Loading...
86-06-24 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1986 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Approve Minutes of the June 10, 1986, Reconvened Board of Review and Regular Meeting 2. PUBLIC HEARING' Delinquent Utility Bills 3. ~ASE ~86-50q & 86-510: Consideration of Alternate Plan - Preliminary Plat for Cooks Bay Estates - Creative Developers, Block 1, MN. Baptist Summer Assembly - PID #23-117-24 41 0017 Duane Barth 4. ~A~E #86-521: Kim Ryan, 6363 Rambler Lane, Lot 2, Block 5, Mound Terrace, PID #14-117-24 32 0027 Request: Setback Variance for Existing'Structure 5. CASE #86-522: Christie & Myrtle Blank, 4560 Dorchester Rd., Lots 18 & 19, Block 12, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 31 0042 Request: Lot Size Variance and Existing Front Yard Variance 6. ~AME ~86-528: J. F. Kvalsten, 5125 Windsor Lane, r Lots 7 & 8, Block 17, Whipple, PID #25- 117-24 12 0125 Request: Recognize Existing Nonconforming Rear Yard Setback 7. CASE ~86-525: Ernest & Louisa Johnson, 4651 Manchester Rd., Lots 9 & 22, Block 8, Wychwood, PID #19-117-23 32 0081 Request: Front Yard Setback Variance 8. ~omments & Suggestions from Citizens Present ~ 9. Port Harrison Townhomes - Mr. Nordby has asked to be on the Agenda regarding the driveway & parking lot 10. Consideration of Amendment to Chapter 11 and Chapter 32 of the City Code relating to Insurance, etc. for establishments serving Intoxicating Liquor 11. Proposal to Lease Storage Space from Balboa Minnesota Corp. Pg. 1192-1202 Pg. 1 202A Pg. 1203-1207 pg. 1208-1216 pg. 1217-1226 pg. 1227-1235 pg. 1236-1244 pg. 1245-1246 Pg. 1247-1252 Pg. 1253-1254 12. Request to use portable signs to advertise Our Lady of the Lake's Incredible Festival 13. License Renewals 14. Payment of Bills 15. iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOU~ A. May 1986 Financial Report, prepared by Finance Director John Norman B. Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1986 16. Adjourn Pg. 1255-'1257 pg. 1258 Pg. 1259-1272 pg. 1273-1275 Pg. 1276-1280 Page 1191 84 June 10, 1986 MINUTES BOARD OF REVIEW (continued from May 27, 1986) AND REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 10, 1986 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review reconvened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341Maywood Road, in said City on June 10, 1986, at 7:10 P.M. Those present were: Acting Mayor Russ Peterson, Councilmembers Gary Paulsen and Steve Smith. Councilmember Phyllis Jessen arrived at 7:15 P.M. Mayor Polston was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Ed Shukle, City Clerk Fran Clark, Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfeldt and the following. interested citizens: Gordon Tullberg, Mr. Greenslit, Paul & Kathy Kroening, Phil & Eva Hasch. The Acting Mayor reconvened the Board of Review. He then explained that at this meeting the Assessor, Keith Rennerfeldt, will give the Assessor's decisions as to the value of the property questioned at the May 27, 1986, Board of Review. After the decisions are given and approved by the Council, if the property owner still feels that the value is too high, he has the right to appeal the decision to the County Board of Review which will begin its hearings on July 7, 1986. 1. PID ~2~-117-2~ qq O021 - Halstad Acres Improvement Assoc. Gordon Tullberg representing the association. The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this property. $8,200. 2. PID #1~-117-2~ ~4 o05q - Green-T Accountin~ 2R~7 Wilshire The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $48,000 to $45,000. 3. PID ~2q-117-24 11 OO19 - Green-T Accounting~ 2~67 Commerce The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $46,000 to $43,200. 4. PID f2~-117-24 2q O021 - Lero¥ Holden~ 5449 Bartlett. Blvd. The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $173,400 to $157,000. 5. PID #1~-117-2~ ~ O14~ - Paul & Kathy Kroenin~ 5190 LYnwood The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $112,800 to $104,800. 85 .. June 10, 1986 PID {lq-117-24 44 0076 - Phillip & Eva Hasch; 4800 Northern The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this property. $43,700. PID ~1q-117-2q q4 0075 - PhilliD & Eva Hasch. 4804 Northern The Assessor recommmended no change in the value of this property. $47,300. PID ~19-117-2~ 24 ooq5 - Lloyd Reistad; 4619 Carlow Road The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $98,000 to $92,400. PID ~1~-117-2~ 44 OOqO - Rose Braun; 2256 Sandy Lane The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property from $44,300 to $40,400· Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded t~he following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-63 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ROLL AS PRESENTED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion'carried· MINUTES - BOARD OF REVIEW - MAY 27; 1986 MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by JeSsen ~o approve the Minutes of of May 27, 1986, Board of Review as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES - MOUND ClTX COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 1986 The-City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in reg'ular session on Tuesday, June 10, 1986, following the Board of Review, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road; in said City. ' Tho~e present were: Acting .Mayor Russ Peterson, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and 'Steve Smith. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk, Fran Clark, City Attorney Jim Larson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, Finance Director John Norman, Hennepin County CDBG Specialist Larry Blackstad, and the following interested citizens: Thomas Green, James St. George, Steve Codden, Mark Lindgren, Bill Alexander, and Larry Connolly. The Acting Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. 86 June 10, 1956 The Minutes of the May 27, 1986, Regular Council Meeting were presented for consideration. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to approve the Minutes of the May 27, 1986, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #86-52~: THOMAS GREEN, 1724 SHOREWOOD LANE~ LOT 18, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT~ LOT SIZE & EXISTING SETBACK VARIANCE~ PID ~1R-117-2~ 11 0018 The Building Official explained that Mr. Green had obtained a permit to square up the south second floor of his home and started the work on Memorial Day. He then discovered that there were rotted conditions within the wall and more repairs were necessary to continue the remodeling. The applicant now has an open second story roof area and needs to continue with the construction of the second story as soon as possible so that weather damage is not sustained. He has applied for a variance to recognize the existing three .foot side yard setback and lot size of 4,425 square feet, plus or 'minus, to allow emergency construction repairs and improvements. The Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval with certain conditions, such as:' a survey is done and the applicant will bring the existing building up to to current Building Code. Smith moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-64 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTING 3 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT SIZE VARIANCE FOR LOT 18, BLOCK SHAD~WOOD POINT, PID ~13-17-2~ 11 0018, 1724 SHOREWOOD LANE, PLANNING COMMISSION CASE ~86-523 The vote was unanimously-in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF CRESCENT ROAD ABUTTING LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK R, LINDEN HEIGHTS The Building Official explained that Mr. St. George orginially proposed to trade 1800 square feet of his property for 1800 square feet of Crescent Road, which would make his Lot 1 more of a rectangle shape and a buildable site. The City Engineer and the Public Works Dept. recommended denial of the vacation because the portion of Crescent Road being considered for vacation is more usable to the City that the portion of Lots 2 and 4, which 87 June 10, 1986 they would receive in trade. denial of the vacation. The Planning Commission recommended Since the Planning Commission met, .Mr. St. George brought in a revised trade plan which would give the City the same 1800 square feet as before but would lower the square footage the City gives up to 1200. The Acting Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for comments for or against the vacation. Mr. James St. George, stated that he is in favor of the vacation and felt that Public Works would have plenty of room to store snow in the new proposed trade of land. The Acting Mayor closed the public hearing. The City Engineer stated that even with the new proposal.~ the City is giving away more valuable land than they would be getting in return. Therefore, he and the Public Works Dept. would still recommend denial of the vacation request. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to concur with the Planning Commission and Staff recommendation and DENY the vacation of-a portion of Crescent Road abutting Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Linden Heights Addition. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF THE ZONING CODE TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM HEIGHT AND WIDTH REGULATIONS FOR HOUSING The City Planner stated that this item is being brought to the Council because sometime ago the Planning Commission discussed this issue .and felt it was a needed amendment to the Zoning Code. There are two recommendations: Height Limitations and Width Limitations as proposed on Page 1102 of the packet. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this amendment. Councilmember Paulsen asked how these things would be measured. The Planner stated that it is'very, well defined in the present Zoning Code and the Planning Commission is trying to bring consistency to the community. Councilmember Paulsen stated that he feels this amendment would be eliminating factory built homes in Mound and that there are lots in Mound that would conform well to this type of home. The Acting Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for comments in favor of or against the proposed amendment. Steve Codden, 4629 Aberdeen, stated that he is against this amendment because even a double wide pre-manufactured home would be too short to meet the height requirement. He l/qB- 88 June 10, 1986 further stated that he does not know of another City who has this type of ordinance. Buzz Sycks, stated that he agreed with Councilmember Paulsen and Codden and that a community cannot preclude allowing factory built homes. The Acting Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council discussed the issues and asked the Building Official about Mr. Codden's statement about double wide homes. The Building Official stated that she knows of several pre- manufactured homes that exceed the 15 foot height requirement. Mr. Codden stated that he has spoken with builder Ron Gehring and even the regular 412 stick built home would not meet the height requirement. The Building Official disagreed with this statement. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to have this item brought back to the next Council Meeting when a full Council is present. Also have the Building Official bring back a report on the height of pre-manufactured homes. Also have the Planner find out how many other cities have ordinances similar to the amendment proposed. The vote was 3 in favor with Jessen abstaining. Motion carried. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO YEAR XI CDBG FUNDS The City Manager stated that this item was continued at the May 13th Council Meeting to allow local businesses time to apply for loans or grants to help improve their businesses from these funds. There was a meeting held with several local business people on May 22, Larry Blackstad Hennepin County and the City Manager. Out:of that meeting it was suggested that some CDBG funds' be used for lighting in the various parking lots in Mound. Afte~ consideration, it was decided that Year XIII funding could be used for this project. There has only been one business that has come forth that is interested in obtaining funds from the Revoiving Loan Account and that fund is not involved in this amendment. The Special Economic Development Project - Street Upgrade, in conjunction with Balboa Minnesota Corp. has been approved for funding by HUD and the letter is in the packet. The Acting Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for comments for or against this amendment to Year XI CDBG funding. Larry ConnolIy, stated that he would like to see the Fix-Up, Paint-Up Grants ($1,000), Downtown Commercial Rehab. Design Grant ($2,411.60), and Interst Writedown Grants ($1,980.23) left in as an incentive for any potential new businesses 89 June 10, 1986 moving into the older buildings that will be vacated when Commerce Place is opened. Larry Blackstad, Hennepin County HUD, stated that since his meeting on May 26th, Hud and the Dept. of Labor have brought up an issue which would make the types of Grants Mr. Connolly spoke about less attractive than they had been in the past. They are now requiring anyone accepting Federal Grant money to be in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act which means meeting prevailing wages rates and the person receiving the grants is accountable to the Federal government. Mark Lindgren, Balboa Minnesota Corp., stated that he hoped this amendment would pass. The Acting Mayor closed the public hearing. Larry Blackstad stated that if the Council wished to fund the programs Mr. Connolly mentioned earlier, they could do so with funds from Year XIII in 1987. He reported that it looks like the 16% that was deferred this year will either be put back this year or for sure in 1987. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the foll6wing resolution: RESOLUTION.#86-65 RESOLUTION REALLOCATING YEAR XI MOUND/URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Paulsen asked that the truck traffic on these residential street be monitored. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-66 RESOLUTION ORDERING FINAL PLANS AND SPECI- FICATIONS TO UPGRADE PORTIONS OF LYNWOOD BLVD. AND FAIRVIEW LANE TO 9 TON DESIGN AND SETTING THE BID DATE The-~vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SIGNAGE FOR THE TONKA WEST BUSINESS CENTER - BALBOA MINNESOTA CORP. The City Planner went over the plan with the Council showing the proposed and recommended signage. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the comprehensive sign plan, subject to the size restrictions listed and consistent with locations as shown on Exhibit A dated June 9, 1986. Any signage locations differing from those shown on the plan or signs permitted under this approval but not shown on the plan shall be approved by the 9O June %0, %986 Building Official prior to placement. 1. Overall Building Sign (Exhibit B - 6-9-86) 43.25 sq. ft. 2. Individual Tenant Signs - 8 units free standing or wall signs - 48 sq. ft. max. 384 sq. ft. wall identification signs - 10 inch (max.) letters on cedar, not to exceed 15 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. each 3. Additional Tenant Signs - 4 units · wall identification signs - 10 inch (max.) letters on cedar, not to exceed 15 sq. ft. 60 sq. ft. each 4. Rear Dock Signs - 5 locations - 10 sq. ft. max. each 50 sq. ft. 5 Directional Signs - 4 locations - 6 sq. ft. · 24 sq. ft~ max. each TOTAL 681.25 sq. ft. The name will be changed to Aspen Business Center West. Smith moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #86-67 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROYE A COMPREHENSIYE PLAN FOR SIGNAGE FOR THE ASPEN BUSINESS CENTER WEST The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINNETRISTA REOUEST FOR UTILITIES The City Engineer stated Ghat they have now prepared a detailed cost estimate and proposed assessment roll for connecting the 10" watermains in Westedge Blvd. This was done in two parts: Part A - The 10" watermain extension necessary to serve the proposed 22 lot subdivision adjacent to Westedge Blvd. between County Rd.-15 and Wood Edge Road is estimated to cost $29,600.00. Part B - The remaini.ng 10" watermain extension necessary to loop the system back to the Highlands water tower is estimated to cost $79,000. TOTAL - $108,600. Mound's share for oversizing the main (2,230 LF ~ $7.00/LF) equals $15,610.00. The developers share (proposed 22 lot subdivision) $24,840.00. Leaving $68,150.00 to be assessed to 4 parcels, 3 of which are in Minnetrista and would have to be handled by Minnetrista. Mound would be financing the entire project. The City Manager explained that, as the Council knows, the Water 91 June 10, 1 986 Fund is not in good shape financially and he is uncertain as to how to finance this project. The Council discussed the financing problems, splitting the costs with Minnetrista or asking that Minnetrista finance their part of the project because they are the ones who will benefit from the development. Steve Kakos, was present stated he feels these developments should wait until Minnetrista has the capabilities to handle their own sewer and water. Buzz Sycks was present and asked that his development of 9 lots not be held up because of the added loop. The City Engineer stated the City could approve Maple Hills Estates request and all the costs would be borne by the developer. The Council discussed this and decided to see .if it could all be handled at one time instead of breaking the project up. The City Engineer then stated that Mound'has not reviewed the total cost estimates with Minnetrista yet and suggested that this be done. MOTION mad~ by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to continue to negotiate with Minnetrista on .the total project and make a decision at the next meeting as to whether the Maple Hills project should be dealt with separately. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. LIABILITY INSURANCE LIMITS FOR LIOUOR SERVING ESTABLISHMENTS The City Clerk explained that Chapter 11, subdivision 14, (1), which requires liability insurance of $500,000 and $1,000,000 is out /of date and needs to be reduced to reflect the problems people are having obtaining insurance coverage. The liability insurance is on top of what is required for liquor liability which meets the minimum that State Law requires. Bill Alexander, Captain Billy's, was present and stated he cannot obtain the liability insurance coverage that the ordinance requires because there is not an insurance company issuing this insurance in the amounts required. The City Attorney presented a proposed ordinance amendment allowing the Council to fill in the amount of insurance they would like to see in this ordinance. The Council discussed amounts and asked the Staff to survey other cities to see what they are requiring and check with the City insurance agent to see what he would recommend. The item will then be considered at the next meeting. //?? 92 June 10, 19B6 LAWCON FUND - RESOLUTION TO CLOSE OUT ACCOUNI Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-68 RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER $1,194 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE LAWCON FUND TO CLOSE OUT THAT ACCOUNT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RECONYEYANCE OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY - PID 24-117-24 ~ 0042_. NORTH 14 FEET OF LOTS 7? 8_. & 97 BLOCK The City Clerk explained the background of this request. Smith moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-69 RESOLUTION RECONYE¥ING A CERTAIN PORTION OF TAX FORFEIT LAND BACK TO THE STATE AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD SELL T~iESE LANDS TO THE CITY OF MOUND FOR RESALE · The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. TRANSFER OF TITLE TO 6 CEMETERY LOTS' The City Cierk explained the background of this item which dates back to October 7, 1985, when these 6 lots were approved to be transferred to Huber Funeral Home from Mrs. Lawrence Koehler. Now Mrs. Koehler has decided she would like them transferred to a local relative, Ms. Kathy Lilledahl Ulrick. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to approve the transfer of title of six cemetery lots from Mrs. Lawrence Koehler to Ms. Kathy Lilledahl Ulrick. The vote was .Unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Z ' The ~Acting Mayor asked i~ there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. No one responded. ~ELEASE OF EASEMENT - LOT 15~ BLOCK 27 PEMBROKE~ 4452 LAMBERTON The City Engineer explained that the City does not need this easement and~he is recommending releasing it. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Peterson to release the following described easement: "A perpetual easement for slope purposes over and across the Westerly 30 feet of Lot 15, Block 2, Pembroke, according to ' the recorded plat thereof." June 10, 1986 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DISCUSSION: PROPOSAL TO LEASE STORAGE SPACE FROM BALBOA MN. The City Manager explained that Balboa has presented a proposal to lease the City of Mound 6774 square feet in the Spring Park facility for cold storage (which would mean no maintenanace would be performed at this site). The rental rate would be $2.50 per sq. ft. net-net-net. If would be a month to month lease and there would be operating costs currently at $.62 per sq. ft. with a cap of $1.00. This would work out to approximately $20,000 - $25,000 per year. This would alleviate the storage problem until the new building could be brought to another vote in November. The Council discussed this lease possibility and asked that the City Manager check to see if they would give the City a 1 year lease. The Council asked that the Public Works Dept. heads attend the next meeting and give their input on the facility before a decision is made. PAYMENT OF BILL~ The bills were presented for consideration.~. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Paulsen to approve the payment of.lbills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $88,260,~, when funds are available.. A roll call vote was'unanimously in favor. MotiOn carried. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THREE POINTS BLVD. ABUTTING LOTS 1~. 14 AND l~ BLOCK 2~ SHADY- MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to set July 8th, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of Three Points Blvd., abutting Lots '13, 14, and 15, Block 25, Shadywood Point. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS ~epartment Head Monthly~ RePorts for May 1986. The City Manager called the Council,s attention to the Finance Director's report explaining the CDBG fund in the Audit. B. Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes - May 20, 1986. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk Edward J. Shukle, City Manager / Delinquent water and sewer. 6-19-86 22 232 2208 02 22 238 4860 32 22 238 4933 83 22 238 4882 71 22 238 5120 11 22 241 218~ 11 22 256 4964 53 22 259 5463 12 22 259 6070 31 22.280 5910 22 310 2618 41 22 31~0 ~?10 9i 22 343 2066.73 22 373 5063 81 22 388 5061 01 22 397 5241 11 33 620.48281'61 Ron Anderson Peter Charles e. Maas Daniel Solber§ Ron 0 Konek Kris Kolling '. Ray Berg ' Anita. Lou. Watson · Perry Ames Michael Simar. Wm. Bielharz Geo Hudinsky. Judith'.Marshik Colon Kel'ly .R Geise.. Richard'P. ugh Janet Nelson $'74.20 109.93 83.16 84.08 93.91 79.05 77.89 36.75 198.88 73.10 32.55· 56.96 49.-67 '212.06 76.·35 ·117.92 261.64 2208 Fairview Ln. 4860 Edgewater Dr. 4933 Edgewater Dr. 4882 Edgewater Dr Pd. 5120 Edgewater Dr Contract 2185 Pecan Ln. Paid $40.00-.& contract 4964 Northern Rd Pd. 5463 Bartlett Blvd. 6070 Bartlett Blvd. Paid $75.00 & ¢ontr 5910 Idlewood Rd. 2618 Westedge Blvd.~ 2710 Westedge Blvd. Contract 2066.Commerce Blvd. 5063.Woodridge Rd Paid $40.00 5061 Avon Dr 2524 Emerald Dr. Paid $60.00 ~ contr~c '4828 Island View Dr Paid $ 50.00 '$1291'.13 Delinquent water and sewer 6-19-86 22 232 2208 02 '22 238 4860 32 22 238 4882 71 22 238 4933 83 22 238 5120 11 22 241 2185 11 22 256 4964 53 22 259 5463 12 22 259 6070 31 22 280 5910 71 22 310 2618 41 22 310 2710 91 22 343 2066 73 22 373 506.3 81- 22 388 5061 01. 22 397 5241 11 33 620 4828 61 $ 74.20 .109.93 84.08 83.16 93.91 79.05 77.89 36.75 198.88 73.10 32.55 56.96 .49.67 212.06 76.35 117.92 - 261.64 $1802.45 BILLS ...... JUNE 10, 1986 Batch 864054 Batch 864055 Computer Run dated 6/5/86 Computer Run dated 6/6/86 Total Bills 15,833.20 72,427.24 88,260.44 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Commission, City Council and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~/ DATE: June 2, 1986 Addendum to Planning Report, April 7, 1986 - Conditional Use Permit, Planned Development Area and Preliminary Plat Approval for Cooks Bay Estates The applicants for Cooks Bay Estates have submitted an alternative plan as a result of the previous Planning Commission review and a review by the City Council. The alternative plan depicts 6 single family detached lots radiating off of a short loop street. All lots have lake frontage and meet all of the minimum lot size requirements. The setback notations on Lots 1 and 6 should show 15 foot rear setbacks rather than the ten feet noted on the sheet. When a 15 foot rear setback is applied to Lot 1, only a 20 foot deep building area remains. This could be expanded by shifting the loop street southward and reducing the depth of Lot 6. The only issue presented by the modified plan is one of access and cirCulation. The loop street does not align with either Fairfield Road or Glenwood Road and, therefore, creates offset intersections. Traffic from the proposed' subdivision will account for approximately 48 trips per day. Since that traffic level is fairly low, no major problems are expected at the intersections.- If circulation becomes a problem in the future, a one-way pattern could be established usin9 the entrance and exit points. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Cooks Bay Estates dated March 25, 1986 as revised May 28, 1986 subject to the following conditions: 1. ~he-lcc-~ -tr~L ~mii De shifted to the south to create a lar~er b~tiid~ng 2. Grading, drainage, street and utility plans shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the city engineer. The loop street will be constructed in accordance with City standards and dedicated to the City of Mound as public right-of-way. 0 0 The developer shall submit a phasing plan for the project clearly identifing anticipated unit construction and removal of the existing day care facility and GaraGe. If required, the developer shall post a performance bond in the amount acceptable to the city in order Guarantee demolition of the existing structures. Home Owner Association, By-laws, Articles of Incorporation and Covenience shall be reviewed by the city attorney. Such articles shall specifically contain a provision for maintenance of the median area between the loop street and HiGhland Boulevard. Park dedication fees should be collected in accordance with Section 22.37 'of the Mound Code, The applicant shall submit plans to the watershed district. Proposed docks shall be reviewed and approved by the LMCD. Planning COmmission Hinutes June g, 1986 Case No. 86L$0~ pre]iminary Pl'at for 2900 High'land Boulevard Block 1, Hinnesota Baptist Summer Assembly' PID 23-117-24 41 0017 Duane Barth of Creative Developers, Inc. was present. The City Planner,'Hark Koegler, reviewed the alternative plan which has been submitted for Cooks Bay Estates. The alternative plan shows.6 single family detached 'lots off of a short loop street. The lots'meet the minimum lot size requirements. The rear yard setbacks on Lots I and 6 should show 15 feet rather .th~n the..te~"~feetnoted on..t'he proposed Subd).~si°n'PIan."-~-S~'e~ this'setback could...be exPahded by shifting the )oop street to the south and create a la.rger building area on' Lot I and'reducing the depth of Lot 6, He stated the.one, ss. ua.presented, by thelmod.)fied plan. was one. of access and. c.irculation.' .He-.c°mmented that a.One~way.pattern cou.ld be established using 'the entrance and exit'poi, nts.'.'He.thoUght, t.raffic level would be iow and there would be no major problems. The"donut hole" in street would'be'an outlot for · 'a'sign..and cou)d'be landscaped.. The'Commission discussed the.request, and had..varlous.questions, SUch as: ~hen ~ou)d garage, etc. be removed?'.:Size of proposed.homes? ~here would sno~mobile and so forth be-~ut? ~hat .kind of buildings are being planned?... ~here would 'the ,parking' be? The Chair.opened.the mee~ing for cor~nents from the public. The fo'llow)ng per- sons.had Commen.ts about, wantlng..iess.homes....going into'this area.or h&d questions about mainta'ini.ng.:the loo~:street,"etc.': John Thoresen., Janett~ Gellman, Byron Petersen.and Rod Larson, steve Smith questioned If'this'desig~ has.been-.used before in Hound. Several Commissioners thobght i't was a'way to'.squeeze more homes in there.' ReeSe moved:'the staff recommendations to approve the preliminary plat subject -to conditions ).lsted in the June.2,.1~86 report; Thal seconded, the motion. The vote was Reese, Hichae~, Ken Smith. and Thal in favor;.Heyer, Steve.Smith,.. · ~eiland and Jansen against. (Vote tied'or failed.) Ken Smith spoke in'favor of the'propoSal; feels it could be a.plus for the neighborhood. Heyer believes, that setbacks not really met; he doesn"t think we should haYe things that tight; mentioned with the'docks coming out, it will look l'ike a bowling aitey..Jensen.stated sites for 5 houses would be better; 'believes it islnot best use of the land; and hopes applicant will come back with another p'lan. This ~ill be referred back'to the City Council on June 24, 1~86. "" ~ .... ' APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03- a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE FEE OWNER Creative Developers, !nc. PLAT PARCEL 61810 0300 PID 23-1'17-24 41 0017 LocationandcompletelegaldescriptionofpropeHytobedivided: 2900 High]and Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota Block 1, Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly ZONING R- 1 To be divided as follows: As per Pre1 jmjnary Plat All' supporting documents, "such as sketch plans, ,survey~-~,,attacl~ments, etc. must be submitted 'In 18½"'X 11'!' size .and/or. 14 copies-plus'one 'X 11" copy.~ .' (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: N.e:w Lo{ No. i - 6 · From 10,000 Square feet TO 14,000 Square feet Reason: ? ~/ (signature) ADDRESS 2400 Interlachen Rd., Suite 308 Spring Park, MN. 55384 Applicant's interest in the prope~y: Owner TEL. NO. 471-0700 DATE 5-28-86 This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- 'ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE C PROPOSED SLLBDIVISION FOR R.EATIvE .. DEVELOPERS, INC. !, "iMINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ...x \ 0 30 SCALE 60 90 IN FEET MARCH 25, 1986, COFFIN & ENGINEERS AND LONG LAKE, ASSEMBLY" GRONBERG, I[~(: LAND SURV'£h C~7 '7 MINNESOTA RB~O~C)~ B6-?l RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT fOR A SIX LOY SUBDMSION OF BLOCK 1, MINNESOTA BAFfI~ ~3MMER ASSH~BLY FOR DUANE DART~ WHEREAS, the City Council on June 24, 1986, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 2200, Chapter 22, Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider approval of a preliminary plat for the establishment of six residential lots and one outlot on property described as Block 1, Minnesota Baptist Sun,er Assembly; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of Mound and the Subdivision Code o NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ~ GOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: · Preliminary~Plat Case Number 86-509 and 86-510 is approved upon compliance with the following requirements: 1. Per plat on file at Mound City Hall dated March 25, 1986, revised June 16, 1986. 2. Posting of a subdividers escrow in the amount of $1000. 3. All lots shall meet minimum area, setback and frontage requirements. 4. Grading, drainage, street and utility plans shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the city engineer. 5. The loop street shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and dedicated to the City of Mound as public right-of-way. 6. The developer shall submit a phasing plan for the project clearly identifing anticipated unit construction and removal of the existing day care facility and garage. If required, the developer shall post a performance bond in the amount acceptable to the city in order to guarantee demolition of the existing structures. 7. Home Owner Association, By-laws, Articles of Incorporation and Covenants shall be reviewed by the city attorney. Such articles shall specifically contain a provision for maintenance of the median area between the loop street and Highland Boulevard. 8. Park dedication fees shall be collected in accordance with Section 22.37 of the Mound Code. 9. The applicant shall submit plans to the watershed district. 10. Proposed docks shall be reviewed and approved by the LMCD. CASE NO. 86-521 TO; ?lannin§: ~ommission, Applicant and 5~aff ~ FROM: J'an Bertrand, Building Official Planning Commission Agenda of June' 9, 1986 CASE NO. 86-521 APPLICANT: Klm Ryan LOCATI'ON: 6363 Rambler Lane LEGAL DESC.: Lot 2, Block.5, Mound Terrace PID No. 14-117-24 32 0027 SUBJECT: Setback Variance for existing structure EXISTING ZONING: R-I Single Family Residential The applicant, Klm Ryan, has applied for a variance to allow the existing 11.6 by 25.2 foot unenclosed'deck to be remodeled and enclosed with a setback of 3.6 feet to the property line at the southeast corner of .the building. The R-I Zoning District requires a rear yard setback of 15 feet and a.side yard setback of 10 feet to the property llne. The lot area, the existing side yards to the northeast corner and the southwest corner of the building :meet the setback requirements for the district. The shape of the lot does not include a rear yard of 15 feet until the lot width (length) is 20 feet in width which would require the existing home to be set c]oser to the un- i.mproved Forest Lane. The' survey indicates'an 8 foot alley easement to the south and a 30 foot Forest Lane right-of-way to'the west; both of'which are unimproved. Attached is a street asbu|.lt diagram of the area. The topography of the lot indicates the house placed on the top of a hill. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to enclose the existing south deck to convert'it as part of the existing living area of the house due to the topography and the shape of the lot. The. abutting neighbors have been notified. JB/ms Plann|ng CommiSsion Minutes June 9, 1986 BOARD OF APPEALS , 1. Case No, 86-$21. Rear YardlVariance to enc~'ose existing deck at 6363'Rambler Lane, Lot 2, Block $, Hound Terrace Kim Ryan was present. The Building Official, Jan.Bertrand; reviewed th~ request for a variance to allow the existing unenclosed 'deCk on'the south Side of the,house to be re- modeled.and enc.losed and-modify 'it.to be' part of .the living area of the house. This deck is 3':6 feet to'the rea~ p'~ope'rty line at the southeast corner of the build!hq. The R-1 Zoning District requires a rear yard setback of 15 feet and a side yard setback.of 10 feet to ~he property line. There is an 8~foot wide unimproved alleyway'easement .to the.south and 30 foot unimproved Forest Lane r|'ght-of~way to the'west. Staff'recommends approval due to the topography and' the shape .of the lot. .. The Commission discUssed. the'request briefly, The applicant.presented a letter from her nelghbo~s. Chair Jensen read. the letter which stated the neighbors .had no.'objections to the'remodel?hq and enclosing the deck. · ~eil-and moved and Ken Smith seconded a motion to accept the staff recommenda- tion and. r~commend the approgal"of the varianCe to atlow the enclosure of the deck wi'th'the setback of 3.6 feet to the property tine; copy of'the neighbor's letter to be'included'with the informat-ion for the City Council. The vote 'was unanimously in favor. J! :! MAY i 198b 1. CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property Legal Description of Property: Lot ~ Addition M~uL~ Owner's Name Fee Paid -.f'd. ,~ o Date Filed ~-- /f-~'~ Applicant (if other than owner): Name ~ Block ~ PID No. 1~-117-2~ 32 0027 Day Phon~ No.~-~q Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: (.~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit (~) P.U.D. ( .) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *if other, specify: Present Zoning Dis'trict C~'~D~' t~l~O~k)~ ~' ~'~lg~i~ ~ri'~ R-1 Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conJltional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~O I~.so, list d~te(s) of list date(s) of application, ~ction taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany .present request. I certify t-hat 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 reqoired by law.' Signature of Applica~/~- Planning Commission Recommendation: Da tex_~"/~/~'G, ~ / Date 6-9-86 Council Action: Resolution No. Date R~quest for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure'. (2) Case # $4 - / D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections. of the Zoning Ordinance. III..Request for a Zonin9 Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearlng wlll be scheduled. B. Does the presen~ use of. the property'conform to ali use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? .Yes If '~no~, specify each n~n-conforming use: C. Do the existing structures comply w. lth ali area heig~ht_and bulk regulatlons for the zone district in which i't ts.located? Yes ~ No' ( ) If "no~, specify'each non-conforming use: D. ~/hich unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable uSe for any of the uses .permitted. in that zoning district? ( ) ..Too narrow ( . ) .Topography' ( ) Soil -- ( ) Too. small -. ~ Drainage.. (~ Sub-surface (~) Too .shallc~v Shape Other: Specify:' E..Was the hardship'd~scribed above' created by the action of anyone haying property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was ~dopted? F.' Vas the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca- tlon of a road? Yes C~ No ( )* If *yes, explain: G. *Are the Conditions of hardship for'which you request a v~r~pnce peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are simi.larly affected? H...~/hat is the '~mlnimum~' modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations'.. that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be ma[erially detrlmental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? Certificate of Survey for Kim D. Ryan of Lot 2', Block 5, Mound Terrace HenneDin County,:'.:Minnesota; 5o ../ Date : 4-10-86 Scale: 1" = 40' o : Iron marker Z hereby, certifv that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundarLes of Lot 2, BlOck 5, Mound Terrace, and the location of an existing house, decks, and concrete driveway, curb and retaining wall. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg Licf. No.1275b Engineers & Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota i,,11.3 .I /Z ! CASE NO. 86-521 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE AN EXISTING SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 5, MOUND TERRACE PID # 14-117-24 32 0027 (63~3 RAMBLER LANE) WHEREAS, Klm Ryan has applied' for a variance to allow the existing 11.6 foot by 25.2 foot unenclosed deck to be remodeled and enclosed for living'area to the existing building; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a rear ya.rd setback of 15 feet and a side yard of 10 feet to the property line with a lot area of 10,000 square feet in the R-1 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the property described has a rear yard setback to the existing structure of 3.6 feet at the closest point to the property line; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissi~on has reviewed the request and does recommend the requested variance due to the topography and the shape of the lot hardship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the variance requested to allow the 11.6 foot by 25.2 foot unenclosed deck to be remodeled and enclosed with a setback of 3.6 feet to the property line at 6363 Rambler Lane,.Lot 2, Block 5, Mound Terrace, PID No. 14-117-24 32 0027. TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official~'~ Planning Commission Agenda of June 9, 1986 CASE NO. 86-522 CASE NO. 86-522 APPLICANT: Christie and Myrtle Blank LOCATION: 4560 Dorchester Road LEGAL DESC: Lot 18 and 19, Block 12, Avalon PID No. 19-117-23 31 0042 SUBJECT: Lot Size Variance and Existing Front Yard Variance EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Blank, have applied for variance to allow the con- struction of an II foot 7 inch by 13 foot 3 inch and 4 foot 8 .inch by 15 foot additions to an existing structure including a deck and attached garage, the size of which has.not been indicated on the application. The R-l Zoning District requires a lot area of 10,OOO square feet; the existing lot size is 6400 square feet. The abutting.Lots 12 and 13 are unimproved and owned by the City of Mound at this time. The required front yard setback is 30 feet fOr the'R-1 Zoning District. The setback may beaveraged with the neighboring properties, but in no case c.loser than 20 feet to the lot line. The front yard'setback of the existing dwelling is 19.5 feet. RECOMMENDATION: 'Staff recommends approval' of the requested variance in lot size and recognize the eXistlng'lg.5 foot front yard setback to allow the'construction of the 13 foot 3 inch by 11 foot 7 inch addition to the northwest corner of the structure and a 4 foot 8 inch by 15 foot stairway entrance to the east side of the building with a deck attached unenclosed and 2 car garage attached to the existing dwelling with the setbacks 20 feet from the front yard setback and 10 feet from the east sideyard to the property line. .It could be suggested that the City of Mound release the portion of Lots 12 and 13 in Block 12 of Avalon Addition above the protected wetland elevation designated by the City ordinance which would probably give the applicants close to lO,OOO square feet of lot area. The existing Structure floor area is 698 square feet; by adding the proposed additions to the home, it will bring the floor area over the 840 square foot minimum allowable. The abutting neighbors have been notified. JB/ms Planning Comm|Ssi6n Hinutes June 9, 1986 3. C~se No. 86-5'22 Lot Size Variance'and Existing Front Yard. Variance for 4560 Dorchester Road;..Lots 18'and 19,.Block 12, Ava.Ion PID 19-117-23 31 0042 ~hristie and Hyrt]e Blank were present. The Building.Dfficlat reviewed Mr~.and"Hrs~ Blank's request for a variance to allow additions-to square-up the back'portion of.the house and include a deck and an attached garage and reconstruct a.new stairway,, a)l of which w)]l meet the' required setbacks." The R-l.Zonlng District requires a lot area of. lO,O00 square feet; the existing lot size is.6,400 square .feet. The required.front yard setback is'30 feet'~ but-the setback can'be averaged.with the setback of the neighboring properties-, but in no case'closer than 20 feet to the lot )ina. The front yard'setback of the exist'lng-dwelling is 19.5 feet and needs 1/2 foot variance. Sta[f is .recommending variances be granted conditioned on'house being brought, up'to'minimum hquse size (presently 698 square feel). The City also owns Lots -12 and 13 In Block 12, Avalon of which a portion.ls above the protected wetland.elevation and'.probably could bq purchased by the applicant to bring them c]ose to the 10,000 square foot of lot area. The Commission discussed the request.and.asked that the house be brought up to Code. Also.ldiscussed was that surveyor.would'have to give lega) descrip- tion of land above ~40.3, The City Hanager stated.he has no problem if appl'iCant'.would negotiate for the land.. Reese mOved'and Nei)and seconded a.motion to recommend staffs recommendation providing house be brought.up to.bui'lding'code and further that City negotiate with Hr. and Hrs. B)ank for land above the ~0.3.~ The vote was unanimously in favor. This wi11 be on the. council Agenda of June e CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property Legal DesCription of Property: Addition ~r~j~(~ ~/ Owner's Name Lot Case Fee Pa i d -~0. ~ Date Fi led Block 77_- PID No. 19-117-23 31 0042 Day Phone Address e Applicant (if other than owner): Name Address Day Phone No. 5. Type of Request: 'VarianceConditiOnal Use Permit ( ) ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit (') P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning District Ex'sting Use(s) of Property Nas an application ever been made for zo ' g, varia e, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? provide ~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and esolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I.certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be:submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized' official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or o~ posting, maintaining and removing such notices as:may be required~,~../.~,w. ~ _"·" , /~/. _/ ~ Planning Commission Recommendation: Date 6-~-86 Council Action: Resolution No. h Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III..Request fora Zoning Variance ~i)/~~~1~'~-~'~'~ A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general applicatlon must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ('g~,) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ('X~/) If "no~/ specify each non-conforming use: /, D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (..) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~ If yes, explain: / F. Was the hardship created by any o~r(~ man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No If yes, explain: (. : Arethe conditions of hardship for whiCh you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No ( ) If no, how many other p. roperties are similarly affected? What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? 0 0 --I I 0 0 ,! Certificate of Survey for Skip Blank of Lots 18 and 19, Block 12, AVALON Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that this is a true and correct represent- ation of a. survey of the boundaries of Lots 18 and 19, Block 12, AVALON, and the location of all buildings, if any, thereon. It. does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GRONB-ERG, INC. Scale- Date · 0 ' 1 inch : 30 feet May 1, 1986 Iron marker Mark S. Gronberg, MN. Lic: No. 12755 Gordon R. Coffin MN. Lic. No. 6064 Engineers, Land' Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota :OAq, CUMBERLAND '- ';'- ';' · 56 ~,,.~'~; ¢5,x ,d>, ,{¢ ¢5, ..r .¢,.,(~:,t,u ?,¢' 2 )h,'- L; I~, ~' ' ' ~ ~l ~ ' ..... ROAD ~, ~.- :~"' i~ .... ~' ,la: .: [." / ~/~' :~ x L.; l~ , ~ l, .,../...., , ~. · .~: ~., ~_~ R PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-522 RESOLUTION NO. 86 - RESOLUTION TO CONCUR W1TH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE LOT SIZE AND EXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARI- ANCES FOR LOTS 18 & 19, BLOCK 12, AVALON, PID NUMBER 19-117-23 31' 0042 (4560'DORCHESTER ROAD) WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Blank have applied for a variance to allow the construction of an llfoot 7 inch by 13 foot 3 inch and a 4 foot 8 inch by 15 foot addition to an existing structure plus a 10 foot by 10 foot deck and an attached 24 foot by 24 foot garage on an undersized.lot of 6400 square foot with a front yard setback of 19.5 feet to the front property line; and WHEREAS, the R-1 Zoning District requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet; the required front yard setback may be averaged with the neighboring properties, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the front property line; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of the undersized ~lot and setback variance to allow the remodeling as aforementioned with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE', BE IT RESOLYED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesbta, does hereby approve the undersize lot and front yard setback variance as requested and shown on Exhibit.'~A'' for. Lots 18 and 19, Block 12, Avalon, PID Number 19-t17-23 31 0042 (4560~Dorchester. Road) upon the condition that the new construction of the garage will be conforming in setbacks as well he deck and addition to the northwest corner of the building and Lots 12 as t ' · ' ' d and 13, Block ,12, of Avalon .Addition should be ne_~g_ot~ated~_L~h the C~ty of Moun to acquire additional land above the ~rotected wetland elevation of 940.3 NGVD as designated by the City Wetlands Ordinance-and also providing house be brought up to building code. CASE NO. 86-524 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Officia) Planning Commission Agenda'of June 9, 1986 CASE NO. 86-524 APPLICANT: J.. F. Kvalsten (~ LOCATION: 5125 Windsor Road LEGAL DESC.: Lots 7 and 8, Block 17,' Whipple PID No. 25-117-24 12 0125 SUBJECT: Existing Non-conforming Rear Yard Setback EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residentia! The applicant, Judy Kvalsten.,~.has applied for a variance to allow structural modifications as listed with her application to.the'basement level of her home. The existing rear yard is 4 foot 8 inch to the south property line. The R-2 Zoning DistFict requires-a lot area of 6,000 sqpaEe feet; Lots 7 and 8 have 6,'400 square feet of lot area. The Ordinance requires a 15 foot rear Yard; the axis[lng dwelling is 4 foot 8 inches f.rom the rear lot line. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request to allow structural modifications'to'the basement area of. the home. wi'th the maxi'- mum amoUnt of'$7,500 applied towardthe improvement.of the structure to recognize existing non-conforming rear yard set- 'back, upon.the .further condition that a survey be submitted to the Inspection Department within thirt'y days. .. The abutting neighbors have been notified. UB/. s O0 I-I I,-I · ,D 0 X tx.O, .J ti) O. v, C~ I-tod 0 O~ OZ ~J o ~D o O, or,* Oh, l-- Plannlng Commission Hinutes June 9, 1986 ' 5. Case No. 86-524 Existing nonconforming'rear.yard s;t~a~k at 5'12$"-wind$~rlR°a-d ....... Lots 7 and 8, Block I7, Whipple Judy Kva]sten and her Attorney were present. The Buiidlng Officia3 exp3ai'ned that appll, cant.has~had some difficulty and her basement wall is bowed in and has applied for a variance to allow .structural. modifications. The existing'dwelling is 4 foot 8 inches from. the rear lot line. The Ordinance requires a 15 foot rear yard setback. She is recommending approval of the request to allow structural modifications to the basement With the maxi- mum amount of $7,500 applied toward the improvement of the structure; i.e., recognize the existing nonconforming rear yard setback upon the condition that a survey be submitted within thirty days. ~he neighbors,.Harol'd Meeker and.Nancy Clough,'toldof the appl.icant's dogs -' running between her house and.their fence. They feel' allowing 11'mited repairs will only .devalue'their .property.. They. stated there is'only 36 inches between this'house and.the property line .to.the-rear. The Commlssion discussed the request'. All they-'re proposi~g.'is doing repairs on the. inside of'house and then. regrade the outside. The wail that is caving in , would be filled with sand and a block wall put in to reinforce it.. The ?ioof joists would be doubled on southwest corner of house and they'.d dig under from the frontand make a' 24 inch crawl sPaCe. Ais° chimney would be fixed. Kva]sten'is Attorney stated she wants house shomdup so she can live there until. she can bring it up to code. Meeker-wan~ed.tomake o'thers aware of.the dog problem a~.d that they are a threat to anyone in his yard; he feels they are vi'clous. 'The'COmmission advised.that was a matter for the Police and Council. They d}scussed, that applicant was. not expanding the 'nonconforming Use, just making it safer to occupy. Thai moved and Mi'chael seconded a mot.ion that the Commission recommend that a varianCe'for strUctural modi'fi'cation.to existing nonconforming structure be granted with the'staff's recommendation. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. This Will.be:on the City Council Agenda for June 24, 1'986. ~.i.J/ MAY ? 9 19~ ~ CITY OF HOUND Fee ~'~ ...... ~ pLANNING ~.ZONING COHH~SSION Date Filed ,o lease type the following infor~t~on) Street Address Legal Description of Property: Lot Owner's Name ~~ Day Phone No.~-//Tc>~-~-//~ ~ Applicant Jif other than owner): Name · ' Day Phone No. Address $. Type of Request: ( ) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) An~endment ( ) Zoning interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. -- ( )*Other *If other, specify: ~,' Pr~sent Zoning Dist?'ict 7. Existing Use(s) of Property. , ' 8~ Has an application ever been made for rig, vari.a~¢e, or conditional use permit -other zoning procedure for this property? /~/~ If so, list date(s) of or list. date(s) of application, action taken and prov'ide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous reso]utions shall accompany, present request. I .certify ~hat 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'offi-cial of the City of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as:may be required by law. Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case Do Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.' III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All.information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.. B. Does.the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for district in which It is located? Yes (~) No ( ) the zone If "no", specify each n~n-conforming use: Y Do the existing structures comply with all area heigh~ and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ' { ) If "no", specify'each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too, small · ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: E. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land. after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~)C~ If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by anyother man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain: of hardship for'whiCh'y°u request a variance peculiar Are the conditions No ( ) only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) .~~.~ ~ Will granting of the varlance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? 123o RESOLUTION #86-74 EXHIBIT "A" Page 119 feet RD !8 I RD CITY OF MOUND ed 4-13-~1), PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-524 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO REcoGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCON- 'FORMING REAR YARD SETBACK FOR LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 17, WHIRPLE, PlO NUMBER,25-117~24-12 0125.(5125 Windsor Road) WHEREAS, Judy Kvalsten has applied fo'r a variance to allow struc- tural modifications as listed with her application shown as Exhibit "A" to the basement )eve1 of her home to recognize an exi. sting rear. yard setback of 4 foot 8 Inches to the south property line from the dwelling; and WHEREAS, the R-2 Single Family Zoning District requires rear yard setback of 15~feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approva.1 as stated on her vari,ance application to allow the-home- owner reasonable use of her property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, 'does hereby approved the requested.variance to allow struc- tufa) modlficatlons to. the basement area of the home with the maximum.amount of $7,500 appl, ied'toward the.improvement of the structure to recognize an .existing nonconforming rear yard'setback of 4 foot 8 inches upon the condition that a boundarY.line survey be submitted'to the Inspection Department before the'repai.rs begin for Lots 7 and 8, Block 17, Whipple, PID Number 25-117-24 12 0'125 (5']25'Windsor Road). CASE NO, 86-525 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~ Planning Commission Agenda of June 9, 1986 CASE NO. 86-525 APPLICANT: Ernest and Louisa Johnson LOCATION: 4651 Manchester Road LEGAL DESC.: Lots 9 and 22, Block 8, Wychwood PID No. 19-117-23 32 0081 SUBJECT: Front Yard Setback Variance EXISTING ZONING: R-3 Two Family Residential The applicant, Mr. Johnson, is requesting a variance in front yard setback to allow the construction of a 20 foot by 26 foot..detached garage within 16 feet of the Cumberland Road curb line or 15 feet~ to the property line at the closest point. The Zoning Code requires a front setback of 20 feet to the property line for detached garages that are placed on through lots or lakeshore lots with the doors facing the street or 8 feet with the doors facing the side yard. When Cumberland Road was relocated to the sOuth, away from the applicant's home, the City Engineer tried to design an area for all of that block for. detached garages. Due to the topography, the homeowner, Mr. Johnson, has the closest location to the slope between his structure and the street to place a detached garage. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends lining up the detached garage no further to the curb line than the garage to the ~east. This recommendation, however, will not entail more fill to be placed adjacent to his retaining wall and letting the fill settle this year to float a garage slab next year, or compaction of fill or frost footings at the building perimeter or equal. The abutting neighbors have been notified. JB/ms Planning Commission Hinutes June 9, 1986 Lots 9 and 22.,'Block 8, Wyci~vood PID No. 19-117-23 32 0081 Ernest Johnson was. present. The Buildi.ng'Official explained that H~. JohnsOn is requesting a variance in front yard. Setback to allow.the construction ,of a 20 foot by. 26 foot detached garage with|n..)6 feet of the' Cumberland. Road."curb .(approxlmatel¥ 15 Feet to the property line at the closest point);..' The Zoning'Code requires a front setb@ck of 20 feet to"the propert~ 'line for detached garages that are placed on through lots with the doors facing'the street When. Cumberland Road.was relocated to.Zhe south, the Engineer tr!e~ to'des]gn..an area:f0r~detached garages for ail of that block. Hr. Johnson has the closest 'loca'tion to the'slope between.his Structure and the street ~o place'his detached'garage. .Staff recommends lining up the garage with the garage to the.east. Wi'th.a.,~ foot varlance,'.'he could .put garage on floating slab 'on fill that has been there a?°ut $ years. .' Commission.discussed that this isa l'imited use.local road. Ken.Smith moved and Thal seconded a motion recommending granting a q foot variance as requested (garage to be lined up with garage to the east) due to the topograph~ of.the 'lot. The Vote was.unanimously in favor. .Hotion carried.' This will be on the Council Agenda for June 24, 1986. June 3, 1986 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Ms. gan Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Hound 5341 Haywood Road Hound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Variance Request for Garage Lots 9 and 22, Block 8, Wychwood MKA #Zl13 Dear Jan: As requested,-we have reviewed the materlal available regarding the garage proposed for Lot 22, Block 8, Wychwood. Enciosed is a copy of a proposed -'grading pian for this area prepared by our firm in 1980, which shows the future garages. This was prepared showing suggested Iocations and eievations for the future garages. Lot 22, which is under consideration for a variance, was the most difficult building lot due to the severe topography. The proposed garage floor elevation of 982.0 is 6 to 7 feet above the existing home, which would require an extended foundation wall or some type of terraced retaining wall, to support the north side of the garage. The Owner has elected to use a terraced retaining wall, which is already in place. In order to build the garage and use the existing retaining wall, a variance will be required. We .would recommend that a variance be granted with the' condition that the front of the proposed garage not extend beyond the front line of the existing garages to the east; If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC:jmj EDclosures CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION (Please type the following information) 1. Street Address of Property ~.k/E~ , 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition ~H~Oo~ PID-No...~-~/~-~ 3. ~ner's Name~~T~~ Day Phone No~ -~O~ Address ~1 ~~ H~5~E~ q. Applicant (if other than owner): 5. Type of Request: (~ Variance ( ) CondltiOn~l Use Permit ( ) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation ~ Review (~) Sign Permit ( ) Vetl~nd Permit (' ') P:U,O. ( )*Other Case: NO. ~C;~/~ 'L~-.~ ~-' Fee Paid ~'~-~. o~ Date Fi led~~ 6, 7. 8. *If other, specify: Present Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or · other zoning procedure for this property?. If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I.certify 'that 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 applicatlon by any authorlzedoff[cial of the City of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as:may be required by law. Signature of Applicant~ Date.~l~/c~/~ Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. q/82 Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Locatign of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction Fo Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part I!, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to a11 use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Ce Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulatlons for the zone district in which it is.located? Yes (X) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: D° Which unique physical characterlstic~ of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the us~s permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow (~) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~)() If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as th~ reloca- tion of a road? Yes (~(,) No ( ) If yes, explain: G. Are the conditions of hardship for'whiCh'you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~() No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) ~ ?" I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? HO t~ CASE NO.. 86 / / PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-525 RESOLUTION NO'. 86- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE A 4 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR LOTS 9 AND 22, BLOCK 8, WYCHWOOD, PID NUMBER 19-117-23 32 OO81, (4651 Manchester Road) WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Johnson, owners of the property described as Lots 9 and 22, Block 8, Wychwood, PID Number 19-117-23 32 OO81, have applied for a variance to allow the construction of a 20 foot by 26 foot detached garage within 16 feet of the Cumberland Road curb line or 15 feet~ to the property line at the closest point; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code requires front yard setbacks on through lots for detached garages of 20 feet to the property line; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has rev!ewed the request'and does recommend approval of the variance due to topography of the lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE .IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve'the 4.foot setback variance as requested and shown on Exhibit "A" upon the condition that it be lined up and no closer to the right-of-way than the .garage to' the east due to the topography of the lot for Lots 9 and 22, Block 8, Wychwood, PID Number 19-117-23 32 0081 (4651 Manchester Road). McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS I PLANNERS ,.]Une 11, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. &tm Nordby EcLtna Realty 4200 Lancaster Lane Plymouth, I~nnesota 55441 SUBJECT: Port Harrison Town Homes MKA File #7305 Dear Mr. Nordby: On one of my recent trips to Mound I noticed that the driveway and parking lot for the above project has been paved. The concrete curb and gutter was not installed before this paving was completed. As you well recall, the concrete curb and gutter was a requirement of the City and is shown on the approved site plan, which was a condition of the plat approval. This item also came before the City Council at their regular meeting on December 10, 1985, of which you were in attendance, and at which time the Council elected not to change the original approval, that included the.concrete curb and gutter. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes from that Council meeting. We are also waiting for a letter of certification and the as-builts for the utilities to be submitted by your Engineer sO the utility portion of this project can be accepted by the City. There were also some items on a punch list dated November 22, 1985 that were not finished last fall which will need .to be checked on. You will need to contact either Jan Bertrand of myself within the next ten days, regarding these problems, or the City will have to take appropriate action. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron Mound City Engineer OC:tdv Enclosure cc: Jan Bertrand, City of Mound Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager, City of Mound Lucille Hahn S. SEAMAN ASS S£NECA L. SEAl, AN A.I.A. 6009 Ashcrof~ Av So Edlna, Mn 55424 920--1450 Mr James Nordby Port Harrison Townhomes Mound. Mn. Dear Jim, 0 C I A T E g June 20, 1986 Re: Final Sitework Port Harrison Townhomes I am in full agreement with the Port Harrison Townhouse Association's wlsh to keep their project very residential in character. At the tlme of the first Site Study we felt we would need certain 1rems to control soil sodding and Site drainage. ' Upon reachZng final grading with berms , pondlng areas, landscaping, and grass; grades are higher than first planned due to the amount of material needed for compaction in const- ruction. The entrance drlve acts as a drainage course to drain most of the site to the holding area without the need of curbing. In an attempt to keep the drive entrance residential in nature, we have added decorative wood fencing and eliminated any curbs within the property. We hope, thereby, the break from a standard street intersection will be complete. It is the Association's responsibility to maintain the site in summer and in winter. They feel snow can be more eas- ily pushed aside and off the blacktop area. Any damage to drive or lawn will be repaired under Associations Direction. ' ~'eneca L. e man, Architect -~ Minn- 7896-4 City of Mound Mound City Council June 24, 1986 Meeting Subject: Port Harrison Townhomes In July 1984 we presented a "preliminary" site plan to the City for a conditional use permit. Mr. Seaman, our architect, had drawn a curb around the perimeter of the driveway and labeled it" C curb". Last year we indicated that we did not wish to use concrete curbs and the subject was discussed at a council meeting in December 1985, that unfortunately we did not attend. Our reasons for not doing a concrete curb are as follows: We are attempting to create a residence appearance. We are close to a busy commercial thorough-fare and wish to separate ourselves visually as much as possible. The center units lack a front yard and we are attempting, with planting areas, to create a residential yard effect. This is the desire of ourselves and our architect, Mr. Seneca Seaman. 2. We wish that our property look "Private" and do not wish to en- courage any kind of commercial look. Be These matters havebeen discussed with our two buyer/homeowners, Mr. David Banghart and Mr. and Mrs. Del Rudolph, who both concur about our concerns and desire not to use concrete curbs and gutters. Our sub soil under the driveway/parking area is black-gumbo soil and not structurally supportive. We have chosen to use Mirafine Mat under the blacktop but do not feel this to be an adequate base for concrete particularly at the "edges". We realize there was a concern that driveway water run off be directed into the retention pond area. Recent heavy rains have proven that our drainage swale in the driveway grade works and does direct run off as the Watershed District wished. Low curbs of asphalt were built up to assist the direction of the runoff. We appreciate this opportunity to address the Town Council and certainly believe the Council members concur with our wishes. Sincc~rely, ~ Port Harrison Properties Lucille Evans Hahn James H. Nordby Home Owners: Mr. and Mrs. Del Rudolph Me. David R, Banghart December Councilmember Paulsen moved and Councilmember Smith seconded the following motion: MOTION TO AUTHORIZE STEVENS WELL DRILLING CO,.TO 'REPAIR WELL #7 AT THE QUOTED PRICE OF $5158.2~ The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. R__ISONTOWNHOME$.___.._.___~ . . . ' '- ineer, John Camer°n,.stated that the developers of Port Harri~ s now do not wish to install concrete curb and gutters. Instead, they want to use railroad ties or landscaping timbers. It was / the concensus of the'Council that the original plans which were nd approved by the Council should be adhered to. su~.~ SHUKLE CONTRACT , The Acting City Manager stated that Mr. Shukle had submitted three resolutions for the Council to act upon. 1. Exclude Mr. Shukle from PERA . 2. Establish a Deferred Compensation Plan, ~n lieu of PERA 3. Establish a Money Purchase Retirement Plan, saving the City payment to FICA on him. C°uncilmember Peterson moved and Councilmember Smith seconded the following three resolutions: RESOLUTION #85-159 RESOLUTION APPROVING ELECTION OF EDWARD J. SHUKLE, JR., CITY MANAGER TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION #85-160 RESOLUTIO~ TO.ESTABLISH A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR EDWARD J. SHUKLE, JR. RESOLUTION #85-161 RESOLUTI'ON TO ESTABLISH A MONEY PERUCHASE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EDWARD J. SHUKLE, JR. The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolutions passed. The Acting City Manager also stated'the three HMO insurance plans that the City uses are all metro based, and Mr. Shukle will not be residing in the metro area until he sells his house in Benson and moves. Mr. Shukle asks that the 85% of the total family coverage provision that is allowed be applied to a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan, which he currently has in Benson. The City's contribution to his Blue Cross plan would be less than the contribution to the City offered HMO policies. Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending Sections 11.15, 11.50, 11.80, and 32.07 of the City Code Relating to Under Age Persons and Liquor Liability Insurance The City Code of the City of Mound is hereby amended as follows: Section 11.15, subsection d. is amended to read as follows: No liquor shall be sold to a-m~me~ any person under the minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesotn Statutes. Section 11.50, Subdivision 12, subsections (6) and (7) are amended to read as follows: (6) No person under t9 18 years of age shall be employed in any rooms constituting the place in which intoxicating liquors are sold at retail "on-sale", except that persons under t9 18 years of age may be employed to perform the duties of--~ bus boy or dishwashing services in hotels or restaurants licensed under the provisions of this section. (7) No intoxicating liquor shall be sold or furnished or delivered to any intoxicated person, to any habitual drunkard, to any person under ½9-yea~s-ef-age the minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes. Section 11.40, Subdivision 14, subsection (1) is amended to read as .follows: //(~ ~. P. rior,\ to the issuance of an "on-sale" ~se, -.~\ t-h~-.~pplicant shall file (a) a pu~b/~li~bility insurance ~ ~P~ policy-~vidin~ coverages of,~least $1~,~because ~v~,~5u~ of injury t~~ one pe~s~in any one occurrence and /~/~',P~.p~_~ $5c~D~ beca-'l~e~njur¥ to two or more persons in ~ n3q any one occurren~n~d--Y.b) a liquor liabilit ' olic ~'~n.K' covering lia~b-i-rity unde~.~~isions of M~n~esot~ _~/~'o Statute~-'Section ~4~9~' 340A~8-'0'~roviding coverages .t..~'~~-' as ~e%'~forth in Section 1i.80 of thfg~de. Eae~-e~-s~e~ Section 11.50, Subd. 16 is amended to read as follows: Subdivision 16. Restrictions Involving Sale to Minors. (1) No licensee, his agent or employee shall serve or dispense upon the licensed premises any intoxicating liquor to any person under the age-ef-t9-yea~s minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes; nor shall any OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ENGINEER: DEDUCT: DEDUCT: DEDUCT: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: CHANGE ORDER NO.1 PART 1 - LYNWOOD BOULEVARD - MSAP 145-104-03 MOUND, MINNESOTA MKA FILE # 7193 City of MounO Preferred Paving McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO CONTRACT Item No. 11 (2105.501) Common Excavation 150 CY ® $ 4.00/CY = $ 600.00 Item No. 12 (2105.523) Common Borrow 1,500 CY ~ $ 6.50/CY : $ 9,750.00 Item No. 55 (SP) Dry Rubble Masonary Walls 1,420 SF ® $ 7.90/SF : $11,218.00 Item No. 72 (2105.523) Excavated Common Borrow 2,788 CY ® $ 5.25/CY = $14,637.00 Item No. 73 (SP) Lower Water Service 1 EA $ 290.O0/EA = $ 290.00 Item No. 74 (SP) Relocate Curb Stop 1 EA $ 550.O0/EA = $ 550.00 Item No. 75 (SP) Keystone Retaining Well 1,420 SF ~ $ 9.75/SF = $13,845.00 Item No. 76 (SP) 1-1/2" Rigid Conduit (RMC) 110 LF e $ 5.35/LF = $ 588.50 Item No. 77 Alt. for Add. Street Light 1-1/2" PVC Conduit 30 LF ~ No. 8 Wire 230 LF ~ No. 6 Wire 680 LF ~ Trenching 160 LF ~ Concrete Light Base 1 EA ~ Install Pole & Light 1 EA ~ $ 3.85/LF : $ 115.50 $ 0.68/LF : $ 156.40 $ 0.77/LF : $ 523.60 $ 1.40/LF = $ 224.00 $520.00/EA = $ 520.00 $110.O0/EA = $ llO.O0 $ 1,649.50 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ......... $ 9,992.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 JUNE 23, 1986 PAGE TWO ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 1) $182,132.35 REVISED CONTRACT (PART 1) 192,124.35 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 2) 18,443.50 REVISED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT ........ $210,567.85 APPROVED: PREFERRED PAVING By: Date: APPROVED: McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Date: ACCEPTED: CITY OF MOUND By: Date: Il'lq OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ENGINEER: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 PART 1 - LYNWOOD BOULEVARD - MSAP 145-104-03 MOUND, MINNESOTA MKA FILE # 7193 City of Mound Preferred Paving McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. ADDITIONAL WORK FOR MOUND HRA - COMMERCE SQUARE Item No. 78 (SP) Dozer Time 20 NS ~ $ 70.O0/H~ = $ 1,400.00 Item No. 79 (SP) Building Demolition (Grocery & Laundry) 1 LS ~ $19,951.00/LS = $19,951.00 Item No. 80 (SP) Compacted Basement Fill 2,000 CY ® $ 5.00/CY : $10,000.00 Item No. 81 (SP) Common Excavation 4,000 CY ~ $ 4.25/CY : $17,000.00 Item No. 82 (SP) Keystone Retaining Wall 1,800 SF ~ $ 9.75/SF = $17,550.00 Item No. 83 1-1/2" PVC Conduit 80 LF ~ $ 3.85/LF : $ 308.00 Item No. 84 No. 8 USE wire 440 LF ~ $ 0.68/LF = $ 299.20 Item No. 85 No. 4 USE wire 2,200 LF ~ $ 0.90/LF : $ 1,980.00 Item No. 86 Trenching 440 LF $ $ 1.40/LF = $ 616.00 Item No. 87 Relocate Control Cabinet 1 LS ~ $ 500.O0/LS = $ 500.00 Item No. 88 Move existing wires 1 LS ~ $ 280.00/LS = $ 280.00 Item No. 89 Splice wiring at Relocated Pole 1 LS ~ $ 170.O0/LS : $ 170.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 ......... $70,054.20 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 JUNE 23, 1986 PAGE TWO ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 1) $182,132.35 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 9,992.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 70,054.20 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 1) 262,178.55 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 2) 18,443.50 REVISED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT ........ $280,622.05 APPROVED: PREFERRED PAVING By: Date: APPROVED: McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Date: ACCEPTED: CITY OF MOUND By: Date: ACCEPTED: MOUND P~A By: Date: (2) licensee, or his agent or employee, permit any person under the age-o~-tg-yea~s minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes to be furnished or consume any such liquors on the licensed premises. Any person who may appear to the licensee, his employees or agents to be under the age-e~-tg-yea~s minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes shall upon demand of the licensee, his employee or agent, produce and permit to be examined an identification card, including a driver's license. Section 11.80 is amended to read as follows: Section ll.80.~'L'~abilit7 Insurance for Sellers of Intoxicating, Non-Intoxicat~ Liquor and Wine. Every person licensed to sell at retail intoxicating liquor, non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine at on-sale or off-sale in the City shallv-a~ae~-Ma~eh-tv-tg$~v demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard,to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section ~4g=~ 340A.801, to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility may be given by filing: (a) A certificate that there is in effect pool providing the following minimum coverages~e~'~-~Ph~~TM p~ese~e~-~y-$ee~em-½½v§gv-$~=-t4-e~-~e-~y-ge~e-~e~-em-sa~ ~a~e~ea~ag-t~q~e~-~eeases: (1) ~gvggg $~,c~zC:. because of bodily injury to any one person in any one occurrence and, subject to the limit for any one person, in the amount of $lggvggg $5c~:,~ because of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one ~ccurrence, and in the amount of ~tgvggg $~cl~cv%~ because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one occurrence. (2) ~gvggg $~.~ for loss of means of support .to any one person in anemone occurrence, and, subject to the limit for one person, $tgg~ggg $~'~C~. for loss of means Qf support of tw~ or more per~Ds' in any one occurrence-.. c~ c~n~ran~e_ . I in any man er th~ ~~e~Cher claim or · fter. (b) A bond of a surety company with minimum coverages provided in clause (a), or (c) A certificate of the state treasurer chat the licensee has deposited with him $igg;ggg $ ~o9,~:,c~ in cash or securities which may legally be purchased by savings banks or for crust funds having a market value of SZgO~ggo (d) The licensee shall provide the certificate and proof to the City Clerk at the time he applices for a new license or renewal of his license. The certificate of insurance shall show that all coverages meet or exceed the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section ~4~tt~-$~b~-~t340A.409, Subd. (1) and that the insurance company cannot cancel sa'~d insurance until at least 30 days written notice of said cancellation has been served upon the City. If a new certificate of insurance is not filed with the City Clerk during the 30 day period after notice of cancellation, the license to sell at retail intoxicating, non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine shall be suspended until a new certificate of insurance is filed with the City Clerk and the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety. (e) The City Clerk is hereby authorized to waive the foregoing requirements for non-intoxicating liquor and wine licensees with sales of less than $10,000 per year is if said licensee files an affidavit from a Certified Public Accountant to show that sales are under $10,000 per year. The licensee must also file a written commitment with the City Clerk that if sales reach $10,000,' the licensee will not continue to sell non-intoxicating liquor or wine until he has filed a certificate of insurance meeting the requirements set forth in 11.80, Subsections (a) through (d) of this ordinance. (f) Coverages contained in this ordinance shall be considered minimum to meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section '~407½t~-$~b~=-~! 340A.409, Subd. (1) and shall apply to all intoxicating, non-intoxicating liquor and wine licenses issued by the City. See~iem-t½~§0~-$~bdv-t4'ef-~he-Gi~y-~ede-peese~ibes_~igke~ ~imi~s-~e~-em-sa~e-im~e~iea~img-½iq~ee-lieemses=__~he_highee_½imi~s eem~aime~-im-sai~-see~iem-shai½-app½y-~e_e~_sa½e_½ieemses_ef_im__ ~e~iea~img-~iq~ee-amd-a~½-e~hee-~eq~ieemem~_es~abiishe~_~y_s~a~e_ ~aw-sha~-be-me~-bY-~he-~ieemsee-im-addi~iem_~e_~he_eeq~ieemem~s Section 32.07, subsection e. is amended to read as follows: No sale of any non-intoxicating malt liquor shall be made to any person under guardianship, nor to any person under mime~eem-~t~)-yeaes-e~_age the minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statuter. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council Published in Official Newspaper June 13, 1986 Steve Keillor City Clerk P.O. Box 245 Askov, !qN 55704 of m nnesota oitiesa Dear Mr. Keillor'. TOe range of Dram Shop liability limits set my F~innesota cities vary accorOing to the size and location of the city and the cities ability to regulate the liquor establishments. In reviewing municipal liquor ordinances that the League has on file tne following liability limits are being used by cities in Hinnesota. Number of Cities Liability Limits 44 State minimum requirements 50,000 / 100,000 100,000 / 200,000 24 100,000 / 300,000 3 250,000 / 500,000 While the majority of the cities requiring more than the minimum state requirements were in the metropolitan area, t~ere are several cities, such as. House Lake, ~ich are located near AsKov which have higher limits. Underwriters witn Columbia Casualty (John H. Crowtner Co.) ~o not keep this kinO of statistic, however, their sense of the market as of April 1986 is that most licensees are buying 100,000 / 300,000. EBA company, which administers the state assigned risk plan will only write for the statutory minimums, unless the city has an oroinance in place requiring a higher amount. tls.lain, the ultimate ~ecision on the appropriate limits iability to require of licensees rest in the sound discretion of/ he city council.. I hope this answers your questio~j tisfactorily. avenue eaat. s'c. pau!, minneso'cm 551 01 (Sl 2) 227-5S00 /~'~-~]) Amount of Dram S~op Insurance Actually CarrieO Metropolitan Municipalities by Selectea 360B1A '340C10 April 1986 City Does City Require l'lore than the Statutory Minimum Eden Prairie N C~]aska Cnanhassen Burnsville Y - Require 100-300 Y- Require 100-300 20,000 property PlYmouth N Eagan N Sna~opee Y - Require 100-300 Do Lieencees Insure Above' the Required Amount Y 500,000 common Some, e.g.dinner theater: 500,000 Y some $1 million umbrella covg. Underwriters with Columbia Casualty (John H. Crowther Co.) do not keep this .kind of statistic, however, their sense of the market that most l~censees~ buying_ 1002R0__~0. EBA Compan--y, which a~min~i~ters the state assigned- risk plan will only write for the statutory minimums, UNLESS the city has an ordinance- in place requiring a higher amount./ TelephOne Survey ~.~~ April 1986 ~mb R. L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOC., INC. ! 5~C~ MINNEToNKA BOULEVARD · MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA June 19, 1986 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attention: Mr. Ed Shukle Dear Ed, I am writing you in response to the two insurance related issues that you asked me to review and state my recommendations on. The first issue being about the City of Mound requiring all on sale liquor license applicants to carry a specified minimum amount of public liability insurance. The second issue being the City's requiring these same liquor license applicants to carry a specified minimum amount of liquor liability (dram shop) insurance. First, a city requirement of public liability. After talking to many insurance people and municipalities I find that the city of ~ound is one of the few cities in Minnesota to have a public liability requirement as a prerequisite to obtaining an on sale liquor license. Mone of our surrounding communities do, nor can I find one of similar population to Mound that does. But that does not necessarily mean that Mound should eliminate their requirements. Although you should look closely at it. Carrying public liability.insurance, or any insurance, is certainly one means of proving financial responsibility. The question is though, should cxt control the basic insurance co~r~~ ~-~"~-~-~'~-~'~ the ' Y ~ ~ ~ ...... i~'-~ ~'~ .... ~"'~nv other main staurant or a naraware s~ore, or a of a .r~ ~ ~'"~il ,,~..~ ~abiiit~'¥ insurance that we are addressmng S.t~et busznes, s~ ~n~ ~ here COVers the basic, general activities involved in running a business, any business. It doesn't cover out of the ordinary or hazardous activities, in fact it excludes them. That is why a special policy like a dram shop policy is necessary. It addresses the special exposure or dangers of intoxicating people. This special exposure to the public is probably why cities control the exposure and issue licenses to a select few. Stringent requirements of the dram activity should be made without a doubt, but controls over the basic restaurant operation I question. If the City council should decide to continue with making a minimum requirement for public liability as a prerequisite for a liquor license, then I think you should consider a minimum of ~500,000 combined single limit per occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability with an aggregate of $500,000 combined single limit. -2- The City does not own, nor is it running the activity of these two restaurants that are applying for liquor, so I don't see the need to require the city oriented $200,000/$600,000 split limits that the state refers to as a city's limit for immunity. This $500,000 limit is a reasonable limit and is readily available to the two restaurants concerned. Higher limits are available, but might cause financial hardships due to the high premiums being charged restaurants in 1986. A lower limit of $300,000 is the absolute minimum that you may want to consider. The price difference between $300,000 and $500,000 is only about 20%. In lieu of the price difference and the current trend of high court settlements, I do not recommend this lower limit. Secondly, the city requirement of a minimum limit of liability for ~iquor liability (dram shop) insurance. Once again I have contacted many varied people to get various angles of thinking about this topic. Apparently, most cities are requiring minimum limits around $300,000. While a few are requiring $500,000 limits and an even rarer few are requiring the state mandated minimum of $50,000/$100,000. There are only three "active" writers of liquor liability inMinne~ota. One of those is the "Risk Pool." The other two are Transcontinental Insurance Company and St. Paul Company, with St. Paul Company being very restrictive. Here is a sample of Transcontinental's premiums per $100 of liquor receipts: 50/100/10/50/100,000 300/300/300/300/300,000 500/500/500/500/500,000 $2.0015100 $4.9015100° 57.90/$100 We are dealing with only two on sale liquor license applicants, and both of these have liquor liability insurance readily available to them at whatever limit the Council selects. Because of this, I think the state minimum of $50,000/$100,000 is way too low. I recommend that the Council consider as the m~in~mum limits, $300,000 combined single limit for Bo~jury each person and each occurrence~ Property Damage, and oss~5~--~Means of Support for each person a__nd each occurrence, and -0-0 AgRregate. WhEn you look back at the price difference between the $300,000.and $500,000 limit of liability you will see about a $2,100 premium difference for each $100,000 of liquor sales. In other words, fo~ $300,000 of liablity coverage and $100,000 in sales, the premium would be $4,900. While $500,000 of liability and $100,000 in sales would be a premium would be a premium of $7,000. A $2,100 difference. If liquor sales were $300,000 instead of $100,000 then the $2,100 difference would become a $6,300 difference. Thusly, I believe the $300,000 liability limit to be a reasonably acceptable minimum requirement for these times and this geographic and demographic location. If the license applicants wish to carry higher limits than this minimum then they are certainly welcome to do so. Thank you Ed for the opportunity to review these matters. I ho~e this input is beneficial. Respectfully, Earl E. Bai.ley DOES YOUR CITY REQUIRE PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LIQUOR LICENSES, OVER AND ABOVE THE DRAM SHOP LIABILITY INSURANCE AND IF. SO, WHAT AMOUNT IS REQUIRED? YES/NO AMOUNT WAYZATA NO ORONO NO SHOREWOOD NO MINNETONKA NO ST. LOUIS pARK NO SPRING PARK NO WACONIA NO CHASKA NO CHANHASSEN NO SHAKOPEE NO Developers · Contractors · Realtors · MLS 7400 Metro Blvd. · Suite 417 Edina, MN 55435 · (612) 893-1950 The Creative Building, Company May 13,1986 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Lease Proposal Tonka East Business Center Dear Ed: Thank you for taking the time out of your busy day to meet with me to dicuss your space needs for the city to store their equipment. On behalf of Gustafson and Associates, we would like to make the following proposals: SPACE: 6774 square, feet RENTAL RATE: 2.503per sq. ft net- net- net 16,9~ per 'year 1411.25 monthly 1st and last month rent due on occupancy LEASE TERM: Month to month with a thirty(30) day cancellation notice. OPERATING COSTS: OCCUPANY DATE: Currently .62 per square feet. (but will cap it at 1.00) June lst,1986 (or determine) Ed; I will call you next week to further discuss this proposal, should you have any questions in'the mean time, please feel free to call me at 893-1950. Enclosed is a copy of your space as it lap out in unit %2 of Tonka East Business Center. g5'-O" 88'-6" 388.sq..' F 59(~-S" Ft. :~ 'Total 677J~ Sui:. Ft" '__Mou nd_City_ Work~ __ ,Froposed Lease Space, CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official DATE: June 16, 1986 SUBJECT: Signage for Mound's Incredible Festival I have received a request from Donald W. Abel to place 5ft by 9ft. portab!e signs at five locations in Mound. The Ben Franklin, Our Lady of the Lake are in the B-1 Central Business District, A] & Alma's is in the B-3 Neighbor- hood Business District, Texaco is in the B-2 General Business District, and Old 'Depot at Mound Bay Park is in the R-1 Single Family District. I have attached the City Code Section 55.38 (3.10) for Seasonal Signs. Thc organization of Our Lady of the Lake is requesting a variance from item e which requires the sign to be placed on the premises of the .advertised event and also a 13 sq. ft. size variance from the allowable 32 sq. ft.. The request is for a 45 sq. ft. sign. Staff recommends that the request be approved subject to the dates stated on the correspondence dated June 11, 1986 from Mr. Donald W. Abel. 86/56 An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national or~gin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. 3026 Highland ~ulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 472-521U June 11, 1986 Mr. Edward Shukle, City Manager and members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle and members of the City Council: In my capacity as general chairman of Mound's Incredible Festival, sponsored by Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church, I'm requesting permission to display portable billboards, 5' x 9', advertising the festival. Tne boards would be mounted on boat trailers and would be on display at a location for four to five days, from July 19 through August 3rd. The Mound locations that we wish to display the boards are: .the parking lot across from the dime store, the old depot parking lot, A1 & Alma's, on the front lawn of Our Lady of the Lake 'school, and the Texaco station at Three Points Blvd. Your favorable action to this request will be greatly appreciated. ~Sincere~y~ ~ Donald W. Abel General Chairman DWA:do cc: Ms. Jan Bertrand (6) signage provisions. .' : (g') Gara.~ sale signs shall be limited to five (5) days per occurrence. Seasonal Signs - Seasonal signs of a temporary or portable nature may be used in the non-residential districts to promote or advertise on-premise seasonal services or me_rchandise. Such s~gns shall be limited to a maximum of thirty-two (32) sc~uare feet and shall not be left in place for more than a two (2) month period. Permits and fees shall be required for all seasonal signs; ~nd permits may be issued no more than two (2) times per calendar year per business. Except as may be specifically authorized by this section and Subd. 3.09(6), portable signs are prohibited. A portable sign used .for the purpose of directing the public may be permitted under the following condi t ions: (a) Said sign is coincidental to, or used in conjuct~or{'with a governmental unit or c~asi-public function: and (b) the p&rlod of use of said sign shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days-, and (c) signs'shall not be used.more than four (4) times during a calendar year: and (d). prior approval of a majority of the City Council shall be recruited for the use of any such sign; and: (e) signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event~ and (f) such signs shall require the issuance of a permit but will be exempt frcm all fees. (g) in the instance of a mull:i-use facility, only one seasonal sign may be placed (displayed) on the premises at any one time. 3.11 Pro%ectlng wall. signs shall be permitted only in Commercial Districts provided the total sign area does not exceed ten' (10) square feet per building face. Such signs shall not proje, ct over public property more than 18 inches. June 24, 1986 Council Meeting June 18, 1986 LICENSE RENEWALS -- Expiring June 30, 1986. New License Period 7-1-86 to 6-30-87 Off-Sale Beer A1 & Alma's Brickley's Market (formerly Mound Superette--Name change only) PDQ Food Store SuperAmerica On-Sale Beer A1 & Alma' s House of Moy Club License American Legion #398 VFW #5113 On-Sale Liquor Captain Billy's Donnies on the Lake Sunday Liquor Captain Billy's Donnies on the Lake Set-Up A1 & Alma's Wine A1 & Alma's House of Moy blic Dance Dinner Dance Captain Billy's NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS - Wagon Train Day - June 21 & 22, Charitable Beer Set-Up's Public Dance Fireworks 1986 BILLS -JUNE 24, 1586 Computer Batch 864061 dated 6/14/86 CompUter Batch 864062 dated 6/18/86 1~2,228.42 38,885.37 Total Bills 171.113.79 bJ C3 I-- Z U bJ bJ id ZXZXZX U ZZZZZZZZ~Z Z (J Z Z .U WbJ U~ ~0 0 W W .::~ ,8,,,, '~j Z ,U. N W Z ILl Z .~,~ CIO l hi i I I I I I I I I I O0 WWW --I--I W~ ~.~W · · I 0 n~ bi 00000~00 IJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I hJ .J I o ,.I I 0 J o II1 I W mm, W W IIIII 00000 IIIII IIIII C~ bJ 0 W WUuu~uu~U~ ~WWWWW~WW~ wi~W~WhI~WW W i,i I C] Z 0 0 ~ X X I I ! I 0o0~) I I I I I I I I [ I I 4' 4= I I W I 0 I 999999 41 J 0 W O~ .J ~rws- k-I--I-, I 0 I I .J W 0 0 X ADDRESS ~x~/~ ~~~~. '~' Street N~ber (If other than applicant} Name. CONT~CTOR ' ' '~ '. APPLICATION FOR SIGN PER~IT " C~TY OF. MOUN0 · City Zip Address Name Add ress LOT -' BLOCK'"" " ' " ' ADDITION ALLO~ABLE S I GNAGE .~ ~" Square F~tage ~ALL ARE~ ......... BY'_ .Ft. - TOTAL ZONING DISTRICT EXiSTING'SIGNAGE.' ~ .... ' NUHBER OF SIGNS'~. SQL FOOTAGE OF SIGNS /~ ~/~ . ~ ' ,. _ ILLUHINATED= YES NO SIGN SIZE BEING EE~UESTE'D'-~ ...... ~ ; ''~- ...... i~PE OF SIGN-" ~~,~~. ' ~ '~" O~ER - ~L~SE DESCRIBE-REQUEST AND REASON-FOR REQUEST: ~~j ~ ~, ~~g~ ' . Is sign for a" co~~ organization and does it meet all the standards of Section. 55.382 I'f addi t'fona i' .~.4~.l~/. ~TU //0 ~ ~~ ' bate submitted Reco~endat 1 off t ' information is attached~ please submit 8½H X 11" maximum'sized drawings'. APPROVED: Building Official 68 R ~/85 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE[RS · LAND SURVEYORS ! PLANNERS Oune 19, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Edward 3. Shukle, Or. City Hanager City of Hound 5341 Naywood Road Hound, MN 55364 SUBOECT: Dear Ed: Bartlett Boulevard HSAP #145-103-02 Payment Request No.1 MKA File #7831 Enclosed is Buffalo Bituminous' Payment Request No. 1 in the amount of $40,788.91 for the work completed on the subject project. This project is .completed except for final acceptance, which is why 5~ has been retained. We have reviewed this payment request, find it is in order and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. Very truly yours, HcCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC:cah Enclosure CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIHATE NO. 01 PAGE 7933. BARTLETT BO~JLEVARD - HSAP 14S-103-0~. - HOUND, Hfl 01 ENGIHEER: HcCONBS-~UTSOH CONTRACTOR: BUFFALO BITUMIHOUS 12800 IND.P~.~. PLYHOU~, MN DA~: ~!181~ -- CONT~CTOR PAY ESTIHA~ S~MARY -- THIS PERIOD TO DATE ~0~ COMPLETED SECTION 1 42,935.70 MATERIALS ON SITE SECTION 1 0.00 0.00 AD JUSTED TOTAL. 42,9~. 70 4P, 9~. 70 LESS RETAINAGE - 02: PREVIOUS, .52: CURRENT 8,146.7B ~,146.7B TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FOR ~RK COMPLETED TO DATE 40,788.9! 40,788.91 TOTAL AHOUHT DUE 40,788.9.1. 40,7BB.91 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: BUFFALO BITUHINOUS CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 01 PAGE BARTLETT BOULEUARD - H~AP 14B-103-0~ - HOUND, SECTION 1 O3 ENCINEER: McCOMBS--)(NUT~N CONTRACTOR.' BUFFALO BITUHINOUS lPBO0 IND.PX.BL~. PLYHOUTH, MN SEM41 DATE: 06/18/86 -- PAYMENT SUNMARY FOR HATERIALS ON SITE -- THIS PERIOD ITEM ITEH CONTRACT UNITS INUOICE UNITS NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIUERED PRICE ON SITE TOTAL ITEH VALUE TO DATE INUOICE UNITS PRICE ON SITE ~T~ ITEM VALUE TOTAL SECTION ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 42,800. O0 + CHANGE O. O0 0.00 = REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT 0.00 42, BO0. O0 CONTRACTOR PAY £STIHATE NO. O1 PAG£ 7931 BARTLETT BOULEVARD - HS~P 14S-103-0~ - HOUND, HH SECTION I O2 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS'-t(NUTSON CONTRACTOR: BLFFALO BITUHINOUS tPBO0 IND.PK.~L~D. PLYHOUTH, HN 5544! DATE: 0611818~ -- PAYNEHT SUHHARY FOR ~PA COHPLETED TO DATE -- ITEH ITEH CONTRACT UNIT NO. DESCRIPTZON QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY 1 EOEI.501 HOBILIZATION i.O LS 400.00 1.0 e 2104.505 REH. BIT. PA~ 1,650.0 SY 1.00 1,650.0 3 P104.513 SAW BIT. PA~ 100.0 LF 1.50 I00.0 4 E105.501 COHHON EXCAU. 1,400.0 CY 4.00 1,400.0 S 2105.5.33 SALV. AGGR. EV 100.0 CY 10.00 0.0 6 2211.501 AGGR. BaSE CL.E 1,500.0 TON 8.00 1,570.3 7 2211.501 AGGR. BaSE CL.5 1,050.0 TON 7.00 1,041.5 8 2331.504 BIT HAT FOR HIX 16.0 TON 165.00 16.4 9 E331.514 BaSE COURSE HIX 350.0 TON 14.00 349.0 10 ~341.504 BIT HAT FOR HIX 10.0 TON 165.00 11.E 11 ~341.514 ~EAR COURSE HIX 170.0 TON 16.00 193.3 /2 E3~7.SOE BIT NAT FOR TC 90.0 GAL 1.00 100.0 13 E50~.541 6'TP PIPE DRAIN 800.0 LF ~.00 800.0 14 2506.5E2 ADS. CASTINGS 1.0 EA 200.00 1.0 1S S.P, GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 1,700.0 SY O. SO 1;700.0 .... THIS PERIOD .... ~OUNT 400. O0 1,650.00 150. O0 5,600. O0 0.00 /2,562.40 7,290.50 2,706. O0 4,886.00 1,B4B. O0 3,09~.B0 100. O0 1,600. O0 200. O0 BSO. O0 ...... TO DATE ....... QUANTITY 1.0 1,650.0 100.0 1,400.0 0.0 1,570.3 1,041.5 16.4 349.0 11.E 193.3 100.0 BOO. 0 1.0 1,700.0 ANOUNT 400. O0 .1,650. O0 150. O0 5,600. O0 0.00 /2,562.40 7,~90.50 2,706.00 4, BB6. O0 1, B4B. O0 3,09~.B0 100. O0 1,600. O0 200. O0 B50. O0 TOTAL SECTION I 4~,9':.:3S.70 42,935.70 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINIFERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS ,3Line 19, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Edward O. Shukle, Or. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUB3ECT: Beachwood Rond Outfall Line Payment Request #1 & Change Order #1 MKA File #7544 Dear Ed: Enclosed is B & D Underground's Payment Request No.1 in the amount of $21,038.37 for the work completed on the subject project. Also included for approval is a Change Order in the amount of $1,485.71 for pipe bedding necessary due to the wet ground conditions encountered and lowering of the watermain in Beachwood Road. Even though this project is completed, we are recommending a retainage of ~ for a few weeks, to insure complete satisfaction and acceptance of the project. We have reviewed this payment request and find that it is in order and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, 1NC. Oohn Cameron $C:cah Enclosure CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 BEACHWOOD POND OUTFALL LINE 1986 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS MOUND~ MINNESOTA MKA File #7544 OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ENGINEER: CITY OF MOUND B & D UNDERGROUND McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ADD: ITEM NO. 12: Rock Pipe Bedding 42 TONS ~ $ 9.75/TN = $ .409.50 ADD: ITEM NO. 13: Lower Existing Watermain on Beachwood Road 1 L.S. ~ $1,076.21/LS = $1~076.21 TOTAL ........... $1,485.71 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHANGE ORDER NO ....... $ 1,485.71 NEW CONTRACT TOTAL .................... $22,154.71 APF:~OVED: B & D UNDERGROUND Date: G-/~" ~'~' APPROVED: McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ACCEPTED: CITY OF MOUND By: Date: CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. O1 PAGE I98~ ST. SEWER IHPROV~HENTS-BEACHWOOD POND 0UTFALL LINE O1 ENGINEER: MCCOMBS'-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: B & D UNDERGROUND 12B00 IND.PK.BLVD. PLYMOUTH, MN DATE: 06115186 -- CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIHATE SUMHARY -- ~IS PERIOD TO DATE WORK COHPLETED SECT ION i 22,145.6G 2P, 145.6G HATERIALS ON SITE SECTION 1 O. O0 O. O0 AD3USTED TOTAL LESS RETAINAgE - O~ PREVIOUS, 22,145.66 22,145.66 CURRENT 1,107.28 1,107.28 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FOR *WORK COHPLETED TO DATE 21,038.37 E1,038.37 TOTAL. AMOUNT DUE 21,038.37 21,038.37 ENGINEER: McCOMBS-KNUTSON APPRO~JED: CONTRACTOR: B & D UNDERGROUND CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 0'~ PAGE 754 4 19B6 ST. SEWER IMPRDUEMENTS-BEACHWDOD POND OUTFALL LINE ~CTION 1 02 ENGINEER: McCOHBS-4~NUT~ON CONTRACTOR: B & D UNDERGROUND IP800 IND.PX.BLUD. PLYMOUTH, MN DATE: OG/lq/B6 -- PAYMENT SUNMARY FOR WDR~ COMPLETED TD DATE -- ITEM ITEM CONTRACT UNIT .... THIS PERIOD ..... NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY 1 12' PUC ST.SE~ER O-B'DEP 170.0 LF P3.45 129.0 2 B-10' DEPTH 90.0 LF 24.4S 122.0 3 10-12' DEPTH 40.0 LF P6. O0 42.0 4 12-14' DEPTH 57.0 LF PB. O0 ?1. S 14-16' DEPTH 50.0 LF 30.00 34.0 6 lB" RCP & F.E.S. ~.0 LF 27.00 43.0 ? RIP RAP 2.0 CY 91.00 1.0 B STO~ SEWER MANHOLE 2.0 EA 1,475.00 2.0 9 CATCH BASIN MANHOLE 1.0 EA 1,200.00 1.0 lO LAW~ RESTORATION 1.0 LS 3,200.00 11 STREET RESTORATION 1.0 LS 1,~)50.00 1.0 1P RO. CX PIPE BEDDING 42.0 TN 9. ?5 42.0 13 LOWER EXISTING WATER)lAIN 1.0 LS 1,076.21 1.0 ...... TO DATE AMOUNT QUANTITY 3,025.0~ 129.0 2,98~.90 122.0 1,092. O0 42.0 1,988. O0 71.0 1,0~0.00 34.0 1,161.00 43.0 91. O0 1.0 2,950.00 2.0 · 1,200.00 1.0 ~,200.00 1.0 1,950.00 1.0 40~. 50 42.0 1,O?6.P1 1.0 AMOUNT 3,025.05 2,982.90 1, 09P. O0 1,988. O0 1,020.00 1,161. O0 91. O0 2,950.00 1,200.00 3,200.00 1,950.00 409.50 1,076.21 TOTAL SECTION 2P, 145.66 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 0:1. PAL~E '75'~ '~ 1986 ST. SEWER IMPROUEHENTS-BEACHWOOD POND OUTFALL LINE SECTION 1 O3 ENGINEER: HcCOHB$-~UTSON CONTRACTOR: B & D UNDERGROUND 1PBO0 IND.PK.BLVO. PLYMOUTH, MN DATE: 061.1.5186 -- PAYMENT SUHMARY FOR MATERIALS ON SITE -- THIS PERIOD ITEM ITEH CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE UNITS NO. DESCRIPTION 9UANTITY DELI~,ERED PRICE ON SITE TOTAL ITEM VALUE INUOICE PRICE TO DATE UNITS ON SITE TOTAL ITEM UALUE TOTAL SECTION 0.00 0.00 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIHATE NO. O1 PAGE '~5~ ~ i98G ST. SE~ER IHPROUEHENTS-BEACH~00D POND 0UTFALL LINE SECTION i O4 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS.-KNUT~ON 1PBO0 IND.PK.BLUD. PLYliOUTH, lin DATE: OGI151B~ CONTRACTOR: B & D IlNDERGROI~D CHANGE ORDER NO. O1 06115106 ITEH ITEH NO. DESCRIPTION 1P RDCK PIPE BEDDING 13 LO~R EXISTING WATERMAIN SUliliARY OF CHANGE ORDERS 1,405.71 PREVIOUS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 0.00 TN 0.00 0.00 LS 0.00 CHANGED AliOl~T AHOUNT ~UANTITY UNIT PRICE DEDUCTED ADDED 4~.00 TN 9.75 409.50 1.00 LS 1,076.~1 1,076.~1 PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE 20,669.00 + CHANGE 1,4B~.71 = REVISED CONTRACT AliOU~T 22,154.71 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 20,669.00 + CHANGE 1,485.71. = REVISED CONTRACT AHOUNT 22,1~4.71 June 24, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH AS THE NE~ POLLING PLACE FOR PRECINCT ~1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby designate Mount Olive Lutheran Church, 5218 Bartlett Blvd. as the new polling place for Precinct #1. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Pro Tem Attest: City Clerk I CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: ED SHUKLE CITY MANAGER FROM: JOHN NORMAN ~) FINANCE DIRECTOR RE: MAY 1986 FINANCIAL REPORT DATE: JUNE 13, 1986 The General Fund beginning cash balance of $560,000 has been used up and as of 5-30-86, the cash balance stands at ($1,146.). This is not surprising since we receive a majority of our revenue through tax revenue (June and November) and local government aids (July and December). However, it does reveal the importance of maintaining an adequate fund ~ balance. The May expenditures included posting of three pay periods, instead of the normal two per month. With 26 payrolls during the year, there are two months which have 3 payrolls posted to them. The Manager/Clerk, Streets and Water expenses reflect more than the 41.7% (5/12) of their budgets for the year. JN:ls /~'~ 7~,~ An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of color, national race. origin. or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in. its programs and activities. CITY OF MOUND 1986 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES MAY 1986 41.7% of the Year UNEN- MAY YTD CUMBERED PER CENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE BALANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council City Manager/Clerk Elections & Reg. Assessing Finance Legal Cable T.V. Contel Recycling Police Protection Planning & Insp. Civil Defense Streets Shop & Store City Property Parks Contingency Transfers $. 36,964 2,913 13,710 23,254 37.1 89,273 10,338 38,847 50,426 43.5 10,307 86 455 9,852 4.4 43,369 433 3,373 39,996 7.8 141,420 13,634 56,740 84,680 40.1 80,330 5,587 28,704 51,626 35.7 .... 94 896 (896) -- 20,000 7,380. 12,620 36.9 18,585 2,370 5,385 13,200 29.0 568,199 50,357 229,746 338,453 40.4 100,333 7,493 38,157 62,176 38.0 3,000 291 777 2/223 ' 25.9 369,950 32,368 163,507 206,443 44.2 47,096 4,809 19,648 27,448 41.7 83,449 27,794 43,729 39,720 52.4 130,093 11,880 33,530~ 96,563 25.8 50,000 :' - ..... 50,000 -- 75,741 6,312 31,559 44,182 41.7 GENEP~4L FUND TOTAL $1,868,10~ 176,759 716,143 1,151,966 38.3 Federal Reserve Sharing 52,000 Area Fire Service 142,802 Sealcoat Program --- CBD Assessment --' Liquor" 153,450 Water 315,022 Sewer 631,084 Cemetery 3,896 --- 3,612 43,388 6.9 9,640 57,284 85,518 40.1 11,955 63,083 90,367 41.1 22,793 154,288 160,734 49.0 43,163 235,705 395,379 37.3 --- 1,080 2,816 27.7 CITY OF MOUND 1986 BUDGET REPORT REVENUES MAY 1986 41.7.% of the Year BUDGET MAY YTD REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE PER CENT RECEIVED GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business. Licenses Non-Business Licenses & Permits General Gov't Charges Court Fines Charges to other Departments '.Other Revenue 931,061 719,964 13,060 114,000 27,750 82,000 23,000 55,300 11 33,560 897,5Ol -- 6,875 713,089 75 1,813 11,247 6,280 65,294 48,706 1,540 6,657 21,093 -- 21,160 60,840 1,818 12,802 10,198 5,495 10,510 44,790 3.6 1.0 1.3.9 57.3 24.0 25.8 55.7 19.0 TOTAL REVENUEI' $1,966,135 15,219 158,671 1,807,464 8.1 Federal Revenue Sharing Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund 45,000 820,000 264,000 5oo,ooo -- 12,405 32,495 27.6 74,298 276,182 543,818 33.7 12,557 107,608 156,392 40.8 44,262 232,647 267,353 46.5 MINUTES OF THE' MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 9, 1986 Present were: Chair Elizabeth Jensen; Commissioners William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese, Ken Smith, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Steven Smith; City Manager Ed Shukle; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary MarjorJe~Stutsman. Commissioner Robert Byrnes was absent and excused. Also. present were the following interested persons: John and Terrie Thoresen, Steve.Schmldt, Byron and Gloria Pet~rsen, Don Abel, Janette Gellman, Everett Junge, Pam SWlhart, Bonnie Birnbaum, Gordon Swenson, Nancy Clough, Harold Meeker, Fred D. Wagner, Thomas and.Arlene'Green',' JudJe Kvalsten,'K)m Ryan, Jim A. SwJetlik, Ernest D. Johnson, and Christie and Myrtle Blank'and Rod Larson. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 1986 were presented for consideration. Weiland moved and Reese seconded .a motion to approve the minutes of the May 12', 1986' Pl'annlng'Commlssion meeting as presented. The vote was unani- mously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No, 8'~-'521 Rear Yard Variance to enclose existing deck at 636~'Rambler Lane, Lot 2, Block 5, Mound Terrace Klm Ryan was present.. : The Building Official, Jan.Bertrand, reviewed th~ request for a variance to allow the existing unenclosed 'deCk on the south side of the house to be re- modeled and enclosed and'modify it to be Part' of the living area of the house. This deck is 3J6 feet to the rear' Property line at the southeast corner of the building. The R-1 Zoning District requires a rear yard setback of 15 feet and a side yard setback of 10 feet to Che property llne. There is an 8 foot wide unimproved a)leyway easement .to the south and 30 foot unimproved Forest Lane right-of-way to the'west. Staff recommends approval due to the topography and the shape of the lot. The Commission discussed the request briefly, The applicant presented a letter f~om her neighbors. Chair Jensen read the letter which stated the neighbors had no. obj~ctions to the'remodeling and enclosing the deck. 'geil.and moved and Ken Smith seconded a motion to accept the staff recommenda- tion and recommend the approval .of the variance to allow the enclosure of the deck with'the setback of 3.6 feet to the property line; copy of'the neighbor's letter to be included with the informat-ion for the City Council. The vote 'was unanimously in favor. This will be on the Council agenda of June 24, 1986. 2. Case No. 86-509 Preliminary Plat for 2900 Highland Boulevard Block 1, Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly PID 23-117-24 41 O017 Duane Barth of Creative Developers, Inc. was present. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the alternative plan which has been submitted for Cooks Bay Estates. The alternative plan shows 6 single family o detached lots off of a short loop street. The lots meet the minimum lot size requirements. The rear yard setbacks on Lots 1 and 6 should show 15 feet Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 - Page 2 rather than the ten feet noted on,the proposed subdivision pian, He stated this'setback could.be exPanded by shi'fting the loop street to the south and create a la.rger..building area on Lot 1 and reducing the depth of Lot 6. He stated the one Issue. presented, by the modified plan was one of access and circulation. .He.~c°mmented that a.one-~fay pattern could, be'established using the entrance and exlt'Points.'.'He thought traffic level would be iow and there would be no major problems. The''tdonut hole" in street would be'an outlot for a slgn. and could'be landscaped. The Commi'Ssion discussed t.he.request:and had-various questions, such as: When wou]d garage, etc. be removed? Size of proposed homeS? Where would snowmobiles and so forth be Put? What kind of buildings a. re being planned? Where would the.parking"be? The Chair'opened the meeting for comments from the public. The fo'11owTng per- sons had comments aboutwant|ng.less.homes.going into' th'is area or had questions about mainta'ining~the loop:stree~,'etc.': John Thor,sen, Janette Geilman, Byron Petersen.and Rod Larson. Steve Smith questioned If'this'design has been'used before in Hound. Several Commissioners thought it was a'way to'squeeze more homes in there. Reese moved-the s~aff recommendations to approve the preliminary plat subject to conditions listed in the June 2, 1986 report; Thal seconded the motion. The vote was .Re,se, Michael,. Ken Smith and Thal in favor; Meyer, Steve Smith, Weiland and Jansen against. (Vote tied'or failed) K~n Smith spoke in favor of the proposal; feels it could be a plus for the neighborhood. Meyer believes, that setbacks not really met; he doesnSt think we should have things that tight; mentioned With th, docks coming outl it will look like a bowling alley. Jansen stated sites for $ houses would be better; believes .it is not best use of the land; and hopes applicant will come back with another plan. This will be referred back to the City Council on June 24, l~86. Ca~e No. 86-522 Lot Size Variance'and Existing Front Yard Variance for 4560 Dorchester Road; Lots 18 and l~,.Block 12, Avalon PID 1~-117-2.3'31 0042 Christie and Myrtle Blank were present. The Building Official reviewed Mr,.and Mrs-. Blank's request for a variance to allow additions to square-up the back'portion of the house and include a deck and an attached garage and reconstruct a new stairway, all of which will meet the required setbacks.'- The R-1 Zoning District requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet; the existing lot size is.6,400 square feet. The required..front yard.setback is 30 feet; but-the setback can be averaged with the setback of the neighboring.properties, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the lot line. The front yard setback of the existing dwelling is 19.$ feet and needs 1/2 foot variance. Staff is recOmmending variances be granted conditioned on house being brought up'tO minimum house size (presently 695 square feet). The City alsoowns Lots 12 and 13 in Block 12, Avalon of which a portionls above the Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 -Page 3 protected wetland elevation and probably could be purchased by the applicant to bring them close to the 10,000 square foot of lot area. The Commission discussed the request.and asked that the house be brought up to Code. Also discussed was that surveyor.would'have to give legal descrip- tion of land above.gq0.3. The City Manager stated.he has no problem if applicant.would negotiate for the land. Reese moved~and WeIland seconded a motion to recommend staffs recommendation providing house be brought up to building code and further that CSty negotiate with Mr. and Mrs; Blank for land above the 9qO.3. The vote was unanimously in favor. This will be on the Council Agenda of June 24, 1~8q. 4. Case No. 86-523 Lot"size and Existing .Setback'Variance for 1724 Shorewood Lane Lot 18, Block 4, Shady~ood Point, PID'No. 13-117-2q il 0018 Thomas Green was present. , The Building Official reviewed'Mr. Green!s request for a variance to recognize the existing three foot west side.yard setbackand lot size of 4,425 square feet~ to allow emergency construction repairs and improvements to his existing building : at 1724 Shorewood Lane. After permit to square up' second floor of his home was issued, It was:discovered there'were'rotted conditions within.the walls and he thought since he'had.to.tear o~t' the rotted portion, he'should build the second story toconform-with the wa.ll heights, of 7 foot 6 inches. This wi.II-result in expansion'of floor area with habitable space. The R-2 single family zoning district requires 6,000 square-feet of lot-area;, side yard setbacks of 61feet street front yard of 20 feet' and lakeshore setback of 50 feet. The'staff recom- mends~'variance approval to allow the homeowner'to complete the second floor addition by mak)nglthe necessary structural.modifications tO the entire building upon the condition that the property is surveyed, the entire bu$1ding be brought up to current building code andshe would'.like some blueprints drawn.up. The Commission discussed the ..request. Fred.Wagner', owner of property on west slde o~ h6me was present and stated he has no objections to the improvements proposed. Also a letter'was received from Howard and Carol Shultz of 1730 Shore- wood Lane ~nd they'have'no objections. Ken Smith moved a motion to accept'the staff recommendations and recommend 'approval. Weiland seconded the motion. THe vote was unanimously in favor. Case No. 86-524 Existing nonconforming rear yard setback at 5125 Windsor Road Lots 7 and 8, Block 17, Whipple Judy Kvalsten and her Attorney were present. The Building Official explained that applicant has had some difficulty and her basement wall is bowed in and has applied for a variance to allow structural. modiflcations. The existlng'dwelling is 4 foot 8 inches from the rear lot line. The Ordinance requires a 15 foot rear yard setback. She is recommending approval .of the request to allow structural modifications to the basement With the maxi- mum amount of $?,500 applied toward the improvement of the structure; i.e., recognize the existing nonconforming rear yard setback upon the condition that - 5. Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 1986 - Page 4 a survey be submitted within thirty days, The neighbors,..Harold Meeker'and.Nancy Clough, told of the applicant's dogs running between her house and their fence, They feel' allowing limited repairs will Only devalue.their .property, They. stated there is only 36 inches between this 'house and the property line to the 'rear, The Commission discussed the request. All they're proposing, is doing repairs on the inside of'house and then regrade the outside. The wall that is caving in ~ would be filled with sand and a block wall put in to reinforce i't. The floor joists would be doubled on southwest corner of house and they'.d dig under from the front.andmake a' 24 inch crawl space. Also chimney would be fixed. Kvalsten'.s Attorney stated she wants house shored up so she can ]ive there until she can bring it up to code. Meeker'wan~ed:to'make others aware of:the dog problem and that :t.hey are a threat to anyone in his yard; he feels they are vicious. 'The-.Commission advised that was a matter for the Police and Counci). They d)scussed~that applicant was not expand(ng the nonconforming use, just making' it .safer to occupy. Thal mo~ed and M'l'chael seconded a ~otJon that the Commission recommend that a variance-for, strUctural modification to existing nonconforming structure be granted with the's.taff's recommendation., The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. This Will be'on the City Council 'Agenda for June 24, 1'986. Case. No. 86-525' Front Yard Setback Variance for 4651 Manchester Road Lots 9 and 22,'Block 8, WychwOod PID No. )9-117-23 32 0081 Ernest Johnson was. present. The BUilding Official explained that Mr. Johnson is requesting a variance in front yard setback to.allowthe construction of a 20 foot by26 foot detached garage within )6 feet of the Cumberland. Road curb (approximately 15 feet to the property llne at the closest point.),.' The Zoning Code requires a front setbQck of 20 feet to:the property line for detached garages, t.hat are placed on through lots with the doors facing the street.. .When Cumberland Road was relocated'to'the south,. the Engineer tried to design.an .area for'detached garages for al) of that block. Mr. Johnson has the closest location to the s]opebetweenhis structure and the street 'to place his detac'hed'garage.. StAff recommends lining up the garage with the garage to the east. Wi:th.a. 4 foot variance, he could put garage on floating slab on fill that has been there about 5 years. Commission discussed that this is a .limited use local road. Ken Smith moved and Thai seconded a motion.recommending granting a 4 foot variance as requested (garage to be lined up with garage to the east) due to the topograph~ of the 'lot. The Vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried~ This will be on the Council Agenda for June 24, 1986. 7. Balboa Signage, 5340.Shoreline Boulevard Blocks 5 and 6, Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound PID 13-117-24 34 0066 Planning Commission Minutes ' 'June 9, 1986 - Page 5 The City Planner commented the new name for this bui. lding was "Aspen Business Center West". 'He .then reviewed s.lgnage under the existing sign ordinance and the proposal wi.th ·Staff recommended s-lze limits. He felt proposal was quite reasonable.given the size'and complexity of the building.. His recommendation was approval of the comprehens'ive sign plan for Aspen: Business Center West · subject to the size restriCtions in this proposal and consistent with the locations:shown on 'Exhibit A dated. June ~, 1986. Signage locations differing from those shown on the plan 'or signs permitted.under this approval, but not shown on the plan shall be approved by the Building Official prior' to placement. .The commission discussed the' signage, it was also brought up that the loading docks might .have only numerals toidenify them... Thai moved'-and Ken Smith SeConded a motion to recommend .accepting the staff -recommen.dation.on':signage-for Aspen. Business-Center West'. The vote was un- animously in favor. Motion carried. .. t The Planning Commission discusSed agenda'items to.be considered for June'23rd meeting. They are: 1. 2. Public hearing.on~Exteri~or Sto~age Three applications from Steven Coddon for LOt'Size and Street Front· Variances . Street VaCation of portion-of.Three points BOulevard Subdivision-of land (5930-5932 Beachwood Road) for Carl Hanson Ned p°dany's garage. ADJOURNMENT Meyer moved and Reese seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 P.M, in-favor, so meeting was adjourned. All Elizabeth Jansen, Chair Attest: