630.00 05-10-00 RIDGE~6~D-'~--~D~'X~T ..... 7~-~300-3800 6/27/00 6/27/00 030.00 JRNL-CD 1010 3~4~ ........... ~-- 05-16-00 SUNSET & SYC~O~ .......... 7B-780-0-~800 " 0/27/D0 6/27/00 372.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ~8 603.00 05-03-00 HIGHLAND & DOVE LANE. 01~4280-4200- 6/27/00 6/27/00 603.00 JRNL-CD 1010 334~ 350.00 05-19-00 CTY RD 110 §~ND' PIPE 73-7300-3800 6/27/00 6/27/00 350.00 JRNL-CD ~010 --~-]~q~-T~C- VENDOR TOTAL 2305.00 Z5850 1978 ~___W!XED SA~9_L.I~!~ ......... -- ~2.60 WAXED CAR ~ASH LIeUID 42.60 WAXED CAR WASH LIeUID 6/27/00 ZACK'S INC VENDOR TOTAL 127.80 765~-~-~6~~ .................................... 2~.~---~-j~O~---~'~-3~-oO-HRA 6/27/00 6/27/00 20.00 JRNL-CD ~613 -~00 06-13-00 VIDEO/EDIT M~fIN~ 6/27/00 6/27/00 lO.O0 JRNL-CD -~O~]~-'~-U~AR~ ............... 9EN~o'R 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 1010 01-4020-4030 1010 01-4020-4030 1010 Attest: City Clerk DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE # 00-29: HASBRO/CITY OF MOUND; PUBLIC HEARING. MORTON LANE STREET VACATION The City Planner stated the vacation was needed in order to construct a wetland for tree and groundwater contamination problems. Staff found that the dedications were not specific enough and felt it would be best to vacate and hold in private ownership. The ponding wetland portion of this review is not being looked at tonight. That is part of Watershed district review. Every agency involved in this project finds this solution acceptable. The other issue involved is that the City has the lineal footage of lakeshore involved and that counts toward the docks program. The vacation will remove 400 feet and decrease the amount of boat storage the City has available. After the wetland is constructed the lakeshore could then be included and would possibly be a gain in footage for the dock program. The City Engineer has issues with the utilities and a storm sewer. Easements need to be obtained. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the vacation of Morton Lane as requested. Weiland asked if Morton Lane was vacated, what would happen to the west side property owners. The City Planner stated that half of Morton Lane would be vacated. Hasbro would get the east half and property owners would get the west half. The City Planner stated that Hasbro is working on an arrangement to get an easement portion or right of way for the wetland. Burma asked when the shoreline would be refigured into the City dock system. The City Planner stated this would happen after the wetland was completed and what is being built had been verified. At that time, the amount of shoreline at lake level could be recalculated. This scenario assumes that the portion of Morton Lane that is vacated would come back to the City. Hasbro has indicated that when they no longer need the wetland, they may give it back to the City, but this would be far in the future. Voss asked what portion of the dock program would be affected by loosing the 400 feet. The City Planner stated that a total of seven miles was included in the City dock program. Voss asked how many actual boat spaces would be lost. DRAFT The City Planner stated that eight spaces would be eliminated. Burma stated that the City currently has 100 extra BSUs but the Woodland Point litigation will eliminate between 15 and 45 spaces leaving a reserve of 55. He also stated that there could be more litigation in the future and that he was concerned about eliminating eight spaces. Burma stated that abutters to the City lakeshore are becoming more intense about not having boats in front of their properties. Brown stated that the Woodland Point issue worked out so that no spaces were lost in docks in front of read. Burma stated that he had heard that 40 boats were affected with a net loss of about 15. Brown stated that those boats were saved at that area. Burma asked for documentation on this when it becomes available. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing at 9:41 p.m. Ron Lopergalo, 2162 Cardinal Lane, stated that according to the graph shown, the pollution stops at the Hasbro property line, but how do they know it stops there. He felt there was a possibly the pollution had leached onto his property or into the lake. Mr. Lopergalo asked if Morton Lane would be vacated all the way out to the lake. Mueller stated that was not clear at this time. Brown stated that if Moron Lane was vacated all the way to the lake, more boat units would be lost. Tony Clap, 2180 Cardinal Lane, questioned why the vacation was need. Mr. Clap asked if it was possible to classify this as a road improvement and then the City would not lose dock spaces. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, stated that he hopes the Commission follows the Staff recommendation as he feels this is the most common sense solution. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing at 9:45 p.m. Voss asked Staff if some type of action would be taken to improve the remaining section of Morton Lane to the lake if the vacation was approved. The City Planner stated that the channel is technically a right of way, but is not technically a City commons, although the City owns it. The City Planner stated that the City has some responsibility. Voss stated that the City is shirking its responsibility. The City Planner stated that something about clean up should be done. Kevin P. England, Hasbro, Inc., explained that they are dealing with a groundwater problem. They have defined the width and the flow of the groundwater. This does not flow up. Mr. England stated that regarding the issue of the number of docks, in all likelihood, Hasbro does not really know how big the wetland will be. In reference to the question about why a vacation was requested, Mr. England stated that Hasbro wanted an easement initially, but the City Council did not think they had the ability to use it for anything the City 767 DRAFT wanted because it was initially taken for a road. In reference to the amount of shoreline in question and when the land would come back to the City, Mr. England stated that Hasbro does not want the land or the docks, but they do want to make sure that the property is fixed before they give back. At that time, Hasbro wishes to dedicate this property as a park or open space. Whatever shoreline is available can be given to the City to use in the dock program. Once Hasbro knows the property is fixed, it would be dedicated to the City, but it could be used as a park prior to that with an easement. Mueller asked what the increase in total pollutants coming into the area would be. Mr. England stated that the pollutants would not increase, but would, in fact, decrease. Mueller clarified that testing has shown that there is a decrease in contaminants over time. Mr. England confirmed this. Mueller asked whether the City would still end up with a park if this process did not work. Mr. England stated that the City would still get the park, but as long as Hasbro owned it, no active recreation would be allowed. Mr. England stated that they had met with the DNR and there were still a lot of hurdles. Hasbro has an obligation to do this cleanup. Hasbro is creating wetlands, planting trees, dedicating a park, providing storm water and runoff control, but they need this first step to happen. The City Planner asked Mr. England to explain how the vacation would work with half going to Hasbro and half going to the property owner. Mr. England stated that would happen in a separate purchase agreement, which was already being discussed. Michael asked how Mr. Codd would deed the land back to the City. Mr. England stated that Hasbro would buy it from him gaining control of all the land and then give to the City. Burma asked Mr. England how much linear shoreline was available. Mr. England said that Hasbro is still working on the final design, but he suspects a net gain will be the result. Burma stated that his biggest concern was that he had been told that once the dock spaces are gone, the program never gets them back. Burma stated that he was concerned that shifting 400 feet to get 100 feet, would result in losing spaces in the interim. Mr. England confirmed the spots would be lost until the area was built. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss to accept the Staff recommendation with condition of approval of the City utility easements. AYES: 6 (Michael, Glister, Hasse, Voss, Weiland, Brown) NAYS: 2 (Burma, Mueller) MOTION CARRIED. 06/21/00 WED 14:53 F.~ 330 6590 NSP DEL SYS CONST ~002 Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.1993 Telephone (612) 330-5500 Junc 21, 2000 RECEIVED JUN 2 2 2000 t~'~0UND PLANNIi'~U & INSP. MoundPlanning &Inspections City of Mound 5341MaywoodRoad Moun&MN55364 Re: Vacation Case No. 00-29 This is written in reference to a copy of the Application of Hasbro Tonka, Inc. distributed to NSP on May 9, 2000 concerning the vacation of the southern portion of Morton Lane north of Lynwood Boulevard and east of Cardinal Lane in Mound, lV[N. Please be advised that NSP needs to retain an easement over all of the property subject to the above referenced vacation. Sincerely, Diane Ablan Re',fl Estate Representative Land Services 612 33O-2943 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. in-ii l ln TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Morton Lane Street/Easement Vacation OWNER: City of Mound CASE NUMBER: 00-29 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5 LOCATION: Morton Lane and Lynwood Blvd. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Hasbro Corp., is proposing the City consider vacation of that portion of Morton Lane adjacent to Lots 5, 6, and 7 of Block 2 and Lotsl2, 13, 14, 15, and % of 16, Block 9 of Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park. The vacation request is for the entire width of Morton Lane and about 200 feet of length, north of Lynwood Blvd. Dedication of Morton Lane through the original platting would split the right-of-way in half and would be granted to the adjacent properties. Although Morton Lane is a dedicated public right-of-way, it has never served as a roadway. Rather, it has allowed the adjacent properties to gain lake access through the City's dock program for boating. The channel was historically dredged some time after the adjacent lands were platted in 1909. Land records prior to platting indicate a wetland covered the area. Today, much of Morton Lane lies below the normal lake elevation although it is very. shallow and serves only small boats and canoes. Hasbro Corporation would like to vacate this portion of the Morton Lane so a wetland can be constructed within the right-of-way and their abutting property to the west. The wetland would serve bioremediation purposes to treat contaminated groundwater before convergence with Lake Minnetonka. (See the Project Description attached to the application.) DISCUSSION: That portion of Morton Lane that is at the normal lake level is counted as lineal footage in the City's dock program. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District allows the City a certain number of boat storage units based on the amount of lakeshore that is in public ownership. If vacated, the City would lose a little more than 400 feet from the program. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 g00-29 Morton Lane Vacation Request June 12, 2000 Staff has reviewed the options of constructing the wetland without vacating. It is apparent that because of the ambiguous language in the purposes of the right-of-way dedication that Morton Lane must be vacated in order for the wetland to be constructed as proposed. The purpose of the constructed wetland does appear to serve a public purpose by protecting the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. Because this portion of Morton Lane does not act as a service point for lake access to the adjacent properties or Lynwood Blvd., it does not appear to serve an immediate public purpose outside of frontage in the LMCD dock program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the vacation of Morton Lane as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 7 / Engineering o Planning ° Surveying FRA RECEIVED JUN 0 7 2000 '.,;0UND PLANNING &/NS/: MEMORANDUM DATE: June 6, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer ~~ City of Mound Street Vacation, Morton Lane Case #00-29 MFRA #12626 Comments This review and report will cover only the requested street vacation and is not intended as approval/recommendation for any other action. It appears the applicant intends on using the full width of the proposed vacated right-of-way; however, I see no reference on who ownership of the east half will revert to. In normal vacation procedures, the vacated right-of-way would belong to the property owners on each side. Has this question been resolved? The City has a number of utilities located within the unimproved right-of-way, including storm sewer and a sanitary sewer lift station. Easements will need to be retained for these utilities. The applicant and the City will need to determine the extent of these easements, possibly drainage and utility easements could be retained over the entire vacated area. We would recommend approval of the proposed street vacation with the condition of retaining easements for the City utilities. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. s:knmin :XlVlou 12626:\Cormspondenccksutherland6-5 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-ma#: mfra@mfra, com Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 534i Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2000 Plannin9 Commission Date: ]~t~ ~ City Council Date: ,- I [,~'~J ~'5 27, Distribution:_, ,~ - c/¢OCity Planner 5-G" ¢"z,~ity Engineer ~'.. 5' ~ Public Works Minnegasco Police Dept. ~q"-G · cDFire Dept. Case No. C,O-P P Application Fee: $250.00 ~"' ~"~; NSP ~'. p'o-~, GTE .~. ~' ~K:)ther Please type or printthefollowing information: Hasbro lonka Inc APPLICANT Name 1027 Newport Avenue", Address Pawtucket, R! 02862 Phone (H) (W) 401-727-5621 (M) ADJACENT PROPERTY ~PPLICAN~S PROPERTY) Adjacen[ Address Name of Business Lot Subdivision Block PID# Plat ZONING DISTRICT DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Morton Lane- southern portion, as shown on attached Figure 1. REASON FOR REQUEST IS THERE A PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LAND? KevJn P. Print Applicant's Name for Please see attached Addendum Please see attached Addendum Applicant's Si~jnatdre / · . Hasbro Tonka, Inc. A~h~nt's Name ~s Signature Date Date Project Description & Statement of Purpose in Support of Application for Street Vacation for a portion of Morton Lane Mound, Minnesota May 3, 2000 RECEIVED NAY 0 8 MOUND PLANNIN6 Location The proposed area for vacation is a portion of Morton Lane (formerly Morton Avenue) immediately east of Hasbro propervy on the northeast corner of Cardinal Lane and Lynwood Boulevard. This area is shown on the attached Figure 1, and hereafter referred to as the 'Proposed Area'. Morton Lane is located between Block 9 and Block 10 of the Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park and runs from Lynwood Boulevard (formerly Bryant Avenue) on the south to Harrison Bay of Lake Minnetonka on the north as shown on Figure 2. Morton Lane was designated for use as a City Street in 1909. The Proposed Area is currently the southern end of a dredged channel, as shown on the attached Figure 3. The 1909 plat map (Figure 2) shows Morton Lane was a wetland while the 1914 plat of the land east of the channel (Figure 3) shows Morton Lane as open water, suggesting the channel was dredged between 1909 and 1914. Background Tonka Corporation operated a facility in Mound, Minnesota for the manufacture of metal and plastic toys from 1954 through 1982. Hasbro, Inc. acquired Tonka in 1991, after Tonka ceased operating the Mound facility. Soil and groundwater investigations in the vicinity of the former Tonka facility were first completed in the mid-1980s. Laboratory analyses of groundwater samples from shallow (15-feet deep) monitoring wells identified an area of groundwater with elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) between the former Tonka facility and the Proposed Area. This impacted groundwater is referred to as the north plume, and extends to the southern end of the dredged channel located within Morton Lane (see Figure 4). Specific chemicals of concern in the north plume include trichloroethene (TCE), dichloroethenes (DCE), and vinyl chloride. In 1998, additional site investigations showed higher concentrations of VOCs were present approximately 20 feet below the ground surface. An evaluation of the north plume monitoring data based on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) guidance showed that natural attenuation, a process where chlorinated VOCs are mineralized to carbon dioxide water and chloride, is occurring. However, vinyl chloride concentrations in groundwater samples collected near the Proposed Area exceeded the State of Minnesota Surface Water Quality Criteria, requiring further action. Several alternatives for remediating the north plume groundwater were considered by Hasbro and the MPCA. For example, one alternative would be to pump the groundwater to the surface for treatment and discharge to the sanitary sewer. However, this approach is less appropriate for this site because it would require placement of unsightly and intrusive pump-and-treat equipment in a residential neighborhood, may result in seasonally dewatering wetlands in the vicinity of the Proposed Area, and would place an additional load upon the local wastewater collection and treatment system. Chemical treatment of the north plume was also considered. However, the application of this technology would require injecting additional chemicals into groundwater to destroy the chemicals of concern, and would require a variance from Minnesota Department of Health regulations. Given these options, both Hasbro and the MPCA believe that a natural, non-invasive approach for both remediating the north plume and matching the needs of the surrounding neighborhood is the best remedial alternative for the north plume. Recommended Remedial Action The recommended alternative for treating the north plume and protecting the surface water in Harrison Bay of Lake Minnetonka is restoring the former wetland within the Proposed Area. This recommendation was presented to the MPCA in November 1999 and was approved in December 1999. Many recent studies have confirmed that the microbiological processes occurring in wetlands mineralize chlorinated VOCs. Groundwater discharging through a wetland encounters both anaerobic and aerobic environments. The anaerobic zone is present at the bottom of the wetland. In this zone, microorganisms use decaying organic matter to produce methane. They also degrade chlorinated VOCs by a process referred to as reductive dechlorination. As groundwater moves upward through the wetland, an aerobic zone is encountered where oxygen is provided to the subsurface by the roots of wetland plants. In this zone, methane from the subsurface along with oxygen supplied by plants supports aerobic bacteria that grow on methane. These microorganisms produce an enzyme called methane monooxygenase that is needed to utilize methane as a source of carbon for growth and energy. This enzyme also cometabolizes TCE, DCE and vinyl chloride. The rate of anaerobic dechlorinafion decreases as each chlorine atom is removed from TCE, DCE or vinyl chloride, while the rate of aerobic degradation increases as chlorides are removed. Thus an anaerobic environment in series with an aerobic environment provides the optimum sequence of conditions for natural attenuation of chlorinated organics. As previously stated, the current groundwater quality monitoring for the north plume indicates that natural attenuation is occurring. While TCE is the predominant chlorinated organic compound in the plume near the former Tonka facility, DCE and vinyl chloride are the primary constituents near the Proposed Area. Restoring the wetland that was present at one time in the Proposed Area will enhance natural attenuation. A conceptual layout of a restored wetland within the Proposed Area is shown on Figure 5. While natural attenuation of groundwater contaminants using natural wetlands has been used at other sites in Minnesota and elsewhere, a 'constructed' wetland for the same purpose represents an innovative remedial action. Because the Proposed Area was formerly a wetland (see Figure 2), restoration of a wetland environment is feasible and will be an excellent technical fit for the north plume because: · The wetland will protect surface water quality. · The existing groundwater quality data show that significant attenuation and degradation of chlorinated organics is already occurring within the north plume, and restoring the wetland will enhance these natural actions. · The volume of groundwater discharging to the channel of Harrison Bay is very low. This low flow can be effectively treated by a restored wetland, but may be difficult to capture using a conventional pump and treat system. Overpumping would likely result in lowering the water level in the channel as described previously. The current channel to Harrison Bay is an artificial (dredged) extension of the surface water of Lake Minnetonka. This channel is narrow and shallow, and does not likely mix or exchange significantly with the surface water in Harrison Bay. The current build-up of silt and sediment within the channel also suggests that without active management this channel will naturally revert to a wetland. These conditions provide additional support for the restoration of the former wetland in the Proposed Area. The MPCA has reviewed the proposed alternative for the north plume and approved the use of a restored wetland for remediation of the North Plume in a letter to Hasbro on December 7, 1999. Hasbro currently owns the property to the west of the Proposed Area. Ownership of the parcel to the west of the Proposed Area will also facilitate enlarging the proposed wetland beyond the dimensions of the current channel to provide better capture of the north plume along with increased groundwater treatment capacity. Coordination with and necessary approvals from the Minnesota DNR, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and other regulatory authorities to complete this wetland restoration project will be completed. Public Benefits A restored wetland is an innovative approach for treating the north plume. It also offers several advantages to the public. For example, the restoration of the proposed area to its early 1900s natural state (wetland) will provide additional open space for the benefit of the public in the City of Mound. A restored wetland will provide a natural filter which will protect the water quality of Lake Minnetonka from both groundwater discharges and surface runoff of nutrients and other chemicals from developed areas. A restored wetland will also add marginally to the current flood storage volume and linear feet of shoreline within the proposed area. Other specific benefits of a restored wetland in comparison to other remedial alternatives such as pump-and-treat technologies include: · Visual consistency with the current lakeshore, eliminating the need for installation of mechanical pumps and treatment equipment. · Lakeshore protection - a restored wetland, once established, will minimize future intrusion and impacts on the aesthetically sensitive lakeshore area. · Reliable, natural treatment - a restored wetland makes optimum use of the natural biodegradation processes occurring at the site, and provides a highly adaptable environment to maintain treatment over the range of complex hydrologic conditions at the site. · Perpetual operation - a restored wetland will provide long term treatment that does not need to be turned off, even after the north plume has been remediated, and is well suited to the low permeability soils and slow plume migration at the site. · Minimum maintenance - since a restored wetland is a natural process, it will not be subject to mechanical failures or disruptions or the need for equipment replacement. jfn M:~CAD~2527220~11045_4.DWG 50.00 04/18/2000 07:30:04 (r) GP99-1// v £DZ, / GP99-2 / 343 (~) BDL/ .......... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.GP99-3'.'/ 482 / / h Plume 34 1954 1954 GP-11 280 . .115 9,000 ............... GP-12 ........ ~ ' ~'6-~ -'.-2 550 1957 GP-14 1959 Approximate Building Development Locations Geoprobe Sampling Sites Total VOCs (tj.g/£) Below Detection Limit ~201 SW-1A \ \ \ o \ I,,, 1961 Monitoring Well Historical Surfacewater 50 1 O0 SCALE IN F~CEiVED Figure Sample Location MOUND PLANNING APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF NORTH PLUME Tonka Mound Site % · I/ i Date: Morton Lane Vacation 4/26/2000 10:18:18 AM Central Daylight Time jdeanl~Kennedy-Graven.com (Dean, John B.) mconyngham@the.com (Monica Conyngham (E-mail)) RECEIVEP I~OUND ~L~,NNINL~ & JNS~ CC: Igordon~hkgi.com (Loren Gordon (E-mail)), jbg2155~aol.com (Jon Suthedand (E-mail)), kandishanson@msn.com (Kandis M. Hanson (E-mail)) Monica: Last night the Mound City Council voted to proceed with the Morton Lane vacation process. What that means is that notice of the public headng will be published, and the other required notices will be given. As things stand now, the Planning Commission will hear the matter on June 12, and the '~'""--' Council will consider it on July 11. In order to proceed on that schedule, it will be necessa~j for Hasbro to provide the city with whatever information Jon Sutherland needs to process the application. This would include a description of the portion of Morton Lane to be vacated. I am not sure when the deadline for submission is, but please contact Jon soon. I also undemtand that Fran Clark has discussed with Kevin England the need to have some assurance Eom Hasbro that the city's costs (engineering, planning, legal, etc.) in connection with this matter will be reimbumed. I understand from those in attendance Monday night that the presentation went very well. ihn <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HEAD> <META H'l-[P-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="textJhtml; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2650.1Z'> <TITLE>Morton Lane Vacation<Fl'lTLE> </HEAD> Monica:         Last night the IVbund City Council voted to proceed w ih the Morton Lane vacation process.  What that means is that notice of the public hearing w ill be published, and the other required notices w ill be given.  As things stand now, the Planning Commission w ill hear the matter on June 12, and the Council w ill consider it on July 11.  In order to proceed on that schedule, it w ill be necessary for Hasbro to provide the city with whatever information Jori Sutherland needs to process the application.  This would include a description of the portion of Morton Lane to be vacated.  I am not sure w hen the deadline for submission is, but please contact Jori soon. O nbsp;       I also understand that Fran Clark has discussed with Kevin England the need to have me assurance from Hasbro that the city's costs (engineering, planning, legal, etc.) in connection with this matter w ill be reimbursed.         I understand fromthose in attendance Monday night that the presentation went very · r,,..,.,, ,,., ,,_. on,,.:.,,., ,.,.,, MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2000 D AFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and accused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, Mound Vision Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, Bill Beard and Paul Ganst of Beard Group/Mainstreet, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Larry Cable, Tony Clapp, Steve Coddon, Jamie Demarais, Jean DenBesto, Kevin England of Hasbro, Inc., Nile Fellows, Ron Lopergalo, Peter Meyer, Don Richard of Barr Engineering, HASBRO WETLAND PROJECT PRESENTATION Kevin P. England, Director of Environmental Remediation for Hasbro, along with Don Richards of Barr Engineering, Inc., presented a detailed video presentation with attachments, regarding the use of constructed wetlands to treat contaminants located under ground on the former Tonka site in the City of Mound. Mr. England demonstrated the location of the Tonka Plant site as well as Morton Lane. He stated Tonka was built in phases from 1954-1982 and equipment was later moved to El Paso, Texas. Evidently the source of the plume was never discovered even though extensive soil borings and wells were performed. He is certain the plume is now moving under ground at a slow rate towards Harrison Bay. Mr. England stated Hasbro acquired Tonka in 1991. In 1998 the north plume was identified and found three chemicals in the ground that are toxic to humans but not to plant life. They include trichlorethylene (TCE), dichloreathylene (DCE) and volatile organic compound (VC). Don Richard, of Barr Engineering, demonstrated a preliminary design how the remediation would occur and clean up the ground water. He stated there are two common methods, anaorobic (without oxygen) and aerobic (with oxygen), for removing the TCE, DCE and VC in the ground water. The aerobic method is more effective. Mr. England stated the contaminated plume wants to come up out of the ground, although it appears to be going where there is most resistances and it goes up DRAFT through the channel and out in Harrison Bay. Mr. England statedthe ground water movement is about 30 feet per year, which is a slow process. Mr. Richard confirmed this theory because of the sandy textures found around the channel from the plume movement. Mr. England stated the shallow groundwater discharges to the channel to Harrison Bay during the period from late fall to spring. He stated after fall the flow appears to stop, so it seeps only about five or six months out of the year. Mr. England stated the channel and Morton Lane is City property and the channel would need to be dredged to help assist in the making of the wetland that would rid the ground of the contaminants in the ground. The MPCA has been supportive of bio-remediation for similar sites and has dealt with environmental outcome division. They expressed a concern because of the shallow groundwater discharging to the channel may exceed surface water quality criteria for protection of human health, such as swimmers in the nearby area. Mr. Richard the remedial alternatives include use of soil factor extraction, groundwater cutoff barriers (such as a wall under the ground), no action (reestablish and restore wetland), ORC could be released into the ground, or ground water extraction. The recommendation is to construct or restore a wetland treatment area where the chemicals can seep into in a natural way. The advantage is it would create more open space for the city to use, as well as a natural wetland area that would function the same as if man had not helped in the making of it. The only difference is a small amount of chlorinated solvent would be going through the wetland to rid the contaminants that flow into the wetland. This wetland would be the first in Minnesota created for this purpose, and possibly the first in the United States as well. The advantages of this constructed wetland is no maintenance required, it would visually and functionally be consistent with lakeshore and water quality protection, it utilizes natural bio-degration, it would be environmentally inclined and adaptable, and it would provide long-term treatment. Jamie Demarais, 5272 Lynwood Boulevard. Mr. Demarais asked Mr. England what Hasbro intends to do with the extra open space that would not be used for the wetland. Mr. England stated it could possibly be used for park purposes, but ownership would not be retained by the City at this point and time. Steve Coddon, 3615 Lyric Avenue. Mr. Coddon asked how far down the channel would it be filled in to establish the wetland. Mr. England stated the capture zone would extend about 200 feet and it may extend to the west a bit more as well. DRAFT Sutherland asked if there is a plan to dredge the existing channel at this point in time. Mr. Richard stated that is not in the plan at this time. Mr. Richard stated the MPCA has been presented with the conceptual design. The MPCA wants to be certain they will be able to maintain the capture zone. This could be done by filling and dredge work. Additional pathways could be added as well. They also want to make sure the surface water is protected. Mr. Richard stated on September 15, 1999, they initially meet with City of Mound to see if this is a plan they would consider. Later they met with the MPCA and DNR on October 20, 1999, and the MCWD on November 17, 1999. This wetland restoration was positively received by all bodies. Mr. Richard noted the MPCA would need approval from other agencies, such as the storm water management institution, with regard to the additional trees being added and how this project will affect the current stormwater situation. Mr. England stated some questions that will need some answering at some point in time. He stated they will need to get a final design with regard to the operation of the wetland during the winter season and to make sure there is enough organic material during that time period. They will need compliance monitoring and find out what the seep would be like as well in winter. Mr. England stated they would need to make sure the wetland is functioning propedy as a wetland and there is the question of abutters and a permit for a water body classification. He further added a general permit would be directed by the DNR and vacation of Morton Lane would need to be worked through as well. Mr. England stated the additional property in this location would be made in a possible park, with perpetual maintenance of the park in the spring, summer and fall. Mr. England stated the schedule for approval of the project would include the already obtained verbal and written approval from the Minnesota Pollution Control on December 7, 1999. He stated the design would be constructed in the spring of 2000 and permits would be granted in the summer of 2000. He is hopeful to begin construction in the fall of 2000 and a performance testing in the year 2001. Mr. England stated he would require from the City of Mound eady education through questions and answers to improve city and public support for the project, input from the community, and the vacation of Morton Lane. Weiland asked why do we want to do this vacation and restoration of a wetland in this location at this time. Mr. England stated there is a leak that has been ordered by the MCPA to get cleaned up. He stated this leak would, over time, seep directly into Harrison Bay and this wetland would prevent that from DRAFT happening. Mr. England does not feel nature will keep cleaning these contaminants up, but that is always possible. Glister asked if there has been legal directive to take remedial action regarding this leakage. Mr. England stated an investigation showed a north plume has been seeping to the ground water and mediation must occur. He stated there would be a penalty of some if this is not cleaned up, although the MPCA would allow this process done in a reasonable time frame. Burma asked if the contaminants are contained within the channel at this point in time. Mr. England stated they would be over time, but this cleanup would happen below the surface where the contaminants are located. He further stated by putting oxygen into the ground that would react with other chemicals in the ground that currently exist, causing the bad chemicals to dispose of themselves. Mueller asked what effect the chemicals in the ground have on bugs. Mr. England stated bugs are one-cell animals and the chemicals do not go through these types of organisms. Mueller questioned having this be a test site for this process because it has not occurred anywhere else in Minnesota, as well as the United States. He stated there are no long-term tests regarding breakdown of the chemicals and the results of this occurring for long periods of times. Mueller is concerned the wetland may die because it is part man-made. Mr. England stated this would be a pilot study but they will make the wetland work and resemble a natural wetland to the best of their ability. Mueller asked what is the concentration level of PCA that currently exists in this location. Mr. Richard stated it was zero. He further stated the concentrations going into the project are similar or lower than what is existing in other wetlands. Mr. Richard is confident this process would work because the location the wetland is proposed was a wetland years ago. He did state the location would need proper grading and depth to support the vegetation. Mueller asked about how these chemicals would affect water fowl, fish, bullheads, frogs, etc. Mr. Richard stated the standards are higher than what is expected for a natural wetland to be. He confirmed they are using the most stringent rules to help and save the animals. Mr. England further stated the Watershed District has studied the plan quite extensively and is confident with the results they have found. Sutherland asked how the Watershed District and the MPCA were brought in to this leakage problem on this specific property. Mr. England stated in 1983 there was a notification made stating there was a release of tri-chlorination going into the ground. He stated the could not detect where the leak was coming from, but contaminants were located on the property. Mr. Demarais asked if the LMCD would get involved with this type of project. Mr. England stated they would not. Mr. Demarais asked if in the future the channel would be drudged out. Mr. England does not think this would be appropriate or a good idea, although, they could dredge because it was a wetland many years ago. Mr. Coddon asked if a physical barder would be needed in the channel so it would not collapse. Mr. England stated this would be probably. Glister asked if this could be achieved through an easement rather than a vacation. Gordon stated the City could retain ownership of Morton Lane and through some way this could be maintained, although, the attorneys in this matter stated it would be best for the city to relinquish control and turn over the abutting property. Mr. England further added he believes the City does not have the right to change a road into a wetland, so a vacation would be required. Mueller asked about ownership of Morton Lane from previous records. Gordon stated it is not clear regarding when the west half was platted and when the east half was platted for what purposes of having Morton Lane conserved. Sutherland stated on page 20 of the packet the City Attorney addresses these issues and states where the vacation would occur and who would initiate the process. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss, to approve the Hasbro Wetland Project according to staff recommendations. Discussion. Mueller asked if the north side has been tested extensively even though the wetlands are closer to the buildings on the south than the north. Mr. England stated the difference between the north and south is the receptiveness. He stated the west there is nothing that would be troublesome. Mueller suggested moving forward with this project but would like to have the City Attorney check into a conservation easement or wetland easement rather than a vacation of the street. Glister stated if Hasbro would not get the vacation, what would be the next alternative. Mr. England stated they would go back to shooting chemicals in the ground or dewatering what little water is left there. Mueller questioned the pumping and treating effect and why this would create a dry wetland. He asked why it cannot be pump and treated and put back into the wetlands. Mr. England stated it would be hard to get a surface water discharge permit. The representative from MPCA agreed. DRAFT Mr. Demarais stated as a property owner close to this channel, he would prefer not seeing the pump and treat method used. Chair Michael reminded the public the presentation tonight was basically an information item for the Planning Commission to either approve for the City Council or deny. He stated at a later point in time, if the City Council agreed with this presentation, it would be brought back to the Planning Commission which at that time a public hearing would be held. Weiland suggested rechecking the vacation process before this process goes any further. Mr. England stated the answer to Weiland's question would be half to the east and half to the west property owner because the area was platted at the same time. Mueller mentioned the repairing rights also needs to be addressed. Tony Clapp, 2180 Cardinal Lane. Mr. Clapp was concerned about dredging the channel at this point. Chair Michael thanked Mr. England and Mr. Richard for the lengthy presentation concerning remediation of Hasbro property. Motion carried. 7-1, Hasse voting nay. Chair Michael recessed at 9:55 p.m. Chair Michael reconvened at 10:00 p.m. Peter Meyer, Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer presented to the Planning Commission a book entitled Landscaping for Wildlife and Water Quality by Carol Henderson. Mr. Meyer stated the book would help with storm water issues and buffering concerns. He stated the book has a lot of information contained in it. Mr. Meyer also appreciated Mr. England's presentation tonight. There was an informal motion by Brown and a second by Voss to adjoum. Chair Michael stated the Planning Commission meetings last until the Planning Commission has completed the work on the agenda. He stated he is obligated to carry out these rules. He stated he finds that some people would like to go home, although there is another item for discussion that was not thoroughly discussed earlier in the meeting and this would be the zoning of the downtown redevelopment. Chair Michael stated the Commissioners should decide if they are ready to adjourn because discussions on the zoning did occur earlier, although, there may have not been enough discussions to complete this matter. MOTION by Voss to adjourn. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Brown stated Mueller elaborates too extensively at various times during the Planning Commission meetings. Chair Michael stated it is important to work out the little problems before they become big problems. Mueller stated he strongly recommends the Planning Commission review the downtown zoning in great detail because that is what the Planning Commission's responsibilities would include. Brown stated he did not realize the zoning of downtown was put back on the agenda. Chair Michael stated that may have been appropriately mentioned by him and he apologized for that error. Brown stated he would be willing to discuss the zoning further. Chair Michael asked staff why the agenda was presented the way it was tonight. Suthedand stated he was not responsible for the order of the agenda and further mentioned the downtown zoning would be back on the May 8, 2000, when the public hearing occurs for added discussion if the Planning Commission saw fit. Mueller asked if there would have to be another public hearing if there would be amendments to the downtown zoning from the public hearing. Gordon stated it would be presented generally so adoption of the zoning could take place on the 8th with changes that may occur. Mueller suggested completing the downtown zoning portion tonight. Chair Michael restated if any Commissioner would like to leave at this time, they should excuse themselves now. Voss excused himself at 10:10 p.m. Chair Michael stated he would encourage all Commissioners to remember we are all volunteers, but we all have agreed to serve on the Planning Commission to the best of our ability according to the scheduled meetings set by the City. Chair Michael would encourage the Planning Commission to be precise so meetings do not need to go beyond the 11:00 p.m. scheduled departing time. Chair Michael would take suggestions for changes from any Commissioner. Chair Michael stated he would be calling Voss to see if he feels he needs to resign from the Commission. Brown stated he understands Voss's frustration and he is confident Voss does not want to resign. Brown further stated some of Planning Commission's actions have been drawn out too extensively and frustration is beginning to come out. DRAFT Burma stated Mueller brings up ve,ry pertinent points and there are certain times it builds momentum for a good presentation. He is confident Mueller performs in this fashion and appreciates his comments. Glister agreed. Chair Michael mentioned there would be a continuation of the downtown zoning. Gordon gave a brief presentation of the downtown zoning that is located in the Commissioner's packets. He further stated there are guidelines that are required to be followed when setting up the districts for zoning, but there is some flexibility needed for setting up the downtown redevelopment. Weiland stated page 14 discusses free-standing signs which are considered permanent. He stated he is not in favor of free-standing signs and would like the Commissioners to consider some other verbiage to be considered on May 8, 2000, at the public hearing. Gordon stated he would consider removing this section if that was favorable to the Planning Commission as a whole. Glister mentioned again her suggestion that the Planning Commission did recommend the parking lots for the redevelopment be 10 x 20 rather than 9 x 18. Gordon stated it never was changed. Brown agreed with Glister and would like to see it changed. Brown does recall the 9 x 18 sizes needed to be as such to accommodate the appropriate parking for the retail buildings. Mueller asked why the pedestrian was changed to pedestrian planned unit and destination changed to destination planned unit. Gordon stated because allowing them named this way it would give the City a method of control for short and long-term development. Mueller does not believe these should be labeled as planned unit districts because the Planning Commission is now dealing with only zoning. Gordon stated again this is a legal ramification to allow design standards that are fairly extreme. Mueller stated it now appears the zoning in the downtown are changes that are being changed with the developer's plan in mind and not what the zoning rules specifically lay out. Gordon explained the difference in terminology to Mueller regarding R-1 and B-1 zoning and the planned units, but Mueller would like to discuss this further after the meeting tonight. Brown stated there might be disconcernment because of the downtown concept has changed from what looked good nine years ago and this change has not been communicated properly to all commissioners. Mueller stated on page 13, number 3(A)(3), would like this clarified and reworded to identify window sill, parapet, eave more clearly in connection with the fa~;ade. Mueller stated he would like to discuss page 15, subd. 8(1). He stated if discussing this section would be a problem because he is not an owner of DRAFT property downtown, but rather his Dad, then he would gladly step down as a commissioner. Mueller stated, then, with regard to this section, he asked if an owner does not have to account for any of its parking if you are in the pedestrian zone. Mueller stated he wanted it cladfied that the shared system does not include that you need two spaces for your residential spot. Mueller questioned that the Planning Commission passed that a building cannot be over 35 feet residential and 50 feet commercial which is in the shoreline management section. Gordon agreed but he stated there was discussion that variances could be considered with height restrictions. Suthedand stated on page 11 the chart could be changed to state with an asterisk that states "35 feet or greater with a variance." Gordon further stated there would also be a lot of hardcover variances being issued as well. Mueller would like an explanation regarding the PUD section. Gordon stated he would explain the PUD section with an information packet for the Planning Commission to review before the public hearing on May 8, 2000. Chair Michael asked if the signs would be grandfathered in. Gordon stated they would be if there would be any signs left. CITY OF MOUND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION DOCK AND COMMONS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that there will be a Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, Park & Open Space Commission and Docks & Commons Commission on Monday, April 24, 2000, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. This Special Meeting is an educational workshop focusing on bio-remediation and the use of constructed wetlands to treat contaminants. The workshop is being presented by Barr Engineering and Hasbro, Inc. regarding a project on unimproved Morton lane in Mound. The public is invited. Francene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk PUBLISH IN THE LAKER - APRIL 21, 2000 Subj: Re: #179006 vl -April 13 Hasbro letter Date: 4/17/2000 2:22:51 PM Central Daylight ~me From: Jbg2155 To: jdean(~Kennedy-Gmven, corn CC: Igordon(~hkgi.com John; Thank you for the update! Ban' Engineering has the vacation application and I have discussed submittal dates with Dan from Barr. Dan is the person who called me concemed with the City Council process, and he wanted some direction .... I understand my part to process the vacation application, and I think Loren would head up the staff response to the request for the "city to initiate the vacation", do you agree? We need interdepartmental review just like a normal request and we need to get some $ to pay for the cost,,, jbg2155 Monday, Al)dl t7, 2000 America O~llne: Gueet Page: I ARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapoli~ MN 55402 (612) 337-93001~ephone (612) 337-9310 fax hrt~://www, kennedy-graven.com JOHN B. DEAN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 33%9207 Err, ail: jdean(~kennedy-graven.com April 14, 2000 Fran Clark Acting Cio/Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Hasbro proposal Dear Fran: This letter is a follow-up to our phone conversation yesterday concerning the referenced matter. As I indicated, Hasbro is expecting to request the city to consider the vacation of a portion of Morton Lane so that a wetland can be restored in the vacated portion. The restored wetland would then be available to remove contamination in the ground water traveling toward Lake Minnetonka. Hasbro has scheduled a presentation of its plan for April 24. I believe that City Council members will be included in the list ofinvitees. In conversation yesterday with Monica Conyngham, an attomey for Hasbro, Ms Conyngham inquired concerning the possibility that the council would consider, at its April 25 meeting, a request from Has'am to imtiate the vacation process. Ms Conyngnam wiii be contacting .;o:.,. Sutherland to make sure the request is timely and in proper form. The council is not being asked to approve or disapprove of the vacation request at the April 25 meeting. Rather it is being asked to initiate the process. If it elects to do so, then the request would be scheduled for public hearing, notices would be given as required by law, the Planning Commission would consider and make recommendations to the Council. Hopefully, information gained at the April 24 presentation will be of some assistance to the Council in making that preliminary decision. The approach that Hasbro is requesting is one of the two options available under the law to commence the street vacation process. The other approach, which is more commonly used, is by submission of a petition signed by a majority of the property owners. Ms Conyngham has informed me that property abutting the east one-half of the portion of Morton Lane covered by the request is currently subject to a purchase agreement, and that, it would probably be difficult to get a signature pending the completion of the sale. Those individuals will certainly be 'notified of any pending Fran Clark April 14, 2000 Page 2 of 2 vacation, and will have a full oppommity to participate in the proceedings should the Council elect to commence the vacation process. The primary difference between the two options is that the final vote by the Council to vacate under the option proposed by Hasbro requires a 4/5ths affirmative vote. It is my opinion that it would be appropriate for the Council to consider the request at the April 25 meeting, assuming it is made in a timely and complete manner. It will be entirely in the Council's discretion to detemdne whether to initiate the process based on the request, or direct Hasbro to proceed by petition. Plea.se let me know ifI can supply you With further inlbrmation at this point. I expect that you Will be receiving a letter on this topic from Hasbro in the next day or so. Respectfully yours, JBD:gak April 4, 2000 Frances Clark '" Administration O~ce Lj ~'- OO City. of Mound 4 5341 Maywood Road ~ -~ ~'~ '~'/ ~ JO. ~ MouncC s 364 " ', O-6r F " De~rMs. Clark: ~t~t- c~ ~,C ~)~ LJ-jJ-~O I would like to take this opportunib' to thank you and your staff for the time you afforded me on March 30* to discuss the various issues regarding a remedial project in Mound, M'N. During the meeting it was suggested that several of the City. of Mound Departments mi~t be interested in attending an educational workshop focusing on bio-remediation and the use of constructed wetlands to treat contaminants. Hasbro and Bart Engineering has been developing a presentation tbr use with various stakeholders involved with this project such as the Minnehaha Cr~k Watershed Dis,-'-ict and the City of Mound to name a couple. We discussed April 24~ as a possible date to make this presev.,tafion during a regular workshop meetLng of the Planning Commission at 7:30PM. I have discussed confirming this date with Loren Gordon. and with Ban' Engineering and it appears that ',his will be a good date and opportunity to present an educational workshop which will last about one hour to one and one-half hours in length. I would like to request that Hasbro be placed on the formal agenda for this workshop meeting on April 24e~, and would tike you to feel free to invite other City of Mound Departments to anend such as ',.he Parks Commission. Docks Commission. etc. I have included outline slides for the Power-Point presentation. At this time the slides are veD' preliminary and some may be deleted and it is likely that several will be added. The first title slide will be changed since this presentation will be utilized for presentation to several groups, not just the Watershed District. The focus of the educational presentation is to explain the technolo~' of constructed g. etlands and bio- remediation as an effective, perpetual treatment for a contaminant. Although the tbrmer Tonka site in Mound. :~ will be used as a case to illustrate the concept, the presentation is not meant to be a permit application nor to assume that all permits and approvals have been obtained at this time. Formal application procedures will be followed after input has been obtained from a wide range of stakeholders and while a preliminary draft final design is being completed for the site. I think the presentation will be informative and useful to all in anendance. The slide show will be presented jointly by myself and Bart Engineering. Hasbro and Bart will make arrangements for any audio-video equipment needed for the presentation. Thank you, once again for you time and consideration. Please let me know when the meeting is formally confirmed. I can be reached at 401-727-5621. Respectfully, . /,' Kevin ?. England' Director, Corporate Environmental Remediation Cc: Loren Gordon: Hoisin~on Koegler Group, lnc (with enclosures) Don Richard: Ban' Engineering HASBRO, IN(:. 02~62- ~S? 5~g ~Cl) 7B-TOYS {8697) CITY OF MOUND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION DOCK AND COMMONS COMMISSION SPF_.CIAL lVIEETING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that there will be a Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, Park & Open Space Commission and Docks & Commons Commission on Monday, April 24, 2000, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. This Special Meeting is an educational workshop focusing on bio-reme~l_iation and the use of constructed wetlands to treat contaminants. The workshop is being presented by Barr Engineering and Hasbro, Inc. regarding a project on unimproved Morton Lane in Mound. The public is invited. Franeene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk PUBLISH IN THE L~.R - APRIL 21, 2000 Restoring the wetland that was present at one time in the Proposed Area will enhance natural attenuation. A conceptual layout of a restored wetland within the Proposed Area is shown on Figure 5. While natural attenuation of groundwater contaminants using natural wetlands has been used at other sites in Minnesota and elsewhere, a 'constructed' wetland for the same purpose represents an innovative remedial action. Because the Proposed Area was formerly a wetland (see Figure 2), restoration of a wetland environment is feasible and will be an excellent technical fit for the north plume because: · The wetland will protect surface water quality. · The existing groundwater quality data show that significant attenuation and degradation of chlorinated organics is already occurring within the north plume, and restoring the wetland will enhance these natural actions. · The volume of groundwater discharging to the channel of Harrison Bay is very low. This low flow can be effectively treated by a restored wetland, but may be difficult to capture using a conventional pump and treat system. Overpumping would likely result in lowering the water level in the channel as described previously. The current channel to Harrison Bay is an artificial (dredged) extension of the surface water of Lake Minnetonka. This channel is narrow and shallow, and does not likely mix or exchange significantly with the surface water in Harrison Bay. The current build-up of silt and sediment within the channel also suggests that without active management this channel will naturally revert to a wetland. These conditions provide additional support for the restoration of the former wetland in the Proposed Area. The MPCA has reviewed the proposed alternative for the north plume and approved the use of a restored wetland for remediation of the North Plume in a letter to Hasbro on December 7, 1999. Hasbro currently owns the property to the west of the Proposed Area. Ownership of the parcel to the west of the Proposed Area will also facilitate enlarging the proposed wetland beyond the dimensions of the current channel to provide better capture of the north plume along with increased groundwater treatment capacity. Coordination with and necessary approvals from the Minnesota DNR, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and other regulatory authorities to complete this wetland restoration project will be completed. Public Benefits A restored wetland is an innovative approach for treating the north plume. It also offers several advantages to the public. For example, the restoration of the proposed area to its early 1900s natural state (wetland) will provide additional open space for the benefit of the public in the City of Mound. A restored wetland Several alternatives for remediating the north plume groundwater were considered by Hasbro and the MPCA. For example, one alternative would be to pump the groundwater to the surface for treatment and discharge to the sanitary sewer. However, this approach is less appropriate for this site because it would require placement of unsightly and intrusive pump-and-treat equipment in a residential neighborhood, may result in seasonally dewatering wetlands in the vicinity of the Proposed Area, and would place an additional load upon the local wastewater collection and treatment system. Chemical treatment of the north plume was also considered. However, the application of this technology would require injecting additional chemicals into groundwater to destroy the chemicals of concern, and would require a variance from Minnesota Department of Health regulations. Given these options, both Hasbro and the MPCA believe that a natural, non-invasive approach for both remediating the north plume and matching the needs of the surrounding neighborhood is the best remedial alternative for the north plume. Recommended Remedial Action The recommended alternative for treating the north plume and protecting the surface water in Harrison Bay of Lake Minnetonka is restoring the former wetland within the Proposed Area. This recommendation was presented to the MPCA in November 1999 and was approved in December 1999. Many recent studies have confirmed that the microbiological processes occurring in wetlands mineralize chlorinated VOCs. Groundwater discharging through a wetland encounters both anaerobic and aerobic environments. The anaerobic zone is present at the bottom of the wetland. In this zone, microorganisms use decaying organic matter to produce methane. They also degrade chlorinated VOCs by a process referred to as reductive dechlorination. As groundwater moves upward through the wetland, an aerobic zone is encountered where oxygen is provided to the subsurface by the roots of wetland plants. In this zone, methane from the subsurface along with oxygen supplied by plants supports aerobic bacteria that grow on methane. These microorganisms produce an enzyme called methane monooxygenase that is needed to utilize methane as a source of carbon for growth and energy. This enzyme also cometabolizes TCE, DCE and vinyl chloride. The rate of anaerobic dechlorination decreases as each chlorine atom is removed from TCE, DCE or vinyl chloride, while the rate of aerobic degradation increases as chlorides are removed. Thus an anaerobic environment in series with an aerobic environment provides the optimum sequence of conditions for natural attenuation of chlorinated organics. As previously stated, the current groundwater quality monitoring for the north plume indicates that natural attenuation is occurring. While TCE is the predominant chlorinated organic compound in the plume near the former Tonka facility, DCE and vinyl chloride are the primary constituents near the Proposed Area. will provide a natural filter which will protect the water quality of Lake Minnetonka from both groundwater discharges and surface runoff of nutrients and other chemicals from developed areas, t restored wetland will also add marginally to the current flood storage volume and linear feet of shoreline within the proposed area. Other specific benefits of a restored wetland in comparison to other remedial alternatives such as pump-and-treat technologies include: · Visual consistency with the current lakeshore, eliminating the need for installation of mechanical pumps and treatment equipment. · Lakeshore protection - a restored wetland, once established, will minimize future intrusion and impacts on the aesthetically sensitive lakeshore area. Reliable, natural treatment - a restored wetland makes optimum use of the natural biodegradation processes occurring at the site, and provides a highly adaptable environment to maintain treatment over the range of complex hydrologic conditions at the site. · Perpetual operation - a restored wetland will provide long term treatment that does not need to be turned off, even after the north plume has been remediated, and is well suited to the low permeability soils and slow plume migration at the site. · Minimum maintenance - since a restored wetland is a natural process, it will not be subject to mechanical failures or disruptions or the need for equipment replacement. Page 1 of 1 FLEISINGER From: To: Sent: Subject: <NIVRO(~aol.com> <fleisinger(~msn.com> Monday, June 19, 2000 7:12 PM Explanation of vote Fran, Will you please see that this gets into the City Council packets for the June 27th meeting? Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, I would like to offer some additional information as to the reason for my negative vote on the Hasboro request for vacation of Morton. Obviously, I am not opposed to the project. I think it is creative and is the best alternative to a situation not caused by the current owners of the property nor by the citizens of Mound. I am concerned, however, about the loss of 400 feet of shoreline from the calculations for BSUs in the Mound Commons docks program. I feel that with each loss such as Kildare and Morton and the lawsuit just settled and lawsuits to come in the future, we lose BSUs. And it is difficult, if not impossible to get those BSUs back in the future. If you can, I would like you to make Hasboro aware of my concerns. They have indicated that they are willing to swap some of their shore line for the property in question. This might reduce the impact from a loss of 8 BSUs to 4 or 2 or possibly no loss of BSUs. This should be able to be accomplished with no delay to the project. Thank you for your consideration. ORVIN BURMA 06/22/2000 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle (excused at 10:15 p.m.), Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Sue McCulloch and Diana Mestad. DOWNTOWN ZONING. PUBLIC HEARING. Gordon stated the zoning of downtown does need to get adopted because of anticipated development proposals for Langdon, Auditor's Road, and the old school district. Chair Michael stated he would like to further discuss the signs section of the downtown zoning. Mueller would like to further discuss the downtown zoning issues as well. Sutherland suggested opening the public hearing and then have it continued due to the late hour and then discussions that would like to take place regarding zoning of downtown could take place at the next meeting. Gordon agreed. Chair Michael opened the public headng opened at 12:15 a.m. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to continue the public hearing regarding the downtown zoning and table the open space advisory committee discussions until the next meeting. MOTION CARRIED. 8-0. Section 350:651 "PED - PUD" Pedestrian Planned Unit Development District Subd. 1 Purpose Subd. 2 Subd. 3 Subd. 4 Subd. 5 The Pedestrian Planned Unit Development Zoning District is intended to provide a range of retail and service commercial, office, institutional, public, open space, and attached high density residential uses that are organized and planned in a manner that is pedestrian friendly. The mixed use concept embodies traditional town planning concepts to create an urban environment allowing arrangements of mixed residential and commercial uses. A high degree of aesthetic detail is to be provided in building and site design to promote a village community atmosphere. Permitted Uses a. Professional offices b. Retail sales and services c. Restaurants (Class I, II and III) excluding drive-thru d. Drug Store e. Public and Institutional uses f. Public and private parks g. Multi-family dwelling units h. Townhouses Conditional Uses a. Banks with drive-thru services Accessory Uses a. Pavilions and shelter houses b. Automatic teller machines c. Bus shelters d. Signs e. Public telephone booths f. Antennas g. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces Bulk Requirements Ordinary High Water (OHW) 100 feet for Commercial Setback (min.) and Mixed Uses Height (max.) 50 feet for Residential Uses 50 feet for Commercial and Mixed Uses Downtown Zoning Regulations May 8, 2000 page 1 35 feet for Residential Impervious Surface (max.) 75 percent or as approved by PUD All other bulk requirements as approved by PUD Subd. 6 Building Fagade Requirements 1. Window area ratio A. Front facade - first story: 45 - 65% window area in a vimtally continuous pattern. B. Front facade - second story and up: 25 - 45% window area. C. Exposed side and rear facades: minimum 25% window area or use of landscaping or building fenestration 2. Material Standards A. Wood lap siding as the predominant exterior material for street facing elevations B. Bulkheads may use wood, brick, stone, or precast concrete products. C. Window and siding trim may be a combination of wood materials. Subd. 7 Signs Signage in this district is allowed as prescribed in this subdivision. Signage as prescribed by other sections of this Code is not applicable. 1. Exempt Signs Ao Temporary civic, cultural and public service window posters, when posted inside commercial establishments, provided they do not, individually or combined, occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of said window or five square feet, whichever is less. Temporary window signs are permitted on ground floor windows only. Temporary promotional or special sales signs when erected in conjunction with a commercial establishment provided they do not, individually or combined with other window signs, exceed 25 percent of the total area of the display window or sixteen square feet, whichever is less. Temporary signs advertising a business opening or change in ownership shall not exceed an area of sixteen square feet, and shall require a temporary sign permit, specifying the date of removal. All temporary signs shall have the date of removal printed clearly on the lower right hand comer, as viewed from the exterior, and shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 30 days. Temporary promotional signs are permitted on ground floor windows only. 2. Prohibited signs A. Signs employing mercury vapor, low pressure and high pressure sodium, and metal halide lighting; plastic panel rear-lighted signs. B. Signs on roofs, dormers, and balconies. C. Billboards. Downtown Zoning Regulations May 8, 2000 page 2 D. Signs painted or mounted upon the exterior side or rear walls on any principal or accessory building or structure, except as otherwise permitted hereunder. E. Free-standing pylon signs over 6 feet in height. F. Back-lit awnings. G. Interchangeable letter boards or panels. H. Flashing signs. I. Off-premise signs. 3. Permitted signs Ao Wall-mounted or painted signs, provided the following standards are met: (1) The sign shall be affixed to the front facade of the building, and shall project outward from the wall to which it is attached no more than six inches. (2) The area of the signboard shall not exceed five percent of the ground floor building facade area or 24 square feet, whichever is less. (3) The height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed twelve inches. (4) The sign shall be granted to commercial uses occupying the ground floor of buildings facing on public streets only and shall not be allocated to other uses. (5) Limited to one sign per business. B. One wall-mounted sign per business, not exceeding six square feet in area, shall be permitted on any side or rear entrance open to the public. C. Wall-mounted building directory signs identifying the occupants of a commercial building, including upper story business uses, provided the following standards are met: (1) The sign is located next to the entrance. (2) The sign shall project outward from the wall to which it is attached no more than six inches. (3) The sign shall not extend above the parapet, eave, or building facade. (4) The area of the signboard shall not exceed three square feet, with each tenant limited to one square foot. (5) The height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed four inches. (6) One such sign is allowed per public building entrance. Do Applied letters may substitute for wall-mounted signs, if constructed of painted wood, painted cast metal, bronze, brass, acrylic or black anodized aluminum. The height of applied letters shall not exceed twelve inches. E. Projecting signs, including graphics or icon signs, mounted perpendicular to the building wall, provided the following standards are met: (1) The signboard shall not exceed an area of six square feet. (2) The distance from the ground to the lower edge of the signboard shall be ten feet or greater. (3) The height of the top edge of the signboard shall not exceed the height of the wall from which the sign projects, if attached to a single story building, or the height of the sill or bottom of any second story window, if attached to a multi-story building. Downtown Zoning Regulations May 8, 2000 page 3 (4) The distance from the building wall to the signboard shall not exceed six inches. (5) The width of the signboard shall not exceed three feet. (6) Limited to one sign per business. Projecting signs are not permitted in conjunction with wall-mounted, freestanding, or applied letter signs. (7) Granted to ground floor commercial uses only. F. Awning signs, for ground floor uses only, provided that the following standards are met: (1) If acting as the main business sign, it shall not exceed twenty four square feet in area, and the height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed twelve inches. (2) If acting as an auxiliary business sign, it shall be located on the valance only, shall not exceed four square feet in area, and the height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed four inches. (3) Limited to two such signs per business. (4) If acting as the main business sign, it shall not be in addition to a wall-mounted or applied letter sign. G. Window or door signs, provided that the following standards are met: (1) The sign shall not exceed ten percent of the window or door area or four square feet, whichever is less. (2) The sign shall be silk screened, hand painted, applied letters/graphics, neon tubing or other sign technologies that meet these standards. (3) Limited to one sign per business, applied on either the window or the door, but not on both. (4) The sign shall not have an opaque backing of any type although smoked glass is allowed. (5) May be in addition to only one of the following: a wall-mounted sign, a freestanding sign, an applied letter sign, a projecting sign or a valance awning sign. H. One free-standing sign, provided that the following standards are met: (1) The building in which the advertised business is located, shall be set back a minimum of six feet from a public street right-of-way. (2) The area of each face of the signboard shall not exceed six square feet and the signboard shall not have more than two readable faces. (3) The height of the top of the signboard, or of any posts, brackets, or other supporting elements shall not exceed six feet from the ground. (4) The signboard shall be constructed of wood, acrylic, aluminum or metal and shall be architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colors, and details of the building. (6) No part of the sign shall encroach on the right-of-way and its location shall not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation. (7) Limited to one sign per building and shall not be in addition to wall-mounted, applied letter or projecting signs. (8) The readable faces of the sign shall be perpendicular to the adjacent street. Businesses with frontage on more than one public street are allowed the permitted sign criteria for each street frontage. Downtown Zoning Regulations May 8, 2000 page 4 J. Businesses with service entrances may identify these with one wall mounted or applied letter sign not exceeding two square feet. K. One directional sign, facing a rear parking lot. This sign may be any type of permitted sign other than a freestanding sign, but shall be limited to three square feet in area. L. In addition to other signage, restaurants and cafes shall be permitted: (1) One wall-mounted display featuring the actual menu as used at the dining table, to be contained within a shallow wood or metal case, and clearly visible through a glass front. The display case shall be attached to the building wall, next to the main entrance, at a height of approximately five feet, shall not exceed a total area of two square feet, and may be lighted. M. Each business shall identify the number of its address at the main entry within the above sign parameters. Each business shall identify the number of its address at all secondary entries with applied numbers supplied by the City of Mound to ensure a consistent style throughout the district. Subd. 8 Parking Parking in this district is allowed as prescribed in this subdivision. Parking as prescribed by other sections of this Code is not applicable. Parking in the Pedestrian District is a shared system. Only stalls designated for residential uses or fleet vehicles are to be restricted/reserved. The district's mixed-use will allow the maximum utility of the fewest number of parking stalls. Therefore, this ordinance does not set parking stall quantity requirements in the Pedestrian District. Instead, developers will be required to determine parking demand for their project's particular tenant mix based on industry standards such as those stated in Shared Parking; Urban Land Institute, 1983 and design their project accordingly. In calculating parking requirements, developers should consider parking demand of existing uses within the district and existing supply, both on and off-street. Upon construction, new parking lots will become part of the shared system according to the City's policy on parking in the Pedestrian District. Residential uses in the Pedestrian District shall have 2 designated parking spaces per unit. One of those is to be enclosed. The term "enclosed" indicates that the parking space is to have overhead cover, a closeable auto entrance door and continuous walls. It could be a parking garage with common parking spaces all behind one entrance door. Parking spaces. Each parking space shall not be less than nine (10) feet wide and eighteen (20) feet long exclusive of access drives. Handicapped parking shall be provided pursuant to state law which at the time of this publication requires a striped loading zone five (5) feet by eighteen (18) feet adjacent to the designated stall of eight (8) feet by eighteen (18) feet. 4. All commercial off-street parking must be in rear or side yards. 5. Where off-street parking abms a public street right-of-way, all vehicular use areas other than Downtown Zoning Regulations May 8, 2000 page 5 necessary access drives are to be set back a minimum of 8 feet from the right-of-way. Setback areas are to be landscaped with plants, low walls and fences, earthen berms, etc, to provide some screening of the parking lot. For each 100 square feet of vehicular use area, 5 square feet of interior landscaping area is to be provided. Setback areas described above cannot be counted toward this requirement. A minimum of 25'% of vehicular use areas are to be covered by tree canopy when trees are calculated at 2/3 mature size. Use the following formula to calculate canopy spread: mature tree height according to typical nursery standards x 0.66 x 0.66 = canopy spread. Proposers of parking lots must demonstrate how pedestrian movement will flow between parked vehicles and reasonably anticipated destinations. Parking lot design must provide pedestrian access routes within parking lots as necessary to allow convenient and safe circulation. All parking lots are to be illuminated to a minimum maintained footcandle level of 0.6 with a uniformity ratio of 4:1. Section 350:652 "DEST - PUD" Destination Planned Unit Development District Subd. 1 Purpose The Destination District is intended to allow for retail sales and services intended to serve the needs of the local population. This District is primarily oriented at the motoring public because of its location along minor arterial roadways and good visibility. Subd. 2 Permitted Uses a. Banks b. Barber and Beauty Shops c. ]3~:siness or Trade Schools d. Ci~arches e. C~)nsignment Shops f. Day Care g. Dc!icatessen h. Lr~g Store i. G:ocery Store j. 1 ~valth Clubs, Fitness Centers, and Dance Studios k. lns:itutions and Charitable organizations 1. Liquor Stores m. iX :cdical and Dental Clinics n. ():'rices o. '~ :i,,'ate Lodges and Clubs. p. i~:.blic Buildings q. ]'..blic and Private Park and Recreation r. i::..:aurants (Class I, II and III) s. i(,:ail Business Downtown Zoning Reg, '.:io,s May 8, 2000 page 6 Subd. 3 Subd. 4 Subd. 5 t. Service Shops u. eatres v. Tr:msit stations Cond(:ional Uses a. A:'cessorv Outdoor RetailUses b. A~;inaal Hospitals c. C( ::m:ercial Parking Lots d. (" '.:ural and Fraternal Organizations e. D:ive-in Retailing establishments f. : -~itals g. IX" inor Auto Repair, Tire and Battery Stores h. "'~iTIS Acco? ,,:'v Uses a. ~a:'king Lots b. _ , ' ma:lc teller machines (ATM) c. ', ~ shelters d. ' '_ e. l'[:oiic telephone booths f. ' · Bull: ,<' ._nda:-ds Ordi~ .... ~ Higi: Water (OHW) Setb ..... (min.) Heig t~,, max.~ lmp~.. ,ous ~urface (max.) 50 feet 50 feet 75 percent or as approved by PUD Ail ~ .:. ur bMk requirements as approved by PUD Section 350:653 "! !'Ul)" Linear Planned Unit Development District Subd, 1 The purpose. institutional. core and :he Linear District is to provide a mix of medium and high density residential, -:1 office uses. The Linear District provides a key entry point to the downtown · ' wide a higher degree of aesthetic treatment to complement the downtown. Subd. 2 Pert. ':::t l:ses a. T,:wnhouses b :ipie Family dwellings (6 + units) c. 'ices d. :lc ::nd private schools Downtown Zoning May 8, 2000 page 7 Subd. 3 Subd. 4 Subd. 5 e. i Iic park and recreation f. ',':!ic and Institutional Buildings g. 'ate Lodges and Clubs Con: i:ional Uses a. Stations b. vcnience Stores c. : and Marine Sales Acc: ~oI'y Uses a. arking Lots b. ages c. si:citers d. s~ e. ',ic telephone booths f. . cnnas I,>ul. ?:::ndards Ord. .' Aigh Water (OHW) Set[- (min.) Mi:- ,, Side and Rear Yard Set ....s abutting a Residential Dis: ct for non-residential uses 1;c~. -,max.) lin? ' ous Surface (max.) 50 feet 30 feet 35 feet 75 percent or as approved by CLIP Section 350:690 "~ Subd. 1 k~,. The purpose. environme~; ~ areas such :, areas, and, developnw Subd. 2 l' a. C. t.'. Conservation District :i~c Conservation District is to discourage the infringement of the manmade the community's natural resources. The Conservation District includes those :tk~nds, marshes, steep slopes, interpretive areas, undeveloped islands, wildlife areas that due to environmental conditions, are not generally appropriate for , .. Conservation Areas ·.tis verlooks and landings 'ks Downtown Zoning May 8, 2000 page 8 Section 350:651 "PED - PUD" Pedestrian Planned Unit Development District Subd. 1 Purpose Subd. 2 Subd. 3 Subd. 4 Subd. 5 The Pedestrian Planned Unit Development Zoning District is intended to provide a range of retail and service commercial, office, institutional, public, open space, and attached high density residential uses that are organized and planned in a manner that is pedestrian friendly. The mixed use concept embodies traditional town planning concepts to create an urban environment allowing arrangements of mixed residential and commercial uses. A high degree of aesthetic detail is to be provided in building and site design to promote a village community atmosphere. Permitted Uses a. Professional offices b. Retail sales and services c. Restaurants (Class I, II and HI) excluding drive-thru d. Drug Store e. Public and Institutional uses f. Public and private parks g. Multi-family dwelling units h. Townhouses Conditional Uses a. Banks with drive-thru services Accessory Uses a. Pavilions and shelter houses b. Automatic teller machines c. Bus shelters d. Signs e. Public telephone booths f. Antennas g. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces Bulk Requirements Ordinary High Water (OHW) 100 feet for Commercial Setback (min.) and Mixed Uses Height (max.) 50 feet for Residential Uses 50 feet for Commercial and Mixed Uses Downtown Zoning Regulations ~;~ ~ Mav 8 2000 Working Drqft page I 35 feet for Residential Impervious Surface (max.) 75 percent or as approved by PUD All other bulk requirements as approved by PUD Subd. 6 Building Fagade Requirements 1. Window area ratio A. Front facade - first story: 45 - 65% window area in a virutally continuous pattern. B. Front facade - second story and up: 25 - 45% window area. C. Exposed side and rear facades: minimum 25% window ar-e~.area or use of landscaping or building fenestration 2. Material Standards A. Wood lap siding as the predominant exterior material for street facing elevations B. Bulkheads may use wood, brick, stone, or precast concrete products. C. Window and siding trim may be a combination of wood materials. Subd. 7 Signs Signage in this district is allowed as prescribed in this subdivision. Signage as prescribed by other sections of this Code is not applicable. 1. Exempt Signs Ao Temporary civic, cultural and public service window posters, when posted inside commercial establishments, provided they do not, individually or combined, occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of said window or five square feet, whichever is less. Temporary window signs are permitted on ground floor windows only. Temporary promotional or special sales signs when erected in conjunction with a commercial establishment provided they do not, individually or combined with other window signs, exceed 25 percent of the total area of the display window or sixteen square feet, whichever is less. Temporary signs advertising a business opening or change in ownership shall not exceed an area of sixteen square feet, and shall require a temporary sign permit, specifying the date of removal. All temporary signs shall have the date of removal printed clearly on the lower right hand comer, as viewed from the exterior, and shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 30 days. Temporary promotional signs are permitted on ground floor windows only. 2. Prohibited signs A. Signs employing mercury vapor, low pressure and high pressure sodium, and metal halide lighting; plastic panel rear-lighted signs. B. Signs on roofs, dormers, and balconies. C. Billboards. Downtown Zoning Regulations ,{Fri! 24~May 8. 2000 Working Draft page 2 D. Signs painted or mounted upon the exterior side or rear walls on any principal or accessory building or structure, except as otherwise permitted hereunder. E. Free-standing pylon signs over 6 feet in height. F. Back-lit awnings. G. Interchangeable letter boards or panels. H. Flashing signs. I. Off-premise signs. 3. Permitted signs Ao Wall-mounted or painted signs, provided the following standards are met: (1) The sign shall be affixed to the front facade of the building, and shall project outward from the wall to which it is attached no more than six inches. (2) The area of the signboard shall not exceed five percent of the ground floor building facade area or 24 square feet, whichever is less. (3) Themaximum pern~itted height is fifteen feet above the front sidewalk elevation, and shall not extend above the base of the second floor window sill. parapet, cave, or building facade. (4)4:he height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed twelve inches. ~ The sign shall be granted to commercial uses occupying the ground floor of buildings facing on public streets only and shall not be allocated to other uses. (-6-)L;~ Limited to one sign per business. B. One wall-mounted sign per business, not exceeding six square feet in area, shall be permitted on any side or rear entrance open to the public. C. Wall-mounted building directory signs identifying the occupants of a commercial building, including upper story business uses, provided the following standards are met: (1) The sign is located next to the entrance. (2) The sign shall project outward from the wall to which it is attached no more than six inches. (3) The sign shall not extend above the parapet, eave, or building facade. (4) The area of the signboard shall not exceed three square feet, with each tenant limited to one square foot. (5) The height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed four inches. (6) One such sign is allowed per public building entrance. Do Applied letters may substitute for wall-mounted signs, if constructed of painted wood, painted cast metal, bronze, brass, acrylic or black anodized aluminum. The height of applied letters shall not exceed twelve inches. E. Projecting signs, including graphics or icon signs, mounted perpendicular to the building wall, provided the following standards are met: (1) The signboard shall not exceed an area of six square feet. (2) The distance from the ground to the lower edge of the signboard shall be ten feet or greater. Downtown Zoning Regulations .:Fri! 2 ,~,May 8. 2000 Working Draft page 3 I (3) The height of the top edge of the signboard shall not exceed the height of the wall from which the sign projects, if attached to a single story building, or the height of the sill or bottom of any second story window, if attached to a multi-story building. (4) The distance from the building wall to the signboard shall not exceed six inches. (5) The width of the signboard shall not exceed three feet. (6) Limited to one sign per business. Projecting signs are not permitted in conjunction with wall-mounted, freestanding, or applied letter signs. (7) Granted to ground floor commercial uses only. F. Awning signs, for ground floor uses only, provided that the following standards are met: (1) If acting as the main business sign, it shall not exceed twenty four square feet in area, and the height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed twelve inches. (2) If acting as an auxiliary business sign, it shall be located on the valance only, shall not exceed four square feet in area, and the height of the lettering, numbers, or graphics shall not exceed four inches. (3) Limited to two such signs per business. (4) If acting as the main business sign, it shall not be in addition to a wall-mounted or applied letter sign. G. Window or door signs, provided that the following standards are met: (1) The sign shall not exceed ten percent of the window or door area or four square feet, whichever is less. (2) The sign shall be silk screened, hand painted, applied letters/graphics, neon tubing or other sign technologies that meet these standards. (3) Limited to one sign per business, applied on either the window or the door, but not on both. (4) The sign shall not have an opaque backing of any type although smoked glass is allowed. (5) May be in addition to only one of the following: a wall-mounted sign, a freestanding sign, an applied letter sign, a projecting sign or a valance awning sign. H. One free-standing sign, provided that the following standards are met: (1) The building in which the advertised business is located, shall be set back a minimum of six feet from a public street right-of-way. (2) The area of each face of the signboard shall not exceed six square feet and the signboard shall not have more than two readable faces. (3) The height of the top of the signboard, or of any posts, brackets, or other supporting elements shall not exceed six feet from the ground. (4) The signboard shall be constructed of wood, acrylic, aluminum or metal and shall be architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colors, and details of the building. (6) No part of the sign shall encroach on the right-of-way and its location shall not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation. (7) Limited to one sign per building and shall not be in addition to wall-mounted, applied letter or projecting signs. (8) The readable faces of the sign shall be perpendicular to the adjacent street. Downtown Zoning Regulations fi. Fr!! 2-f, Mctv 8. 2000 Workhtg Draft page 4 I. Businesses with frontage on more than one public street are allowed the permitted sign criteria for each street frontage. J. Businesses with service entrances may identify these with one wall mounted or applied letter sign not exceeding two square feet. K. One directional sign, facing a rear parking lot. This sign may be any type of permitted sign other than a freestanding sign, but shall be limited to three square feet in area. L. In addition to other signage, restaurants and cafes shall be permitted: (1) One wall-mounted display featuring the actual menu as used at the dining table, to be contained within a shallow wood or metal case, and clearly visible through a glass front. The display case shall be attached to the building wall, next to the main entrance, at a height of approximately five feet, shall not exceed a total area of two square feet, and may be lighted. Mo Each business shall identify the number of its address at the main entry within the above sign parameters. Each business shall identify the number of its address at all secondary entries with applied numbers supplied by the City of Mound to ensure a consistent style throughout the district. Subd. 8 Parking Parking in this district is allowed as prescribed in this subdivision. Parking as prescribed by other sections of this Code is not applicable. Parking in the Pedestrian District is a shared system. Only stalls designated for residential uses or fleet vehicles are to be restricted/reserved. The district's mixed-use will allow the maximum utility of the fewest number of parking stalls. Therefore, this ordinance does not set parking stall quantity requirements in the Pedestrian District. Instead, developers will be required to determine parking demand for their project's particular tenant mix based on industry standards such as those stated in Shared Parking; Urban Land Institute, 1983 and design their project accordingly. In calculating parking requirements, developers should consider parking demand of existing uses within the district and existing supply, both on and off-street. Upon construction, new parking lots will become part of the shared system according to the City's policy on parking in the Pedestrian District. Residential uses in the Pedestrian District shall have 2 designated parking spaces per unit. One of those is to be enclosed. The term "enclosed" indicates that the parking space is to have overhead cover, a closeable auto entrance door and continuous walls. It could be a parking garage with common parking spaces all behind one entrance door. Parking spaces. Each parking space shall not be less than nine (-9-)(10) feet wide and eighteen ,. ~,,.20~ feet long exclusive of access drives. Handicapped parking shall be provided pursuant to state law which at the time of this publication requires a striped loading zone five (5) feet by eighteen (18) feet adjacent to the designated stall of eight (8) feet by eighteen (18) feet. Downtown Zoning Regulations /.pr!! 2~.,May 8. 2000 Working Drq[l page 5 o o All commercial off-street parking must be in rear or side yards. Where off-street parking abuts a public street right-of-way, all vehicular use areas other than necessary access drives are to be set back a minimum of 8 feet from the right-of-way. Setback areas are to be landscaped with plants, low walls and fences, earthen berms, etc, to provide some screening of the parking lot. For each 100 square feet of vehicular use area, 5 square feet of interior landscaping area is to be provided. Setback areas described above cannot be counted toward this requirement. A minimum of 25% of vehicular use areas are to be covered by tree canopy when trees are calculated at 2/3 mature size. Use the following formula to calculate canopy spread: mature tree height according to typical nursery standards x 0.66 x 0.66 = canopy spread. Proposers of parking lots must demonstrate how pedestrian movement will flow between parked vehicles and reasonably anticipated destinations. Parking lot design must provide pedestrian access routes within parking lots as necessary to allow convenient and safe circulation. All parking lots are to be illuminated to a minimum maintained footcandle level of 0.6 with a uniformity ratio of 4:1. Section 350:652 "DEST - PUD" Destination Planned Unit Development District Subd. 1 Purpose The Destination District is intended to allow for retail sales and services intended to serve the needs of the local population. This District is primarily oriented at the motoring public because of its location along minor arterial roadways and good visibility. Subd. 2 Permitted Uses a. Banks b. Barber and Beauty Shops c. Business or Trade Schools d. Churches e. Consignment Shops f. Day Care g. Delicatessen h. Drug Store i. Grocery Store j. Health Clubs, Fitness Centers, and Dance Studios k. Institutions and Charitable organizations 1. Liquor Stores m. Medical and Dental Clinics n. Offices o. Private Lodges and Clubs. p. Public Buildings Downtown Zoning Regulations /,Fri! 2?,May 8. 2000 Workin£ Draft page 6 Subd. 3 Subd. 4 Subd. 5 q. Public and Private Park and Recreation r. Restaurants (Class I, II and III) s. Retail Business t. Service Shops u. Theatres v. Transit stations Conditional Uses a. Accessory Outdoor Retail Uses b. Animal Hospitals c. Commercial Parking Lots d. Cultural and Fraternal Organizations e. Drive-in Retailing establishments f. Hospitals g. Minor Auto Repair, Tire and Battery Stores h. Taverns Accessory Uses a. Parking Lots b. Automatic teller machines (ATM) c. Bus shelters d. Signs e. Public telephone booths f. Antennas Bulk Standards Ordinary High Water (OHW) Setback (min.) Height (max.) Impervious Surface (max.) 50 feet 50 feet 75 percent or as approved by PUD All other bulk requirements as approved by PUD Section 350:653 "L - PUD" Linear Planned Unit Development District Subd. 1 Purpose The purpose of the Linear District is to provide a mix of medium and high density residential, institutional, and office uses. The Linear District provides a key entry point to the downtown core and will provide a higher degree of aesthetic treatment to complement the downtown. Sub& 2 Permitted Uses a. Townhouses Downtown Zoning Regulations /.Fri! 2~.,May 8. 2000 Workhtg Draft page 7 I Subd. 3 Subd. 4 Subd. 5 b. Multiple Family dwellings (6 + units) c. Offices d. Public and private schools e. Public park and recreation f. Public and Institutional Buildings g. Private Lodges and Clubs Conditional Uses a. Gas Stations b. Convenience Stores c. Boat and Marine Sales Accessory Uses a. Parking Lots b. Garages c. Bus shelters d. Signs e. Public telephone booths f. Antennas Bulk Standards Ordinary High Water (OHW) Setback (min.) Minimum Side and Rear Yard . Setbacks abutting a Residential District for non-residential uses Height (max.) Impervious Surface (max.) 50 feet 30 feet 35 feet 75 percent or as approved by CUP Section 350:690 "CON" Conservation District Subd. 1 Purpose The purpose of the Conservation District is to discourage the infringement of the manmade environment on the community's natural resources. The Conservation District includes those areas such as wetlands, marshes, steep slopes, interpretive areas, undeveloped islands, wildlife areas, and other areas that due to environmental conditions, are not generally appropriate for development. Subd. 2 Permitted Uses a. Parks b. Nature Conservation Areas Downtown Zoning Regulations /,Fri! 2~,,Ma_v 8. 2000 Working Draft page 8 c. Trails d. Overlooks and landings e. Docks Downtown Zoning Regulations .{p?.! 2~,,May 8. 2000 Worldng Drqft page 9 CITY OF MOUND Proposed Downtown Zoning Districts 'L I/ MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMIS;SlON MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 DF AFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE # 00-32: VARIANCE, JOHN VOLGSTROM, 2350 DRIFTWOOD LANE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE, FAMILY DWELLING WITH A NON-CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK, PID#13-117-24 44 0059. The City Planner stated that the cabin has been removed from the property. There are concerns over lot size and the conditions of the soil. The recommendation is for the Commission to discuss. If the Commission finds reason to grant, conditions for approval are outlined. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 15.4 feet 20 feet 4.8 feet Lot Area 5900 sf 10,000 sf 4100 sf Lot Width 55 feet 60 feet 5 feet Staff recommends the Planning Commission determine if the request changes the conditions of the previously approved Resolution for the property. If the Commission finds reason to approve the request, it should include the following conditions: 1. The front yard setback conform to setback requirements. 2. Approval by the MCWD. 3. Provide a finished floor elevation for the home that is at or above the RFPE. 4. Approval of the drainage plan by the City Engineer. 5. Connection to water and sewer utilities shall be installed at the owner's expense. 6. Verification of the septic tank and removal if present. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown for discussion purposes, to approve the prior City Council resolution recommendation with the additional variance. Discussion: The applicant stated that he was under the impression that this was approved as all setbacks have been met excluding the driveway, which is a small tdangle piece. The current proposal is different in that it is on pilings to eliminate hardcover issues. Michael stated that it did pass City Council, but did not pass the Planning Commission. Mueller asked about the hardcover calculations. The City Planner stated that there was no wetland ordinance identifying those wetlands as protected. The City Building Official stated that they surveyed other cities that use average high water for calculations. The City Planner confirmed for Mueller what variances were being requested. Mueller stated this was a lot of record. Weiland stated that when the lot was divided it should have been dealt with. The applicant stated this was very different from the first proposal. Voss stated that he felt that because it is lot of record, it should have a reasonable use or the City should buy it. Chair Michael called the question. Weiland asked if there was mention about 1/2 the lot area not being buildable. This was located on page 198. Mueller added an amendment to the Motion that the lowest floor be 931. AYES: 3 (Brown, Voss, Burma) NAYS: 5 (Hasse, Weiland, Michael, Glister, Mueller) MOTION DENIED. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to deny the request based on site size. AYES: 5 (Hasse, Weiland, Michael, Glister, Mueller) NAYS: 3 (Brown, Voss, Burma) MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Michael, to extend the work rules until 12:00 a.m. AYES: 8 MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Oroup Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: John Vogstrom CASE NUMBER: 00-32 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 2350 Driftwood Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to build a new home on a now vacant parcel along Seton Channel. The variance request is as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 15.4 feet 20 feet 4.8 feet Lot Area 5900 sf 10,000 sf 4100 sf Lot Width 55 feet 60 feet 5 feet This property was part of a request reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council in late 1997 and approved in 1999 by Resolution #99-44. That variance approval has now expired and this is a new application from a new applicant wishing to build on the lot. The conditions of the property remain unchanged aside from the cottage that has been demolished. Variances are requested as indicated above for lot area and width, as well as the southwest comer of the home that encroaches into the 20 feet front yard setback. The proposed home is a two story design with a side entry two stall detached garage. Because the property is low, the finished floor elevation is an issue. The garage floor elevation is shown as 933 feet but there is not a finished floor elevation for the home shown. It will also need to meet the Lake Minnetonka regulatory flood plain elevation (RFPE) of 933 feet. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 ti00-32 Variance Request - 2350 Driftwood Lane June 12, 2000 The previous Planning Report for this property indicated Staff's concerns about the small lot, soils conditions and relative size of the home proposed. These concerns are still present. The applicant has indicated the home will be built on pilings to address the poor soil conditions. This home is larger than the previous and has a front yard variance request the previous did not. Staff is still of the opinion this lot is better combined with the property on the lot to the south to resolve lot size, relative home size, and drainage issues. If the Planning Commission can find reason to grant the lot area and lot width variances as found in the previously approved Resolution, their approval would be appropriate. The front yard variance will also need finding of fact for its approval. Staff believes the home foundation size should be reduced to meet all setback requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission determine if the request changes the conditions of the previously approved Resolution for the property. If the Commission finds reason to approve the request, it should include the following conditions: 1. The front yard setback conform to setback requirements. 2. Approval by the MCWD. 3. Provide a finished floor elevation for the home that is at or above the RFPE. 4. Approval of the drainage plan by the City Engineer. 5. Connection to water and sewer utilities shall be installed at the owner's expense. 6. Verification of the septic tank and removal if present. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 RECEIVEg Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone:~72.0607, Fax: 472-0620 IT' r)D City Engin6er '7, ~ Public Works DNR -Omer ~t'1~, Other SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot / ~ LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision PI~ PROPER~ Name ~ OWNER Address ~GO Phone APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) c' ou ~'('¥ Plat~ B,2 B-3 (M) ~ Name -.J ~ fl~ ~J O ~-5T/2o Phone / 0 $ J (H)~S"/- ~,Y~--m.,.e~ ON) &,5'/- &~-O~O~ (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 reso utions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): it)o B /-IT- )U/LT' V'ariaece Application, P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all-area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district' in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for vadance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (N S Et~ (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover. REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ft. ft. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ft. sq ff sq ff sq ff sq ff sq ff sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No/~. If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other, specify describe: o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after- the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)'~ Yes (), No~. I~ 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? 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 l~ue 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. Date ~---//~ --(00 Date ,~--//~ "- 0(.~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIQ_US SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE X = X = X ~ DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks {1/4' min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTALHOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ................... X = X X TOTALDECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE 05/17/00 ~¥ED 10:38 FAX 612 461 1946 VOGUE HOLIES INC. [~]001 ~0Z0'9~9 (1~9) Z .Or, C) Z 05/17/00 WED 10:38 FAX 612 461 1946 VOG{~ HO~ES INC. ~002 Z,I I '[ .... OhZ~ ~. ~,6 05/17/O0 WED 10:39 FAX 612 461 1946 VOG[~ HOLIES INC. ~003 6,1 ~' / I I ~1 , ~1 Il il' ~. -~4, I <" - ' I'' ...... l'.'-'-'~' r"- ~ I I ~ ~, ~,~ii IJ-~. ,.i i ., ~.. i jj ,..~ ~ .~--'~ ~ i~ )~1 ~ ~_~ ~ ~Lt~ f ~ ~JJl I i } , 51- i 000316 13/117/24 VOGUE HOMES, INC. ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 Su VEYFOR: VOGUE HOMES INC. SURVEYED: April, 2000 DRAFTED: April 27, 2000 REVISED: May 16, 2000 to show revised house plan, garage and revise impervious areas LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 10, Skarp's East Lawn, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does no___!t include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing topography of the site by spot elevations and contour lines. 5. Showing a proposed dwelling and associated improvements and proposed grading for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over such a proposal. 6. Showing impervious areas for your review and for governmental review. 7. Showing compensating volume calculations for intrusion into the flood plain. , 8. Showing a topography of the adjacent property to the south for possible volume compensation. 9. We show proposed elevations with dashed lines and boxed numbers and boxed proposed elevations. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "· "Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Eng~-"d~Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. (s H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235, President prop. act. gorage hoof Prop. att. garage floor Benchmark top of Iron Uae this benchmark al ase to establish elev~, thls site, use at least feature to verify elevo "NCHMARK TOP OF' ON = 932.00 F932.77 t 2" WATER LINE PER CITY ROPOSED WATER : SE~'~R o..Ec'no.s MH - INERT 928.64 PER PLAN~ END OF B'~UmNOU,~t ' ~3.50 ! 933.10 ~ 9,33.10 ' = 932.60 id nothing Uons on one other [ions. TOP IMPERVIOUS AREA TABULATION 6625 sq. ft. above 929.4 contour x 40)[ = 2650 3242 sq. ft. above 9,31 contour x 40',[ --- 1297 House = 1562 sq. ft. Garage = 559 sq. ft. Drive = 307 sq. ft. Stoop and Walk = 109 sq. ft. Total Impervious = 2537 sq. ft. 951.25 $1.10 FLOOR PIERS FLOOD DISPLACEMENT CALCS Drive and walk oreo 141 sq. ft. by depth of 0.1 ~ feet = 1¢ cu. ft. Approximately 20 piling at .4 cuff each = 8 cu. ft. COMPENSATING VOLUME CALCS. Removal of tree and mound (41+179)/2 * .5 = 55 cu. ft. ~ Swale 3 sq. ft. X sect. '-x-- -' ' 1OO ft = 3OO cu. ft. 930.92 TOP OF ~,/ SEA WALLJ / / / / / / / / ~30.22 030.53 // 930.75 930.40 AREA =4~k~sq. ft.~ OF AREA =179 sq. SEA WALL 931.5 ~ ! ...... 93~ ~ ~o'.' . .' ~, ;~..~'-"'~T..... 930.86.1 /1 . / ~ i '"- 930.75 ~ -I / /TOP OF i ........... W,A _ ~ 930J75 ....... X 930.34 X~9.95 X93/5~929.31 ~SEA WALL & OHW / ' ~ 50 ' ~ / / ' ~ 929.22 929.~ 929.18 00031S '~ II ..x M :~ II 0z zc,~ ;,..] cn --Oi;. 'g ,-") cn M .g S c~ M 0 b-Z IIii / / June 8, 1999 RESOLUTION #99-44 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, AND FLOODPLAIN FILL ELEVATION STANDARDS VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID 13-117-24 44 0059 P & Z CASE #97-39 WHEREAS, the applicant, Robert Steele, has applied for a lot area, lot width, and floodplain fill elevation stanards variances to construct a new Single Family Dwelling at 23XX Driftwood Lane; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the variance requested by the applicant: Existing/Proposed Reauired Variance Lot Area 5,900 sf 10,000 sf 4,100 sf Lot Width 55 ft 60 ft 5 ft Grading within the floodplain fringe is required to be at 932 ft for a distance of 15 ft from the point where the grade meets the foundation. 931.5 ft is proposed for 5 ft on two sides and 15 ft on a third; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, front yard setback of 30 feet, 6 feet side yard setbacks, and 50 feet ordinary high water setback; and, WHEREAS, the current use of the property is a dilapidated cottage would be removed with the proposal; and, WHEREAS, there is a substantial portion of this property in the floodplain that cannot be used in the calculation of lot area; and, June 8, 1999 Steele-23xx Drift~vood I_n Page 2 WHEREAS, the city does not have jurisdiction over fill in the floodplain; and, WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distdct (MCWD) uses 931.5 as the regional flood elevation for Lake Minnetonka and does not allow any fill to be placed below that elevation, unless compensating volume is provided. The plan as submitted appears to provide for this compensation, but a permit must be granted by the MCWD; and, WHEREAS, the proposed hardcover is 1830 sf or 27.85%; and, WHEREAS, the proposed foundation with a finished floor elevation of 933.8 ft which meets residential structure elevation standards for floodplain areas; and, WHEREAS, the soil conditions on the property are poor but with proper engineering and building techniques, a home can be built to withstand unsuitable soil conditions; and, WHEREAS, the proposed home will be built to conform with all applicable zoning regulations; and, WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recommended denial; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend denial of the vadance with a vote of 4-3; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request and has granted the request with conditions; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lot area, lot width, and floodplain fill variances listed below as granted by the City Council in order to construct a new Single Family Dwelling with conditions: Existincl/Proposed Required Vadance Lot Area 5,900 sf 10,000 sf 4,100 sf Lot Width 55 ft 60 ft 5 ft Grading within the floodplain fringe is required to be at 932 ft for a distance of 15 ft from the point where the grade meets the foundation. 931.5 ft is proposed for 5 ft on two sides and 15 ft on a third. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The variances be approved pending the approval of the Minnehaha Watershed District. June 8, 1999 Steele-23xx Driftwood Ln Page 3 Do Approval of drainage plan by the City Engineer. The building conform to the setback requirements for the R-1 zoning distdct and floodplain regulations. Connection to water and sewer utilities shall be installed at the owners expense. Removal of the septic tank if present. 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 new Single Family Dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated from Hennepin County Property Information: LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, 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. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Brown, Hanus, Meisel, Weycker The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 25, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 25, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Police Chief Len Harrell, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Brown asked that item 3D be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Weycker pulled item 3A from the Consent Agenda. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to approve the Regular Agenda, as presented, and items B, C, E, F, G, II, and I from the Consent Agenda. CASE # 97-39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE. ROBERT STEELE, LOT 10. SKARP'S EAST LAWN. PID # 13-117-24 44 0059. Gordon reported that this case came before the Planning Commission originally in November 1997. The application was tabled to develop a more suitable proposal. The request is for a variance in buildable lot size and for lot width variation, as well as flood plan elevation. The proposed structure will be a lot that will have 5900 square feet of buildable land, thus requiring a 4100 square foot variance from the required 10,000 square feet. The lot width is fifty-five feet as opposed to a sixty foot required width. The proposed foundation with Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES a finished floor would be at 933.8 feet elevation that meets the elevation standards for floodplain areas. Gordon also stated that the soil was poor and even if filled would wash out as time goes by. The property owner has applied to the Watershed District in order to sign off on the compensation area requested to back fill this property. The proposed grading plan does then come under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A letter from Jim Hafner provides comment on this issue. The record notes that a memorandum from Ceil Strauss, the area hydrologist at the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources arrived in the office on April 12, 1999. This memo was brought to the meeting for review. Based on her survey on April 2, 1999, this lot would require "net filling." She stands opposed to net filling in the floodplain area and that this property would not meet the City's regulation of fifteen feet from all directions of the house to have the property be within the elevation for the 100 year height. In a later conversation with the applicant, Ms. Strauss has indicated that they would not oppose this proposed structure and would write an amending letter if necessary. Gordon stated that in the first meeting in April 1999, the recommendation of the Commission was to table this proposal until receiving additional information regarding similar cases in recent history. The proposal was brought back to the Planning Commission in late April for further consideration. After much discussion of the issues, the precedent cases, the Commission recommended that the variance be denied on a vote of 4-3. They feel that there may be other alternatives in recombining lots 10 - 12 to make a lot that has a more buildable lot size. Brown commented that he felt rather strongly about this case. He stated such comments at the Planning Commission meetings. First of all, he stated, the fact that the sea wall is eroding is not due to the fault of Mr. Steele. It is due to lack of maintenance. Additionally, Mr. Steele is paying assessments for sewer even though a septic tank is used on this site. Water is available. Mr. Steele, Brown explained is proposing to place a nice structure on this property, tie it into the City sewer system, place additional fill on this land to create additional lot area above the floodplain level, all of which would provide a more decent view from one of the main channels of the City. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES Ahrens commented that in the handout that Mr. Steele provided to all the Council members, he had provided the City with comparisons of other properties that had received variances to build that also were grossly undersized. She stated that based on some recent applications that had been granted, she would have trouble not granting this one. Staff's response to some of the more recent applications that had been approved covered that the applicants already lived on site and the "structure" was not vacant. They are trying to improve the infrastructure of the City and raise the housing standards which ties to their reason for recommending non approval. The Mayor asked if they were saying that the lot was unbuildable unless it was combined with other lots. Gordon answered that no, but it was a lot smaller than standards. The Mayor indicated that the staff should not be looking at other properties to recombine with. The fact that his daughter owns the adjacent property should not play into the decision. Brown reiterated that this applicant had been paying taxes, assessments just like anyone else. "To say his land was unbuildable was wrong," stated Brown. Sutherland indicated that when the applicant purchased the property, they purchased both tax parcels. He should have been aware of the building ordinances when he sold part of the total property to his daughter. The applicant should have been aware that the remaining parcel was not large enough to build on and does not meet the City's Comprehensive Plans and Goals. Hanus stated that he had an issue with this. Both of these properties were "lots of record" and were separate tax parcels. It is not reasonable to expect all owners to know all the zoning codes. Ahrens did not feel that the argument that the applicant was not currently occupying the home was a valid one either. The Council had discussions about what the various jurisdictions stated about this property and the ability they had to regulate certain aspects of the property. This was when Mr. Steele reported his conversation with the DNR. Hanus stated that if the Watershed District approved the proposal, the applicant should be granted the variance. Brown started a motion to recommend approval of the variances, the setbacks, the lot area and width and the grading exceptions which was seconded by Hanus. However, both Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES withdrew their motions after the recognition that a resolution should be drawn up to grant the variances. Alxrens felt the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval which would be conditioned on the Minnehaha Watershed District's approval on the land fill. Weycker commented that if the structure was conforming, she felt he should be able to build it. Hanus also supported the proposal by looking at both sides. Yes, the lot was undersized, however, that was a case in a lot of lots in Mound. Secondly, instead of an old cabin, now there would be nice home. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Hanus to direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the variances requested by Mr. Steele subject to Minnehaha Watershed District approval and an approved drainage plan as reviewed by the City Engineer. Hanus seconded this motion to add clarification to it. The building should conform to the setbacks and floodplain regulations. It should be hooked up to sewer and the septic tank properly abandoned. Finally, it should come back to the City Council the second week of June 1999 for final approval. Mr. Steele came forward with the following comments. When he brought the other cases before the Planning Commission for comparison, he did that to show the good points of his plan. One, he would be improving the drainage situation that exists today from the vacated Driftwood Lane. He recognizes and thanks the Council for taking each of these cases on their own merit. They have allowed owners to do what is a "fair and reasonable use of their property. He reiterated that he is trying to do everything that is possible to make this a good lot. The statutes should be applied fairly and evenly across the board. While he agrees that the City's ordinances should be met where possible, he is presenting the best proposal for his property. Motion carried. 5-0. The Mayor reiterated that Staff would be in touch with Mr. Steele and that this would come before the Council again on June 8~h. Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council June 8, 1999 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 8, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, at 7:48 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, Police Chief Len Harrell, Building Official Jon Suthefland, and Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon. Those present fi.om the public were: Amy Steele, 2352 Drift-wood Lane; Robert Wroda, 2316 Fairview Lane; John Costello, Lakeshore Weekly News The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. She indicated that they had come fi.om a closed executive session and thanked the audience for their patience in the meeting starting late. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Brown asked that item B be pulled l~om the Consent Agenda. Hanus asked that items A and D be pulled also. Brown added item K to the Consent Agenda which was a letter fi'om the Minnesota House of Representatives regarding the Mound Masonic Lodge #320. Ahrens added item L, a public hearing notice for the Triax License for Media Com. Clark added item M, a application for a transient merchant license for a garden market stand on Lynwood and Commerce Boulevard in the parking lot. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approved the Regular and Consent Agendas except items A, B and D. Motion carried 5-0. RESOLUTION: CASE #97-39 TO APPROVE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN. ROBERT STEELE. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 25, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 25, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Police Chief Len Harrell, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. CASE # 97-39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, ROBERT STEELE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID # 13-117-24 44 0059. Gordon reported that this case came before the Planning Commission originally in November 1997. The application was tabled to develop a more suitable proposal. The request is for a variance in buildable lot size and for lot width variation, as well as flood plan elevation. The proposed structure will be a lot that will have 5900 square feet of buildable land, thus requiring a 4100 square foot variance from the required 10,000 square feet. The lot width is fifty- five feet as opposed to a sixty foot required width. The proposed foundation with a f'mished floor would be at 933.8 feet elevation that meets the elevation standards for floodplain areas. Gordon also stated that the soil was poor and even if filled would wash out as time goes by. The property owner has applied to the Watershed District in order to sign off on the compensation area requested to back fill this property. The proposed grading plan does then come under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A letter from Jim Hafner provides comment on this issue. The record notes that a memorandum from Ceil Strauss, the area hydrologist at the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources arrived in the office on April 12, 1999. This memo was brought to the meeting for review. Based on her survey on April 2, 1999, this lot would require "net filling." She stands opposed to net filling in the floodplain area and that this property Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES would not meet the City's regulation of fifteen feet from all directions of the house to have the property be within the elevation for the 100 year height. In a later conversation with the applicant, Ms. Strauss has indicated that they would not oppose this proposed structure and would write an amending letter if necessary. Gordon stated that in the fa'st meeting in April 1999, the recommendation of the Commission was to table this proposal until receiving additional information regarding similar cases in recent history. The proposal was brought back to the Planning Commission in late April for further consideration. After much discussion of the issues, the precedent cases, the Commission recommended that the variance be denied on a vote of 4-3. They feel that there may be other alternatives in recombining lots 10 - 12 to make a lot that has a more buildable lot size. Brown commented that he felt rather strongly about this case. He stated such comments at the Planning Commission meetings. First of all, he stated, the fact that the sea wall is eroding is not due to the fault of Mr. Steele. It is due to lack of maintenance. Additionally, Mr. Steele is paying assessments for sewer even though a septic tank is used On this site. Water is available. Mr. Steele, Brown explained is proposing to place a nice structure on this property, tie it into the City sewer system, place additional fill on this land to create additional lot area above the floodplain level, all of which would provide a more decent view from one of the main channels of the City. Ahrens commented that in the handout that Mr. Steele provided to all the Council members, he had provided the City with comparisons of other properties that had received variances to build that also were grossly undersized. She stated that based on some recent applications that had been granted, she would have trouble not granting this one. Staff's response to some of the more recent applications that had been approved covered that the applicants already lived on site and the "structure" was not vacant. They are trying to improve the infrastructure of the City and raise the housing standards which ties to their reason for recommending non approval. The Mayor asked if they were saying that the lot was unbuildable unless it was combined with other lots. Gordon answered that no, but it was a lot smaller than standards. The Mayor Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES indicated that the staff should not be looking at other properties to recombine with. The fact that his daughter owns the adjacent property should not play into the decision. Brown reiterated that this applicant had been paying taxes, assessments just like anyone else. "To say his land was unbuildable was wrong," stated Brown. Sutherland indicated that when the applicant purchased the property, they purchased both tax parcels. He should have been aware of the building ordinances when he sold part of the total property to his daughter. The applicant should have been aware that the remaining parcel was not large enough to build on and does not meet the City's Comprehensive Plans and Goals. Hanus stated that he had an issue with this. Both of these properties were "lots of record" and were separate tax parcels. It is not reasonable to expect all owners to know all the zoning codes. Ahrens did not feel that the argument that the applicant was not currently occupying the home was a valid one either. The Council had discussions about what the various jurisdictions stated about this property and the ability they had to regulate certain aspects of the property. This was when Mr. Steele reported his conversation with the DNR. Hanus stated that if the Watershed District approved the proposal, the applicant should be granted the variance. Brown started a motion to recommend approval of the variances, the setbacks, the lot area and width and the grading exceptions which was seconded by Hanus. However, both withdrew their motions after the recognition that a resolution should be drawn up to grant the variances. Ahrens felt the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval which would be conditioned on the Minnehaha Watershed District's approval on the land fill. Weycker commented that if the structure was conforming, she felt he should be able to build it. Hanus also supported the proposal by looking at both sides. Yes, the lot was undersized, however, that was a case in a lot of lots in Mound. Secondly, instead of an old cabin, now there would be nice home. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Hanus to direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the variances requested by Mr. Steele subject to Minnehaha Watershed District approval and an approved drainage plan as reviewed by the City Engineer. Mound City Council Meeting Minutes May 25, 1999 DRAFT MINUTES Hanus seconded this motion to add clarification to it. The building should conform to the setbacks and floodplain regulations. It should be hooked up to sewer and the septic tank properly abandoned. Finally, it should come back to the City Council the second week of June 1999 for final approval. Mr. Steele came forward with the following comments. When he brought the other cases before the Planning Commission for comparison, he did that to show the good points of his plan. One, he would be improving the drainage situation that exists today from the vacated Driftwood Lane. He recognizes and thanks the Council for taking each of these cases on their own merit. They have allowed owners to do what is a "fair and reasonable use of their property. He reiterated that he is trying to do everything that is possible to make this a good lot. The statutes should be applied fairly and evenly across the board. While he agrees that the City's ordinances should be met where possible, he is presenting the best proposal for his property. Motion carried. 5-0. The Mayor reiterated that Staffwould be in touch with Mr. Steele and that this would come before the Council again on June 8th. 4 Engineering Planning · Surveying RECEIVED ,' av - 5 i999 MOUND PLA It'It G & INSP. MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 1999 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Driftwood Lane Drainage MFRA #11781 As requested I have reviewed the petition requesting improvements to the drainage at the end of Driftwood Lane and have the following comments and/or recommendations. The City in 1954 vacated the southerly 130 feet of Driftwood Lane and according to the documents available to our office did not retain any drainage or utility easements. The remaining portion of Driftwood Lane was improved in 1980 with concrete curb and gutter and bituminous paving. The plans called for a bituminous spillway to be constmcted on a vacated portion of Driftwood Lane at the end of the improved street. Either the presem or a previous owner had fill deposited at the end of the street, blocking the drainage. Most of this material had now been removed, but some still does remain. A swale needs to be constructed very similar to the one shown on the Certificate of Survey dated June 12, 1998 (revised 4-9-99) and prepared for Bob Steele by Coffin and Gronberg. It is my understanding that this survey and accompanying calculations were prepared to show compensatory grading for fill placed in the flood plain. It is my recommendation that this request in the form of a petition be put on hold until all other requests, such as variances, fill permits, etc. are finalized. If the City undertakes any project to improve drainage which requires work with the vacated portion of Driftwood lane, permanent draining and utility easements will be needed. e:~main:\l 1781 :~sutherland5-4 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-maih mfra@mfra.com MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Those absent: Jerry Clapsaddle (excused); Becky Glister (excused). Public Present: Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane); Bob Steele; Gaylord Steele (207 Donne); Mr. and Mrs. James Smith (3153 Priest Lane); Jay Peterson (2667 Halstead Lane). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, ROBERT STEELE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN. PID # 13-117-24 44 0059. Gordon reviewed the discussion held at the April 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The proposal is to add fill to the lot to increase the area to 5900 square feet of buildable land, thus requiring a 4100 square foot variance from the required 10,000 square feet. The lot width is fifty-five feet short of the sixty-foot width requirement. The proposed foundation with a finished floor would be at 933.8 feet elevation that is above the elevation standards for floodplain areas. At that meeting, Mr. Steele presented various situations in which the Commission has granted variances with more stringent conditions. The Commission members asked to review these cases before making any decisions. Thus, the application was tabled in order for Staff to review these cases and bdng their recommendations back to the Commission. These cases included: Hicks: 92-014; Wigen: 96-04; Kelm: 98-09; and 92-57. After review, Staff's recommendation did not change. Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Gordon and Suthedand met with Ceil Strauss from the DNR Waters department and Jim Hafner from the MCWD last week visiting the site. There continues to be issues with the sea wall behind the property and the adjacent property. There are real land issues that need to be addressed. Mueller restated and verified Staff's position, that given all the current conditions and factors, this land is considered unbuildable without recombination with other adjacent properties although there is some concern that a lot recombination may not work either without variances to lot area. Gordon stated that this is true, however, it would present a much better situation than the current proposal. Staff would probably recommend approval of a plan if several lots were combined. Mueller asked if Staff has spoken with the City Attorney to declare this lot unbuildable because of floodplain and seawall issues. The attorney is aware of the issues of the case. The water issues and seawall issues are DNR and Watershed District issues and are subject to their hearings. Brown asked if in their talks with the DNR and Watershed, was the land originally filled in all the way to the seawall. Gordon stated that was his understanding. Brown stated that the seawall issue is a channel issue, not a stabilization issue of the land. If the land were brought up to that level, he asked if it would be conforming. Filling in the land is a one-time thing with the DNR and Watershed stated Gordon. He believes it would be an on going, continuing problem since the soil is poor and the land fill goes back into the lake. Brown asked if concrete for the seawall would be better than steel. Gordon stated the Planning Commission needed to stick to land use issues. Brown's point is that the County built the seawall and said it was all right to build a home on the property. Now the seawall has eroded and it becomes the City's problem. He doesn't see this as valid. Weiland stated that the seawall was built to keep the channel open, not to make the land buildable. Page 47 of the meeting packet has the DNR's latest comments. Mueller told Mr. Steele that since the last meeting, he has had time to review the minutes and the cases that were brought to the Planning Commission's attention. While the cases were similar, each was unique and weighed on its own merits. He had some concerns regarding the property. When purchased, it appeared to be one parcel Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 and two Tax IDs. On page 90, the deed is there with lots 10-11-12-13 on it. He wanted to know how it was broken up. He also wanted to know what made a Tax ID a buildable lot. Gordon stated that in the City of Mound, a Tax ID did constitute a parcel of land. Lot 10 was a separate Tax ID prior to 1978 and lots 11-12-13 formed a second Tax ID pdor to 1978. In 1995, lots 10-13 were transferred to Amy Steele and she then transferred lot 10 to Robert Steele. Sutherland stated that in no shape or form did Staff every represent the lot as buildable although they were separate Tax Ids. Mr. Steele stated that given his lawyers advice, he purchased this in good faith with the understanding that it was a buildable piece of property. Brown pointed out that at this time, he did not believe that lot 10 was hooked up to water and sewer. Mr. Steele stated that he was paying a sewer bill. Weiland believes that what he is paying is a sewer assessment fee, not for sewer services themselves. He believes that this property has a septic tank on it. Brown asked if the cabin was currently vacant. He asked Mr. Steele if he could live there. Mr. Steele said yes, the water was pumped over from his daughter's home and he had thought there was sewer hooked up to it. He is not sure if it is up to code Gordon referred back to earlier questions regarding filling in of the land. Even if it was filled in all the way to the seawall and even if they felt it would stay put, there would still only be 6400 square feet of buildable land. The code is 10,000. Even if it is a "lot of record, "it does not guarantee it a buildable. Burma had some concerns about the discussion. He wanted to know how the lot next door was different. It was undersized and had a larger home on it. Gordon stated that since there was an occupied house on it when the application was made, it is different than a parcel with a vacant dilapidated cabin.. Burma also asked if the fact that relatives owned the adjacent lots if that clouded the judgement of the commissioners. Gordon responded that the zoning code is in place to bring up the housing standards Suthedand stated that the Planning Commission could limit the use to a cabin. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the non-conforming use could be removed. Staff is going forward and eliminating these as they come up for review to heighten the standards aimed at in the Zoning Amendments. Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Brown stated that dealing with his property only are we going to say you cannot improve your property. He doesn't think the City should block improvement of property. By improving the property, the septic tank would be removed which raises another on- going issue in the City. Mr. Steele asked to speak. He raised the issue of Driftwood Lane and the fact that the properties do not drain properly. The "road" drains on the properties since it was abandoned and by building a swale, this issue would be resolved. He is giving something to the City. He brought with him a petition from the residents along Driftwood Lane regarding the drainage situation. The petition states: 'q'his petition is to inform the City of Mound that Driftwood Lane is in need of a way to drain all the runoff from rain and snow. Currently since there is no drain anywhere on Driftwood Lane, the water from the whole street goes to the end of the road and settles at 2352 Driftwood Lane. This is ruining the foundation, as well as the property. All of the below signed residents are in favor of having a swale put in to remedy the situation." Amy Steele Richard and Linda Wigner Kelly and Veronica Johnson Robert Steele 2352 Ddffwood Lane 2331 Driftwood Lane 2308 Driftwood Lane 23XX Driftwood Lane Mr. Steele also plans to fix the seawall that will help contain his property and home. Ms. Strauss from the DNR has verbally agreed to step aside from the 15' fill elevation standard around the home and let the City rule. By adding fill to his property, Mr. Steele is adding more land than exists today. He believes this is a "fair and reasonable" use of his property. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to support staff's position in working toward total conformity. However, until the City can purchase this "Lot of Record" in order to maintain this direction, recommend that the variances be granted. Voss is sure that Staff, DNR, and Watershed District will work with applicant to ensure a proper house is built. Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Mueller wanted to note that the Glen Allyn application was under separate ownership at the time of purchase. In this case, there was a contiguous owner when the Zoning codes were enacted. This would give a legal way out of the issue. However, in light of staff's comments making this a separate parcel since it was a separate lot, it thus becomes a buildable property in his mind unless the City can purchase it. Mueller would like this in writing from the City Attomey. Brown will pass on the comments from the Planning Commission to the City Council that an answer is wanted regarding the buildability since it is a separate Tax ID and thus, parcel. He asked Staff to see if it was economically and feasible to purchase this property to use as drainage form the other lots. A call to vote was taken. Ayes: Burma, Voss, and Brown. Nays: Mueller, Michael, Weiland, and Hasse. Motion does not carry. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff's recommendation. Ayes: Mueller, Michael, Weiland, and Hasse. Nays: Voss, Burma, Brown. Motion carries. Chair Michael noted that this will come before City Council on May 11, 1999. Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 12. 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Public Present: Steve Stortz (3770 Enchanted Lane), Bob Steele ( 8515 Wood Lane, Germantown, TN), Rhonda Eudch (5585 Sherwood Ddve), Jeff Dilliner (2037 Commerce Boulevard), Tom Higus (2032 Bellaire Lane), Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane). Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 97-39: VARIANCE, SETBACK, LOT AREA WIDTH, TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE; ROBERT STEELE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID # 13-117-24 44 0059. Gordon presented the case. This case came before the Commission in November 1997. At that time the applicant asked the Commission to table the application to develop a more suitable proposal. The request is for a variance in buildable lot size and for lot width variation, as well as flood plan elevation. The proposal is to add fill to the lot to increase the area to 5900 square feet of buildable land, thus requiring a 4100 square foot variance from the required 10,000 square feet. The lot width is fifty-five feet short of the sixty foot width requirement. The proposed foundation with a finished floor would be at 933.8 feet elevation that is above the elevation standards for floodplain areas. The property owner has applied to the Watershed District to review the back fill proposed for the property. The proposed grading plan does then come under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A letter from Jim Hafner provides comment on this issue. Mound Planning Commission Minutes Api~112, 1999 There is no relationship between the City's regulation for a fifteen foot "mounding" around the home and the zoning setbacks. It is neady impossible for this lot to meet this regulation given the lot width. The vadance request does not meet Mound's zoning requirements nor advance Mound's development plans. Other options of combing the property are available and would reduce the amount of variance. The ideal situation would be to combine lot 10 with lots 11,12, and 13 for one buildable parcel. Also, the soil conditions are poor, stated Gordon in his planning report dated April 12, 1999. Staff does not recommend this vadance since it is such a large amount of variance to standards. The fill issue is a secondary reason, since the conditions of the lot indicated that placing additional soil on this property is a futile effort as it will eventually be lost to the lake. Fill will also increase the drainage to adjacent properties and could have a negative effect on homes that may already have foundation issues due to the lake. Grading would only enhance this affect. The record notes that a memorandum from Ceil Strauss, the area hydrologist at the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources arrived in the office on April 12, 1999. This memo was brought to the meeting for review. Based on her survey on April 2, 1999, this lot would require "net filling." She stands opposed to net filling in the floodplain area and that this property would not meet the City's regulation of fifteen feet from all directions of the house to have the property be within the elevation for the 100 year height. Clapsaddle was excused at 9:15 p.m. Mueller asked where the fill would be obtained from for this property. From adjacent or contiguous properties stated the applicant. Wouldn't this create the need for a variance on some of the other properties stated Mueller. Suthedand responded that variances on other properties do not pertain to this case. He suggested there may be other options such as using part of the lot, (his daughter owns it) next door. MOTION by Mueller to deny the request for a variance. The owner discussed that the reason the lot did not meet minimum buildable size was not a situation that was created by him. It was created when Hennepin County dredged Seton Channel. In their letter dated August 10, 1998, the County stated that it was responsible for maintenance of the seawall. In a letter from the City in 1938, they abandoned the lot. The owner stated the soil was peat and it does sink. To make sufficient land area to get to 5900 square feet, the owner proposes to dredge 67 yards of soil out of lots 11, 12, and 13 to fill lot 10. If his request is approved by the Mound Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 1999 Watershed District, he will do three things, solve an existing drainage problem along Driftwood Lane, he would put up a "beautiful" structure which replaces the existing cabin, and he raises the lot elevation significantly. Mr. Steele presented the Commission with a book showing pictures and documentation of the issue along this neighborhood. He also brought with him samples of other documentation which shows that the City has granted variances that were this great before and that his lot should not be the exception. Weiland stated that the owner to the north had a foundation, this home would not have a foundation when the applicant discussed the floodplain issues. He believes the situations sited by the applicant are different and therefore were somewhat mute to this issue. Michael also stated that each case is based on its own merit. He would like the staff, Suthedand, in particular to review the cases Mr. Steele is presenting in order to be "fair and reasonable" in looking into this case. The applicant stated he "didn't care why other properties had been granted the variances they needed, but that they did approve those." Weiland stated that the applicant didn't see all the ones that were not approved, either. Commission members stated that the information in this book was pertinent and that they liked it, however, they cannot make a decision this evening without reviewing those cases. Weiland also asked for the plans for the dredging and compensation land. Burma stated the applicant should table his application so that the Commission members can review the information in the book presented to them this evening from Mr. Steele. Mueller withdrew his motion to deny the variance request. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to table this application until Staff has an opportunity to pull documentation on pertinent cases together and share with the information with the Planning Commission. Motion carried: 8-0. This will be an agenda item for the April 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. If any correspondence needs to take place, Gordon stated that he would get in touch with Mr. Steele. 86 May 26, 1992 RESOLUTION ~92-57 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW REMODELING OF AN EXISTING HOME AT 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %18-117-23 31 0006, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-014 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to substantially remodel an existing home requiring the issuance of four variances: 1) an 11 foot lakeshore setback variance, 2) a 5,200 square foot lot area variance, 3) a .7 foot side yard setback variance for a proposed attached garage, and 4) a 1.5 foot side yard setback variance for an existing concrete slab; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-i, Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code requires a 50 foot lakeshore setback, 10,000 square feet of lot area above the floodplain elevation, a 6 foot side yard setback for an attached garage and a two foot side yard setback for a concrete slab; and WHEREAS, the property has a total lot area of 19,300 square feet of which approximately 4,800 square feet lies above the floodplain elevation; and WHEREAS, all other setbacks are conforming and the property is surrounded by Lake Minnetonka on three sides; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the lakeshore, lot area, and side yard setback variances contingent upon the submittal of building plans that identify a minimum floor elevation of 933.5 feet with a vote of 6 in favor and 0 opposed. In rendering its opinion, the Planning Commission adopted the following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variances are in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are the direct result of the shape of the parcel over which the applicant has no control. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The city does hereby approve an 11 foot lakeshore variance, a 5,200 square foot lot area variance, and side yard setback variances of .7 and 1.5 feet, and a 35 foot street frontage variance subject to the applicant submitting building plans that identify a minimum finished f}oor elevation of,933.5 feet. The variances are approved to allow the substantial 86 , May 26, 1992 remodeling of the existing residence. 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: a. Reconstruction of the existing home and garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 13 and 14, Block 1, Shadow·od Point. 0006 PID %18-117-23 31 e This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. th The following voted in ' : none. st: City Clerk 87 MINUTES - HOUND CITY COUNCIL MAY 26, 1992 The City Council 'of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. : Tho~e present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: city Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Jim Larson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and the following interested citizens: Phil & Vicki Davis, Dave Wisnewski, Jeff McMurray, Archie Hanus, Dean Hanus, Mark Hanus, Melvin Zuckman, Allen Schwingler, Jack & Joan Ronning, Steve Hicks, Mark Bussey, Carole Munson, Geoff Michael, Bill Meyer, Jeff Vint, Mike Roy, Roger Stephanson, and Mark Goldberg. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECYCLOTTO WINNER The Mayor presented $300.00 Westonka Dollars to A1 Schwingler, 5301 Bartlett Blvd. 1.1 MINUTES MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve the minutes of the May 12, 1992, Regular Meeting, and the Mary 19, 1.4 CASE %92-014: STEVEN & TAMARA HICKS, 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, 8HADYWOOD POINT, PID %18- 117 23 31 0006. V~RIANCE - ~DDITION The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. .The Planning Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-57 RESOLUTION TO APPROFEAFARIANCE TO ALLOW REMODELING OF AN EXISTING HOME AT 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %18-117-23 31 0006, P & Z CASE %92-014 The Council asked that the 35 foot street frontage variance be added to the proposed resolution. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF A MEETING OP THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 11, 1992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, -Geoff-Michael, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Mark Hanus, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Council Representative Liz Jensen and Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and Brian Johnson were absent and excused. The following persons were also in attendance: Jack and Joan Ronning, Steven Hicks, Jeff McMurray and Deb Baker, Peter Jacobson, Mark Bussey, Jeff Vint, Dave Wisnewski, Jack Bolke, Janice Saunders, and Vicki Davis. MINUTES The April 27, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes were presented for changes and/or additions. Hanus requested a change on page three of the minutes in the second paragraph, 5th line, to delete "has" and replaced it with "created." MOTION ma~e by Hanus, seconded by Voss, to approve the April 27, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes as amended. Hotion carried unanimously. CASE #92-014: STEVEN & TAMARA HICKS, 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID $18-117-23 31 0006. VARIANCE - addition. .' City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to substantially remodel an existing'home that abuts Lake Minnetonka on three sides of the lot. The total lot area is 19,300 square feet, however, a substantial portion of the lot appears to lie below the floodplain which according to the Zoning Code, cannot be counted as lot area. The existing home has a nonconforming lakeshore setback and the existing detached garage has a nonconforming side yard setback. The new construction will improve the side yard setback, however, it will still require a variance since the new garage will be an attached structure. The variances being requested include an 11' lakeshore setback variance to the east, a .7' side yard setback variance, and a lot area variance of approximately 5,200 sq. ft. Staff recommended approval of the lakeshore, lot area and side yard variance as identified for the purpose of the substantial remodeling of the existing home. Approval is contingent upon the applicant submitting building plans that identify a minimum floor elevation of at least 933.5. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: In approving the variances subject to the stated conditions, the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are the direct result of the shape of the parcel over which the applicant has no control. The Commission questioned if the concrete slab to the north of the property line is required to meet a setback. It was noted that Zoning Code Section 23.408 (3) b. requires that terraces meet a 2 foot setback and the definition for a terrace includes "patios." Koegler noted that the proposed modifications to the Zoning Code Planning Co~miss~on Minutes % May 11:1992 will not require that patios or slabs meet a 2 foot setback requirement. Mueller commented that a street frontage variance should also be recognized as the property is required to have 60 feet of frontage and only 25 feet exists. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variances as requested and as recommended by staff, including a 1.5 foot side yard setback variance £or the concrete slab and a 35 foot street frontage · variance. Motion carried unanlmously. This case will be heard by the City.~9~_~._May 26, 199~.~ .... HOI Hoisin ton Group I. nc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Steven & Tamara Hicks CASE NUMBER: 92-014 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1t LOCATION: 2072 Shorewood Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicants are proposing to substantially remodel an existing home that abuts Lake Minnetonka on three sides of the lot. The total lot area is 19,300 square feet, however, a substantial portion of the lot appears to lie below the floodplain which according to the Zoning Code, can not be counted as lot area. At the present time, the existing home has a nonconforming lakeshore setback and the existing detached garage has a nonconforming side yard setback. The new construction will improve the side yard setback, however, it will still require a variance since the new garage will be an attached structure. As proposed, the request involves the following variances: 7401 Metro Blva. - Suite 340 - Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 Hicks Variance Request Page 2 Existing or Proposed Required Variance Lakeshore (East) 3 9' 50' 1 1' Lot Area 4,800 sq ft* 10,000 sq ft 5,200 sq ft Side Yard 5.3' 6' 7' * Lot area is a staff estimate based on the survey and the proposed floor elevation of the remodeled structure. COMMENT: The proposed reconstruction of the home will not change the existing lakeshore setback. It will improve the side yard setback from 3.1 to 5.3 feet, however, when the garage is attached to the principal structure, the required setback changes from 4 to 6 feet. A substantial portion' of the Hicks propertY lies within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. As a part of the proposed improvements, the applicant has indicated that the minimum floor elevation of the structure will be raised to 934.0. The Mound Floodplain Ordinance requires an elevation of 933.5 for areas around Lake Minnetonka. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the lakeshore, lot area and side yard variance identified above for the purpose of the substantial remodeling of the existing home. The staff recommendation for approval is contingent upon the applicant submitting building plans that identify a minimum floor elevation of at least 933.5. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: In approving the variances subject to the stated conditions, the Planning Commission finds the request in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are the direct result of the shape of the parcel over which the applicant has no control. Pp, oPo%er) ,/ 82 May 14, 1996 RESOLIFFION ~6..$0 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE TO Ar.r.OW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 2332 DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN PID 13--117-24, .M 0058, P&Z ~6-04 WltEREAS, the owner, Richard Wigner has applied for a lot size and width variance to allow construction of a new conforming dwelling, and; ~AS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family' Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum lot arm of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 6 feet for lots of record, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary highwater elevation, and; WEEEREAS, the existing lot width is 50 feet, the required width is 60 feet resulting i.n recognition of a 10 foot variance, and; WFiEREAS, the required lot area is 10,000 square feet, the existing lot area is 7,248 +- square feet, this results in the recognition of a 2,752 square foot variance, and; ~AS, the existing sub-standard dwelling will be demolished, and; WI~.REAS, the proposed dwelling will be conforming to setbacks, and will be a substantial improvement to the existing conditions on the property, and; WFIEREAS, all improvements are required to be in full conformance with the floodplain regulations contained in the City Code and the State Building Code. Staff has worked with the applicant on this issue and the plans are being revised to be in conformance with the lowest floor elevation for lake Minnetonka of 933. The floodplain is being modified by being filled, and it is also being compensated for 1/1 on-site. The proposed floodplain modifications have been reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicant must obtain other agency approvals as necessary, such as the Minnehaha Cr~k Watershed District, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and impervious surface coverage are conforming, and; ~."!-IEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with a vote of seven in favor and two opposed. l~solufion ~J6-50 83 May 14, 1996 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Mirmesota as follows: The City does hereby grant a 2,752 square foot lot area variance and a 10 foot lot width variance to construct a new dwelling with the following findings: 1) The request with minor modifications is conforming to the ordinance, and 2) with this proposal there will be a substantial improvement to the existing condition of the property, and will result in the elimination of two existing nonconformities, the detached garage and the nonconforming side yard setback to the existing dwelling. Approval is subject to the following conditions: The driveway area, as proposed, must be reduced to allow for conforming impervious surface coverage. be The driveway must be crowned in order to direct the flow of stormwater around the side and towards the lake. Approval from other agencies, as required, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The area under the deck must be a permeable surface so as not to have a nonconforming impervious surface coverage situation. e 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 use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to alt of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. e It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration of a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming single family dwelling (30' x 50') with an attached garage and a conforming deck (8' x 30'). 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 9, Skarp's East Lawn. 84 Resolution ~,-~0 May 14, 19~6 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 r~cording has been filed with the City Clerk. Thc foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: Acting City Clerk Resolution adopted: May 14, 1996 Mayor MINUTES - M. OUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 14, 1996 · The City Council of the City of Mound, Flennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 14, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Ma)twood Road, in ~fid City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz lensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also in attendance: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Edward I. Shukle, Jr., Parks Director Jim Faclder and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Dan Grady, Suzanne Grady, Richard I. Wigner, Wayne EMebracht, Beverly Barkley, Rodney Hein, Steve Bell, Ken Custer, Dorene Hanson, Dan and Sandi Strot, Don Pedersen, Leah Weycker, Cathy Bailey, Bill and Dorothy Netlm, Robert Lien, Marty and Marie Johnson, Gordy Tulbe~, Ted Metz, leanette Metz, Danie Watson, Chuck Champine, Mike GarbeHck, Denny Flack, Mike Gardner, lack Korlath. The Mayor opened the Meeting. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.10 CASE//96-04: VARIANCE FOR N'EW DWELLING - RICHARD WIGNER. 2332 DRIFTWOOD LAN'E. LOT 9. SKARP'S EAST LAWN. PID 13-11'/-24 44 0058. Building Official Jori Sutherland stated the subject property needs a 10 foot width variance and a 2,752 square foot variance. The property adjacent to this property is in probate court and unobtainable by the applicant. The existing substandard dwelling will be demolished. Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//96-50 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 2332 DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID //13-117-24 44 0058, P&Z//96-04. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 181 MLNIJTES OF A .,MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIl. 22, 1996 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orr Burma, City Council Representative Mark Hanus, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peg~ James. The following people were also in attendance: Dick and Linda Wig'aer; and Mike McCarville. MIN-CrES The Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, t996 were presented for approval. MOTION made by ¥oss, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 1996 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 96-04: VARI.~NCE FOR NEW DWELLING, RICHARD W"IGNER, 2332 DRIFI~'v'OOD LANE, LOT 9, SICA.RP'S EAST LAWN, PID 13-117-2a 44 0058 The applicant is seeking a variance that will allow the existing sub-standard dwelling to be demolished, and permit a new dwelling with an attached garage to be constructed in its place. The proposed dwelling is conforming to setbacks, and is a substantial improvement to the existing conditions on the property. The following nonconforming issues are listed below, along with staff's comments. 1) Lot Width: The existing lot width is 50 feet, the required width is 60 feet resulting in recogTfition of a I0 foot variance. There is adjoining property that is currently for sale. If 10 feet of the adjoining property could be obtained, the nonconforming width could be eliminated. 2) Lot Area: The required lot area is 10,000 square feet, the existing lot area is 7,248+- square feet, this results in the recognition of a 2,752 square foot variance. (same comments as ahoy&) 3) Impervious Surface: The proposed impervious surface coverage is 9 square feet over the maximum allowable of 40% for a lot of record with an approved drainage plan. The impervious surface area could be reduced by narrowing the driveway slightly. Floodplain: All improvements are required to be in full conformance with the floodplain reg'ulations contained in the City Code and the State Building Code. Staff has worked with the applicant on this issue and the plans are being revised to be in conformance with the lowest floor elevation for Lake Minnetonka of 933. The floodplain is being modified by being filled, and it is also being compensated for 1/I on site. The proposed floodplain modifications have been reviewed by our City Engineer and his comments are attached to this report. In addition to the City's requirements, the applicant must obtain other agency approvals, such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 182 Planning Commission Minutes Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to construct a new dwelling with the following findings: 1) The request with minor modifications is conforming to the ordinance, and 2) With this proposal there will be a substantial improvement to the existing condition of the property, and will result in the elimination of two existing nonconformities, the detached garage and the nonconforming side yard setback to the existing dwelling. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveway area must be reduced to allow for conforming impervious surface coverage. The driveway must be crowned in order to direct the flow of stormwater around the side and towards the lake. 3. Approval from other agencies, as required, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Disu'ict. Sutherland added a comment that the adjacent propert'y is for sale, so it may be possible that the applicant could acquire additional land. to bring the lot size into conformance. Sutherland stated that the applicant can speak on this issue. Weiland clarified that the proposal includes an 8' x 30' deck. Sutherland confu'med that if it is pervious and meets the ordinance it will not count as hardcover. Richard Wi~er, applicant, stated that they have made several attempts to purchase the adjacent property, however, the owner/seller has not responded. A survey of the adjacent property was handed out to the Commissioners for review. Burma confirmed that the applicant could not purchase a portion of the adjacent lot unless the building is removed. Reifschneider had a question about side yard setbacks and staff clarified that the side yard setbacks for the new construction are 6' and 10', for lou of record. Muffler commented that the applicant has a~eed to reduce the hardcover, and if they purchase 10 feet of the adjacent property they may loose their lot-of-record status. He would prefer not to see something this close to both side lot lines, but would rather see a new house there, and believes their would be a greater benefit, long-term to see the 40% hardcover maintained. Mueller wants to make sure the area under the deck will be a permeable surface. Mueller asked about vegetation screening and emphasized that our ordinance requires screening and suggested that they consider applying this for any new house construction. Hanus referred to the letter from the DNR which states, 'The structures on the lot should be screened from view on Lake Minnetonka using existing vegetation, landscaping, color and other means approved by the city. In accordance with the Mound shoreland ordinance, natural, unmowed vegetation should be allowed to How 183 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, I996 within the 25 foot shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka.' Harms questioned if it is their intent to allow 'natural unmowed vegetation.' Mueller stated that he would interpret this to mean bushes and things that are not mowed, and commented that the shoreland ordinances states 'leaf-on vegetation.' Voss confirmed with the Building Official that the existing dwelling could be remodeled, even though the structure is too small, has a poor foundation, and is nonconforming. Voss commented that by not approving this variance they could be allowing a substandard condition to exist forever. MOTION by Voss to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff, including the condition that the area under the deck be a permeable surface so as not to have a nonconforming impervious surface coverage situation. Motion seconded by Mueller. Wigner stated, with regard to the vegetation, according to the MCWD, anything he does has to be approved by them, and it is his intention that the lot will stay the way it is. Mueller expressed a concern about increased drainage onto the property where the cottage is To the south. Sutherland stated that bemuse that area is in the floodplain, they can't berm it, they could only resolve it by using ~tters. 'We[land stated that he will :vote against the motion as he would like to see a letter from the people who are selling the adjacent property stating that they can not buy any. Glister a~e~. Wi~er stated that the property has been tied up in probate for a year and that there is no one that will ~ve him an answer. Glister would like to see a denial in writing. Weiland agreed, he would like to know that they made an honest attempt. Wi~er asked, what if they agree to sell 10 or 15 feet, but he cannot afford? Glister stated that cost is not a hardship. Clapsaddle commented that this is a sound proposal, made in good faith, and suggested they vote on the issue. Burma commented that he is also in support of the motion, considering the existing condition of the property, the location and condition of the existing nonconforming shed on the street side, he is in support of proposal. Hanus called for the question. Motion carried 7 to 2. Those in favor were: Voss, Clapsaddle, Michael, Mueller, Burma, Reifschneider and Hanus. Weiland and Glister opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 14, 1996. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-O600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of April 22, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official . Variance Request Richard Wigner 96-04 2332 Driftwood Lane, Lot 9, Skarp's East Lawn, PID 13-117-24 44 0058 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance that will allow the existing sub-standard dwelling to be demolished, and permit a new dwelling with an attached garage to be constructed in its place. The proposed dwelling as noted on the survey (revised date 3-8-96) is conforming to setbacks, and is a substantial improvement to the existing conditions on the property. The following nonconforming issues are listed below, along with staff's comments. 1) Lot Width: The existing lot width is 50 feet, the required width is 60 feet resulting in recognition of a 10 foot variance. There is adjoining property that is currently for sale. If 10 feet of the adjoining property could be obtained, the nonconforming width could be eliminated. 2) Lot Area: The required lot area is 10,000 square feet, the existing lot area is 7,248 +- square feet, this results in the recognition of a 2,752 square foot variance. (same comments as above) 3) Impervious Surface: The proposed impervious surface coverage is 9 square feet over the maximum allowable of 40% for a lot of record with an approved drainage plan. The impervious surface area could be reduced by narrowing the driveway slightly. Staff Report Wigner Page Two 4) Floodplain: All improvements are required to be in full conformance with the floodplain regulations contained in the City Code and the State Building Code. Staff has worked with the applicant on this issue and the plans are being revised to be in conformance with the lowest floor elevation for Lake Minnetonka of 933. The floodplain is being modified by being filled, and it is also being compensated for 1/1 on site. The proposed floodplain modifications have been reviewed by our City Engineer and his comments are attached to this report. In addition to the City's requirements, the applicant must obtain other agency approvals, such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to construct a new dwelling with the following findings: 1) The request with minor modifications is conforming to the ordinance, and 2) With this proposal there will be a substantial improvement to the existing condition of the property, and will result in the elimination of two existing nonconformities, the detached garage and the nonconforming side yard setback to the existing dwelling. Approval is subject to the following conditions: The driveway area must be reduced to allow for conforming impervious surface coverage. The driveway must be crowned in order to direct the flow of stormwater around the side and towards the lake. Approval from other agencies, as required, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The abut'Eng neighbors have been noEfiecl of ~his request. This case is scheduled ~o be heard by ~ ~ Council on May 14, ~ 996. PHONE NO. DEPARTME'NT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 772-7910 February 12, 1996 Mr. Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Richard and Linda Wigner Variance Application, (City #96-04), Lake Minnetonka (27-133P), City of Mound, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Sutherland: We have reviewed the Wigner variance request (received January 31, 1996) for 2332 Driftwood Lane. We do not object to the variance and have the following comments: The ground level at the lakeward side of the proposed home is at 930.9' (NGVD, 1929). This is below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 933' (NGVD, 1929) that the City of Mound uses for Lake Minnetonka. The proposed home must conform with the Mound floodplain regulations. The structures on the lot should be screened from view on Lake Minnetonka using existing vegetation, landscaping, color and other means approved by the city. In accordance with the Mound shoreland ordinance, natural, unmowed vegetation should be allowed to grow within the 25' shore impact zone of Lake Minnetonka. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance application. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 772-7910. Sincerely, Joseph G. Richter Hydrologist JGR/kl C: City of Mound Shoreland File ,.K ql d " AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~'~'75 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: RICHARO WIGNER LOT 9, SKARP'S EAST LAWN - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 9, Skarp's East Lawn O: (fiji s); L~: Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the locations of the existing and proposed houses. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. denotes iron marker found denotes Iron marker set denotes existing spot elevation, mean see level datum denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum RECEIVED ~ Fd~ll~ & INSP. heet"by certify that this survey, was p~epamd ~.' n~' or under m? dbecl super- visioa, and that I am a duly re'~istered Civil Engint~r and Land Su~'~,.ym' under laws of the Slate of Minner~da. Mark S. Gronhar§ Minne~)ta Ii~,~.~, Number 12755' SC AL/E ~: 20' Marc~ 24. 19~ RESOLUTION ~98=32 RESOLI. YrlON TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, STREET FRONTAGE, LOT SIZE, AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT PID 18-117-23 23 0007, P & Z CASE ~)8--09 WHEREAS, the applicants, Douglas and Dennis Kelm, have applied for a lakeside, front yard, side yard, street frontage, lot size, and hardcover setback variances to construct an addition and; WHEREAS, the subject pmpeny is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and 60 feet of lot frontage, and; WHEREAS, the required setbacks for lakeside is 50 feet, front yard 30 feet, side yard 6 feet, street frontage 60 feet, lot size 10,000 square feet, and hard cover is 2,872 square feet, and the variances would be 44 feet, 8 feet, 3.3 feet, 10 feet, 2,820 square feet, and 187 square feet respectively, and; WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to build a 112 by 33 foot two-story addition to the existing home with an attached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing boathouse foundation is deteriorating and will be removed within 2 years from the date the resolution is filed, and; 516 granting a granting a side WHEREAS, there have been two previous variances on the propex~y. Resolution 77- Lake Front Variance and Expansion of a non-conforming use. Resolution 72-102 yard variance, and; WHEREAS, the existing deck is a safety concern, it will be removed and be replaced by a new conforming deck, and; WHEREAS, the proposed project is a substantial improvement to the property and the scope of the project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lake front residential project, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lakeside, front yard, side yard, street frontage, lot size, and hardcover setback variances with the following conditions: ao The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey dated 2-2-98 be removed. March ~4o 1~8 e b. The cost of the repair to the foundation of the boathouse not to exceed 50% of the structure's value. c., A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City Engineer. d. The Lakeside deck be removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming to current zoning setbacks. 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 ownem reasonable use of their land: Building a non conforming 2 story addition with attached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System 1997 Tax Book, Report PI433401' LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. o The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmembers Jensen and Polston were absent and excused. Attest: City Clerk Mayor MINUTES - MOUND CIT~ COUNCIL - MARCH 24, 1998 The City Council of thc City of l~ound, Hcnnepin County, Minnesota, met in regular z$$ion on Tuerday, March 24, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council C,hambe-rs at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Couneilmembers Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Councilmembers Ahrens and Jensen were absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron and Secretary Jodi Rahn and the following interested citizens: Sharon Gehnnan-Dfiscoll, Robin Scboler, lohn Gabos, Steve Behnke, Tom Stokes and Matthew Mankey. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was 1.14 CASE 98-09: VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS, TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE, DENNIS KELM. 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2. SHADYWOOD POINT. PI]) 18-117-23 23 0007. The Planner reviewed the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: a. b. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey dated 2-2-98 be removed. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to be approved by the City Attorney to ensure the removal of the boathouse within 2 years from the date the resolution is filed. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City Engineer. The lakeside deck l~ removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming to current zoning setbacks. The applicant has since reconsidered and would like to have item b. removed from the resolution. He is proposing to make foundation and structural repairs to the boathouse. The Planner stated that any structural repairs to the boathouse would require a number of separate variances. The Council asked if the cost of repairs would exceed 50% of the structure's valu& The Building Official did not feel repairs would exceed the 505t;. The Council asked that item lb. be removed from the proposed resolution and the following be added: The applicant to suitably repair thc foundation of the boathouse at a cost not to exceed 50% of the structure's value.' I-Ianus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution as amended above: RESOLUTION//98-32 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCES TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING LOT SIZE AND SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACH"g~ GARAGE, DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 318-117-23 23 0007 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Minutes. Mound Planning Cornmis=ion March 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orr Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus. Public Present: Dennis Kelm, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Dave Willette, David Holm, Robert Wroda, Henry Reintz, Muriel Reintz, Larry & Rita Meehan, Jerry & Pamela Neumann, Chris Stuhr, Scott Hoelscher - US West. Meeting called to order 7:55 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. Chair Michael called for a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Gerald Reifschneider MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5 - 0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-09: VARIANCE, TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS, TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE, DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0007 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant is requesting a number of variances for an addition and attached garage to the existing home. The property is located at 1916 Shorewood Lane and is zoned R-1. A summary of the proposed variances is outlined below. Minutes- Mound Planning ¢ommi~ion ~ March 9, 1958 Existin~/Prooosed Re(~uired Variance Front Yard 22' 30' 8' Side Yard (east) 2.7' 6' 3.3' Lakeside (boat house) 6' 50' 44' Street Frontage 50' 60' 10' Lot Size 7,180 sf 10,000 sf 2,820 sf Hardcover 3,059 sf 2,872 sf 187 sf The improvements the applicant is proposing are substantial. A 12 by 33 foot two story living space will be added to the front of the home. The east wall of the addition will match the existing wall. The west addition wall will extend 9 feet past the existing wall of the house. On the front of the addition a 24 foot by 22 foot attached garage is proposed. The garage is a front entry and would maintain a 22 foot setback from Shorewood Lane. The driveway would be located on the existing gravel parking area. A number of other improvements are also proposed to the existing structure to bring it up to date. These include new windows, doors, siding, electrical, plumbing, and flooring. The home will be re-roofed with the proposed home and garage projects. The basement in the home is currently about 6.5 feet in height. The home will be raised 18 to 20 inches increasing the basement height to 8 feet. There is a two level boathouse on the property that is about 9' feet from the 929.4 contour and 1 foot from the side yard lot line. The boathouse structure is in reasonable condition however, the foundation is in poor condition with a number of visible cracks and bows in the concrete walls. The first floor is below the minimum building elevation of 933 feet. It appears that the boathouse is used as storage for miscellaneous household items at the present time. The home has a deck on the lakeside of the house that also wraps around the west side of the home. Upon visiting the site, the Building Official noted the deck was an immediate safety concern. A portion of the flooring on the west arm of the deck has collapsed due to rotting. A number of the other floorboards are in similar condition. Although it is not indicated in the application as being part of the project, the applicant has stated that it will be replaced along with the improvements. The existing deck is setback approximately 62 feet from the lake. The owner has indicated the new deck will most likely be smaller than the current. The lot is undersized for the R-1 zoning district which is typical of lots along Shorewood Lane. Almost every lot has 50 feet or less of lot frontage and is short of the required 10,000 sf lot size by 2,500 sf or more. Minutes - Mound Planning Commis.~ion March 9, 1998 Past variances for the property include a side yard variance in 1972 and a lakefront variance in 1977. The proposed project is a substantial improvement to the property. The existing home is in a state of decline and would have continued as such if left alone. Staff is in agreement that the proposal is a positive improvement for the property and surrounding neighborhood and the scope of the project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lakefront residential project. There is not currently a garage on the property for parking cars. A gravel parking area adjacent to the street serves as parking for the residents. The :22 feet proposed setback of the garage is adequate for parking a vehicle in front of the garage without intruding into the street. Although an attached garage must meet principle structure setbacks, the garage would meet setback requirements if it were detached. The boathouse on the property is a nonconforming structure as regulated by the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The City has worked to comply with these regulations by working with property owners to remove these structures when possible. A visual inspection of the boathouse showed it to be in a state of decline. Because the code will not allow structural work to the boathouse, its condition will continue to deteriorate. The boathouse appears to serve some usefulness as storage for household items. With additional square footage in the house, there could be storage room for those goods. Staff would like to take a position of asking the applicant to remove the boathouse to comply with the code. Given the scope of the house project, allotting some time for its removal may be an approach to consider. This would allow the owner to focus resources on the house project first before taking on another substantial project. The applicant has stated that he would like to use the top floor of the boathouse as a screened porch. Staff discussed with the applicant the intent of the ordinance and other options for a lakeside patio. Another related issue with the removal of the boathouse of benefit to the property is a decrease in hardcover. If the boathouse were removed along with the concrete sidewalk, the hardcover would be within 74 sf of meeting 30 percent for the lot. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey be removed. 2. The existing boathouse be removed within 2 years of the date of the resolution. 3. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City Engineer. Mi~u~es . Mound Pl~ning Corem~ss~e ' March 9, 1998 , Discussion: Weiland asked what the side yard setback requirement would be for the deck facing the lakeside. Gordon stated that there is a 6 foot setback requirement. The applicant stated that he would be willing to make the deck conforming. Weiland and the applicant discussed the boathouse removal. There was further discussion on the construction of the new deck be in a conforming location. MOTION by Wetland, seconded by Voss to accept Staff recommendation with the following alterations: Item #2 to read: 2. An easement approved by the City Attorney be placed on the existing boathouse to ensure the removal of boathouse within 2 years of the date the resolution is filed. The addition of item #4. Should read: 4. The Lakeside deck be removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming to setbacks. Motion carried 5-0. This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998 03/18/98 14:44 FAX March Ig, 1998 1~002 RECEIVED HAR 1 8 1998 City o 'Mound 5341 1 {ay~'ood Road Moun, L, MN 55364 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Dear ! irs. An iss ~e has been raised by Douglas Kaita, regarding Paragraph I, item b and therefore I submit the follo~ lng: I) D, the b~ few y, con~i~ ,uglas Kelm wishes to keep the boathouse. Ne likes to use the upper ~hree-season porch section of ,.thouse for outdoor relaxatiou. And due to several medical issues that have occurred during the pas~ ars. his physicians recommend that he spend as little time as possible in direct sunlight. The medical ions include heart arracks, high blood pressure and diabetes. 2) 'f probh xe existing structure at 1916 Shorewood lane was remodeled prior to being purchased by the current 's. The previous remodeling was not completed to code and because of this there are several ms causing rapid deterioration to the subject property. Therefore updates are mandatou at this time. 3) In requc t) $ 2) ~ C a P reference to the proposed variances on thc subject property: All variances were existing prior to this : except the following: feet frontage less than 30' for an attached garag,.. ardcover over 30 percent- This will meet the 40 percent requirement for existing structures upon ,repletion of the proposed work. The proposed hardcover calculation of 3059 square feet will cruelly be 2028 upon completion. Pan of the work will include the removal of 120 square feet of ~tio and the removal ofa 101 square foot deck on the street side of the property. There ?ore there is only one new variance being requested on :he subject property. 4) T ~e condition of the Boathouse is unchanged from that ofwhich k was at thc time of purchase except for th: following: 1 ~ During the past winter, the west wall has sustained some ground pressure damage, which ~xtends up the wall approx. 18 inches. The cost to repair this is rather inexpensive in comparison to building a new three,season porch. Estimated cost :o repair is S500.00 dollars. 21 Current regulations allow repairs to a s~ructure up to a maximum of'50% of the structures value. For which we feel is approximately $2,j00.00 dollars. Other inciivichlals that would purchase such a property have supported this value. Conc: usion: The removal of this structure will create si~ificant expenses. Not only for the destruction but also f ~r the rebuilding ora new s~ucture with similar uses. The removal of the structure will also adver :ely affect r. be market value of the subject property Regu afions allow for minimal repairs to such a structure The 1: roposed remodel of the subject residence will create hi.er tax revenue flxrough higher propert7 value and v ~11 enhance the neighborhood appeal. We a k for the councils leniency on this issue ad request that paragraph 1, item b, be removed from the propcsed resolution. Dem~ s Kelm PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance request OWNER: Douglas and Dennis Kelm- 1916 Shorewood Lane CASE NUMBER: 98-09 I:IKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5h LOCATION: 1916 Shorewood Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREFIENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a number of variances for an addition and attached garage to the existing home. The property is located at 1916 Shorewood Lane and is zoned R- 1. A summary of the proposed variances is outlined below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 22' 30' 8' Side Yard (east) 2.7' 6' 3.3' Lakeside (boat house) 6' 50' 44' Street Frontage 50' 60' 10' Lot Size 7,180 sf 10,000 sf 2,820 sf Hardcover 2,872 sf 2,872 sf 187 sf The improvements the applicant is proposing are substantial. A 12 feet by 33 feet two story living space will be added to the front of the home. The east wall of the addition will match the existing wall. The west addition wall will extend 9 feet past the existing wall of the house. On the front of the addition a 24 feet by 22 feet attached garage is proposed. The garage is a front entry and would maintain a 22 feet setback from Shorewood Lane. The driveway would be located on the existing gravel parking area. A number of improvements are also proposed to the existing structure to bring it up to date. These include new windows, doors, siding, electric and plumbing, and flooring. The home will 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 l(elm Variance Request March 9, 1998 be re-roofed with the proposed home and garage projects. The basement in the home is currently about 6.5 feet in height. The home will be raised 18 to 20 to inches increase the basement height to 8 feet. There is a two level boathouse on the property that is about 9 feet from the 929.4 contour and 1 feet from the sideyard lot line. The boathouse structure is ia reasonable condition however, the foundation is in poor condition with a number of visible cracks and bows in the concrete walls. The first floor is below the 933 feet floodplain elevation. It appears that the boathouse is used as storage for miscellaneous household items at the present time. The home has a deck on the lakeside of the house that also wraps around the west side of the home. Upon visiting the site, the Building Official noted the deck was an immediate safety concern. A portion of flooring on the west arm of the deck has collapsed due to rotting. A number of other floorboards are in similar condition. Although it is not indicated in the application as being part of the project, the applicant has stated that it will be replaced along with the improvements. The existing deck is setback approximately 62 feet from the lake. The owner has indicated the new deck will most likely be smaller than the current. The lot is undersized for the R-1 zoning district which is typical of lots along Shorewood Lane. Almost every lot has 50 feet or less of lot frontage and is short of the required 10,000 sf lot size by 2,500 sf or more. Past variances for the property include a sideyard variance in 1972 and a lakefront variance in 1977. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. D. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 Kelm Variance Request March 9, 1998 that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The proposed project is a substantial improvement to the property. The existing home is in a state of decline and would have continued as such if left alone. Staff is in agreement that the proposal is a positive improvement for the property and surrounding neighborhood and the scope of the project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lakefront residential project. There is not currently a garage on the property for parking cars. A gravel parking area adjacent to the street serves as parking for the residents. The 22 feet proposed setback of the garage is adequate for parking a vehicle in front of the garage without intruding into the street. Although an attached garage must meet principle structure setbacks, the garage would meet setback requirements if it were detached. The boathouse on the property is a nonconforming structure as regulated by the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The City has worked to comply with these regulations by working with property owners to remove these structures when possible. A visual inspection of the boathouse showed it to be in a state of decline. Because the code will not allow structural work to the boathouse, its condition will continue to deteriorate. The boathouse appears to serve some usefulness as storage for household items. With additional square footage in the house, there could be storage room for those goods. Staff would like to take a position of asking the applicant to remove the boathouse to comply with the code. Given the scope of the house project, allotting some time for its removal may be an approach to consider. This would allow the owner to focus resources on the house project first before taking on another substantial project. The applicant has stated that he would like to use the top floor of the boathouse as a screened porch. Staff discussed with the applicant the intent of the ordinance and other options for a lakeside patio. Another related issue with the removal of the boathouse of benefit to the property is a decrease in hardcover. If the boathouse were removed along with the concrete sidewalk, the hardcover would be within 74 sf of meeting 30 percent for the lot. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested subject to the following conditions. 1. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey be removed. 2. The existing boathouse be removed within 2 years of the date of the resolution. 3. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City Engineer. 123 North Third S~eet. Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR D£NNIS K£LM LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ~) (~) (~) 4,, Lot ~ ~ ~ Sh~ Po~t o: ~t~ ir~ ~v~ ~ ~vey ~a to ~ow ~ ~i~ of t~ ~ove dem~ "~" ~. E ~ ~t ~t to ~w my o~ ~ov~ or I lle~rf ctwlih.' that Ibis sun'rf was Ip~"l)lfed by me o~ under m? cl~ supa'-loAT~ Mad. 5. Cmaber8 Mim~e~m= LxenseNumT~e~ 12'/55 JO. NO 98'028 SURVEY ON FILE~/~}?..) I NO LOT O1:RECORD7 ~L~/ NO YARD ' I IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF CH'Y OF MOUND - ZONING INI':ORMATION StlEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: DIRECTI()N [ N S E0 NS E W N S E W NS E W N S E W N S E W C'~ ~o,ooo/~o ')~z ~,soo/o Ri~ $,000/¢0 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 GEE ORD. ~1 30,OOO/1OO REQUIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED 10' OR 30' DETACIIEDN S ~U~GS N S E W E W N S E W N s E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR6' 4' $0' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE:, LOT WIDTIt: LOT DEP 1'ii: VARIANCE 'this Zoning Information Sheet only summarizcs a portion of Utc requirements oullined in Ute City of blound Zoning Or4ina~e. For fur~er info~ation, contact ~e City of Mound ,.. Pla~in8 ~partmem at 472-0~1 .....~, --' 7. ~ ~t~ 7 : ' ~ ~ (gO :~ ~ ,~, ~1~ ,,~ 7 : ' ~6.5 · )5 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 DRAFT Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle; Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. CASE # 00-33: SIGN VARIANCE, KEN CUSTER, 5533 SHORELINE DRIVE, GLASS PLUS GLASS ENCLOSED, PORTABLE SIGN, PID# 13-117-24-33- 0076. The applicant offered to table for another time. The City Planner stated this was a temporary sign not allowed by code. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend the Council deny the variance request. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown for discussion, to allow Ernie in a portable case with a portable sign permit. Discussion: Brown confirmed that Ernie could be in a case with no signage. The City Planner stated the code would allow this four times per year for two weeks at a time. Chair Michael called the question. AYES: 8 MOTION CARRIED. Glass Plus, Inc. ,.5,533 ,Shoreline Drive Mound, MN 5,5364 (612) 472-7171 . I:ax (612) 472-4832 DATE: June 12, 2000 TO: Planning Commission & City Council FROM: Ken CusterX0~ SUBJECT: Sign Permit for "Emie Pine" The purpose of this letter is in response to Loren Gordon's Planning Report dated June 12, 2000, which we just received late Friday afternoon, and to expound on my purpose for "Emie Pine." To do that I am going to go back in time. For years I dreamed of having my own glass business. I started my business in my home in Robbinsdale in 1993. We sold our house to buy our building in Mound in 1995 and eventually were able to buy a house in Mound after living in an apartment for two years. Our dream was to come to a small town and make a name for ourselves. To build our business by being honest, ethical and hard working providing a good product for a fail price. We bought our building in March 1995 from Vic Cossette (ARCO). The property was in total disarray. It looked like a dump. I am sure that most of you who were in Mound then would agree that we have made a substantial improvement to the property which included tearing down the east side fenced lot and planting grass seed. When we did our preliminary research for buying our building we were told by city officials that there would be a Odevelopment of downtown that might effect us. We were told the project could start as soon as two years. We were never Id that we would have to relocate. The local townspeople said the city had been talking about it for the past ten years and that it might not ever happen. As the drawings progressed Ed Shukle (former City Manager) came to us and said the road was going through our building. When it came time for them to realign Auditors Road we were able to remain here and sell the city a corner easement but were told that eventually our front would have to become our back. We then hired an architect to draw a new building for us. (See attached.) We never thought we would have to relocate until we attended an open house at City Hall last fall. Bruce Chamblain was talking about how the Beard Group was going to redevelop the entire Auditors Road block. Something he said made me question him whether or not we got to keep our building and he said no. He said our only option was to become a partner in a limited liability partnership that Beard was forming. After leaving the meeting in shock we proceeded to research all possible options including where we could eventually relocate to. During our research we were told by a city official that downtown would be rezoned and that our business probably would not be allowed downtown. I then contacted Bruce and he confirmed my fears about the rezoning and then said how the city really wants to keep us in Mound. The rezoning would allow our showroom business (stained glass products, lamps, mirrors, etc.) but not our garage (auto & boat glass replacement). Not too long after my phone call with Bruce I attended a Rotary meeting that Mr. Beard spoke at. He said the anticipated rents for the new buildings would be $12 per square foot - triple net. Actual costs expected to be $18 - triple net. I came back and did the math. For me to rent property in the new buildings for the space I need would cost me $5,600 per month. That space does not account for my two side lots. If I joined the parmership the revenues would be unrealistic in light of my rent costs. We would have to have over $6 million to generate that kind of interest income per month. Page 2 I have since asked Bruce and other city officials what kind of time frame and what kind of money I would be offered so I could make alternative plans and the response has always been the same - absolutely no tangible information. Fearful of my future site, I recently purchased the building at 4831 Shoreline Drive (formerly known at Randy's Automotive) knowing that there will be less options in two or more years. That building is a fraction of the size we need but at least the site is large enough to build and the zoning is correct. We have been working to clean up that property and hopefully will find someone that is willing to rent for two years. As a business owner, not 'knowing what your future holds is very scary. My wife and I are both dependent upon Glass Plus's income to pay our three mortgages (our house, Randy's, GP). We felt our next step should be to increase our advertising efforts three-fold. The expense to do mass paper advertising is immense and now that we have bought "Randy's" we can not afford it. Therefore I had to create something I could put out front. I needed something that was very professional looking, unique, and that would allow me flexibility for the wording. Thus Ernie Pine was created. The display case housing Emie gives us the flexibility to put an item in there with him. A visual aid (i.e. screens, storm windows, Tiffany lamps, etc.) works the best. People tend to remember an item better than trying to read a sign as they drive by. The glass enclosure enables us the ability to not have our products stolen while we leave them out there or have a $400 Ttiffany lamp get damaged by the weather. The enclosure is also a sample of an entryway vestibule which is the type of work we do for construction companies. The reason for the trailer was to be able to pull the enclosure in the upcoming parade. If the "moveable" part is a problem we could set the enclosure on the ground after the parade next week. We have received a great response for whatever products we have advertised in the showcase. We also have had very positive comments about Ernie. Hopefully by the time we are forced to relocate we will have a fair amount of name recognition. This past year our rug was pulled out when we heard we would have to give up our building. Our time is rapidly running out. Now we are scrambling to get name recognition quicker than word of mouth. Ernie has been very successful at bringing in the customers along with making them laugh. He is not hurting anyone, there is nothing dangerous about the enclosure, and he is not obstructing the sidewalk. I believe that ordinances are a base guideline and that variances are commonly allowed to make adjustments when unique situations arise, which obviously Emie is unique. If you look back in the variance history books you will find hundreds of rules changed or modified to meet a particular incident including more recently the City's request to get approval to have the building height changed for the downtown redevelopment. If we were not going to have to relocate Emie would never have been created. We are asking that you would give us a variance to allow us to keep the display with Emie Pine. Image Sketch for Ken Custer Mound Redevelopment Project PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Ken Custer CASE NUMBER: 00-33 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 5533 Shoreline Blvd. ZONING: Central Business District B-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Pedestrian District BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a variance request to allow the "Emie Pine" to remain on display in front of his Glass Plus business. The sign is considered a temporary sign because it is a moveable/portable. The Sign Code Section 365:15 Subd. 9, Temporary Signs, establishes requirements for temporary signs and this sign does not meet those criteria. Additionally, the sign does not meet freestanding sign requirements for the B-1 District which require permanent fixture and no more than 2 copy faces. The code essentially does not provide for this three dimensional sign. Emie could be allowed if integrated into a freestanding sign or placed in the window of the business. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend the Council deny the variance request. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 PlAY 17 zooo VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone:~472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 PAID 1 ? ZOO0 Appli~'~'~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner ~' 17' O0 DNR City Engineer Public Works Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER Address Lot Block Subdivision PID# ZONING DISTRICT Plat~ B-2 B-3 Name Address Phone (H) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed consffuction or alteration (size, number of stodes, type of use, etc.): Do the existing structures comply with alt'area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district- in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or exisang) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover. ff. fL ff. fL ff. ff. ff. ff. ft. ff. fL ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ff. ft. ff. ff. sq ff sq ff sq ff sq ff sq ff sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other, specify descdbe: Yadance Application, P. 3 o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accu[~te~ I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official/Pf'the~ ./~i~. of~ound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such noticesas ~/~./~/.~'o.~' ' w Owner's Signature ~ Date~t/~ ' ~ .- Al~plicant's Signature Date Glass Plus, Inc. 5533 Shoreline Drive Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-7171 * Fax (612) 472-4832 May l6,2000 RECEIVED l tAY 17 2000 MOUND Kandis Hanson City Manager Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dear Ms. Hanson: A couple weeks ago I filed for a sign permit for our glass display of"Emie Pine" which is in the front of our shop. It has been brought to my attention by the city inspector that we will need to apply for a variance regarding the sign. Apparently, there is not an ordinance addressing this type of sign/display. I have been contemplating for some time what we could do to let passing motorists and pedestrians know what we do at Glass Plus and primarily to establish a unique identity, hence Emie Pine was created. We also use Ernie in our printed advertisements. At this point we do not know where we will be relocated to when the city buys our property and if it will even be in Mound. My hope and desire with "Emie Pine" is that where ever we eventually have to go that people will remember him and know that is our new location. Originally, I was going to have him free standing out front holding a sign, until I heard about kids stealing someone's 300 lb. moose and putting it on the roof of the high school. Thus the glass enclosure was created and it gave me the flexibility to dress him for the fish opener (stop by and see), Mound City Days, Viking games, Christmas, etc. At least it gives passerby something to laugh at which we all need more of these days. The reason the glass enclosure is sitting on a flat bed trailer is because my wife suggested we take him in the Mound City Day's parade. Since Ernie has been out front we have received numerous positive comments about how much they like him. We even had two high school girls come in last week and wanted to get their picture taken hugging Emie. The sign/display is not an eyesore - it is very professionally done and cost over $3,000 to build. I hope the city council will approve our variance. Sincerely, Ken L. Custer President cc: City Council John Sutherland Ernie is a quiet guy, but seemed very nice and he thought I would like him. He just wanted me to meet him so he could hear my opinion before he actually hired him. Well I tell you - he had me going - but good! I brushed my hair, put on my lipstick, grumbling in my mind the whole time. We pulled up to our shop and I didn't see any car, so I said, "Well, where is he?" Ken preceded to go in our shop through the showroom and into the garage. He said, "Oh he'll be here any minute I'm sure. Come here!" I walked into the back of our shop and low and behold Ernie was waiting for us. A guy wearing coveralls, hat, 5'2", 400 lbs, 38 inch waist, his arms are removable and he is solid pine. I dropped my jaw and couldn't stop laughing. It was love at first sight. While I was out of town Ken found a log carver and had him carve Ernie from a picture I use in our ads. The clip art picture I have been using looks like Ken. When I run the ads I usually have "Ken" saying something. We have had a lot of fun with it over the years debating about what "Ken" will say. Needless to say, we "hired" Ernie on the spot and Ken preceded to make a house for him. Ken made a glass enclosure and put it on top of an old snow mobile trailer (so we can take him in the parades) and he is standing out front of our shop. We put a sign out that said we fix screens and I think we have done about 80 in the past week. Emie is the best salesman we have ever had. He loves people and the people love him. Yesterday two high school girls came in and wanted to know if they could take their picture with CII'Y OF MOUND · ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET SURVEY ON FILE7 YES / NO LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO YARD .' [ DIRECTION IIOUSE ......... FRONT N S E w FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~"~" R1 10,000/~:O(B1 '~oSO0~O R1A 6,000/40 B~ 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 RF~l~RED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED 15' 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WID i H: LOT DEP I H: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACHED 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 FOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFORMING? YES I NO / ? ] BY: ]DATED: This Zoning Info, minion She,:! only summarizcs a ~rtion of O~c requirements outlined in ~e Cily of Mound Zoning ~ina~e. For ~r~er info~tion, con. ct ~e City of Mound Pla~ing ~partmem at 472-~. .... . , ___ [. ~/t) ! ~- =1'~'~ ~' ?''~''' ~.2 ~.? '".'- , ,~j.~,~ ....... DAKOTA - - _ _ SUOREL[NE ~ 0 Ul 0 0 r' 0 /j. MARK SALITERMAN C.P.A. DIAMOND HILL CENTER 4301 HIGHWAY 7 SUITE 100 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 TELEPHONE (612) 920-8282 May 4, 2000 Kandis Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Mound Liquor Store 2324 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN Dear Ms. Hanson, I own the Shoreline Plaza Shopping Center where the Mound Liquor Store is located. The City of Mound has been very good to me over the years and it has always been a pleasure to work with the City. I hope in the future you and I can develop a business relationship that is as good as several of your predecessors. I have not had an opportunity to meet you and I know you have a lot of things to address at the present time in your new position. I am writing you to inform you of the facts and rumors as I know them regarding Shoreline Plaza so that we both can make intelligent business decisions in the future. The Mound Liquor Store lease will expire 12/31/02. It has been discussed for several years that the City wanted to expand this business and really wanted to have their own building. I have also heard rumors that the City may consider relocating into the new shopping center in ' the downtown area. I have spoken to Joel at the Mound Liquor Store who indicated that 7,500 sq ft is probably more in line with the needs versus the 2,855 sq. ft that is leased from me. I have been approached by Westonka School whose lease at Shoreline Plaza expires 2/9/03. They would like to expand and would like to wait until your lease expires or sooner if possible and sign a 7-10 yr lease. Long term leases from my perspective are good and bad. Generally you receive less rent but you have more stability. I do not believe there is enough space on the comer lot where Rite Away Oil is located to build you a larger facility nor would you enjoy the rent that I would have to charge on a new building. I believe the best thing for me is to begin negotiation with the school believing that the Mound Liquor Store may vacate in the near future. As this may be a year and a half or less in the future, I need to know your intentions so that I can respond to the Westonka School district. If you do not know, due to your new position, or the Mound City Council cannot advise you at this time, I will continue negotiations with the Westonka School district. If we do conclude a lease, I will notify you so that there will be ample time to relocate the liquor store. If there are other options, such as the liquor store leasing additional space in our center with a long term lease, or any other ideas that you may have, please let me know. I would like the Mound Liquor Store to remain an anchor in the shopping center as I believe it compliments the other tenants located within the property. I would be happy to arrange a meeting at your convenience. Sincerely, Mark A. Saliterman Owner MAS/vi MEMORANDUM June 21, 2000 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: KANDIS HANSON, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE The Liquor Store Lease Agreement will expire on December 31, 2001. Mr. Saliterman with his letter dated May 4, 2000 is asking us to tell him what our intent is for the future. Attached please find a copy of his letter. I have met with Joel Kmmm, the Liquor Store Manager, Gino Businaro, the Finance Director, and Jim Prosser, our Consultant, on this issue. As you know, our Liquor Store has done very well and it continues to provide valuable financial resources to the City of Mound. Last year the profit was more than $200,000. With those profits we have been able to finance the sealcoat program, some of the miscellaneous capital purchases for the Police, Street, and Park Departments, and a portion of the Lost Lake Canal project. In 1997 the City of Spring Park granted a liquor license to G-Will Liquors. At that time and through that process we became aware of how vulnerable we are with our limited operation. To protect ourselves we came to the realization that we needed to expand our liquor store. Please refer to the attached memo from the former City Manager on this issue. At that time for stability purposes we felt that it would be very important for the City of Mound to own its building and to expand to a size that would withstand future competition. If we want to own instead of leasing, now could be the right time to make it happen. Two main options are available to us: Continue at the present location and extend the lease to a long term type of agreement. 2. Find a new sight and build a new Liquor Store with full ownership. We are recommending this second option. At the present time the annual lease payments are a little over $30,000. If we allocate up to half of the profit (approximately $100,000) toward the principal and the interest on a debt issue over 15 to 20 years, we could generate about $900,000 to $1,000,000 that could be used to buy the land and construct the building. See the inclosed consultant analysis on the possibility of financing to purchase. The purpose of this memo and the attached information is to familiarize you with the issue, so that you can have a discussion during the June 27, 2000 meeting and provide me and our staff some direction on this matter. Thank you. CC: Joel Kmmm, Liquor Store Manager Gino Businaro, Finance Director MEMORANDUM Apfil16,1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE The City of Mound has operated a municipal liquor store for many years. The store has had its ups and downs, financially, over the years but within the last 7-8 years, has been very successful and has provided a viable revenue source to offset property taxes. We have used profits from the store to pay for the cost of annually sealcoating our streets and purchasing capital outlay. Without this source of revenue, these costs would have to be absorbed by other funds, primarily the general fund which is the property tax. Based upon the success of the store in recent years, we have looked at expanding the store. In a recent analysis, we looked at renting the former Headliners space so that we could have a bigger store that could offer more products and in greater quantity. Unfortunately, that space didn't work out and we decided to renew the present lease and continue to explore other options which included building our own store. Recently, we were approached by Asset Realty( representatives of Fleming Foods--Rainbow, Festival and Jubilee Foods), regarding the issuance of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for the existing Westonka Community Center site at Lynwood and Commerce Blvds. As you know, the Westonka School District intends to sell the community center site to Fleming Foods. The grocery store would be an expanded Jubilee Foods store operated by Frank and Kathy Boese, current operators of the Jubilee Foods store in Shoreline Plaza. As part of the agreement between the School District and Asset Realty, Asset has expressed the need for TIF in order to develop the grocery store on this site. TIF would be used to demolish the existing community center and provide the soil corrections necessary to build a new building. Asset Realty has indicated that there is room on the site for additional retail that would complement the grocery store. Asset asked if the City of Mound had Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council-Municipal Liquor Store April 16, 1997 Page 2 ever considered abandoning its municipal liquor operation? Our response was that we have never considered it unless we are forced to because of financial losses (state law requires that municipal liquor stores close if they have experienced two consecutive years of losses). The representative from Asset Realty indicated at our first meeting to discuss TIF on the grocery store, that he also represents G-Will Liquors which was considering an application for an off-sale license in Spring Park. (Please note that we have filed a letter objecting to this application with the City of Spring Park). He suggested that if the City was interested in discussing the feasibility of "selling out" its liquor operation, he could arrange a meeting with the owners of G-Will Liquors to discuss this idea in more detail. We indicated to Asset Realty that we Would certainly be willing to sit down and visit about this possibility. Since that first meeting on the grocery store concept, we have had the oppommity to meet with Asset and G-Will Liquors. They have requested and have received a financial statement on the store. The following is a summary of our meeting with these representatives: G-Will is owned by Rademacher Companies of Brooklyn Park. They own and operate three G-Will Liquors stores in the Twin Cities metropolitan area: Andover, Champlin and Brooklyn Park. They are also owners and operators of Bill's Superettes. These are convenience grocery stores/gas stations. They currently have four of these types of stores in operation with two under construction that will open this Spring. They were looking at locating a Bill's Superette in Spring Park as part of the G-Will Liquors project but decided that this area would not support another gas station/convenience store facility. Thus, they have abandoned this idea but still are moving forward, as mentioned above, with the G-Will Liquors portion of the Spring Park project. This involves tearing down the former Margie's building and constructing approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of building on the site. They would lease the land from Sage Corporation, which owns Marina Shopping Center. According to the G-Will Liquors representative, they are the largest beer seller in the state of Minnesota. They are also the biggest wine seller in the state except in the area of French wines. Haskell's is the largest carrier of this type of wine. They carry four times the amount of inventory that our store has and that this size inventory is the smallest inventory that they would ever carry. Their only significant competitor is Surdyk's who can compete on price and volume. We discussed the sale of the school property and what happens to the sale should TIF not be approved by the City Council. Asset Realty responded by saying that although the current agreement does indicate that TIF is a very important factor to the success of the project, it does not mean that Fleming would necessarily give up on the project. They may search for other locations for the grocery store. In addition, Asset, who also represents Rademacher Companies or G-Will Liquors, may still pursue another liquor store location if the City desires to abandon its municipal Memorandum to Mayor and City Council--Municipal Liquor Store April 16, 1997 Page 3 liquor operation. In the meantime, G-Will Liquors has filed an application to Spring Park for an off- sale license. The Spring Park City Council will be holding a public hearing on the license on April 21, 1997. I am presenting all of this information to you so that you know that we have been approached about our interest in abandoning the liquor operation and turning around and issuing an off-sale license to G-Will Liquors. Staff has not taken any position on this issue. I am bringing this matter to you so that you have the facts and can provide us with some direction on the matter. I would be happy to answer questions at your convenience. cc.' Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager Gino Businaro, Finance Director EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC To: From: Subject: Date: Gino Businaro, Finance Director Jim Prosser, Financial Advisor Steve Apfelbacher, Financial Advisor City of Mound, MN; Financing Options for Liquor Store Building June 21, 2000 You have requested an analysis of how much debt could be supported with annual debt payments of $125,000. The response to this question depends on the type of debt instrument used and, of course, interest rates. Generally, however, this debt payment will provide approximately $1.1 million to $1.2 million in project funds. Minnesota Statutes provides for the issuance of a variety of types of municipal debt. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, gives cities the authority to "issue bonds or other obligations.., for any utility or other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived." The four basic options for financing municipal buildings include: · Lease purchase financing through a bank/leasing company · Lease revenue bonds through another governmental unit, including a Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469 · Liquor store revenue bonds pursuant · General obligation voted bonds Each option has its advantages and disadvantages. The lease purchase option would be limited to a 15- year tenn. There appears to be a market for twenty-year liquor store revenue bonds. Any type of pure revenue bonds require a Debt Reserve of 10% of the principal amount of the bonds and the costs of issuance are higher than the other alternatives listed. The Debt Reserve will be used to pay the final debt service payment for the liquor store revenue bonds. The liquor store revenue bonds would be gross revenue bonds which require that gross revenues from operations equal two times the highest debt service payment. Lease revenue bonds are quite similar in financial structure to liquor store revenue bonds and would be an option if the liquor store revenue bonds were not viable. Voter-approved general obligation bonds and lease revenue bonds have not been modeled. Project Capitalization Following are project capitalizations for two funding options, along with estimated annual debt service costs. With all options it is assumed the issue will be dated August 1, 2000 and that all proceeds will be available at closing. The financing options presented below assume that liquor store operations would support bond payments during construction, therefore, capitalized interest was not included as a cost. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE / 3060 Centre Pointe Drive 651.697.8503 fax 651.697.8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1105 jim@ehlers4nc.com Project Cost Discount Allowance Legal Fees Financial Advisor Debt Reserve Paying Agent/Registrar (PV) Total Amount Financed Proposed Term Estimated Interest Rate Annual D/S Payment Lease Purchase Liquor Store Liquor Store Revenue Bonds Revenue Bonds (15 Year) (20 Year) $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 0 22,425 22,425 1,500 6,700 6,700 4,500 18,000 18,000 0 115,000 115,000 0 2~200 2~200 $1,006,000 $1,164,325 $1,164,325 $1,010,000 $1,165,000 $1,165,000 15 years 16 years 20 years 6.90% 6.40% 6.80% $108,000 $110,000 $100,000 (Net of debt reserve interest earnings) Colt Comparisons Amount Financed Annual D/S Payment Estimated Interest Rate Apply Against Debt Limit Restricted By Levy Limits Timing, Available Funds Liquor Store Liquor Store Lease Revenue Bonds Revenue Bonds Purchase (15 year) (20 year) $1,010,000 $1,165,000 $1,165,000 $108,000 $110,000 $100,000 6.90% 6.40% 6.80% Yes No No N/A N/A N/A 4 weeks 4-6 weeks 4-6 weeks 1999 Liquor Store Operations Gross Profit Less: Operating Expenses Operating Income Plus: Depreciation Plus: Rent Plus: Interest Income Revenues Available for Debt Service $437,715 -236,993 $200,722 1,280 31,254 27,588 $260,844 If you need any additional information or have questions, please call. N:WlinnsotaWloundXLiquorstorefm6.7.00.wpd Mound Liquor Store Projections Sales, Operating Expenses and Profits for the years 2000 - 2002 at Shoreline Plaza Shopping Center Sales: $1,830,000 Cost of Goods: $1,379,820 Gross Profit: $450,180 Operating Expenses: $258,000 Net Operating Income: $192,180 Sales: $1,900,00 Cost of Goods: $1,432,600 Gross Profit: $467,400 Operating Expenses: $265,740 Net Operating Income:S201,660 Sales: 1,980,000 Cost of Goods: $1,492,920 Gross Profit: $487,000 Operating Expenses: $273,700 Net Operating Income: $213,300 Sales, Operating Expenses and Profits for the years 2002 and 2003 at a larger facility in a new location Sales: $ 2,100,000 Cost of Goods: $1,583,400 Gross Profit: $ 516,600 Operating Expenses: $ 325,000 Annual Debt Service: $110,000 Net Operating Income: $81,600 2003 Sales: $2,310,000 Cost of Goods: $1,741,740 Gross Profit: $568,260 Operating Expenses: $340,000 Annual Debt Service: $110,000 Net Operating Income: $118,260 These growth projections are conservative estimates based on a 10% increase in yearly sales. The operating expenses have been adjusted to fit the current rate of inflation. Page 1 of 1 KandisHanson From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Dean, John B." <jdean@Kennedy-Graven.com> Kand~s M. Hanson (E-marl) kand~shanson@msn.com> "Kandis M. Hanson (E-mail)" <kandishanson@msn.com> Monday, June 12, 2000 3:26 PM Recovery of Avoided Special Assessments. Kandis: Section 330:12 of the Mound Code requires that before a previously combined parcel is re-split, the Council "shall require the payment of any deferred or forgiven special assessments which have been avoided by a tax combination." The probable justification for the requirement is that someone who escaped a special assessment through lot combination should be required to pay back that benefit upon a subsequent split. That justification tends to break down in the road assessment situations for several reasons, all flowing from the fact that most of the "avoidance" combinations are quite old: 1. The property owners who received the benefit have, in a great number of cases, sold the parcel; and the current owner paid for the "benefit" in the increased purchase price. 2. The special assessments and the bonds have been paid, and the recovered money can't be used to reduce the assessments against other properties in the same project. Water and sewer assessments are subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 444. Under that Chapter, the City can charge for sewer and water connections based on a number of factors, including what would have been the special assessment. If the Council wishes to continue its current policy of always assessing in the event of a re-split, then the existing 330:12 is all that is needed. Any change in the current policy will require a change to the mandate found in the ordinance. In determining whether to revise the policy, the Council may wish to consider the following questions: 1. Does it matter whether the person who consolidated the lot still owns it? 2. Does it matter that the special assessments are paid off?. 3. Does it matter that the bonds are paid off?. 4. Should there be some absolute time limit-say 50 years? 5. Is there a relationship with the policy on unimproved lots? ~:~ j~, 06/22/2000 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOQD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 November 16, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor/City Council ~'('~// FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director ~ SUBJECT: Island Park Hall Repair Estimates For 2000 Budget. I received the following estimates to do the first phase of repairs to the Island Park Hall: Electrical .................................. $12,900.00 Windows & Doors ............................. Plumbing (Rough In Only) .................... Heat/AC ..................................... Roofing ..................................... Exterior Painting ........................... Engineering ................................. Contingency ................................. 26,000.00 7,370.00 43,670.00 11,278.00 5,600.00 17,500.00 12,500.00 TOTAL = $136,718.00 These figures are rough estimates and only from one contractor each. If monies were made available I would have to get two estimates on any item under $25,000 and bid anything over $25,000. It is recommended that 25% of the cost of any item over $25,000 be allotted for mechanical and architectural engineering. The contingency dollars is for the unforeseen repairs that always come about in a remodel project and it is 10% of the total cost of the project should be budgeted. One item that is not addressed in the above figures that I feel needs to be added at this time is new facia trim. pnnted on recycled paper '! CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT May 2000 41.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments May 2000 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,344,330 0 0 4,210 2,210 3,295 116,200 15,417 58,730 963,800 0 38,284 85,700 2,040 32,901 100,000 12,664 44,741 63,500 13,305 14,991 47,500 0 0 13~000 1,777 6,099 (1,344,330) 0.00% (915) 78.27% (57,470) 50.54% (925,516) 3.97% (52,799) 38.39% (55,259) 44.74% (48,509) 23.61% (47,500) 0.00% (6,901) 46.92% TOTAL REVENUE 2,738.240 47~413 199,041 (2~539.199) 7.27% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 377,470 13,843 187,124 (190,346) 49.57% 115,600 18,451 45,894 (69,706) 39.70% ,750,000 163,011 666,804 (1,083,196) 38.10% 500,000 34,347 165,745 (334,255) 33.15% 960,000 84,505 401,459 (558,541) 41.82% 6,200 945 2,720 (3,480) 43.87% 86,000 1,294 67,426 (18,574) 78.40% 06/1912000 rev00 Gino CiTY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT May 2000 41.67% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers May 2000 Y'rD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE 77,620 6,003 4,000 0 26,000 0 198,750 24,630 12,450 160 68,000 11 175,400 13,637 22,100 47 146,980 13,864 1,049,650 68,213 12,150 (149) 208,250 19,481 485,990 42,883 76,890 11,530 208,050 14,679 39,570 0 106,780 489 166.120 13,843 37,965 0 366 75,183 204 155 67,329 4 842 45 186 418.912 1.009 90.709 252.445 35.733 69 286 0 575 69,216 PERCENT VARIANCE EXPENDED 39,655 48.91% 4,000 0.00% 25,634 1.41% 123,567 37.83% 12,246 1.64% 67,845 0.23% 108,071 38.39% 17,258 21.91% 101,794 30.74% 630,738 39.91% 11,141 8.30% 117,541 43.56% 233,545 51.94% 41,157 46.47% 138,764 33.30% 39,570 0.00% 106,205 0.54% 96,904 41.67% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,084,750 229,321 1,169,115 1,91 5,635 37.90% Area Fire Service Fund 411,520 TIF 1-2 0 Recycling Fund 124,980 Liquor Fund 238,920 Water Fund 441,360 Sewer Fund 939,410 Cemetery Fund 8,190 Dock Fund 80,640 73,913 140,509 271,011 34.14% 25,034 89,619 (89,619) 21,007 44,447 80,533 35.56% 18,695 99,133 139,787 41.49% 23,870 169,015 272,345 38.29% 53,836 349,265 590,145 37.18% 0 1,003 7,187 12.25% 16,522 36,822 43,818 45.66% Exp-00 06119/2000 Gino General Fund $611,881 CDBG 1,756 Area Fire Protection Services 243,848 MSA 44,847 Sealcoat 25,067 PW Facility 53,998 Capital Improvement 277,862 CDB 3,356 Commerce Place TIF 87,192 Downtown TIF 1-2 (285,223) Co Rd 15 7,783 Recycling 65,808 Liquor Store 333,708 Water 726,508 Sewer 661,894 Cemetery 6,751 Dock 268,261 Fire Relief (50,905) HRA 0 Note: The above schedule shows the combined cash and investment balances by fund for the months indicated as recorded in the General Ledger. The balances do not reflect receivable, payables, authorized transfers, encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc. Only some accrued transactions are reflected. Investment income will be distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included. A long and complete process is followed to record all transactions, before we close the books, at the end of the year. In addition, the audit from the independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties. In no way this schedule is intended to represent balances of funds available for spending. 06/19/2000 CashReportCouncil Gino Jun 89 Z888 ~7:ZS:SZ ~a Fa× AMM FAX lie June 5-9, 2000 -) XandJs Xanson Page 881 Of 881 Association of IqmopolJtan Hunicipalities Metropolitan Council releases land use data The Metropolitan Council has released its most recent land use data and maps. To receive the informa- tion, call the Regional Data Center at 651-602-1140 or go to the Council's web site: www metrocounci! org/ .0',etroarea/g ismain, btm. The web site presents the data in tables, charts and maps for each county, city and township. The tables Mn/Dot announces projects for funding Mn/Dot announced the projects that will receive a portion of the transportation appropriation ap- proved by the 2000 Legislature. The funding is intended to improve interregional corridors and alleviate bottlenecks. Metro area projects skated to receive funds are: ADVANCED BOTTLENECK PROJECTS · 1-494 from Highway 100 to Highway 212. · Wakota Bridge. · Highway 100 from Twin Lakes to 50j~ Avenue · 1-94 from Weaver Lake Road to Humbolt Avenue. · Highway 12 Bypass from County Road 6 to Wayzata Blvd. INTERREGIONAL CORRIDORS · Highway 12 right-of-way pur- chase from County Road 4 to Highway 41. · Highway 52 interchange in Rosemount. · Highway 169 interchanges at Anderson Lake and Pioneer Trail. · Highway 169 interchange in Belle Plaine. present land uses in 1990 and in 1997 and compares the changes during the time frame. As you review the data, please note that the wetlands use compares the wetland acreage that has changed from non-urbanized land to another category. Therefore, the city did not lose wetlands. For example, a wetland that was in a non-urbanized land total may continue as a wetland in a residen- tial area but it is not separately identi- fied in that (residential) category. Being aware of the confusion, the Met Council will add a notation to the web site. If you have any comments regarding the data e-mail the Met Council at: giscontact~metc.state, mn. us. AMM and others discuss TI F with AG Staff from AMM, the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the . Legislative Municipal Caucus met with staff from the attorney general's (AG's) office to discuss the AG's role in enforcing TIF violations. Ken Peterson of the AG's staff noted that the office has not yet handled a case and may not have a case for at least another year. Peterson, however, indicated that AG as outlined in the statute would attempt to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods rather than petitioning the tax court. If litigation is needed the AG would pursue court action. In reviewing the statute the AG's office and the city groups agreed that the enforcement provision may need to be cladfied regarding the type of penalties resulting from the dispute resolution process. While no specific proposals were identified all partici- pants agreed to further discuss legislative and procedural issues. Council committees d The Met Council's Housing and Land Use Advisory Committee began developing its work program yesterday. The 24-member committee advises the Met Council on issues regarding metropolitan land use and comprehensive planning, regional housing and matters of metropolitan significance. Members include elected officials, as well as representatives of such business sectors as development, law.. labor and housing. The work program will focus on three major policy areas - challenges in accommodating growth, opportunities for aligning regional investment and reassessing evelop work plans regional housing policy and housing development. At its July meeting, the committee will discuss aligning regional investment with emphasis on transporta- tion investments and land use. The Rural Issues Work Group, chaired by Councilmember Marc Hugunin, also began to develop its work plan. Several issues were grouped into categories such as agricultural land preservation, the future of rural growth centers, aggregate resources and surface water retention. The work group will review the work plan and possibly review the Aggregate Resources Study at its next meeting. AMM FAX June 12-16, 2000 P~ge 881 Of 881 Association Hetropolitan Plunicipalities Council unveils 'Smart Growth-Twin Cities' Metropolitan Council Chair Ted Mondale unveiled a new Council effort this week: "Smart Growth-Twin Cities." This effort is a community-based approach to implementing the Regional Blue- print and comprehensive plans. The planning effort, which will be funded in part with a $250,000 grant from the McKnight Foundation, will consist of the following three components: · Establishing baseline data to determine how local comprehensive plans are achieving Blueprint goals and discuss the findings. · Define sub-regions and exam- ine how to better integrate land use with existing and planned transpor- tation investments. · Identify four opportunity sites of 20-100 acres to demonstrate development that is walkable and mixed use. The Met Council staff will prima- dly be responsible for the first component which is scheduled to begin in July and be completed by June 2001. The sub-regional studies will be completed by staff and consultants. Calthorpe and Associates will be retained by the Met Council to assist in the sub-regional planning. The planning will include work- shops to help develop a land use strategy around current and planned improvements. The opportunity site analysis will be lead by the Calthorpe firm and will include market studies, public infrastructure assessment and master plan development, including visual presentations and design standards. The Met Council anticipates that the process will identify new devel- opment strategies and possible Blueprint modifications. The revi- sions would be made in a timely manner, so they could be incorpo- rated in the next submission of comprehensive plans due in 2008. The Met Council is scheduled to review the proposed budget and work program at its June 21 meet- ing. Within the next few weeks the Met Council will inform cities by letter of the program including the guidelines and deadlines for the opportunity site component. An Aug. 15 deadline was discussed. If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Bob Mazanec (651.602-1330) at the Met Council. Committee debates wastewater rates, capital finance plan The Met Council's environment committee reviewed the pro- posed capital finance plan. The plan proposes to fund the capital improvements budget through a combination of bond ~ ~IM N~ws Fo~: is faxed to all AMM city managers and administrators, legislative contacts and Board members. Please share this fax with your mayors, counciimembers and staff to keep them abreast of impor- tant metro city issues. 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, .~l.~V' 55105-2044 Phone; (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm~mm145, org proceeds and user charges. The plan also proposes to study the feasibility of using a portion of the Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) to pay the reserve capacity portion of capital costs. The use of the SAC to decrease debt would as proposed by Met Council staff: · Reduce debt and debt service. · Be favorably reviewed by the rating agencies. · Increase the percentage of debt at Iow rates. The staff also indicated that the proposal has certain disadvan- tages including: · Decreased investment. · Decreased options for future use of funds. · Administrative complexity. · Possible increase in the SAC rate in the near term followed by lower rates. The use of SAC would require approximately $39.0 million in SAC reserve balance over six years. The committee took no action and will continue working on the finance plan. If you have any comments call Jason Willett (651-602-1196) at the Met Council. AMM FAX -> June 19-23, 2000 Page 801 Of 881 Association of Hetropolitan Hunicipalitie$ AMM .News Fax is faxed to aH AMM city managers and administrators, legislative contacts and Board members. Please share this fax with your mayors, councilmembers and staff lO keep them abreast of impor- tant metro city issues. University Avenue ~Fest St. Paul, M.N 55103-2044 Phone: (6519 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm~amm14 5. org Metro Council approves 'Smart Growth-Twin Cities' The Metropolitan Council approved a $1.17 million contract Wednesday with Calthorpe Associates to imple- ment a new Council effort, "Smart Growth-Twin Cities," which is slated to begin this summer and end in December 2002. Calthorpe Associates will develop implementation strate- gies for local governments to achieve Smart Growth and see how the region is doing in ac- complishing the Regional Blue- print and Transit 2020 Master Plan. The McKnight Foundation is contributing a $250,000 grant to the project for communications and public involvement efforts that create new, community- based strategies for linking Smart Growth, land use, trans- portation and the environment. The remaining project cost will come from the Met Council -- $175,000 from a fund balance from the Transportation and Transit Development Fund and $175,000 of earnings from the Environmental Services operat- ing fund. In implementing the "Smart Growth-Twin Cities" project, Calthorpe Associates will: 4, Compile existing comprehen- sive plans and evaluate progress toward the Regional Blueprint. e Explore current subregional land use scenarios and help develop new scenarios through public forums. e Involve some metro cities in more detailed Smart Growth planning. Calthorpe Associates plans to use workshops extensively to get the public involved in "Smart Growth-Twin Cities." Some communications and activities will likely include: citizen forums, series of subregional citizen- oriented workshops, dissemina- tion of workshop results to the press, a web survey, local work- shops to develop site master plans. Calthorpe Associates has performed similar regional work, "Envision Utah," which also involved a great deal of citizen participation through workshops. The results of the project could lead to amendments to the Blueprint to reflect more specific Smart Growth strategies. DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 10, 2000 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Kent Dahlen, Minne;onka Beach; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; LiIi McMillar), Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wed, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; George Hoff, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock Babcock stated that June 3rd and June 10· have been identified as possible dates for the annual lake inspection tour. He suggested the Board move this item to new business at the end of the agenda. Nybeck announced the Oral Arguments at the MN Supreme Court have been scheduled for Tuesday, 5/30/00. He added he was unsure of the scheduled time but that he would pass it on when it was available. Gilman arrived at 7:07 p.m. READING OF MINUTES- 4/12/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Foster moved, Nelson seconded to approve the minutes of the 4/12/00 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1; Dahlen); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA. Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion un/ess a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Babcock recommended that the second half of agenda item 3A, the $500 refund for preliminary investigation for the charter boat Barefoot Bay, be removed from the consent agenda. He added that agenda item 2B, which discusses Resolution 98 for the setting of fees for non-conforming, non-multiple docks on Lake Minnetonka, might need to be removed from the consent agenda. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page2 Foster moved, McMillan seconded to approve the consent agenda, removing the second half of agenda item 3A for Barefoot Bay Charters. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: 2B, Resolution 98, staff recommends approval of resolution setting fees for non-conforming, non-multiple dock facilities on Lake Uinnetonka; 3A, 2000 Liquor/Wine/Beer License Applications, staff recommends full refund for preliminary investigation for the new license issued to Seanote Cruises, Inc. (Halfnote- $3,000); 3B Fantasia Charters, Inc., staff recommends approval of renewal non-intoxicating malt liquor and wine license applications for the charter boat, Fantasia; 4A, Minutes from the 4/19/00 "STL" Advisory Committee meeting; and 5B, Evaluation of RFP for chemical control of EWM on three public accesses, staff recommendation to award contract to Lake Management, Inc. PUBLIC HEARINGS · Bayview Charter Cruises, new on-sale non-intoxicating Malt Liquor and Wine License applications for the charter boat, Escalade. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. He asked the applicant and the public if they had any comments. There being no comments, Babcock closed the public hearing 7:05 p.m. MOTION: Foster moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the new on-sale, non-intoxicating Malt Liquor and Wine License applications for the 2000 season, for the charter boat Escalade, with a refund of $600 for the balance of the fees previously paid. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. · A Day in the Sun Charters, new on-sale intoxicating Malt Liquor and Wine License applications for the charter boat, Banana Wind. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. He asked the applicant and the public if they had any comments. There being no comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. MOTION: Foster moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the new on-sale intoxicating Malt Liquor and Wine License applications for the 2000 season, for the charter boat Banana Wind. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Seton View Association, new multiple dock license application to increase Boat Storage Units (BSU's) from seven to eight. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a variance application from LMCD Code for Dock Length. Babcock opened the public headng at 7:10 p.m. He asked the applicant and the public if they had any comments. Mr. Mike Ronald, Seton View Association, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that they have been trying to get an eighth BSU approved at their multiple dock facility for some time. He noted at a recent meeting, the Board requested that additional details be provided. He stated he believed they have obtained this information and he recommended Board approval of this request. He entertained questions or feedback from the Board. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 3 Foster asked the applicant the for the water depths at the end of the existing structure. Ronald stated the water depths would vary but that they would generally be six feet. Wed asked for clarification of the two aspects of the applications submitted, including the proposed dock length variance and the additional Boat Storage Unit (BSU). Babcock stated that the dock was originally approved in the early 1990's and that a dock length variance was not secured. He added a seventh BSU was approved at this site in 1999, but again a dock length variance was not secured at that time. He continued the application submitted by the applicant for dock length variance was to clean up the District records for future Board actions and to protect the applicant by indicating that the existing structure is not illegal. Skramstad arrived at 7:14 p.m. Wert asked the applicant to explain why the proposed additional BSU has been moved from the inner part of the dock from the west-end to the east-end. Ronald stated that water depths at the east-end make more sense. Nelson asked what the total dock length is. Babcock stated that he believed that the total length of the dock is 173', but that in pdor years the Board was calculating the total dock length of 60' from the small island between the main land and the end of the dock. He added the Board recently concluded that if dock length originated from the island rather than the main land, that it would be considering non-contiguous shoreline which is not acceptable under current the Code. He stated he believed that the interpretation over the years of how this structure was built has changed over the years by the Board and that the Board requested the applicant to make application for dock length for the existing structure. Ronald stated one other point the Board wanted clarification about from the applicant was when the site was platted. He noted based on his review, the sites were platted on December 1, 1988. There being no additional comments, Babcock closed the public headng at 7:15 p.m. Babcock asked LeFevere to explain how the 1988 platting for these sites would be interpreted by the Code. LeFevere stated that the 1:50' General Rule could be applied to the four sites, with the potential to adjust shoreline consistent with Code. He noted there are exceptions to the 1:50' General Rule, regardless of how much lakeshore frontage is included in the sites. He explained that one exception to the General Rule allows two restricted watercraft, regardless of ownership, provided the site was platted before a specified date in May of 1978. He noted these four sites would not qualify for this exception. He stated a second exception to the 1:50' General Rule allows up to four restricted watercraft at each site, provided they are all owned and registered to residents of the sites. He noted he believed these sites would qualify for this exception, provided that the docking and storage of watercraft are contained in their authorized dock use areas. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page4, McMillan asked Babcock if he believed converging lot lines were a hardship for the proposed dock length vadance request. Babcock stated he believed that the greater hardships in the proposal are emergent vegetation and shallow water. He explained that he believed the only issue before the Board was whether to increase the number of slips from seven to eight. He stated he believed the only open question remaining is whether to apply the 1:50' General Rule or whether to allow the storage of up to two watercraft per residence, subject to all watercraft being owned by the residents of the site. Foster stated that he was not troubled by allowing up to two watercraft per resident or the dock length variance request. MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to direct the attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the new multiple dock license and dock length variance applications, subject to the total number of watercraft not exceeding eight and provided they are all owned and registered to the residents of the sites. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously, Wayzata Marine, Inc,, new multiple dock license and variance applications to amend a previously approved variance by relocating three Boat Storage Units (BSU's) from the east-end to the west end of the facility, requiring variances for length, side setbacks, and an adjusted dock use area. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. He asked the applicant and the public if they had any comments. Mr. Gary Briggs, owner of Wayzata Marine, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated he had nothing to add to what was included in the Board packet but that he was available for questions and comments. Weft asked for a general overview of the situation before the Board received testimony from the public. Babcock stated the property in question is the former Lakeside Marina property in Maxwell Bay in the City of Orono. He noted the facility has been in existence for a number of years and was under a Court Order some years ago to bring the facility within 200' from the ordinary high water mark. He stated he believed the currently approved site plan is a result of this Court Order, with a side setback variance granted on the east-end of the facility. He added the variance granted was subject to annual review because the property to the east was under common ownership when it was approved and because it was undeveloped. He noted the property to the east has been developed in the past 18 months and they have installed their dock within the minimum side setback requirements on the west-end of their authorized dock use area, resulting in a public navigation issue for the inner slips that open towards the property to the east. He concluded that this issue has prompted the application before the Board for consideration. Mr. Robert Waade, 1487 Shoreline Ddve, stated he was the resident that recently constructed a home to the east of the facility. He noted his main concern was public safety relating to swimming and other public safety activities because a large number of boats exit to the east towards his property. He stated he would prefer that the applicant reconfigure the facility so that the boats exit from the center part of the property. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 5 Foster asked Waade if he was in agreement with the applications submitted to move three BSU's from the east-end of the facility to the west-end. Waade stated that he was. Mr. Gabdel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, stated that the parcel recently developed by Mr. Waade was proposed some years ago for potential public access. He noted the City of Orono had concerns with that site for public access and that they worked diligently to move it to the west-end of the facility. He added some years ago, the property that Mr. Waade owns was in common ownership with the commercial madna property. He stated where the current public access exists on the west side of the facility, there were a number of small summer cottages. He concluded he believed the residential versus public access issues have flip flopped over the years and he encouraged the Board to support the request submitted by the applicant. Foster asked the applicant for his feedback on whether a temporary variance would make sense for the current boating season by allowing him time to reconfigure the existing dock structure so it funnels traffic out through the middle of the dock use area for future years. Waade stated that has been suggested by staff and that he did not know the reality of it because if its complexity. He noted he did not have the background for this and that he had not taken the time investigate it. There being no comments, Babcock closed the public headng at 7:30 p.m. Nybeck stated that staff had spoken with Ceil Strauss on the proposed applications and that she appeared open towards a temporary solution for the 2000 boating season, provided the boats to be moved from the east-end to the west-end do not cross the extended lot line between the applicant and MN DNR public access properties. He added that Strauss concurred with the recommendation of Distdct staff that the three BSU's be moved to the west-end by utilizing a tie-on option at the end of the two piers and the wet well, thus not requiring the adjustment of the authorized dock use area. Babcock stated he believed that the Board did a good job by placing the applicant on notice that the variance would be reviewed annually if the property to the east of the facility were developed. He added because of the public safety concerns raised by the neighbor to the east, he believed the vadance on the east.end of the facility should be discontinued. He asked for feedback from the Board. Foster asked for feedback from the Board on whether the western extended lot line could be identified as converging because it is not perpendicular to the shoreline. He added this could allow the Board to adjust the extended lot line between the applicant and MD DNR properties. He suggested the Board could approve this on a temporary basis to allow the applicant to better evaluate the facility for the future. Wert asked what would happen if the Board approve a temporary vadance and the applicant proposes a solution that is not agreeable to the Board in the future. Babcock stated he originally had some of the same concems but he indicated that he believed the Vadance Order addressed this. He reviewed the restrictions of the Vadance Order, noting that the variance shall be subject to annual review of the application for renewal of the applicant's multiple dock license. He added in the text of the Order, it states Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 6*~ that the future development of the adjacent property may require that the applicant bring their docks into full :" compliance with LMCD Code. He stated he was hesitant to move the three slips to the west-end of the facility because he believed the Variance Order properly put the owner of this property on notice that the vadance was conditioned on the use of the property owner to the east. He questioned what the hardship would be if the three slips are moved to the west-end of the facility. McMillan questioned why the variance was originally approved back in 1981. Babcock stated he believed that when the variance was originally approved, both parcels were under common ownership. LeFevere stated in 1972, ordinances were adopted that required facilities to come back to 300' from the 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline. He added that these ordinances allowed facilities that were out beyond 200' five years to come into compliance with the Code. He noted there was a case after these five years where the courts required the commercial facilities to come into compliance with this Section of the Code, with the remaining facilities coming into compliance shortly thereafter. He stated when this variance was originally granted in 1981, the Board could have taken into account the loss of these slips because of the 200' dock length restriction, although it may not qualify as a typical hardship. He noted the physical hardship when the variance was originally approved was the unusual configuration of the shoreline, although there was acknowledgement by the Board that this was not much of a hardship. He continued that he believed some of the same certain circumstance that existed in 1981, including a weak physical hardship, still exist today. He suggested that the Board might want to consider the alternative plan recommended by the Executive Director. McMillan stated she would like to see the Board approve a temporary variance for the 2000 boating season to allow the applicant sufficient time to reconfigure the facility for the 2001 boating season. She added she believed the dock installed by Mr. Waade slightly encroaches in the minimum side setback requirements because of some communication problems. LeFevere reviewed the recommendation by staff, noting they have recommends three tie-on BSUs with the existing structure on the west-end of the facility. He noted that staff has recommended that one BSU be tied on the outside of BSU 45, that a second BSU be tied on the outside of BSU's 37 and 41, and a third BSU be tied on the outside of BSU 1. He noted this alternative proposal would require side setback and dock length variance, not an adjusted dock use area. Nybeck stated he believed the altemative recommendation reviewed by LeFevere was reasonable and that it would allow the applicant to work with Mr. Waade on a reconflguration for the 2001 boating season that they can both agree on. He added that this altemative would not require any additional structure. Briggs stated he believed that the docking structure is a community issue as well as fitting it with Code regulations. He noted he would like to not store watercraft on the outside of BSU's 37 and 41 because of its proximity to the MN DNR public access. Babcock stated he believed the problem being addressed is self-imposed by the applicant and was acknowledged by the Board when the variance was originally granted. He noted he believed that there has been a request from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 7 neighbor to the east that this variance not be continued and that continued consent from this neighbor was a condition of the original vadance granted. Foster stated he would support the vadance request for one year on a temporary basis to allow them to evaluate the facility and to bring it into compliance for the 2001 season. Babcock stated although the Board appears to be willing to support a temporary variance to assist the applicant for one season, he reminded the Board that they could address the situation by removing the boats themselves and not relocating them. Mr. David Briggs, General Manager for Wayzata Marine, stated that three watercraft in question are under contract from the previous owner. He noted they have submitted applications for Board consideration because they believe there are some public safety concerns on the east-end of the facility. Jabbour suggested that feedback from the MN DNR should come from Trails and Waterways and that this should be the responsibility of the applicant. He added he believed the Board needs to discuss if the hardship has changed from the variance approved in 1981. Babcock stated he believed there are a few differences between what was approved in 1981 and what is currently being proposed. He stated these differences include the proposed boat storage would go outside of the extended side site lines and that there is not common ownership as there previously was. Suerth asked the applicant what could be done by the District to provide a temporary solution to public navigation on the east-end of the facility. Waade stated even if the proposed three BSU's are moved to the west-end of the facility, he believed there are other public safety issues that would still exist. Babcock asked Waade if he was asking the District to do more than bring docks into compliance with the side setback rules. Waade stated he would some assurance that the boats from the facility are not running over kids in the water in front of the property he owns. He noted he believes that all parties in question would have some liability if this were to occur. McMillan suggested an alternative plan to relocate proposed BSU 36 to the outside of BSU 1. She stated this could be an altemative site plan for one season. She asked for feedback from Mr. Briggs. Briggs stated that he believed that would be a fair compromise. MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan seconded to direct the attomey to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of side setback and dock length variances subject to: 1) amending the site plan to move BSU 36 to the outside of BSU 1, 2) on a temporary basis for the 2000 season, with a sunset clause at the end of the season, 3) with a hardship of unusual shoreline as the physical hardship, 4) to discontinue the variance granted on the east-end of the facility within 100', and 5) to encourage the applicant to reconfigure the facility for the 2001 season. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page McMillan stated that she would like to make a friendly amendment to require approval from the MN DNR. Foster agreed to this. Wed asked when the sunset condition would expire and what would happen if a reconfiguration did not occur for the 2001 season that is acceptable to the District and Mr. Bdggs. Foster stated that the sunset clause would expire at the end of the 2000 boating season. ~-- Babcock suggested the Board might want to require the applicant to bring the east-side of the facility into compliance with Code for the 2000 boating season. Foster stated that he did not believe that BSU 77 was causing a problem. Babcock stated if the Board desires to approve the temporary variance on the west-end of the facility, he would prefer the Board require the applicant bring the east-side of the dock use area into compliance with Code. Wed stated he would vote against the motion because he believed it would impose a larger imposition on the applicant. Waade expressed concern with the motion because he believed it does not properly address public safety on the west- end of the facility. MOTION: Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Wed); motion carded. City of Mound, new multiple dock license and six variance applications for Boat Storage at six firelanes on West Arm. These firelanes include Woodland Road, Eagle Lane, Bluebird Lane North, Finch Lane, Gull Lane, and Dove Lane. The proposed variances from LMCD Code dock length and side setbacks. Babcock opened the public heating at 8:39 p.m. He asked the applicant and the public if they had any comments. Mr. Jim Gollembeck, legal representation for the applicant, introduced Mr. Mark Hanus to provide factual background on the proposed applications. Mr. Mark Hanus, Mound City Council Member, provided factual background on why the applications have been submitted. He made the following comments: : · The land in question, which was platted in 1906, was dedicated to those that live within the subdivision, not to the public in general. ° In 1994, six properly owners that abutted the Commons brought the Flack lawsuit against the City of Mound. He noted they claimed in this lawsuit that they owned the Commons property in front of their homes and that there was a lack of public or private easement across this property. He continued that the court ruled that they are actually the fee owners of the property in question; however, there was some form of easement across this property for the remaining residents of the subdivision. He added the court determined that it could not determine what these easements were because the remaining residents of the development were not part of the lawsuit. He stated based on the ruling, the City of Mound was barred from running its dock program from these six properties. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page9 · He stated a number of questions arose because of this court ruling with the main focus on what were the fights and who knew what they were. He noted a mediation session was established to evaluate a working solution for these questions but was unsuccessful. · In 1997, the Bailey lawsuit was comprised of some non-abutting property owners that included all 100 property owners and the City of Mound. He stated the ruling of the court in this case was that the padies were encouraged to resolve the issues themselves. He noted it went back to mediation and died when a resolution was not accomplished. · He stated it went back to court with a ruling issued in March of 1999. He noted the easement fights to the other 100 homes in the subdivision were re-confirmed in this ruling without any clarification to what they were. He added the judge strongly recommended the parties solve the case on their own and it went back to mediation. The City of Mound then drafted a settlement agreement that summarized the key points and highlights from the discussion at the mediation. He noted that this agreement has tweaked by the parties involved and ultimately signed by 95 of the 100 parties involved. · This settlement agreement was presented back to court with a ruling in March of 2000. He noted the court approved the settlement agreement, subject to approval of it by the LMCD. He noted the proper applications have been submitted to shift existing sites in front of homes to the proposed six street end. He stated if the LMCD denied the applications for variance from Code, he believed the LMCD could be dragged into the lawsuit that has been going on for six years. · He requested approval from the Board on the settlement agreement and entertained feedback or comments from the Board. Babcock asked how much shoreline the City of Mound would lose in the settlement agreement. Ms. Allison Swanson, legal representation for the City of Mound, stated she believed they would lose approximately 2,300' of non-continuos shoreline, excluding the street ends and Canary Beach which would be maintained under city control. Babcock asked if the City of Mound was granted easement only on the street ends and Canary Beach in the Settlement Agreement. Golembeck stated the settlement agreement grants the City of Mound access on the street ends to install dockage. Babcock stated there is a need to understand in the Commons area, which land is counted towards the public and which land is counted towards the private. He noted it appears that the 180' of shoreline and the shoreline in question at Canary Beach are being counted towards the City of Mound multiple dock license. He added the City of Mound needs to understand that the proposed applications need to comply with the 1:50' General Rule and that any shortages of shoreline need to be deducted from the total non-continuous shoreline dedicated towards their multiple dock license. He stated the 1:10' special density license provision is an option, provided preferential treatment is not granted for specified riparian or non-riparian properties. Hanus stated the City is carefully tracking total BSU's within the Mound Commons docking program and he believed at this point that they would not make application for a special density license in the future. McMillan asked if the City of Mound would be losing BSU's if the proposed applications were approved. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page l0 Hanus stated that the City of Mound would lose some of its maximum BSU capacity; however, he noted they currently are under this capacity. McMillan asked how many boats were stored in the Commons area in question last year. Allison stated she believed that roughly 46 boats were stored in the area in question in 1999. Babcock asked why the City of Mound is involved in the proposed docking program since they have not managed the Commons in question for a number of years. Hanus stated the City of Mound is involved generally at the request of the residents in the area because of the complexity of the issues involved. Wed stated that it appears the settlement agreement cleady outlines how the proposed 22 BSUs at the six street ends would be distributed to the approximately 75 properties that do not abut the Commons. Babcock stated that these criteria are cleady defined and the City of Mound has agreed to run the program based on them. McMillan asked if there are other properties with more significant shoreline where these boats could be stored. Mr. Dan Stohr, an abutter to the Commons, stated that the Settlement Agreement has been a long, drawn out process. He added that he believed that there are no other alternatives because they have all been explored. Babcock stated that although a significant amount of time has been invested on the Settlement Agreement, the judge recognized the authority of the District to act within its jurisdictional authority and do what is good for the lake. Wed asked for clarification on how the dock can occur on the six street ends. Golembeck stated that the six street ends were platted in 1906 for public use. He added the Commons were also dedicated at that time for the use and enjoyment of the people of that plat, which includes the City of Mound. He added that it is the contention of the City of Mound that they have an interest all the way down to the lake from the street ends because of the plat. Hoff stated that before the Board is a settlement agreement and applications submitted to implement it. He added'the definition of property interests in the settlement agreement for the City of Mound is that they are an easement holder through the Commons property to the lake. He noted this is a typical ownership pattem for a city such as Mound. Foster asked for the position of the property owners that abut these six street ends. Golembeck stated that he understood most of them signed the settlement agreement. He briefly addressecJ the legal standards outlined for granting variances in Section 1.07. He noted this Section of the Code stated that where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur, the Board can grant a variance from LMCD Code. He stated there are two general types of variances, use and area. He noted he believed the proposed variance request is an area variance Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page11 because the residents in the area have dpadan access rights. He cited a number of cases that he believed pertained to the proposed applications. Babcock asked Golembeck what he believed the practical difficulty was in the proposed applications. Golembeck stated he was not prepared to respond to that at this time. He noted he believed the unique platting of the Commons area in 1906 created unique riparian rights for the 75 properties that are inland. He stated the competing interest between the properties that abut that commons and those that are inland were created by the unique platting in 1906. Babcock stated he was unclear with the definition of what these riparian rights include. He noted the court has echoed this and he questioned whether the proposed practical difficulty could be resolved without the need to grant a variance from Code. Golembeck reviewed a couple of legal cases that discussed substantial inequities. He stated that he believed the settlement agreement of the parties settles a number of issues and is a practical solution. Babcock stated that if for some reason the City of Mound drops out of the application process for the settlement agreement, problems would occur because of the lack of shoreline associated with the proposed applications. He added he would like to see the settlement agreement work out the issues relating public safety and navigability to the front BSU's with the abutting properties. He noted he believed the Board needs to be aware of the issues going on at Wayzata Marine in Maxwell Bay. Golembeck stated he did not have the authority to amend the settlement agreement; however, he would like to know what issues the Board might have so they could be addressed. He noted the proposed settlement agreement is contingent on the Board approving the variance requests. McMillan asked if additional side setbacks are going to be necessary from the properties that abut the six firelanes. Ms. Sara Madison, the attomey who represented the petitioners in the Bailey case, stated she believed the only abutting property that would dispute the need for increased side setbacks for public navigational purposes is on Woodland Road. She added she believed the other abutting property owners have agreed to the settlement agreement. Mr. Ron Gavin, 5000 Enchanted Road, stated he was a property owner that abutted one of these street ends. He expressed concem with garbage and boat lifts being stored during the winter at the proposed sites. Babcock stated that these concerns should be directed to the City of Mound. Hanus stated that the Mound docking program does not allow lifts at the docks. He added that the City of Mound would do the installation and removal of the docks. Ms. Diana Watson, a resident that abuts one of these street ends on Eagle Lane, stated she would be affected by one of the proposed vadan~s if it is approved. She noted she believed a greater hardship would be created if the Board does not approve the proposed variances. She added she believed it would not create a precedent on the lake Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 12 because the situation is unique and highly unusual. She stated she believed the inland property owners are making a significant reduction of watercraft to be stored in the Commons area and that they are not going to interfere with navigability in front of her home. She concluded that the docks could be located in what is currently Canary Beach; however, the residents the area decided that they would like to maintain the swimming beach. Babcock asked for clarification why the applications have been submitted for 20 BSU's when the settlement agreement is for 22 BSU's. Ahrens clarified that there is a site where two BSU's can be stored on Bluebird Lane S. without the need for a variance. Mr. Keith Johnson, owner of one of the propedies that abuts one of these street ends, stated that he bought the ' property approximately five years ago with the full understanding that there was public commons for docking purposes in front of his home. He added he has been quite involved in the process all along and that he believed that the settlement agreement is well thought out. He concluded he believed it was a good agreement and he encouraged Board support of it. Mr. Mike Gardner, owner of one of the lots that abuts one of these street ends on Woodland Road, stated that he was one of the original litigants in 1991 that objected to how the Mound Commons docking program was administered. He noted the easement that runs through the Commons area in question is approximately 260' from the lake, it is 10' from his property, and 5' from his neighbors. He expressed concern with the proposed settlement agreement because he and his neighbor have 40' wide lots and that they have to comply with side setback requirements. He stated he was concerned with the 30' wide street ends and that the judge determined that the inland properties do not have dparian dghts as previously testified. He concluded he was concerned with the 30' wide street ends and that he believed he was one-half fee simple owner of it. Babcock stated that the Board is interested in who actually has control of the 30' in width of shoreline at the six street ends. He added if there is an adverse claim with regards to control of the shoreline that would need to be resolved by the courts. Hoff reviewed the settlement agreement that has been reviewed and approved by the courts, subject to approval by the District. He stated he believed some of these objects have already been raised and that they have had their day in court. He noted one part of the settlement agreement includes a 30' wide easement to the lakeshore for docking purposes so he recommended the shoreline in question is under the control of the City of Mound. He concluded typically for streets, the abutting property owners would have fee title to the middle of the street; however, the city would have an easement over it for roadway purposes. Gardner stated that he believed the settlement agreement discusses 15' wide easement, not 30'. Hoff reviewed the setllement agreement, noting it indicates that the City of Mound has an easement of these section of the Commons for the purposes of multiple slip docks with the outer boundaries of the side site lines established by the street ends. He added if the District approves the requests to implement the settlement agreement, it would go back to the courts for final acceptance with the potential that a property owner that objects to the proposals could file an appeal. Gardner restated his concem about how the dock on the street end would affect docking within his authorized dock use area. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 13 Babcock stated whether or not the Board grants the proposals submitted by the City of Mound, Mr. Gardner needs to place both structure and boat storage within the authorized dock use area established from his property. Madison stated that Judge Lange in the court documents did not claim that the inland property owners do not have riparian dghts. She corrected the record indicating that Judge Lange stated that inland property owners do have dparian dghts pursuant to the dedication of the Commons. There being no further business, Babcock closed the public hearing at 10:19 p.m. Babcock stated he believed the Board has received a significant amount of input and testimony on the proposed applications. He suggested it be brought back to a future meeting to allow the Board to sort through it and to allow Hoff to bring back a legal opinion on the input and testimony received. Foster stated that he would like the applicant to bdng overheads at this future meeting on site locations including the proposed docking and how it relates to the docking on the abutting properties. He added he believed there appears to be general consensus with the abutting properties and the District probably should not grant variances that are precedent setting for the rest of the lake where this consensus does not exist. McMillan stated that she would also like to know the lot widths of the properties that abut these street ends. Babcock stated that he would like these variances to be able to stand on their own without placing additional restrictions on the abutting properties. He questioned whether the Board should go down the path of potentially considering adjusting the dock use area of the abutting properties. The consensus of the Board was to continue discussion of these applications to the 5/24/00 meeting. The Board Recessed at 10:25 p.m, and re-convened at 10:32 p.m. 1. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (5/1/00 - 5/15/00). Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Foster seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. March financial summary and balance sheet. Nelson reviewed the March financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. MOTION: Wert moved, Gilman seconded to accept the March financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page14 C. Review of timetable to Consider draft 2001 LMCD Budget. Nybeck stated that the timetable to review the draft 2001 LMCD Budget was consistent with past years. He noted a meeting has been established to review and receive input and comments on the draft budget with the member cities, with comments due from the member cities in the Distdct by 6121100. He stated first review of the draft budget is scheduled for the 5/24100 Board meeting and that there is a need to have interested Board members review it prior to this Board meeting. He concluded adoption of the 2001 LMCD Budget is planned for the 6/28/00 Board meeting with a copy of the adopted budget to be forwarded to member cities by 7/1/00. The consensus of the Board was to conduct a meeting in the District office on 5/11/00 at 8 a.m. to review the draft 2001 LMCD Budget. D. Additional business. There was no additional business. WATER STRUCTURES A. Ordinance Amendlnent, Third reading of an ordinance relating to the density of watercraft storage on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.11 by adding new Subd. 6. MOTION: Foster moved, Wert seconded to approve third reading and adoption of the ordinance amendment. Babcock stated he would like to amend the motion by reducing the boat storage density number to 1:25' and by reducing the length of the boats that could be stored at these facilities to 28' length overall at normal operating position. McMillan concurred with Babcock on reducing the boat storage density number to 1:25'. She stated she believed the 1:25' number makes logical sense since it is twice the density allowed from the current 1:50' General Rule standard. She concluded she believed the proposed 1:20' number has been derived mainly because of a pending application. Foster explained he believed the 1:20' number is logical and explained it is half the density allowed under the 1:10' boat storage allowances for special density licenses. Babcock stated he did not believe the 1:10' number applies to these facilities because it is a conforming standard that does not apply to any of these facilities. He noted if a facility is licensed for a special density, they would not qualify under this Code amendment. McMillan questioned whether the special density 1:10' standard should be applied for these facilities because the slips associated with these facilities would be taken out from the public domain. Babcock concurred he believed that changes should be made to Code for conversion of use of grandfathered facilities. He stated based on his practical experience, he believed the 1:20' number with 32' long boats is not logical. He recommended the Board adopt an ordinance on how they would like shorelines to look for these Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 15 facilities on a lakewide basis, not only for the site with a pending application. Wed stated that although the shoreline at the pending application would not look like single family parcels, he believed the site would improve because it would be converted from a commercial property to a multi family property. Mr. Paul Pedersen, owner of Grays Bay Madna, encouraged not restricting boat sizes below 32' based on his practical experiences. Mr. Steve Schwanke, representing a pending application from Kent Carlson, supported the ordinance amendment as proposed. He added he believed the ordinance amendment would affect only six or seven facilities on the lake. Nybeck reminded the Board that adoption of the ordinance amendment would require the majodty of the Board, or a vote of eight, in favor of the ordinance amendment. VOTE: Ayes (7), Nayes (3; Babcock, Gilman, and McMillan), motion failed. Babcock stated that the motion failed because there were not sufficient votes in favor of it to adopt the ordinance. MOTION: Babcock moved, Gilman seconded to approved third reading and adoption of the ordinance amendment, subject to reducing the boat storage density number to 1:25' and to reduce the length of boats allowed to 28' LOA. McMillan recommended a friendly amendment to change the 28' LOA dock length restriction to 32' LOA. Babcock and Gilman agreed to this fdendly amendment. Pedersen suggested another friendly amendment to round up in all cases rather than round down. MOTION: TO AMEND Foster moved, Skramstad second to amend the original motion by rounding up in all cases. Babcock stated he would like to see rounding up consistent with all other facilities licensed on the lake. VOTE ON: MOTION TO AMEND Ayes (3; Ahrens, Foster, and Wert), Nayes (7); amended motion failed. MOTION: TO AMEND Babcock moved, Nelson seconded to amend the motion by adding language to the ordinance amendment that allows for rounding consistent with all other licensed facilities on the lake. VOTE ON: MOTION TO AMEND Amended motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 16 VOTE ON: ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED Ayes (5; Babcock, Gilman, McMillan, Nelson, and Skramstad), Nayes (5); vote on original motion, as amended failed. MOTION: Wed moved, Ahrens seconded to continue third reading of the ordinance amendment to the 6/14/00 Regular Board meeting. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (2; Babcock and Gilman), motion carried. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. 2000 Liquor/Wine/Beer License Application, staff recommends full refunds for preliminary investigations for new licenses issued to Barefoot Bay Charters (Barefoot Bay- $500). Babcock explained that Barefoot Bay Chartem is asking for a two-part refund. He stated this included $500 for the preliminary investigation and $200 for the wine license that was recently approved for the 2000 season. Nybeck explained that the request to refund the $500 for preliminary was part of the consent agenda. He added the second part of the request to refund the $200 application fee received for a new wine license that was recently approved by the Board for the 2000 season. He stated that the applicant has indicated that they were unaware that they needed either only a beer or wine license in order to get a consumption and display permit from the State, not both. The consensus of the Board was that the applicant could resolve the issue relating to the need for only a beer or wine license in order to secure a consumption and display permit in 2001. MOTION: Babcock moved, McMillan seconded to issue a refund of $500 for the preliminary investigation for Barefoot Bay Chaders. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously C. Review of draft policy relating to the issuance of Intoxicating Liquor Licenses for charter boats on Lake Minnetonka. MOTION: Foster moved, seconded adoption of the policy on priorities for the issuance of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for charter boats on Lake Minnetonka. Babcock asked if he would like to comment on the draft policy. LeFevere stated that although there had been some previous disucssions to make this a one year policy, he drafted the policy to give charter boat owners no guarantees at all. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 17 VOTE: Motion carded unanimously D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. SAVE THE LAKE B. 4119/00 "STL" Advisory Committee meeting report. McMillan reviewed these minutes, noting that the zebra mussel monitoring kits and the shoreline planting workshop next fall were approved at the previous Board meeting. She added that the spring solicitation letter should be sent out in the next few weeks. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Evaluation of Truck Hauling Bids for the 2000 EWM Harvesting Program,. recommendation to award bid. Nybeck reported that trucking bids were due in the District office by 2 p.m. on 5/4/00. He stated that two acceptable and responsible bids were submitted by Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Inc. and Curfman's Trucking and Repair, Inc. He noted that the bid received from Curfman's Trucking and Repair, Inc. was $56 per hour for one truck service and $112 per hour for two truck service. He noted the other bid received from Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Inc. was $57 per hour for one truck service and $114 per hour for two truck service. He stated that both bids submitted comply with all bid specifications and he recommended the Board award the contract to haul milfoil for the 2000 EWM Harvesting season to Curfman's Trucking and Repair, Inc. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to award the 2000 Eurasian Watermilfoil trucking contract to Curfman's Trucking and Repair, Inc. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 6. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck introduced the Judd Harper as the new Administrative Technician for the District, noting his start date was Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 10, 2000 Page 18 5/1/00. He added the lake level as of 5/8/00 was 928.27'. He stated he would keep the board informed with the lake levels. 8. OLD BUSINESS Them was no old business 9. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed the annual Lake Inspection Tour planned for either June 3"~ or June 10~. The consensus of the Board was to conduct the Inspection Tour on June 3,u with the itinerary of sites to be visited to be determined. 10. ADJOURNMENT Them being no further business, Chair Babcock adjoumed the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chairman Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Minutes · May 19, 2000 Present: Patricia Anderson, John Braland, Sue Cathers, Margaret Holste, Kathy Jones, Carol Olson, Sandy Olstad, Dona Lofland, Tim Reardon, Sandy Rauschendorfer, Carolyn Schmidt, Jeanne Stortz, .lean Ann Thayer, Edith Travers, Leah Weycker, Sandy Wing, Mary Goode, Jeanette Metz. Guests: Paula Wood LaVigne and Tony mills from Our Lady of the Lake Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: There were none. Leah had announcements: The WHCC will be participating in the Relay for Life, an American Cancer Society fund raiser. We need people to walk around the track at Orono High School on June 23, 6:00 P.M. through June 24, 8:00 A. M. There will be an opportunity to sponsor the walkers or buy a luminary in honor or in memory of some one who has been touched by cancer. We sent around a sign up sheet for anyone to join us in the walk. Silent Mentors was brought up. Another school was doing this type of mentonng. A list was made of every student, each adult that worked with that child or could say they had a personal relationship with that child, would put a check next to the child's name. A student that had no checks by their name would be assigned a mentor. That mentor would remain anonymous but make an effort to recognize the child. We will talk about doing this in the fall. Kathy Jones talked about the tobacco grants through the State. Mary Goode would be interested in serving on the tobacco group. Sue Cathers talked about co-sponsoring a sign with the Tobacco Free Future (TFF) group. The sign would be hung at the Wolner Field baseball diamonds. We discussed what the sign would say and how much it would cost. The message would be "Give Kids a break, be tobacco free". The logos of the TFF group and the WHCC would be on the sign. The cost would be nothings. Craig Anderson made a motion to co-sponsor the sing with the Tobacco Free Future group. Jeanne Stortz seconded the motion, passed. We discussed Take Five Skate Park. The estimates on repairing the park were $8-10K. We can only be open for two months this year because of the big City Days and All Class Reunion dance. The executive work group' recommends pu~ing $600 towards a cement, pe..nnanent skate park. This will cover hiring a professional skate park designer to do three design sessions with the kids and supply a drawing of what the park would look like. The executive work group has approved this expenditure. We broke up into smaller groups to discuss the four priority areas. Substance Abuse, Domestic Abuse, Stuff for Kids to do -Adults too, and Community Pride. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kandis Hanson Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for May, 2000 STATISTICS The police department responded to 455 calls for service during the month of May. There were 22 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 aggravated assault, 5 burglary, 12 larcenies, 1 arson, and 3 vehicle theft. There were 59 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 child abuse/neglect, 2 forgery/NSF checks, 6 criminal damage to property, 3 narcotics, l l liquor law violations, 7 DUI's, 2 simple assaults, I0 domestics (4 with assaults), 8 harassment, and 9 other offenses. The patrol division issued 150 adult and 5 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 14 tickets. Warnings were issued to 90 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 adult and 2 juveniles arrested for felonies and 23 adults and 13 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There was 1 juvenile felony warrant arrest and 2 misdemeanor adult warrant arrests. The department assisted in 17 vehicle accidents; 4 with injuries. There were 25 medical emergencies and 32 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 23 occasions in May and requested assistance 16 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - May, 2000 II. III. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 4 child protection issues and 2 criminal sexual conduct cases in May. Other cases included a fatal accident, assault, burglary, the~ death investigation, DWI, domestic assault, absenting, damage to vehicle, trespass, violation of an OFP, harassment, and NSF checks. Formal complaints were issued for criminal sexual conduct, possession of marijuana, parking an unlicensed vehicle on the street, gross DWI, issuing worthless checks, assault, under age consumption, drug paraphernalia, disorderly conduct, illegal fire, waste disposal violation, interfere with a 911 call and domestic assault. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 42 hours of overtime during the month of May. Officers used 36 hours of comp-time, 43 hours of sick time, 56 hours of vacation, and 2 holidays. Officers earned 50 hours of comp time. IV. TRAINING Officer Swensen continues training "Ranger" at canine school, Officer Burke attended Intoxilyzer training, and Investigator Alexander attended special training for dealing with domestic abuse. All officers attended cultural diversity training and a department shoot. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER CSO Cams left in May to become a police officer for the City of Deephaven. We are currently advertising for a replacement. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 141 hours of community service in the month of May. The unit welcomed a new reserve and the unit now has 8 members. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY 2000 OFFENSES ~ EXCEPT- CLF2%RED BY A]I~ESTED REPORTED UNFOU~DED CLF. ARED ARREST ADULT JUV PART I CRIMES Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 1 0 0 0 0 Burglary 5 3 0 0 0 Larceny 12 3 2 1 0 Vehicle Theft 3 0 0 0 0 Arson 1 0 0 1 1 TOTAL 22 6 2 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 PART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect 1 1 0 0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 2 0 0 2 2 Criminal Damage to Property 6 1 2 0 0 Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotic Laws 3 0 0 3 Liquor Laws 11 0 0 11 9 DWI 7 0 0 7 7 Simple Assault 2 0 1 0 0 Domestic Assault 4 0 1 3 3 Domestic (No Assault) 6 0 0 0 0 Harassment 8 0 3 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 2 0 0 2 0 Public Peace 2 0 0 2 1 Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Offenses 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 TOTAL 59 3 7 30 23 13 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations 13 25 32 23 272 TOTAL 369 HCCP Inspections TOTAL 455 32 24 15 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT ~Y 2000 GENER~J~ ACTIVITY SUb~Y Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 116 560 363 25 143 190 13 142 ~15 48 355 244 84 417 396 14 139 180 7 28 19 7 24 18 13 44 34 4 10 9 0 1 0 1 6 10 25 135 106 3 7 11 13 50 34 22 91 61 59 276 188 25 150 134 32 282 251 0 255 114 272 2,077 3,398 TOTAL 783 863 5,851 Assists 64 80 241 Follow-Ups 32 50 98 HCCP 5 2 16 Mutual Aid Given 23 15 75 Mutal Aid Requested 16 6 24 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY 2000 CITATIONS DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 7 7 0 4 1 75 4 0 17 0 5 0 4 1 7 0 0 14 0 4 3 5 0 164 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT N~AY 2000 WARNINGS Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 24 14 7 0 3 5 0 0 0 27 8O Juveniles 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 -L. N' A ENTALS WAYS &MEAN5 FORTHE PUBLIC SECTOR How to Become a Better Governing Board Member As a governing board member, you fill an important role for a public sector entity. Your obligation is virtually the same for any type o£ organization you serve or the number of years that you are involved. Your general responsibilities revolve around three basic duties: the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, and the duty of obedience. Duty of Care This duty is fulfilled when a board member acts in good faith in all dealings with, and on behatf of, the organization. An individual's actions are measured against the "reasonable person" standard; in other words, how an ordinarily pru- dent person acts in similar circumstances. In evaluating your performance as a board member, ask yourself these ques- tions: · Am I sufficiently informed to vote on and evaluate potential problems? · Are board and committee meeting minutes sent to and reviewed by mem- bers in advance of meetings ? · Are the organization's newsletters, magazines, or other publications re- viewed to assure adherence to the ex- empt purposes ? · Are periodic financial reports, includ- ing comparisons with budget amounts, received regularly? · Do independent consultants possess adequate knowledge to provide ex- pert advice when needed? · Are board meetings long enough to allow adequate discussion of the is- sues? · Are there sufficient long- and short- range plans? · Are approved plans monitored to as- sure accomplishment of objectives? · Are financial budgets for one- to three-year periods developed and ap- proved before the start of the fiscal year? · Is ratio analysis conducted on finan- cial statements? · Do staff members develop feasibility plans for proposed projects? · Is the organizational structure ad- McGladrey, Inc. Business Solutions RSM Third Quarter 1999 II I · An update on new governmental regulations · Charitable giving jumps in an economic boom equate to assure an efficient and ef- fective operation? · Are internal financial controls in place? · Is an annual audit conducted by an independent auditor when required by law, other regulations, or require- ments ? · Are duties delegated sufficiently? · Are personnel policies spelled out, published in a manual, and moni- tored at least annually by a board committee ? · Is investment performance for endow- ment, working capital, and restricted funds monitored regularly? Duty of Loyalty This duty involves acting in the best interest of the organization at all times. Most board members are familiar with the need to avoid conflicts of interest. In fact, many organizations have formal conflict of interest policies, which re- quire board members to acknowledge their compliance in writing. While this certainly is an important element of loy- continued on page four FUNDAMENTAU 4 Board Member connnued from page one airy to the organization, this duty has a much broader reach. At times, being loyal to the organization may mean help- ing the organization achieve a new, broader, or narrower strategic direction or stepping aside to allow room for new individuals on the board. As a board member, some key questions to ask in- clude the following: · Is my oversight and supervisory role appropriate to my position, as op- posed.to an operational and manage- ment position? · Do I regularly attend'bo;rd meetings and committee meetings? · Do I have allegiance to the organiza- tion? · Have I avoided conflicts of interest with the organization? · Does the organization have a policy and procedures for documenting self- interested transactions when conflicts of interest are unavoidable? · If there are common or overlapping boards for affiliated entities, are deci- sions evaluated from the perspective o(all the involved entities? · Is there a system for identifying new board members ? · Is there a system for the rotation of members on staggered terms? · Is there a new board member orienta- tion program ? Duty of Obedience Organizations operating in the public sector exist to fulfill a public need and have an obligation to operate in a man- ner that fulfills the stated purpose or mis- sion as defined in the articles of incorpo- ration, bylaws, application for tax-ex- empt status, and other official docu- ments. Board members have a duty to follow the direction set by these govern- ing documents, as well as to oversee compliance with laws and regulations that affect the organization. Consider: · As a board member, have I read the charter and bylaws? · Did I review the mission statement and other documents? · Am I informed about significant con- tractual lawsuits or potential claims on assets? · Do I know the intended beneficiaries of the exempt activities? · Am I satisfied that resources are dedi- cated and used in accordance with the organization's mission and pur- pose as defined in its official docu- ments? · Is there a system in place to assure compliance with local, state, and fed- eral laws and regulations, and am I familiar with these laws and regula- tions? Want to Learn More? Each state is going to have specific laws and regulations that govern your performance as a board member. If you are interested in learning more about these specific responsibilities, we suggest that you contact the Charities Division of your State Attorney General's office. ~ Information provided in this publication has been obtained by RSM McGladrey, Inc. from sources belteved to be reliable. However, RSM McGladrey guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for results bi,rained by others as a res~ reliance upon such intormation. This publication does r~t, ant no~ intended to, provide legal, tax, or accounting advice. Visit our Web site at www. mcgladrey, com. For additional coPraS o! this newslatter, address changes, or any additional information, contact your local RSM McGladrey office. C1999 RSM McGladrey, Inc., printed in the U.S.A. FUNDameotals Third Quarter 1999 6[0[ 'ON VI U'odu~^~Cl (]lYd OOg ITITT'"IIITTI"I'TI'T'TITI'TI'I ~0~-~6g~ t~I NOSSY2 29 ~9 ~ 10~ NOgS~H &O X~IO NOSN~H SIQtqY~ 'S~ I0~0~9~6gg- 'OUl '/',eJp lgOlAI