Loading...
86-08-26 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGE]~DA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAX, AUGUST 26, 1986 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Approve Minutes of the August 12, 1986, Regular Meeting Pg. 1649-1656 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills Pg. 1657' 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #86-530: Proposed Vacation of Certain Utility & Drainage Easements on Lots 5 & 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores Pg. 1658-1661 4. SASE ~86-5~1 & 5q2: Steven Coddon, Three Points Blvd., Lots 5, 6, & 7, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID #13-117-24 22 0052/0051/0050 REQUEST: Front Yard Setback Variance & Subdivision 5. CASE ~86-507 & 508: Resolution to Approve the Final Plat of Seton Place, PID #24-117-24 14 0037/0038/0039/0013, Lots 7, 8 & 9, Block 29, and Part of Lot 6, Block 18, Seton 6. Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider the Subdivision of Land Located at 46XX Lakeside Lane, PID #18-117-23 32 0015 and 0016. SUGGESTED DATE: September 30, 1986 7. CASE #85-~: D.M. Frankie, 1599 Gull Lane, Lots 11 & 12, Block 1, Woodland Point, PID #13-117- 24 12 0107 REQUEST: Variance to Recognize an Existing Nonconforming Setback 8. C~SE ~86-55~: Nancy O'Brian, 4568 Denbigh Road, Lots 9 & 10, Block 2, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 24 0011 REQUEST: Setback Variance for Detached Garage 9. CASE ~86-5R~: Michael Beatty, 4908 Edgewater Dr., Lot 13, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood, PID #13-117-24 41 0011 REQUEST: Setback Variance for Detached Accessory Building Pg. 1662-1674 Pg. 1675-1678 Pg. 1679 Pg. 1680-1687 Pg. 1688-1700 Pg. 1701-1708 Page 1047 10. ~ASE ~86-SR8: Jack Cook, 4452 Denbigh Road, Lot 2, Block 1, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 24 0002 REQUEST: Sideyard Setback and Front Yard Setback Pg. 1709-1717 Variances 11. EASE #86-5~q: Leon Stender, 5032 Crestview Rd., Lot 6, Block 19, Shadywood Point, PID #13-117- 24 12 0092 REQUEST: Recognize Existing Undersized Lot & Noncon- forming Structure, Sideyard Setback pg. 1718-1727 CASE ~'~._ ~0~ A~rnold Endresen, 4958~~1re Blvd, 12. ~~-~-dk~18, Seton Addition · ~Vp~Wychwood Addition REQUEST· Setb~ Property Lines ~'6-r~w Construction 13. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present 14. Approval of Change Order No. 4 for Lynwood Blvd. & · Pg. 1739-1740 Commerce Place 15. Final Payment Request - Beachwood Pond Project - pg. 1741-1745 $1107.29 15. Proposed Extension of Recycling Contract Pg. 1746-1750 17. Resolution Determining the Need to Construct a New Public Works Facility and to Issue General Obligation Bonds to Pay for the Same. and Calling an Election Pg. 1751-1759. 18. Recommendation from Cable T.V. Advisory Committee Re: Use of Legal Counsel for Cable Television Issues Pg. 1760 19. Request for Licenses for Mound Police Reserves Dance - September 12, 1986 - Public Dance Permit, waive fee Charitable Beer License Set-Up License, waive fee Pg. 1761 20. Application for Taxicab License - Bill Alexander, pg. 1762-1768 GRA*CABS 21. Discussion: Lions Club - Sports Complex, Mayor Polston Pg. 1769-1779 22. Payment of Bills 23. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Contel Issue 24. iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. July 1986 Financial Report as Prepared by John Norman, Finance Director pg. 1780-1782 Page 1048 B. Pg. 1783-1789 C® Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting - August 11, 1986 Minutes of Cable T. V. Advisory Committee Meeting - July 24, 1986 Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes - August 11, 1986 Pg. 1790-1791 Pg. 1792-1793 Press Release re: Rex's Participation in U.S.P.C.A. Regional Field Trials and Upcoming National Field Trials in Baton Rouge, LA. Pg. 1794 Page 1048A 119 August 12, 1986 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 12, 1986 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 12, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Als~ present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jan Bertrand, and the following interested citizens: Douglas Eaton, Bernice and Harry Putt, Dorothy Rauschendorfer, Geri Frey, Dotty O'Brien, Stephen Burke, Cheryl Grand, Mike Mueller, Richard Smith, Thomas Bergquist. Mayor Polston opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Minutes were presented for consideration. MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Paulsen to approve the Minutes of the July 22, 1986, Regular Council Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC H£ARING: AMENDMENT THE ZONING CODE, RECREATION EOUIP= MENT DEFINITION & MODIFY EXTERIOR STORAGE PRO- VISIONS (SECTION 2~.?02) The Building Official explained that the definition for Recreation Equipment only allows, "...unoccupied boats, and trailers not exceeding twenty feet in length...,, which she and the Planning Commission feel is too restrictive. Also under Section 23.702, "Boats and unoccupied trailers are permissible if stored in the rear yard more than ten (10) feet from the property line," is also felt to be too 'restrictive considering a number of lots in Mound front on three streets, are lakeshore or have other unusual terrain. This amendment would allow storage in front yards excluding the front yard setback area. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council regarding this ordinance amendment. No one re.sponded. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Smith stated he would like to see driveways- included as a permissible area for storage of recreation equipment even if the area of storage is within the front yard 120 August 12, 1986 setback. The City Attorney pointed out that this amendment~ould ma~ this/ section much less restrictive than the current ordi~ewand~ would also allow people another option if ~hey had unusual/ circumstanoes which would be to apply for ~ Con~ional Us~ Permit for exterior storage. There was discussion on the high cost of ~pplying~or Conditional Use Permit for exterior storage. Ma~on and Councilmember Jessen stated they would like to see a lesser fee in this case but that they did not like the idea of people storing items at the end of their driveway which could cause a safety hazard within the front yard setback. Mayor Polston stated that he would like to see language in ~2 which now reads "Stored equipment shall be regisered to the owner or.renter of the property"; ~ to include leased equipment. The City Attorney suggested adding, "or shall be leased or rented to the owner or renter of the property". The Council agreed. Polston moved and Jessen seconded the following: ORDINANCE $488 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY CODE, SECTION 23.301 (92) DEFINITION OF RECREATION EQUIPMENT AND SECTION 23.702 RELATING TO EXTERIOR STORAGE MOTION made by Smith to amend the above adding to $1, "a driveway shall not be a prohibited area". The motion died for lack of a second. The vote was 4 in favor with smith voting nay. Motion carried. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION ON LOTS ~ & 6~ BLOCK 4~ REPLAT OF HARRISON MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Paulsen to set August 26, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider a proposed easement vacation on Lots 5 & 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE t507 & ~08: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR SETON PLACE~ RICHARD SMITH~ PID #24-117-24 14 O0~7/OOR8/OO~q/OO1R Tom Bergquist and Richard Smith were present. Mr. Bergquist stated that he feels all items required when preliminary approval was given have been done. The City Engineer stated he has some problems with the utilities because of the MWCC lift station. The sanitary sewer and water 121 August 12, 1986 plan which was submitted before the meeting will take c.are of that, but the storm sewer that runs under Wilshire Blvd. and drains into the ditch in front of the lots will need to be revamped. He stated he has checked with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and they are agreeable to a plan that would extend the storm sewer pipe into the ditch to the west edge of the driveway on Lots 1 and 2 and then fill in that ditch. Paulsen moved and Polston seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-92 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF SETON PLACEPID 92q-117-2q lq 0037/0038/ 0039/0013, LOTS 7, 8, & 9, BLOCK 29, AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 18, SETON, P.C. CASE ~86-507 & 508 INCLUDING THE CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE STORM SEWER AND DRAINAGE DITCH The developers voiced disagreement with the storm sewer and drainage ditch plan. Councilmember Peterson suggested delaying action on the item until further study can be done on the drainage ditch issue. Councilmember Paulsen withdrew his motion. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Smith to delay action on this item until the next meeting in order to further study the drainage ditch/storm sewer issue. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE 486-~28: MUELLER/LANSlNG PROPERTIES. 22qO/22~2/22qu/22q6 COMMERCE BLVD.. ADDITIONAL SIGN VARIANCE REOUEST Mr. Mike Mueller was present and explained that he now has a prospective tenant who would like to have 2 businesses in one area and therefore would like two signs. He stated they are allowed 261 square feet of sign and with the extra sign would still only be using 216 square feet. There would be 5 signs across the roof on the west sign of the building and 1 on the north side. Smith moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-92 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 86-86 TO ALLOW A SIXTH ROOF SIGN FOR MUELLER/- LANSING PROPERTIES, 22~0/2241/22~4/2246 COMMERCE BLVD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PRESENTATION BY WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER Ms. Bernice Putt was present representing the Westonka Senior 122 August 12, 1986 Center. She introduced the group that was with her. She then explained the activities and participation in the Center in detail. The Council complimented the Seniors on having such a wonderful organization. Ms. Putt then presented the City Council with a Certificate of Recognition for the City of Mound for all the help and funding the City has given in the past. FINAL PAYMENT REOUEST: PORT HARRISON TOWNHOMES. VOLK TRUCKING AND EXCAVATING~ $S12.12 MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Smith to approve the final payment request of Yolk Trucking & Excavating in the amount of $512.12 for~Port Harrison Townhomes. The vote unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-93 RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS SEPTEMBER 9, 1986 AND NOVEMBER '~, 1986 The vote was unanimously in favor, Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS'PRESENT The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who wished to make a comment or suggestion to the City Council. DOUG EATON, 2611 Setter Circle, stated he was here to complain about a car that was towed out of his yard today as authorized by the Mound Police Dept. for being a derelict auto. He complained about the procedure followed in notification and finally the towing. The Mayor explained why this derelict auto ordinance is needed. The Mayor stated that Mr. Eaton's story and the report from 'the Officer did not coincide. He and Councilmember Smith suggested that the City Manager look into this situation and get back to Mr. Eaton. STEPHEN BURKE, 1741 Blue Bird Lane, stated that he is representing a number of people in the Dreamwood Addition of Three Points who would like to request that the Council allocate more money in next year's budget for rip-rapping the 123 August 12, 1986 Commons shoreline to keep it from eroding away. The .letter stated that if the City would supply the materials, the residents would supply the labor. Councilmember Jessen, Council Representative to the Park Commission, stated that they are very concerned about shoreline erosion, and that is why $10.00 of each dock permit fee is earmarked for Commons Maintenance. The Council agreed to keep this in mind when the proposed 1987 budget is presented. RESCHEDULE SEPTEMBER COUNCIL MEETINGS DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Paulsen to make September 16 and September 30 the regular City Council meeting dates in September due to the Primary Election which falls on September 9, 1986. The vote was uuanimously in favor. Motion carried. CABLE T.V. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Polston moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-9~ RESOLUTION APPOINTING LINDA PAULSEN TO THE CABLE T.V. COMMITTEE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. LICENSE RENEWAL FOR MOUND LANES - ON-SALE BEER MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by. Smith to authorize the renewal of an On-Sale Beer License to Mound Lanes. License expires June 30, 1987. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CHANGE ORDER iq~ LYNWOOD BLVD. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 986-95 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER ~3, LYNNOOD BLVD. PROJECT, MSAP lq5-104-03, FOR PREFERRED PAVING IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,700.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT REOUEST ~27 LYNWOOD BLVD. & TUXEDO BLVD. PROJECT MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Paulsen to authorize the' payment of Payment Request ~2, from Preferred Paving, for the Lynwood Blvd. & Tuxedo Blvd. Project (MSAP 1~5-104-05 & 145- 101-05), in the amount of $50,4?9.39. The vote was 124 August 12, 1986 unanimously in favor. Motion carried. FINAL PAYMENT REOUEST~ lq86 SEAL COAT PROJECT MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to authorize payment of the final payment request from Allied Blacktop, for the 1986 Seal Coating Project, in the amount of $32,892.82. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11.80 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO INSURANCE REOUIREMENTS FOR INTOXICATING. NONINTOXICATING LIOUOR AND WINE The City Attorney presented the ordinance amendment to Section 11.80 of the City Code. He suggested that (a) read as follows: "(a) A certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing that the minimum coverage for dram shop liability shall be a combined single limit and an aggregate policy of not less than $300,000 per policy year." The Council agreed to the insertion. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following: ORDINANCE ~489 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.80, SUBD. (a) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO INSURANCE R EQ U I R E M E N T $ F 0 R I N TO X I CAT IN G, NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR AND WINE LICENSES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to authorize the payment of bills as listed on the pre-list, in the amount of $241,333.O4, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ce Department Heads July 1986 Monthly Reports. Letter dated July 14, 1986, and July 25, 1986, from the Minnesota DNR - RE: City of Mound Propo'sal for Fishing Pier Funding. Memo from Mark Andrew, Hennepin County Board of Commissioners - RE: Mandatory Recycling Ordinance Public Hearing. 125 August 12, 1986 D. Ind. School Dist. #277 - Minutes - July 14, 1986. Ge Cable T. V. Advisory Committee Minutes of June 5, 1986. Letters dated July 29, 1986, from Mr. Greg Fall complimenting Damon H.ardina and Officer Gsry Lotton for assistsnee st a recent bicycle accident. Letter dated July 25, 1986, from City of Medina inviting Mayor, Council and Staff to the League of Minnesota Cities Regional Meeting scheduled for September 17, 1986. Please let me know if you are interested in attending. He Letter of Recognition to Officer John Ewald - Wolner Field Burglary. ANNOUNCEMENT Councilmember Paulsen and Councilmember Peterson stated that they have enjoyed serving on the City Council, but would like to announce that they will not be seeking re-election to the City Council. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Peterson to adjourn at 8:~5 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk BILLS AUGUST 12, 1~86 Batch 864073 Batch 864074 ' Computer Run dated 8/6/86 Computer Run dated 8/8/86 61,288.29 '128,002.22 Holy Cross Lutheran Church Len Harre11 Judy Nlcuum Volk Trucking Northstde Const Philip Haugen o~ Preferred Paving Gayle Burns Chanhassen Fire Oept Chairs 150.00 .Advance 450.00 Deposit Refund 50.00 Final-POrt Harr 521.12 Board up 5516 Lyn 180.00 How-~oodcrest 40.00 Final~Lyn-Tux 50,479.39 Hileage 12.02 School Registr. 160.00 52,0q2.$3' TOTAL BILLS 241,333.O4 Del?nquent water an~ sewer 8-20-66 11 001 '1772 81 Rodney wilkens ll 016-~70-1~51 Mer!!n Woytc~e ,1'1 028 1584 02 Nina P.~rsons 'll '028 1616 02' Wm. Bull ' $136.83 __141,5o-- 107.78 92.27 1 23%--2-2- ..... -P~rid .... 186.51 5139 Woodland .............. t4+9~86- .... Paid--~ ~ 1772 Lafayette Ln. Paid - 1584 Finch Lane 1616 Finch Lane Rd. 11 067 1959 21 Creigh'~hompson 11 085 ~987 21 ~homas. Hawley ~ ~. 136 6216 53 Christine Dully ~ .202 221Z::82. Mi.ke J. ohnson ] 211' 2136 O1 Glen Reger 120.58 1959 Shorewood 110.93 4987 Three Pts. Lane Blvd. '214,16 5984 Sunset Rd. 87,44 . 6216. Birch Lane '75.08 2212 Fern Lane 103.'81 2136 Overland Rd. $2313.~7 $1235.39 Delinquent water and sewer ·8-20-86 11 001 1772 81 11 016 1701 51 11 028 1584 02 11 028 1616 02 11 055 5051 91 11 055 5139 21 11 067 1904 81 11 067 1942 81 11 067 1959 21 11 085 4987 21 11 100 2085 41 11 103 5984 91 11 112 5917 O1 11 136 6216 53 11 199 2149 O1 11 202 2212 82 11 211 2136 01 11 220 2180 91 $136.83 141.50 107.78 92.27 123.22 186.51 149.86 123.35 120.58 11o.93 156.29 214.16 118~49 87.44 172.39 7~.08 103.~81 92.98 $2313.47 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO; 86-530 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION ON LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a meeting will be held at the City Ha)), 534) Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesda~ the 26thday of August, 1986, to consider the vacation of an utility and drainage easement located over the westerly 5 feet of Lot 5 and the easterly 5 feet of Lot 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. (5331-534l Three Points Boulevard property) Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS l' LAND SURVEYORS ,".' PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth. Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Ouly 28, 15)86 Ms. Oan Bertrand .Pianning and Zoning City Of Mound 534I M~ywood Road. Mound, MN 55364 SUBOECT: Easement Vacation Lots 5 & 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores MKA #211~ Dear Oan: As requested, we have reviewed the request to vaca~Lthe existing utiiity and drainage easements iocated over the westeriy 5 feet of Lot 5 and the easteriy 5 feet of Lot 6. These easements were originaIiy intended to carry the drainage from Three Points Bouievard to the Lagoon south of these Iots. When Three Points Bouievard was improved in i98i, a storm sewer system was instaiied with an outiet into the bay on the north side of the road, which eliminated the need for these easements. We see no reason for the City to retain these easements, and therefore recommend they could be vacated. At the same time, we would recommend that the City require the Owner to dedicate 5 foot drainage easements along the proposed new side lot lines of the two parcels being created from Lots 5, 6, and 7. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC:jmj APPLICATION FOR ~ VACATION CITY OF MOUND ~l/I 3/~ CASE NO. /~- - FEE S150.00 DATE FI LED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY APPLICANT: PID # LOT L~ ~/L ~ BLOCK f SUBDIVISION ~$~I~~TO BE VACATED ~/ U T~ ~ ~'~6~ ~$~a~'T Applicant's Interest in Property SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT Residents and owners of property abutting the street to be vacated: (Please attach list. Certified mailing list can be obtained from Hennepin County ~y calling 348-3271) Recommended by Utilities: NSP ; Minnegasco ; Continental Telephone Recommended by City: Public Works Fire Chief ; Engineer ; Police .ChiefI; Cable Systems Other Departments Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action Resolution No. Date PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-530 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION VACA[ING CERTAIN UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER, UNDER. AND THROUGH LOT 5 AND 6, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES P & Z Case No. 86-530 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way or any part thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has claimed a drainage and utility easement over the following described land: ' The Westerly 5 feet of Lot 5, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores law; and The easterly 5 feet of ~ot 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores WHEREAS, e public hearing was held on August 26, 1986 as required by WHEREAS, it has been determined that good area planping requires that these easements be vacated and that a portion be re-dedicated for drainage and utility purposes and that it would be in the public interest to do so. NOW, THEREFORE,.BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby vacates: The drainage and utility easement located over the westerly 5 feet of Lot 5 and theeasterly 5 feet of Lot 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, upon the condition that the applicant, Mr. Steven Coddon, re- dedicate to the City of Mound, new drainage and utillty easements along the proposed newly subdivided lot lines of the two parcels shown on Exhibit A being created from Lot 5, 6.and 7, Block 4, Replat of Harri- son Shores. The City Engineer is to approve the described.re-dedicated drainage and utility easements, the owner, Mr. Coddon, will then submit a registered copy of the newly recorded drainage and utility easements to the City offices. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings and shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder and/or Registrar of Titles as set forth in M. S. A. 412.851. CASE NO. 86-53! 86-532 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Bertrand, Building Official ~ FROM: Jan Planning Commission Agenda of August ]], ]986. CASE NO. 86-531 and 86-532 APPLICANT: Steven Coddon LOCATION: 5361-5341+ Three Points Boulevard LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores; PID Numbers 13-117-24 22 O052/OO51/O050 SUBJECT: Front Yard Setback Variance and Subdivision EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Fami.ly Residential PROPOSAL: The applicant has flled for a front yard variance on two separate parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B, for consecutive lots along Three Points Boulevard. For convenience of the Planning Commission, the two parcels will be reviewed within this report with the subdivision request~ the entire area will be reviewed in a comprehensive manner. Parcel A being requested to add 12 feet from Lot 6 to Lot 7 as one parcel with the lot area above the ordinary high water 929.4 contour is 10,O73 square feet. Parcel B is Lot 5 and 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof except the westerly 12 feet which will be added to Lot 7. Parcel B above the 929.4 contour line will have 15,O90 square feet. Considera- tion of the setback variance requires an analysis of hardship. In order for a variance to be granted, the applicant must meet the criteria for granting a vari- ance which is contained in Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code. In re- viewing th~ criteria, the requested lot setback variance for Parcels A and B seems to be reasonable. The City Engineer has a recommendation for the vacation of drainage easements being requested between Lots 5 and 6. Staff recommends approval of the requested subdivision and vacation and front yard setback variance for Parcels A and B as it meets the criteria for granting variances contained in the Mound Zoning Code and the lot size is in conformance with Section 22 of the Mound Code with several conditions: l. Utility and drainage easement to be rededicated; shall meet the City Engineer's requirements. No filling of materials shall be.allowed below the elevation of 931.5 MGVD without the proper Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits or any other State Agencies applicable. 3. The side yard setbacks and lakeshore setbacks shall conform to the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. The minimum floor elevation of the habitable space for the dwelling shall be 933.5 or above the minimum flood plain elevation. 5. New curb cuts will be required from Three Points Boulevard right-of-way. CASE NO. 86-531 & CASE NO. 86-532 Page 2 6. Utility for sewer and water shall be brought to the property line from Three Points Boulevard as a condition for subdivision. 7. Submit soil reports for the newly.created parcels. The neighbors, have been notified of the requested easement vacation. 3B/ms CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING S ZONING COHHISSION (Please type the following information) Case No. ~"~ :' Fee Paid ~. ~ Date Fi led 7 1. Street Address of Property 2. Legal DesCription of Property: Addition T 3. Owner's .amp Address ~ ~ ~ Lot ~_~ 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No, Address 5. Type of Request: ~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment ~/~ ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit L /(~)-. . --_/ ( )~/etland Permit ( ) P.U.D. a~Other *If other, specify: ~., Present Zoning District /~- 7. Existing Use(s) of Property Se Has an application ever been made for zoning, variarLce, or conditional use permit or .other zoning procedure for this property? /~/~_~ If so, list date(s) of list date(si'of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that a11 of the above statements and tee 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 Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such Signature of Applicant. Dar Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. 4~82 Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) 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 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 the zone district in which it is located? Yes 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 i't is located? Yes ( ) No ( ) If '~no'~, specify each non-conforming use: //~///~ D. Which unique physical characteristlc~ of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) 5ol1 (_) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface (~ Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Ee 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 the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~ If yes, explain: Go Are the conditions of hardship for which'you request a ~ance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~) Ko ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly' affected? ~ H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulatlons that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written expla~atlon. A~tac~ additlonal I. Will granting of the variance be materlally detrlmental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1986 Items 2 & 3 Case No. 86-530 Public Hearing on proposed easement vacation located over the westerly.$ feet of Lot 5 and the easterly 5 feet of Lot 6, Block q, Replat of Harrison Shores.. Case No. 86-531 & Case No. 86~532 Front yard. setback variance and subdivision of land; Lots 5~ 6 and 7, Block q~ Replat of Harrison Shbres Steven Codd~n was present. The Chary opened the.public hearing.. The Bullding Offlclal reviewed the easement vacation along with applicant[s request for. lO foot front yard set- back variance on'Lots 5, 6 and 7 and subdlvlsion of Lot 6, .12 feet of whl~h Is to go with Lot 7'and the r~ma.lnder'to go with Lot 5. She stated that the City Engineer 'did the' review on t.he vacation portion.and as this easement was not used (originally'It ~as prOPosed, that' storm sewer be put In there, but none was put In and there.was no need as storm sewer was dlrect&d to north side of ~hree Poln[s'Boulevar~);.he.cou1'd see no problem with vacation of it. He Is. recommending Cl. ty requlre.Coddon..to dedicate $ foot dralhage easements along the.~roposed new side lot' lines, to'the.two.parcels being created from Lots $, 6 and 7. She further stated that the slze of the proposed new parcels, A and .B, ~ould be. 10.,073 .square. feet an~ 15,0~0 Square. feet of' lot area. above the ordinary high .water elevation of ~2~.q. The Setback variance requested.. -- is 20'feet to 'the'Three. Points Boulevard property line s!mll.ar, to the prevl- · ously gF~nted variance on Lot'8 because of the shallowness of theseplatted lots. Also.50 foot .Is the required setback from the water Ilne. She i~ re- commending approval with several conditions. ~ommlssioner ~off ~lchael arr. lved at 8 P.H. Chair-asked If. anyone' present' had any-'questlons or con~nents.' Kenneth E. Patz, 1716 Bay~ood Lane., questloned clar'iflcatlon of Issues', He has no' objection to vacation of 'drainage'easement and.commented his concern. Is that the. neighbor- hood does n6t have substandard housing in terms of size of lots, etc. The Commission discussed front yard setback; the bul!ding llne~ould be approxi- mately 33 feet+ to'curb, line.; LOts 8 and q have p~eviously'been granted 10 foot front yard varTances.' The rlght"of-way along Three Points Boulevard is about 13 feet pl'us the sldewalk. The hardship is the shallowness of the lots caused by the'erosion of lakeshore.sin¢e they were platted. There were no other comments; the Chair closed the public hearing. Case No. 86-530 Stev~ Sml't~ moved and Thal seconded a motion tO recommend approval with staff recommendation the'proposed utility and drainage ease- ment vacat, ion (as shown In ,Paragraph 2 of John Cameron's letter of 7-28-86). The vote was unanimously in favor. Case No. 86-532 Thai moved and Hichael seconded a motion to approve the sub- division of land per the staff recommendation. The vote was unanimously in f~vor. Case No. 86-531 Ken Smi.th moved and Steve Smith seconded a motion to approve the staff recommendation for the front yard setback variance on the newly subdivided lots because of the configuration of the lots. The vote was unanimously in favoP. The above items including public hearing on the vacation will be on the City C~,,~I a~nda Fnr Auau~t 2~. lqS~. 106 July 8, 1986 Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the ~'ollowing resolution: RESOLUTION 986-81 RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN STREET EASEMENT AND RETAINING FOR THE CITY A UTILITY EASEMENT OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THAT PART OF THE DESCRIBED VACATED JENNINGS ROAD (NAVAJO ROAD) The City Attorney stated that Mr. Fields should tell Mr. Zubert that in order to have the vacated portion added to the property descriptions of Lots 13, 14 & 15, he would probabl~ have to go for a Proceedings Subsequent. This will also clean up his titles to the properties. ~ote'-waS-Unani-----mou-s-'-'" ---- -- -"~'- in favor. Motion carried. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE The City Planner noted that Mr. Coddon has asked that Case #'s 86-519 and 520 be withdrawn as he is in the process of acquiring additional land adjacent to the parcels. The Planner stated that the Staff recommendation is to approve the lot size variance on Lot 8 because it falls within 90 percent of the 'required lot area. The lot has 9,640 square feet and 10,000 square feet is required. The Staff also recommended approval of the front yard setbac~ variance because it meets the hardship criteria. The Planning Commission recommended denial because they would like to see the entire plan if Mr. Coddon acquires Lot 5 to go along with Lots 6, 7, and 8. Polston moved.and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #86-82 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LOT SIZE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOT 8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-24 22 0046, PLANNING COMMISSON CASE 986-518 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MODIFICATION OF THE ZONING CODE TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM HEIGHT & WIDTH REGULATIONS'FOR HOUSING The City Planner stated that this proposal has been modified since the original presentation so that the Height minimum was lowered from 15 feet to 12 feet. This will not infringe on manufactured or stick built housing. He further reported that of the random samplings of other Zoning Codes, several do have these kind of provisions. I )~$ RESOLUTION NO. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-531 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE, FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOTS' 5, 6 AND 7, BLOCK ~, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES PID NO. 13-117-24 22 0050/0051/o052 (53xx Three Points Boulevard) P $ Z Case No. 86-531 WHEREAS, Mr. Steven Coddon, as owner of the property described as Lots 5, 6.and 7, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID # 13-117-24 22 0050/ 0051/0052, has applied for'front Yard.setback variance'to allow constructi6n of a new dwelling; and WHEREAS, Exhibit A has also been submitted to indicate the requested' setback of plus 50 feet to lakeshore, plUs 10 feet to side.yard and 20 feet to north (Three Points Boulevard) setback; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires 30 foot to the north front yard Set- back abutting street right-of-ways in the R-1 Single Family Resident'ia1 District and a 10 foot side yard and a 50 foot lakeshore setbaCk;' and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the.request and does recOmmend approval of .the setback variance'due to shallowness of the lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE tT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound," Minnesota,'does hereby approve the 10 foot front yard setback variance shownon Exhibit A for Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 4, Replat. of Harrison Shores, PID No. 13-117- 24 22 0050/0051/0052, upon the condition of the subdivision under Case No. 86-532. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER Location and ~omplet.e le'~al description of property to be divided: LAND co TS ~ 6, ¢-7 FEE $ OF ZONING PLAT PARCEL ADDRESS Applicant's interest in the property: APPLICANT must be 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= New Lot No. From Reason: · A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: Square feet TO Square feet At 1 ' supp.o, rting 'documents,"such as sketch plans, surveys, attachYnents, etc. submltte'd'in'8½" X l l" siz'e'"and/or lb, cop.ies, p'lus on~.8½'"'X' l l" copy. (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) To be divided as follows: .~, ta,q¢.Lor 6 ~o~ 7'0 ~-o.? 7 re?6 lY. XC~.rT co',i?.' To Be R-I Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON .SHORES, according- to the recorded plat thereof. Lot 7, and the westerly 12.00 feet of Lot 6, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the west line of said Lot 6; all in Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, according to the recorded plat thereof. Lots ~ and 6, Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, according to the recorded plat thereof, EXCEPT the westerly [2,00 feet of. said Lot § as measured at a right angle to and parallel with' th~ west Ii'ne of said Lot 6. DEMARS- GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 Haricot L,nt No. Plymoutt~ MN 55441 Phone: (612) 559-0908 Il ~ereby ce,t,~v tn~', :h,S ,~ ~ tr~e ~ncl correct rep,esente~.,o- of ~ ~u,ve~ the ~unO6r:es of the a~ve descr,~d [and and of the location of all ,f any. t~ereon, and ail v~s~ble encroachments, . ,f any, from Or On Sa~ iend F,le No I ": 30' ! m PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND TO APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOTS 5, 6 AND 7, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF (53XX Three Points Boulevard) P & Z Case No. 86-532 WHEREAS, an app.lica'nt to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22..00 of.the City Code has been fi!ed with the City of Mound by the appliCant, Steven Coddon; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are speci.al circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance.wou]d deprive the applicant of the reasonable us~ of his .land; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and. enjoyment of a substantial property right;- and'that granting the waiver would not be detrimenta] to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW,.'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The. request of the CitY of Mound for a waiver f'rom the provisions ' o( Section 22.00of ~he City Code and.the request to subdivide property of less than five acres,, described as follows: Lots. 5, 6'and 7, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores according to the recorded plat thereof PIDNumbers 13-117-24.22 0050/0051/0052 A. It is hereby granted t° permit the subdivision in the following manner, as per Exhibit A: Parcel A: Lot 7 and the westerly 12 feet of' Lot 6, as measured at a right angle to and parallel .with 'the west line of' said Lot 6; all in Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, according to the re-. corded plat thereof with a lot area equal to 10,073 square feet above 929.4 NGVD contour line of Lake Minnetonka Parcel B: Lots 5 and 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof EXCEPT the westerly 12.00 feet of said Lot 6 as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the west line of said Lot 6 with a lot area of 15,090. square feet above the 929~NGVD contour tine of Lake Minnetonka Be Upon the further following conditions: 1. Utility and drainage easements are to be rededicated along the new lot lines and shall meet the City Engineer's requirements. 2. No fill of materials shall be allowed below the elevation of 931.5 NGVD without the proper Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits or any other State agency applicable. 3. The side yard setbacks and shoreline setbacks shall conform to th~ City Zoning Codes. 4. Minimum floor elevation of the habitable space for the dwelling shall be 933.5 or above to meet minimum flood plain requirements. PROPOSED. RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-532 Pg. 2 5. New curb cuts will be required from Three Points Boulevard right-of-way. 6. Utilities for sewer and.water shall be brought to the property line'from Three Points Boulevard as a ~ondition for subdivision. 7. Submit soil reports for the newly created parcels. C. 'It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with the adjacent properties. D~ The City Clerk .is authorized to deliver a certfied copy of this ~resolution to'the applicant for filing in the. office of .the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin-County to show =compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. E. This lot subd[~islon is to be filed and recorded within 1'80 days of the adoption date.of this resolution. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS m LAND SURVEYORS I PLANNERS August 20, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Honorable Mayor and Hembers of the City Council City of Mound 5~41 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Seton Place Finai Piat Approvai Case #86-507 & 508 MKA #7890 Dear Hayor and Council Members: As directed by the Council at their last meeting on August 12, 1986, we have completed addition research on our request that a portion of the open ditch be replaced with storm sewer. There are 5 or 6 trees growing out of the northerly bank of the portion of ditch under question. Two or three of these would probably be lost with the storm sewer installation, but it appears the rest could be saved. One of the trees in danger of going needs to be severly trimed, since at the present time a large limb is laying on the overhead telephone line. The cattails mentioned by the Watershed District as a requirement to save are not even in this portion of the ditch, but located westerly of the proposed driveway to Lot 1. We have also discussed the proposed storm sewer in lieu of an open ditch with Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County and Geno Hoff of Public Works and they both think it is a good idea. The storm sewer would be much easier to maintain then an open ditch and driveway culvert since the City has a regular maintenance schedule for cleaning structures. Since this property has never been assessed for any street construction, as most Mound properties have, we do not believe it out of line requiring this small improvement to eliminate an eye sore from which otherwise will be a presentable addition to the City. Enclosed is a copy of a portion of the overall grading plan which shows the storm sewer we are proposing be required. If anyone should have any questions, I will be present at the Council meeting on Tuesday, August 26, 1986. Very truly yours, McCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron $C:tdv Enclosure cc: Geno Hoff, Public Works ?3' NG CON 2 ~'[. _J PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE ..N0 86-507-508 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF SETON PLACE PID# 24-117-24 14 0037/0038/0039/0013, LOTS 7,8, & 9, BLOCK 29, AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 18, SETON PLANNING COMMISSION CASE #86-507 AND 508 W/4EREAS, the £1nal plat o£ Seton Place has been submitted in the manner required from platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 22.00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 13, 1986, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 22.00, Chapter 22, of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the preliminary plat and final plat requirements for Seton Place subdivision located on property described as follows: Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 29, and Part of Lot 6, Block 18, Seton Addition also known as PID# 24-117-24 14 0037/0038/0039/0013 WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota; A. Plat approval is granted for Seton Place zequested by RichardM. Smith upon compliance withthe following requirements: 1. As per final plat, Exhibit "A" . 2. Completion of the requirements and conditions listed in Resolution 86-53. Be The Developer is to sign a Development Contract and furnish to the City a performance bond in the amount of $23,000.00 to cover grading and utility construction as per plans approved by the City Engineer. 4. Approval is to be submitted from all agencies requiring review, such as MCWD, MWCC, Minnesota Health Department, Hennepin County, etc. 5. Approval of all final grading and utility plans by the City Engineer. Submit additional escrow funds of $1,000.00 to defray city costs for Engineering, Legal, and Planning fees and any additional amounts that may be charged against said account under City Ordinance Section 22.40. 7. Approval of the land title by the City Attorney. 8. Submit Soil Test Reports as required and approved by the City Engineer. ® Park dedication in the amount of the fee which is applicable at the time of building permit issuance, but in no case less than $300.00 per dwelling unit. PROPOSED RESOLUTION (CONTINUED) CASE NO. 86:507 & 5O8 10. Any deficient sewer unit charges will be paid in the amount of $292. for each deficient sewer unit upon issuance of the building permits. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the above named owner'and subdivider after completion of the requirements for his.use as required by M.S.A. 462.358. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the Certificate of Approval on behalf of the City Counc11 upon compliance with the foregoing resolution. This final plat shall be Filed and recorded'within 60 days of the date of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager in accordance with Section 22.00 of the City Code'and shall be recorded-within 180 days of the adoption date of this Resolution with one copy being filed with the City of Hound. CITY OF MOUND Hound, ~lnne$ota CASE NO. 86-541 86-542 NOTICE OF PUBLIC..HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a Public hearing at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, 'Minnesota, at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, the 3Otb day oflSeptember, 1986, to consider the subdivision of land located a.t. 46XX Lakes.ide Lane,'PID Numbers 18-117-23 32 OO16 and 18-117-23 32 O015 described.as: Lots 1 to 6, inclusive, including vacated Ivy Lane, Block 10 and Lot 3, Block 9, all in Shadywood Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk' CASE N0.85-443 Board of Appeal~ Case #85-443 Location:· 1599 Gull Lane Legal Disc.:Lots 11 & 12, Blk. 1, Woodland Point Request: variance to recognize an existing non-conforming setback Zoning District: R-2 Applicant D.M. Frankie 1599 Gull Lane Mound, MN. Phone: 472-1988 The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing building to be expanded to allow the second floor to have a 26'6" by 10'6" raised roof area which will be used for two bedrooms. The raised area will--correct some of the roofline problems in allowing better roof run-off,and new stairway. The applicant has only submitting a hand drawn si~a",.~whick indicated a 30 foot and a 12 foot± front yard setback. The R-2 zoning district requires 20 foot front yard setbacks on corner lot to.both streets. (Gull Lane and Woodland Avenue) The structure is quite close to a retaining wall from Woodland Road and I would quess ± 20 feet to Gull Lane. The raised roof area is opposite from the Woodland Road, off the back of the dwelling~ · Recommendation: Staff recommends that the variance to raise the north side of the structure to allow a 26'6" by 10'6" addition to the habitable area of the home be granted upon the condition that a registered land survey be submitted showing the existing structure 12 feet from the south property line and 20 foot minimum to the east property line. The abut'ting neighbors have been notified. This request will be submitted to the City Council on August 26, ]986. PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1986 Case No. 85-Z~/43 · Variance to recognize.an existing nonconforming setback at 1599 Gull LaneS. Lots 11 and )2, Block: 1, ~/oodland Point Don Frankie was present. The Building Official reviewed the request for a variance to allow the exiSting bullding to be expanded to allow the second floor to have a 26'6" by I0~6'' raised roof area which will be used for two bedrooms. 5he stated applicant has had some property markers located because'of the diseased elm. tree In his yard and has submitted a hand drawn site plan indicating house is 30 feet to the east property tlne and about 12. feet to Woodland Road. The required street front set~ backs are'20 feet which makes structure nonconforming. The lot size is within the allowable square footage'. He 'is requesting to do structural modifications to the home and raise'the northerly portion of the roof 26'6" by'lO'6" to correct some roofllne problems and allow better roof.run-off and also'construct a new stairway. She stated this expanslon' does not affect present setbacks and recom- mends that we recognize existing nonconformancy and approve.the.variance. Frankie stated the two dormers need rebuilding and he has choice of suffering with the valleys, flashing, etc. or raising it up and making It livable for future. Heyer moved and Steve Smith seconded a motion to approve the staff recommenda- ( tion, recognlzi.ng the nonconforming structure, to allow raising roof for 26!6" / by 10'6" addition upon the condition that a registered land survey be..submitted showing location of structure. Frankie objected to having to submit the survey because of the cost. Commis- sion felt it should be required. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. This will be on the Council agenda of August 26, 1986. ., O? MOUND CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) 1. Street Address of Property 2. Legal Description of Propecty: Lot Address ,/,~' ,:-/ ~ ~o / ,, -~ Fee Pa Date Filed Block e,o lZ Day Phone No. ~ 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name 0ay 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 District Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ,j/',//"'~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and~Sv~de Resolutlon No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above s~temen.ts' and.the stq. tements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith a~e 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 Hound foF ~he purpose of inspectlng, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ,- Signature Of Applicant . ~'~~~'? R- Date~)'~-~r'r"' Planning Commission Recommendat .~. 10-14-85 Tabled. Date 10-14-85 & Council Action: 11-18-85 Resolutidn No. /~~ Date R~quest for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) . Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass di~ectlon F. Any addltlonal information as may reasonably be required by the Ci[y Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. I!1. 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 hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to q~/1 use regulations for the zone district In which it is ]ocated? Yes (~) rio ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: · C. 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: D. ~hlch unique physical characterlstlcs of the subject proparty prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? I; ( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) ~ol] ( ) Too s~ai] ( ) Orainaga ( ) Sub-surface ~( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify~ E, ~as the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property intarests 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 the reloca- tion of a road? Yes 0~) No ( ) )? ~es, explain: . ~.. ... /' . .-.~ .... ,. , G A're ~he conditions of hardship for whi~ '>"~ , you request~a ~ariance pecu]'lar only to the property described in this petitr°n? Y~ ~) No ( ) '1~ no, how many other properties are similarly a~ected~ He 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 grantlng of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? ADDRESS LEC-AL DESCRIPTION SITE AREA Lot II IL Blk' m~ (~? I Sq. Ft. AREA OF SITE OCCUPIED BY BUILDINGS~'~ o INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT This form need not be used when plot plans drawn to scale of not less than 1"=20' are filed with permit application. (Each building site must have a separate plot plan.) .Sq. Ft. For new buildings provide the following information: Elevation of existing & adjoining yard grades, location of proposed consturction and existing improve- ments$ shov~ building, site, and setback dimensions. Show easements, finish contours or drainage, first floor elevation, street elevation and sewer service elevation. Show location of water, sewer, gas and electrical service lines. Show location of survey pins with elevations. Specify the use of each buildng and major portion thereof. To be completed by a registered land surveyor. INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE GRAPH SQUARES ARE 5' X 5' OR 1"-20 I/We certify that the proposed construction will conform to the dimensions and uses shown above and that no changes will be made without 'ir. obtaining approval. {~ ~(~{(2~3~~-- MINUTES OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COHHlSSION HEETING OF October 14, 1985 Present were: Chair Elizabeth JenSen; Commissioners'Robert Byrnes, William Meyer, Geoff Michael,' Thomas Reese, Kenneth Smith, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council Representative .Steve Smith;.Acting City Manager Fran Clark;.City Planner Mark Koeg- let and SecretaryMarjorle Stutsman. 'Also.present were: David and Carmen Taylor, Edwin F. Gibbs and Mrs. Schluter. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Comm)ss.ion'iWoKk Session.of September 23, 1985 were pre- sented for consideration· Reese moved'and WeIland seconded a motion to approve. the minutes as presented· The vote was unanimously in favor'. BOARD OF APPEALS Case No. 85-443 Variance to"recognlze an'existing nonconforming setback at 1599 Gui).Lane, Lots il' &' i2, Block l, Woodland Point As applicant, Mr. D.'Mr'Frankie,'.was inot p~esent, Re,se moved and Meyer seconded a motion'-:to table thiS.request. The vote was unanimously in favor. Case No. 85-444. Variance to recognize:existing'nonconforming setbacks at 5991Ridgewood Road;.Part of Lots 13,'14.& 15, Block 6, The Highlands Dav!d and. Carmen Taylor were present. The applicant is requesti'ng'ithe'Plann~lng Commission to recognize an.'e, xisting nonconforming accessory buildi.ng"to add an addition to his ho~..The addition wi~ll consist of a 528.square foot'attached garage, an 8 by .ll. foot breezeway and a 650 square foot one story ll¥1ng area with craw1 space..'The existing principal~ibuildlng has..conforming setbacks'; however, the accessory, building encroaches ,63 feet into the.public right-of-way. The required, front yard setback Is 20 feet and the side/yard requirement is 4 feet. The accessory building Is 2,8 feet to the side yard. The Commission questloned.i.f he planned .to'go into the hi:l] (he will approxi- mate)y l0 feet) and discussedl'his request.briefly. Reese moved and Weila.~-seconded a.moti'on~to move.the, staff recommendation of, "Staff recommends'that'the Planning :Commission recognize the existing nonconforming. 2O. 63'foot front'yard and. nonconforming l'.2 foot side yard-of the accessory build|ng.upon.'the':condl, tion t'hat no structural repairS'shall be made. to it without'.additional variance approval and the dwelling addition is to have a conforming'.)O foot.side yard setback". The vote was unanimously In favor. Motion'carried. This will be'-o~ the October. 22, 1985 Council Agenda. Case No. 85-445 Variance to recognize an'existing nonconforming .setback of shed at 4339 Wi.lshire Boulevard; Part of Lots l, 2, B, 75 & 76,,First Rearr. of Phelp's Island Park 1st Division and'Lot 3, Phelp's Island Park 1st Div. Mrs. Schluter was present. The City Planner explained'that previously applicant had divided his. property into two parcels and one of'the conditions of that division.was that the boat- house (now called tool shed)be relocated four feet from the new property line. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-443 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOEUTION TO CONCUR. WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING.SETBACK FOR LOTS 11 AND 1Z,. ~LO~ l, WOODLAND POINT, PlO # 13-117-24 12 0107 (159~'GULL LANE) P & Z.:Case No. 85-443 WHEREAS, D.M. Frankie, the owner of property described as Lots I1 and 12, Block 1, Woodland Point, PID # 13-117-24 12 0107, has applied for variance to allow the expansion of the second floor'by raising the roof area 26 foot 6 .. inches by 10 foot 6 inches, with conforming setbacks to the north property llne; and WHEREAS, the existing structure has nonconforming 12 foot south front yard setback as shown on the applicant's site plan; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires two 20 foot setbacks on corner lots in the R-2 single family zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning cOmmission has.reviewed the request 'and does recom- mend approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby'approve the aforementioned requested variance upon the con- dition that Mr. Frankie submit a registered land survey for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Woodland Point (1599 Gull Lane), PID # 13-117-24 12 0107. CASE NO. 86-533 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official Planning Commission Agenda of August 11, 1986 CASE NO. 86-533 APPLICANT: Nancy L. O'Brian LOCATION: 4568 Denbigh Road 'LEGAL DESC.: Lots 9 and lO, Block 2, Avalon Addn. SUBJECT: Setback Variance for detached Garage EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential PID # 19-117-23 24 0011 The applicant, Nancy L. O'Brian, has applied for a variance to al. low a detached accessory building on lakeshore property 0 to ] foot+ from the front property line with conforming sideyard setbacks; the size of the detached building pro- posed is 26 foot by 26 foot with an existing garage into the public right-of- way 3.7 feet as per the attached survey. The existing structure for the dwell- ing is 3.6 feet to the west property line alongside a 15 foot fire access lane. The applicant has submitted the neighbor's signatures approving of the construc- tion of the new garage. The R-2 Zoning District for ]akeshore lots allows 6,000 square foot lot area; 6 foot side yard and a 20 foot front yard setback with a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation for the principal structure; detached garages may be placed 4 feet to the side lot line and 20 feet to the front property line abutting the right-of-way with the doors facing the street; 8 feet to the front property llne when the garage doors are facing the side lot line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to allow a 4 foot side yard and a 4 foot front yard with the doors of the accessory building facing the street to allow a 22 foot by 26 foot accessory building. Due to the topography of the lot and to afford the owner reasonable use of her land, a 16 foot front yard setback variance is granted for Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Avalon; PID 19-117-23 24 OOll. The abutting neighbors have been notified. JB/ms PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1986 Case No. 86-533 Setback Variance.for detached garage at 4568 Denbigh Road Lots 9 and lO, Block 2, Avalon Nancy 0'Brian was present. '- The 'Building Official explalned that the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a detached accessory.building on lakeshore property. 0 to I foot from the front property 1In, with conforming sideyards. The size of the proposed building is 26 feet by 26 feet. The existing g~rage Is 3.7 feet into the public right-of-Way at thls time. Also' the existlng dwelling ls' 3.6 feet to the west · property Ilne; It Is along a 15 foot fire access lane which:-is unimproved. In 1981, the City recpgnlzed the nonconformancles and allowed her to add a deck. She stated the R-2 Zonlng'requires detached accessory buildings be minimum of 4 feet to the side yardand 20 feet to the street front, yard with the doors facing the st'r,et or 8 feet .to the front with.t.he garage doo~s facing the side lot line. She feels there is deflnltely"a hardship with the topography; she is recommending approval to allow a q foot side yard' and ~ foot front yard with the doors of the accessory bullding facing the street to allow a 22 by 26 'foot building. She pointed out that they are trying to terrace area back of garage. ~ The Commission discussed the existing garage and the slze and location of the ~ proposed garage. The applicant stated she would like to have' her garage door 8 feet frOm where It Is now and not 12 feet, .She. also needs garage that size In Order to store lawn mower, garden equipment, snow blower, etc. Heyer moved and Steve Smith.seconded.a motlo~ .to-approve the staff recommenda- tion except to a110w the detached'accessory building to have a depth of 24.feet by 26 feet conditioned that the existing garage be removed.. The Commission discussed that proposed garage, would be 10 feet from the curb llne. The vote on the motion was unanimously In favor. Motion carried. This will be on the Council agenda of August 26, !~86. JUL 7_ IS¥ 5 / 7-,-~ ~-~-,=,APPLICATION TO PLANNING S ZONING COHHISSION ...~- _ ....... ' .... ~ lease type the following infor~tion) Street Address of Property Z~ ~ Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition ~b/C~O /1 c/'c IO Owner ' s Name ~fO~ fl .. Address Case No. Date Fi led~Lr''~' ~ Block PID No. i ~ I I il Day Phone NO. C:~ q. Applicant (If other than o~ner): Name Day Phone No. Address Type of Request: (~') Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *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?. ~J~_~ 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 application by any authorized official 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 RecoLendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date q/82 Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) 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 Zonin~ 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 the zone district in which it is located? Yes (k~) 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 If "no", specify each non-conforming use: O. Which unique ~hys~c~ characterlst of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any ok~he uses.permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow _ (~X) Topography. ( ) Soil ( ) Too small (r) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above c~eated 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 ~t~er man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No/(~) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance pec91iar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No 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 re~asonable use of your'land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation' Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? ?/ DATE Ava_Ion' TEST NO. DEV. NO. PAGE q c~rc~c/~ door. c,ooccld/ er~opP,~t , ~ 6. r' open ~ ~ c~ DATE TEST NO. BEV, NO. PAGE OF '7 DATE TEST NO. DEr, NO, PAGF OF DATE TSST NO. ~ ~ '~3~-I,, 1'7 DEV, NO. ~ PAGE OF__,~ '7- l g~ " DATE TEST NO. DEr, NO, PAGF OF Certificate of' Survuy of Lots 9 and ~0, Block 2~ Avalon .... ~-~.:~ ~ ,'.", Minnesota I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a su.-wey of the boundaries of Lots 9 and IC, Block 2, avalon, and the lor~tion of all exi~.'ting buildings thereon. It oo.s not purport to show other ~.mprovements or eneroaeh.~:~.nts. S:~a'Le: l" = 30' Date : 7-7-81 o : I ;-cn ~rarker 1 ?7 September 22, 1~81' Councilmember Swenson moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 81-305 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOGNIZING THE EXISTING NONCON- FORMANCIES AND APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR A DECK WHEREAS, Nancy L. O'Brian, owner of property at 4568 Denbigh Road, described as Lots ~ and 10, Block 2, Avalon, Plat 37850 Parcel 410 - PID #19-117-23 24 O011, is requesting a variance for adding a deck, and WHEREAS, there are existing nonconformancies, i.e. house has side yard setback deficiency, shed A has lake and side yard setback deficiencies, shed B has side yard setback deficiency, garage has front and side yard setback deficiencies, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognized the nonconformancies, an8 recommended approval of the building of a 12 x 16 foot deck.. NOW, THEREFORE', BE 'IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 'CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council concurs with the Planning Commissi. on recommendation and does approve the variance for a 12 x 16 foot deck and " recognizes all existing nonconfo, rmancies. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was' duly seconded by~ Councilmember Charon and.upon vote being taken.thereon; the following.votd~ in favor thereof: Charon, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan~ the following, voted against the same: none; with Councilmember Polston'ab~ent; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by .the Mayor and his signature attested.by the City Manager. Mayor Attest: City Manager KINGS ,L "f". RESOLUTION NO. 86-' PROPOSED' RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-533 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARI- ANCE FOR LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 2, AVALON ADDITION PID # 19-117-23 24 OOll (4568 Denbigh Road) P & Z Case No. 86-533 WHEREAS, Nancy L. O'Brian, owner of parcel described as Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Avalon Addition, PID #'19-117-23 24 011, has applied for an 20 foot front yard setback variance to allow the construction of a 26 by'26 foot detached accessory building with conforming side yard. setback; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 20 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot side yard setback for accessory buildings; and WHEREAS, the property d~scribed as an existing garage 3.7 feet into the dedicated public right-of-way with topography prob)ems to the north; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and. does recom- mend a front yard setback variance of 18 feet.to afford the property owner reason- able use of her property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereb9 approve an 18 foot front .yard setback variance to allow the construction of a 24 by 26 foot accessory building due to the topography of the lot and to afford the owner reasonable use of the land for Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Avalon Addition (4568 Denbigh Road) -PID # 19-117-23 24 001'1, upon the condition that the existing garage on the property be' removed and also recognizing the existing nonconforming'side yard s&tback of 3.6 on .the existing principal structure. J")oo CASE NO. 86-534 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official / Planning Commission Agenda of August 11, [986 CASE NO. 86-534 APPLICANT: Michael C. Beatty LOCATION: 4908 Edgewater Drive LEGAL DESC.: Lot 13, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood PID # 13-117-24 410011 SUBJECT: Setback Variance for Detached Accessory Building EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential The applicant, Michael C. Beatty, has applied for a variance to allow a detached accessory building to be constructed zero (O) feet to the west property line with no eave overhang onto a fire access easement:& to construct that building 8 feet to his front property line with the garage doors facing the side lot line. The R-2 Zoning District for lakeshore lots allow detached accessory buildings to be 4 feet to the side lot line, 8 feet to the front property line when the garage doors face the side lot line; if the garage doors face the street right-of-way, requires a 20 fOot setback, and a minimum setback of 5 feet to the principal structure. The neighbor, Mr. Douglas L. Moody of 4916 Edgewater Drive and Mr. Beatty of 4908 Edgewater Drive, applied for a vacation of the fire access lane in May of 1983. The Public Hearing was held on July 5, 1983 at which time the applicants withdrew the request as there was a petition forwarded to the City Council amongst the neighborhood that the City Council not grant the request to vacate the fire lane between Lots 13 and 14. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request in setback to allow the proposed garage zero feet to the west property line abutting the fire access lane of Lot 13 and 8 feet to the front property line abutting Edgewater Drive with a minimum of 5 feet to the existing principal building due to the topography and narrowness of the lot upon the condition: 1. The garage overhang be within the applicant's property. 2. A survey is to be submitted indicating the proposed location and existing utilities and dwelling. 3. With the doors facing the east property line (side lot line). The abutting neighbors have been notified. Attached is a neighbor's agreement approving the variance request. JB/ms PLANNING COHHISSION HINUTES .AUGUST !1, 1986 Case No. 86-$34 Setback Variance for detached accessory building for 4908 Edgewater Drive; Lot ]3; Skarp and Llndqulst~s Ravenswood Barbara Baukner was present for applicant, The Building Official reviewed applicant's request fOr a variance to allow a detached accessory bu'lldlng to be constructed zero feet.to the west property line with no eave overhang onto the fire access easement and to construct.the bqi]dlng 8 feet to his front property line wlth the garage' doors facing t~e. side property']ina. On lakeshore properties, the required setback is ~ feet to the side lot line and 8 feet to the front property line when the garage doors! face the side lot line. The neighbor together with Hr. Beatty applied for a vacation of the .fire access line In .]983 and then withdrew because neighbors petitioned the Counci] not to grant the vacation. J The Commission questioned what obJectlons neighbors had (they did not want to gtye away more .]and), It Was. brought up that topography Is.'quite diffi- cult; also discussed that a~cesses Should be maintained or re]eased. The staff Is recomendlng approval of the .request wlth a minimum of $ feet to the existing prlnclpa! bul]d!ng due to. the topography an~ narrowness of the lot wlth condltlons.=. ])'the. garage, overhang-not encroach the.access; 2) doors face east slde ]ot.]~ne. and 3) survey be submitted indicating proposed location and.exls~Ing utilities'and dwelling. .. Neyer moved and Steve Smith seconded a motion to approve staff recommenda- tions and grant, variance, .The vote was unanimoUsly In favor. This.will be on the Councl!-agenda. of August 26, 1985. APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Fee Paid ~-c. c ~:. Date Filed ?--~9 -.~ 1. Street Address of Property 4908 Edgewater Drive 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot 13 Addition Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood 3. Owner's Name Michael C. Beatty Address 4908 Edgewater Drive~ MOund~ MN 4. Applicant (if' other than owner): Block PID No. 13-117-24-41-0011 Day Phone No. 593-5353 55364 Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: (x) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Present Zoning District R2 7. Existing Use(s) of Property Homestead 8. Nas an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? No 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 application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Applican~~ ~-~~ Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Date .uncil Action: Resolution No. Date 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 for a Zonin9 Variance A. All Information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general appllcatlon must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Ooes.the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (x) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Ce De Do the existing.structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which It Is located? Yes ~ ) No ( ) If "no", speclfy'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 distrlct? (x) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too. small ( ) Oralnage. ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too sha11°w ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Only 40 feet wide 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 (x) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any 'other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (x) If yes, explain: G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance'pecul'iar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No (x) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? several properties have narrow lots however most of their ~ara~es are built up to their , r~ ert i es N. What is the 'minimum" modification (variance) from the area-~)U~KPregb~a~l~n(s that wi]l permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) A variance to build the ~ara~e up to the property line. I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? No, it will aid entrance and exit of automobiles. April 25, 1986 The Planning Commission Mound, MN 55364 RE: Garage Variance for 4908 Edgewater Drive Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is to state that I have no objections to Mr. Beatty's plan to build a garage up to his western property line. Without the variance being granted, it may create a blind spot when existing from the garage to the street due to the sharp turn which would be necessary. Dougl 612-472-7554 l I RESOLUTION NO. 86- PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-534 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR. WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR. LOT 13, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S-RAVENSWOOD, PID # 13-117-24 41 O011 (4908 Edgewater Drive) P & Z Case No. 86-534 WHEREAS, Michael C, Beatty, owner of the property described as Lot 13, ~karp and Lindquist's Ravenswood,,PID.# 13-117-24:41 0011, has applied for a side yard setback"variance.tO altow construction of a 20 by 18 foot de~' tached acqessory building'plus.5 feet from the principal building, 8 feet from the front prOperty line with the garage doors'facing the'side lot line with zero foot to the west 10 foot fire access easement; and WHEREAS,. City,Code requires a'4 foot sideyard setback to the property line for detached accessory buildings, 8.foot front yard setback with the doors facing.the side lot line plus 5 feet to the principal building; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission.has reviewed the requeSt and does recommend a side yard setback variance-to recognize the fire access lane as a utility easement and also the former request to vacate the fire access lane was 'denied previously. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T'RESOLVED that the.City counc.il of the City of Hound', Minnesota, does'hereby approve thezero foot setback, q foot variance to the west property line abutting.the lOfoot ~ire access easement to allow'the ' construction of an 18 by 20 foot accessory building due to the topography and the narrowness of the lot on the following-conditions: 1. No garage overhang is extended'beyond the applicant's property. 2. A registered land survey is to be submitted indicating the pro- posed location.and existing utilities, and dwelling. The accessory building doors are to face the east property line with conforming setbacks to the prlncipal structure and to the .street front property line. CASE NO. 86-538 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~ Planning Commission Agenda of August 11, 1986 CASE NO. 86-538 APPLICANT: Jack Cook LOCATION: 4452 Denbigh Road LEGAL DESC,: Lot 2, Block l, Avalon; PID # 19-117-23 24 0002 SUBJECT:~,.Sid¢ Yard Setback and Front Yard Setback Variance EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential The applicant, Jack Cook, is requesting to attach a 20 foot wide by 24 foot garage within 12 to 13 feet of the front property line, also enclose an existing basement stairway that has a foundation entry to it within one to zero feet to the west property line.. This would be a one story addition along that side and be tied in with the garage and the existing front entry stairs be enclosed into the garage. The R-2 Zoning District requires a side yard setback of 6 feet for the principal building and 4 feet for a detached accessory building to the side yard and a 20 foot front yard setback. The land adjacent to the structure has a building 26½ feet away from this dwelling. The applicant has stated a building permit history which is attached to this report. The abutting neighbor may have some land that they would be willing to sell off or subdivide off to this building owner. The topography of the lot and the narrowness of the 40 feet would make it very dif- ficult to approach the attached garage from drive through or side y~rd situation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend the zero foot side yard setback to the west property line to enclose the basement addition stairway as I' believe it is too extreme a variance request with possibility of subdividing or negotiating with the abutting property owners to allow a 3 foot minimum side yard setback or possibly a 6 foot required west side yard setback, However, the front yard setback of 12 to 13 feet at the closest point to an attached garage, I believe, is the minimum due to the narrowness of the lot and the topography of the property and would recom- mend a 4 foot side yard setback lined up with the existing stair- way to the front entrance of the home. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Mr. Cook may also modify the floor plan within the structure and move an entry to the basement to the north side of the dwelling and block off or remove the existing stairway to the basement. JB/ms PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1~86 Case No. 86-538 Side Yard Setback and Front Yard Variance for 4452 Denbigh Road; Lot 2, Block 1, Avalon. Jack Cook was present. The Bulldlng Official explained applicant' is requesting tO attach to his house an 18 foot'wlde by 24 foot garage within 12 to 13 feet at the closest point of the road. There.is al.so an exlsting stalrway and he wants to go zero feet to the west lot line to enclose what appears to be a 4 foot 1 inch basement stair- way. In the R-2 Zoning Distrlct, It would require a ZO foot setback from Den- blgh Road'and also a 6 foot slde yard. A permit was taken out in 1963 for the basement;' no record of any .variances are on'file, She mentioned outside etalr- way Is at angle and'if, llne extended toward.:street, It would'be over pro~erty line. Staff is recommendlng the front yard variance, but that a 3 foot side yard setback be malntalned along the west property llne to line up with the existing stairway to the front entrance of home. Mr. Cook stated he thinks both entryways ~o house Should be covered to look Proper and It .Is not practical to build a 16 by 24 foot garage. He wants to Improve lOoks of neighborhood and get rld of some of the cars parked around there.. Nelghbor, Sandle Konnad of 4458 Denblgh, stated'she had no objection to house going up to propert~ llne, but not on.or over her 11ne. The Commission discussed'~t, length the Intensification of the use; what he would do with. the stairway on the front of the house, size of garages, etc. Ken Smith moved and Hichael seconded a motion to approve the Staff recomme~a~' tlon with a minimum s'ide yard setbqck of 3 feet. The vote was unanimousl~ in favor. :- This will go to the Council on August 26,.1~86. 1. Street Address of Property CITY OF MOUND Case No. fi'C,- ;$Y Fee Pa id fi, ~' Date Filed APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the folloWing information) Lot .-~;~ B 1 ock PID No. /? '1/ ? -33 .~-¥ Day Phone No. [ / ~., 2. Legal Description of Property: 3. Owner's Name Address · 4']' '~ppl icant ~i'f other thari owner): Name Address Day Phone No. Type of Request: (?[) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Present Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property '\~c .. ,,, I ~ . Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or condltional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ' If so, li.st date(s) of llst 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 authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required b~ law. i", · !.. l; .-.-. Signature of Applmcant ,'> .) .... ~;:" :- ' Planning Commlssion Recommendation. Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date blR~ 2400 Third Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 Administration and Theatre School 612/874-050~ Ticke! Office 612/874-04C THE CHILDREN'S THEATRE COMPANY AND SCHOOL John Clark Donahue, Artistic Director I~ecluest 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. I11. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a slte 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 the zone district in which it is located? Yes ~) No ( ) . If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~x.') No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: 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 c~eated by th~act]o~'of anyone~having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ()~) If yes, explain: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its such as the reloca- If yes, explain: ' He Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? Wha~ .iS t~["~i'nlmum" 'modlflca~'~on '(~ariance) from the area-bulk regulations that ~ill 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 variance be materia~'ly~ detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? 86-538- 4~ Sirs Hy request is this. I need to build a garage. The garage must be attached to fit the lot and to enhance the look of the neighborhood and my property. I want to comply with a11 the codes and laws of our community, but 1. I need a set back variance on the side of my property 2. I need a set back variance on the front of my proposed garage. 20~ code to the street is this area Js extremely excessive. 3. The building code for these small lots is excessive in dimension. 1) The existing home had a new basement and foundation installed -less than 7 years ago, the house is 1' from the property line. The building permit was issued. I need a similar permit for my garage. The house also has entry ways into it on the same corner. I need to enclose the entry doors by the new garage. By doing such [ will build the garage on the same plane as the house and attached to the house. This is the only visually proper way to build t~is garage to make it fit the neighborhood and the property. Enclosed is written signed permission from my neighbor to help approve this request. 2) The planned garage will come 13' away from the road much more than some of the new homes an~ garages on the same road, within the same blocks. J DEMARS - GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 Harbor Lane No. PlymOuth MN 55441 Phone: (512) 559-0908 I hereby certdy that th~s is a true and correct represe^t.a[~on of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of.the Ioca[ioj~ of all bu,ld%ngs. if any, thereon, and all visible encroachmenls,.if ally, from Or on sa,d lan,1 SgNI){ ~, · NONN~ o PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-538 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 3 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND 12.5 FOOT STREET FRONT SETBACK FOR LOT 2, BLOCK l, AVALON, PID # 19'117'23 24 0002 P & Z Case No. 86-538 (4452 Denbigh Road) WHEREAS, Jack Cook, owner of the parcel described as Lot 2, Block I, Avalon, PID # 19-117-23 24 0002', has applied for a side yard and front yard setback to allow the construction of an attached garage of 20 by 24 foot within 12 to 13 feet of the front property' llne and zero feet to the side property; and WHEREAS, City Code requires a 6 foot side yard Setback and a 20 foot front yard setback to the principal building in the R-2 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recom- mend a variance with some modification to the applicant's request to afford the property owner reasonable use of his land. NOW,'THEREFORE,.BE IT RESOLVED'that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a 3 foot side yard setback and a 12.5 foot front yard setback to'allow the construction of a attached garage with no en- closure of the existing basement stairway due to the narrowness and topography of .the property for Lot 2, Block 1, 'Avalon (4452 Denbigh Road) PID # 19-117-23 24 0002. 1712 CASE NO. 86-539 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official Planning Commission Agenda of August ll, 1986 CASE NO. 86-539 APPLICANT: Leon and Tammy Stender LOCATION: 5032 Crestvlew Road LEGAL DESC.: Lot 6, Block 19, Shadywood Point; PID 13-117-24 12 0092 SUBJECT: Recognize Existing Undersized Lot and Non-conforming Structure, Side- Yard Setback EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant, Leon and Tammy Stender, haveapplled for a variance to recognize an existing 3.5.foot side yard setback to the existing dwelling, and undersized lot of 6,250 square feet+ to allow a 18 X 22 foot addition and 8 X 13 foot deck. The R-1 Zoning District requires a 10,000 square foot lot area. The applicants' property has received a variance previously under Resolution 78-530 to recognize existing lot size when the detached garage was built in 1978. The Zoning District requires a minimum 840 square foot dwelling. The existing dwelling is 480 square feet. A non-conforming structure requires a variance to do structural modifi- cations. The existing dwelling structure is valued at $22,300. By adding the · deck and the new 18 by 22 foot addition with.a full basement will exceed the 50% of the value for non-conformlng residences. Non-conforming criteria listed under Section 23.404 should be reviewed. Staff has reviewed the condition cf the struc- ture. Due to the fact that the structure is built on crawl space with over spanned rafters and no perimeter frost footings &some problems of over spanned floor joists, staff cannot recommend approval of the requested variance to allow an addition. However, I would recommend the Planning Commission recognize the existing undersized lot'and allow the owner to remove and build a new structure on the site or bring existing up to current building code. The abutting neighbors have been notified. JB/ms rem gl. tgi ,,1112 >.-gU u/CD ×:~ X 5 , O~ t~ &gl '7× .. U~ O' gl. gl. n PLANNING COMNISSION HINUTES AUGUST 11, 1~]86 IO. Case.No. 86-539 Recognize existing unde~slzed lot, nonconforming structure and side yard setback for 5032 Crestvlew Road; Lot 6~ Block 19, Shadywood Point Leon and Tan~ny Stender were present.. The Building Officlal explained that applicant has applied for variances to recognize an existing 3.5 foot side yard setback for the existing dwelling and undersized lot of 6,250 square feet to allow an 18 by 22 foot addition and an 8 by 13 foot deck. In 1978, the former ovn~ers received a variance when they built the detached garage to recognize existing lot size and also existing dwelling. The garage and home are valued at $22,300. HInimum square footage for a dwelling Is 8q0 sqbare feet. Existing .is qS0 square feet. N|th*the 18 by 22 foot addition, they ~ould be In conformance with size of dwe11Ing. Applicant stated he wants to put in 'frost footings, redo roof and bring home up-to-code; however, he wants variance to leave home where it. is. Hovlng house over 3 feet would cost between Sq and $7,000. He thought cost to bring house up-to-code would be-less than $8,000 and addition would cost $10,500'to $11,000. Applicant stated they've been trying to sell home for what they owe on it; best offer was $1,000'less bnd they would have sold except fellow had bad credit. T~ey need more space. The Commission discussed the request and cOSt of 'improvements, etc. Ken Smith moved and.He.yet seconded a motion to accept the staff's recommenda- tion with a]]owing the 3~ foot setback; dwelling to be brought, up to building code within one year from Issuance of the buildlng permit. The vote was unanlmous-l~ in favor. Thls will come to the Council on August 26, 1~86. CITY OF HOUND ', ,', - ~,,'1 ,,z ! '-P' ' ; .............. ~--:",_..A? LICATION TO PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION ,,. , , ',;:: ~';,'}.;~',k!',".il..~ (Please ~ype the followln9 information) 1. Street Address of Property ~0~ 0~5~'~ ~0~ 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot ~ 3. Owner's Name Le~ ~;~m~ ~'~c~~ . - Address Fee .:' '"~ (~'f other tharr owner): 4Applicant Name Case No.6.- ' ' Date Fi led Block /z PID No .,] ¢ T-~-~ Day Phone No. /4'll-~q~l Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: ()~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit (.) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other . / Present Zoning District J~SjI~C(X~'~-I~t_, ,? '- Existing Use(s) of Property ~Jolx.~i~_ Has an application ever been made for zonloq, variance, or conditional use permit or N~ ~ 0~ If so, llst date(s) ~f other zoning procedure for this property? ~'~o~ . list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.'(s) Copies of previods 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 of posting, maintaining and re~ving such ri°rices as may be req6ire~b¥;law' ~'\~' V~/ ~~ ~ /~ Si.gnature of Appllca~.,~O .)~ ~ ~.~,~{ Date ~ · ' kd"/ Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. 11)4/ Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) O. 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 Sectlons of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zonin~ 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 the zone district in which it is located? Yes (X) No ( ) .... .If "no~, specify each n~n-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 (X) No ( ) 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? (X) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface -( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape (X) Other: Specify: Be ~-~ Y~O ~'T~.Pr~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~as the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (X~) If yes, explain: Ge 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? He 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 ~vith dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.)~O/~ /~Z~uJ_~/'-Cs ~FH~rT Co~ 5~u~ ~ GO' ~;~ Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? A D~,,~s~on ot V~'~ Ttar Induslr es Ltd 625 Xen~um La-~e Norlt~ M~nneaPohs M nnesola 55441 612/544-710C Toll Free - Minn. 1-800-742-0662 Outside Minn. 1-1100.:~28.0757 pC> (612) 5-~5-5544 1070(; HW'¢ 55 WEST. MINN.r-APOLiS. MINNESOTA 55441 O \ '-0)' ~, - \ ~ SL'..I~VE'; FOi~: The Sussel Company :'" /:" i'~' , , x- SL;RVEY ~)F: l,ot 6, Block 19, SHADYWOOD ~' ,'..,' i ~ I ih~INT, ,.~cuor~i~n,: t,~, t~e recorded plat ' -. ~V~/ - '~ we ' '- ' ~0 ' ' -.. ' "' ~0 6.x~'4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t 0 ~6 ~.~ , = · "'.at th,.., survey plan. speclf,ca!~o'~ or resort wa5 predated Dy "neet ."],LJOer,,,l$lor';, a'"d !hat J a,'T, a dui',. ReC~is!e"ec: St.~,"ve'¢,7)r ur, der ~he ~aws of the Slate 5' tvi~pneso!a P C0uncilmember Polston moved the following resoluti0n, RESOLUTION NO. 78-530 November 14,'1978 . ~' RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT A LOT SIZE VAR- IANCE AS REQUESTED WHEREAS, owner of pFoperty described as Lot 6, Block 1~, Shady~ood Point has requested a lo~ size variance of 3,750 sq. ft on property zoned A-1 Residential, that requires 10,OOO sq. ft for building, and WHEREAS, said owner wishes to construct a garage on his property, and WHEREAS, Planning Commission has recommended a lot size varlance for the garage providing the garage meet all setback requirements. 'NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA ' That Council 6oncurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to grant a lot size variance as requested for the construction of a garage. Further, that all setbacks be met without further variances. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Fenstad and upon vote being taken thereon, the follow- ing voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and Withhart, the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said re- solution was declared passed and adopted~ signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Mayor Attest: City Cl'erk / 74,.5'" RESOLUTION NO. 86- PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-539 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH..THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING UNDERSIZED PARCEL FOR LOT 6, BLOCK 19, SHADYWOOD POINT PID 13-117-24 12 0092 (5032 CRESTVIEW ROAD) P & Z Case No. 86-539 WHEREAS, Leon and Tammy Stender, owners of the land described as Lot 6, Block 19, Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 12 0092, have applied for a variance in lot size, to recognize an existing nonconforming setback, to allow construction of a 18 by 22 foot addition and a 8 by 13 deck; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 1.O,000 square foot lot and 840 square foot dwelling,, a 6 and a 10 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record in the Single Family Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, Ithe existing single family dwelling is 3.42 feet to the side lot line, the lot size of 6,250 square feet, the existing dwelling is 480 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning. COmmission. has reviewed the request and does recom- mend recognizing the undersized lot and side yard setback to afford the property owner reasonable use of his property upon certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 'IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound,: Minnesota, does hereby approve the lot size and 'recognize noncohforming 3.42 foot side yard setback upon the conditions that the addition bring the dwelling to the minimum of 840 square feet, structural'modifications are made to the existing struc- ture to bring the building to existing building code requirement within one year from issuance of building permit for Lot 6, Block 19, Shadywooo Point, PID # 13-117-24 12 0092 (5032 Crestview Road). CASE NO. 86-540 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~l~ Planning Commission Agenda of August 11, 1986 CASE NO. 86-540 APPLICANT: Arnold N. Endresen LOCATION: 4958 Wilshire Boulevard LEGAL DESC.: Part of Lot 8 as per attached, Block 18, Seton Addition, and Part of Block~39, Wychwood Addition as per attached. PID 24-117-24 14 0016 SUBJECT: Setback to Property Lines for New Construction EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant, Arnold N. Endresen, has applied for a lot area and setback vari- ance to allow the construction of a new dwelling in part of Lot 8, Block 18, Seton and part of Block 39, Wychwood. The proposal indicates a 5 foot setback to the closest point at the southeast corner of the dwelling with a ten foot front yard setback to County .Road 125 with the driveway entrance and garage faci-ng west. The setback to the north lakeShore setback i.s not shown on the property. Also, there is an encroachment of the existing dwelling at 49XX Wilshire Boule- 'vard, directly to the east. The applicant has submitted a topography map of the property dated July 30, 1986 which indicates a lot depth at the narrowest point of approximately 54 feet and at the widest depth of approximately 72 feet to the ordinary high water elevation. The required lot depth is 80 foot minimum. The lot indicates the flood plain elevation of 933 into the lot approximately 3 to 28 feet from the property line and the 931 topography at about mid-lot. The Zoning District requirements for the R-1 Single Family District requires a 30 foot front yard and a 10 foot side yard setback and a 50 foot lakeshore set- back, a lot area of 10,000 square feet and a lot depth of 80 feet minimum. The applicant's site would require fill to be placed below the 931½ which would require a Watershed District Permit, The site is quite flat with an encroach- ment to the east. The lot area is not shown on the map. The encroachment to the east should be removed by possibly notification of the owners or a subdivision of land to deflect the line away from the existing dwelling on part of Block 39 and on part of Lot 8, Block 18 of Seton. The 5 foot side yard variance is within the hardship criteria at the closest corner point to the building due to the shape of the lot. The road right-of-way of County Road 125 deflects to the north at the 10 foot setback portion of the property of the proposed house with the asp- halt of the County Road being 23 feet to the blacktop. The 50 foot lakeshore setback should be maintained to the dwelling which would disallow a building to be placed on the property; although the original platting of the channel and wet- lands to the north was put in possibly after the platting of Lot 8, Block 18 of Seton. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does recommend the 20 foot front yard setback variance as the existing lots of record may be averaged in the neighborhood with the existing homes, but does state not closer than 20 feet CASE NO. 86-540 Page 2 to the front lot line. The hardship due to the road location of County Road 125. A 5 foot side yard setback at the closest point to the home would allow a 10 foot setback from the property line at the north-southWallline. A registered land survey should be submitted with the proposed setbacks used as an exhlb~t to the varlance request with a 20 Foot Front yard setback, the 5 foot side yard, a proposal to remove the existing house from the encroachment, a 50 foot rear yard setback, proposed and existing grades and lot area indicated before being forwarded to the City Council. Soil reports shall be submitted for the lot prior to any building construction and utiliti6s (sewer and water) shall be included on the survey to be submitted. The abutting neighbors have been notified. JB/ms I II "'--' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1), 1986 11. Case No. 86-540 Setback to Property Lines for New Construction at 4958 Wll- shire Boulevard; Part of Lot 8, Block 18, Seton and Part of Block 39, Wychwood Arnold N. Endresen and Jlm Heine were present on thls request. .. The Building Official explained that 'the applicant has applied for a lot area and setback variance, to allow the'construction of a new dwelling on this parcel. The proposal indicates a 5 foot setback at the closest point at the southeast corner of proposed dwelling with a lO foot front.Yard setback to County Road 125. Lak~shore setback on north is not marked (baslcally about 30 + feet). The existing, dwelling directly to the east is encroaching; this is n--ot shown~ on map as this is for topography only. Eot depth Is approximately 54 to 72 feet. The required lot depth, is 80 feet. Lot area is about 4,680 and re- quirement for that zoning district Is 10,O00 square feet. Side yard setback ls l0 feet required and a 30 foot front yard setback or you cQn average which would bring you up to 20 feet minimum. The staff recommends.the front yard setback (of. 10 feet) due to the..deflection of County Road'125 with the black- top being quite a ways off. The hardship is due to the property shape. Originally lot was platted quite deep; she does not know if It was ever dry .. l'and; it had a channel Opened up. In 1978, when the flood plain ordinance ~' was adopted, it took lot area away from any property below the 0HW elevation (929.5); so more. than half of that' lot is gone. She explained what would be' required for a building'permit If the varlances were granted, such as having soil tests, getting M)nnehaha Creek' Watershed permit, etc. JlmlHeine stated the.encroachment had been worked out with a negotiated ease- ment some time agog.- He'also'advised that they planned on pll.ing the land as it tends to minimize filling and some of the grade problems. Proposed struc- ture would'have no-basement; first level would be 2/3rds garage; other 1/3 would be entry hall and service'area (furnace, laundry, etc.); upper level would be living area with 2 bedrooms. He stated that the house proposed doesn't need biggpr lot. They are looking at site costs of about $10,000 and construction cost between $50~000/$60,000. The Commission discussed the war.lances needed.- over 50~. The possibility of acquiring adjacent, parcel was dlscussed and whether such a variance had been granted previously. Ken Smith moved.and Michael.seconded a motion request be denied because of the extreme amount of Variances required. Steve Smith voted against; all others voted in favor of the denial. Motion carried. This will be on the Council agenda of August 26, 1986. Street Address of Property Legal Description of Property: CITY OF MOUND ON TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION type the following information) 49~8 Wil~hir~ Boulevard Fee Pald gr~_~. ~o Date Filed Lot 8 Block 18 Addition 'Seton (See len.qthy leqalr Torrens 1172301) PIDNo. 24-117-24-14-0016 3. Owner's Name R~nold N. ~ndresen Day Phone No. 372-8310 Address 4957 wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 472-1587 Applicant (if other than owner): Name - Address Day Phone No. Type of Request: Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Review Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D' ( ) Amendment ( ) Slgn Permit ( ,)*Other *If other, specify: 6, Present Zoning District 7. Existing Use(s) of Property 8. Has an a~plicatlon ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or .other zoning procedure for this property? No If so, llst date(s) of llst 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 statementsand t~e statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Applicant '~.~(::~ //-t J~ Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. 4182 16S Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) 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 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 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 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: Ee Was the hardship described above c~eated by the action of anyone having property'interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (/x~) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the 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? See memo .What is the "mi'nimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. sheets, if necessary.) See memo (Specify, using Attach additional Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? NO July 22, 1986 City of Mound Planning and Zoning Commission 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota RE: 4958 Wilshire Boulevard; Zoning Variance Application Gentlemen: 1. This lot has been in my family's posession since 1932. 2. Annuai taxes have been paid promptly, and the lot has been well- maintained as a full lawn with .trees, shrubs and a dock. Having believed through the years that this is a legitimate, buildable lot, it is now my plan to build a modest 1004 square foot retirement residence on the site, and to sell the larger family homestead across the road. 4e My architect's plan for.the house suggests placement closer to the road than (I believe) current zoning specifies, but slightly further to the rear than the adjacent home, while maintaining all possible sun and sightlines for the adjacent home. 5. The architectural style has been selected to maintain the character -'of existing, neighboring homes to the east. 0 Not a do-it-yourself project, the construction would be by a professional builder, as the modifications to my present home were, some five years ago. 7. Attachments include a Site Plan, superimposed on a survey by John R. Coffin, Floor Plans and Elevation Drawings. I was unable to contact the two abutting property owners today, but a sample of the letter prepared for their signatures is attached. I will continue to try to reach them this week. e A representative of the architect will accompany me to your August hearing. We can answer any questions you might have at that time. Respectfully, Arnold N. Endresen 4957 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR ARNOLD N. ENDRESEN OF PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 18, SETON l_.ake LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of lot 8, Block 18, Seton, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County, described as follows, to wit: Beginning at the most Westerly point of Block 39, Wychwood, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County, thence North- easterly along the Northwesterly line of said Block 39, Wychwood, a distance of 26.5 feet to angle point in the Northwesterly line of said Block 39, Wychwood; thence North along a line drawn at right angles to the Northerly line of said Lot 8, Dlock 18, Seton, to its intersection with said Northerly line of Lot 8, Block 18, Seton; thence West along the Northerly line of said Lot 8 a distance of 72 feet; thence South along a line drawn at right angles to the North- erly line of said Lot 8 to the intersection of said line with the Southerly line of said Lot 8; tllence Easterly along the Southerly line of said Lot 8 to the point of beginning. I hereby certify that this topographic survey prepared by me or under my direct supervision, that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. No attempt has been made to survey the boundaries of the above described property. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg MN. Lic~No. 12755 Gordon R. Coffin MN. Lic. No. 6064 Engineers, Land Surveyors, PIanners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: 1 inch : 20 feet Date · July 30, 1986 Datum: Mean sea level / / City of Mound Planning and Zoning Commission 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota I have had an opportunity to review Arnold Endresen's plan for a new home on his vacant lot at 4958 Wilshire Boulevard and, as an adjacent property owner, am not opposed to his request for a setback variance. Name Address Date -\ ,A l. ' '~co, w'rY HE,,NEP McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 August 15, 1986 Ms. Fran Ciark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBOECT: Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Piace Change Order No. 4 MKA ~71R3 and 7R21 Dear Fran: Enclosed are three copies of Change Order No. 4 which includes additional work for the HRA. As you wii1 note, it has aiready been approved by them, but we will aIso need councii action, because it is being added to the contract with Preferred Paving for the Lynwood BouIevard project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate tocontact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES,-INC. $C:jmj Enclosures cc: Sandra Woytcke, HRA CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 PART 1 - LYNWOOD BOULEVARD - MSAP 145-104-03 ~OUND, MINNESOTA MKA FILE ~7193 OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ENGINEER: City of Mound Preferred Paving Mccombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. ADDITIONAL WORK FOR MOUND HRA - COMMERCE PLACE ITEM NO. 95 Subgzade Correction 600 C.Y. $ $5.00/CY = ADD: IT~MNO. 96 Subgrade Excavation 600 C.Y. 0 $6.00/CY = $ 3,600.00 ITEM NO. 97 ~ranular Borzow (L.V.) , 800 C.Y. · $5.00/CY = $ 4,000.00 ITEM NO. 98 Geotextile Fabric 1,000 S.Y. S $1.50/$Y = $ 1,500.00 TOTAL CHANGE OROER NO. 4 ..... ~ ...................... $ 12,100.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT ANOUNT (PART CHANGE ORDER NO. . CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 CHAN~E ORDER NO. CHN~E ORDER NO. 4 REVISED CONTRACT ~OUNT (PART 1) ORIGINAL CONTRACT ~NOUNT (P~RT 182,132.35 9,992. O0 70,054.20 4,700.00 12,100.00 278,978.55 18,443.50 REVISED TOTAL CONTRACT ~MOUNT ........... $297,422.05 APPROVED: ACCEPTED: CITY OF MOUND By: Date: APPROVED: HcCI~BS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. / Oat,: AO~EPltD: MOUND HRA /TVo McCOMBS KNUTSON ASSOCIATES Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 August 21, 1986 Mr. Edward Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Haywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Mound, Hinnesota Beachwood Pond Outfall Line MKA File #7544 Dear Ed: Enclosed is B & D Underground's Final Payment Request for the subject project. The amount of this request is $ 1,107.29. Since this work is fully completed, we are not recommending any amount be retained. We have reviewed the project and find that it is in accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. If you have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, HcCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC:cah Enclosure CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIHATE NO. OP PAGE ?E~,~4 1986 ST. ~EkER IHPROVEHENTS-GEACNMOOD POND OUTFALL LINE 01 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS.-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: B & D UNDERGROUND 1E$00 IND.PK. BLVD. PLYHOUTH, HN DATE: 07/31/86 -- CONTRACTOR PAY ESTZHATE SUHI~RY -- THIS PERIOD TO DATE tiORK COHPLETED ~ECTION I 0.00 EE~, ~45.66 HATERIALS ON SITE SECTION I 0.00 0.00 AD,TUSTED TOTAL LESS RETAINAGE - 5Z PREVTOUS, 0.00 ~,14S.66 OZ CURRENT -.1., 107.~8 0.00 TOTAL AHOUNT DLE FOR MORK COHPLETED TO DATE LESS PREVIOUS PAYHENTS 1,107.E8 EE,145.66 -0. O0 El, 038.37 TOTAL AHOUNT DUE: 1,107.E9 1,107.E9 -- SUHHARY OF PREV]:OUS PAYHENTS -- ESTXI~TE NO. DATE N~OUNT TOTN. I 06/1 r-'/86 El, 038.37 ~.1., 038.37 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON APPROVED: CONTRACTOR: B & D UNDERGROUND CONTRACTOR PRY ESTIMATE NO. 02 PAGE ?S4 4 1996 ST. SEIER IHPROVEHENTS-{~EACHWOOD POND OUTFALL LINE SECTION 1 0:::' HcCOHBS-f(NUTSOH CONTRACTOR: B & D UHDERGROUND ~800 IND.PK.BLVD. PLYHOUTH, HN DATE:: 07/31/86 -- PAYHEHT SUNHARY FOR ~RI~ COHPLETED TO DATE ITEH ITEH CONTRACT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY HIT I 1E' PVC ST.SEMER O'-8'DEP 170.0 LF E 8-10' DEPTH 90.0 LF 3 lO-1E' DEPTH 40.0 LF 4 /2.-14' DEPTH 57.0 LF 5 14-16' DEPTH 50.0 LF 6 18' PCP & F.E.S. 3E.O LF ? RIP RAP 2.0 CY 8 STORH ~EIER HANHOLE E.O EA 9 CATCH BASIN HAHHOLE 1.0 EA 10 LAN RESTORATION 1.0 L$ 1/ STREET RESTORATION 1.0 /E ROCK PIPE BEDDING 4E.O TN 13 LOkER EXISTING IJATEI~AIN 1.0 L$ UNIT N__ THIS PERIOD ..... PRICE QUANTITY AHOUNT QUAHTITY E3.45 0.0 0.00 /Eg.0 E4 · 45 0.0 0. O0 1E~. 0 E6. O0 O. 0 O. O0 4E. 0 E8. O0 O. 0 O. O0 71.0 30. O0 O· 0 0 · O0 34.0 ET.O0 0.0 0.00 43.0 91.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 1,475.00 0.0 0.00 ~.0 1,EO0. O0 O. 0 O. O0 1.0 3,EO0. O0 0.0 0.00 1.0 1,950.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 9'75 0.0 0.00 4E.O 1,076.E1 0.0 0.00 1.0 AHOUNT 3,0~5.0~ ~,9~.90 1,092.00 1,988.00 1,020.00 1,161. O0 91. O0 E,950.00 X,EO0. O0 3,EO0.O0 1,950.00 409.50 1~076.~1 TOTAL I~CTION I 0.00 EE,145.66 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 02 PACE 19BG ST. SE~ER IMPROVEMENTS-BEACH~OOD POHD OUTFALL LINE SECTION 1 O3 ENGINEER: HcCOMB$--t(NUTSON CONTRACTOR: B & D UNDERGRDUND ZeBO0 IND.PK.BLVO. PLYMOUTH, MN DATE: 07/'31/~ -- PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR MATERIALS ON SITE -- THIS PERIOD ITEM ITEH CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE UNITS NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIVERED PRICE ON SITE TOTAL ITEH VALUE INVOICE PRICE TO DATE UNITS ON SITE TOTAL ITE~ VALUE TOTPd. SECTION I 0.00 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIH~,,TE NO. OE~ PAGE 198G ST. SE~ER ~HPROVEHENTS-~EACH~0D POND 0UTFALL LINE SECTTON 1 0.4 HcCOHBS--t~IUTSON COHTRACTOR: B & D I.~ID£RGROUHD 22.800 IND.PK. BLVO. PLYHOUTH, NH DATE: 07/31/86 -- $1JHMARY OF CHANGE ORDERS -- CHANGE ORDER NO. 01 06/15186 1,48~.71 ITEH ITEH NO. DESCRIPTION lp ROCK PIPE B~DDT. NG 13 LO~R EXISTING ~TEP, HAIN PREVIOUS CHANGED RHOL~T AHOUHT OUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY L~IT PRICE DEDUCTED ADDED 0.00 TN 0.00 4E.O0 TN 9.75 409.S0 0.00 LS 0.00 1.00 LS 1,076.E1 1,0"/6.El PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE EO, 669. O0 EO, 669. O0 + CHANGE + CHANGE 1,485.71 1,48~.71 = REVISED CONTRACT AHOUNT = REVISED CONTRACT AHOUNT EE,154.71 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 13, 1986 TO: Ed Shukle FROM: Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator SUBJECT: Extending Recycling Contract Beermann Services has agreed to extend their contract for us till 'the end of December. He has asked for an additional $100.00 per month° We are now paying him $950 per month for the curbside pickup and $35.00 per month for the drop-off site. The drop-off site is doing so well that they have to come out with a large truck and 2 people to maintain it. In October we will be sending out bids for a new contract to run between January 1, 1987 till December 31, 1987. This will make it easier for budgeting purposes. Hennepin County will pay 50% of the extra $100 so it will cost the City only $50.00. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. CITY <)f MOUN!) 5,3,11 MAYWOOI> ROAI) MOUND, MINNE$O T A 557,G,I (612) ,172-115r, AGREEMENT FOR RECYCLING SERVICES Beerman Services agrees to extend :he curbside recycling program to City-wide (approximately 3,050 households) for the cost of $950.00 per month plus $35.00 for drop-off site per month. This agreement shall be from October 4, 1985 thru Scptember 5, 1986. The collection day shall be the first Friday of every month. The drop- off site will be the third Saturday of every month. The City and the contractor agree to follow the previous "Agreement for Recycling Services." Contractor City Manager CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: The City of Mound is seeking a recycling contractor to collect newsprint, aluminum, steel and mtin~ cans, glass, cardboard, motor oil, and car batteries from a pilot area of approximately 550 housing units. The gpecifics of the program are contained within the enclosed draft agreement. TO bid the program, please fill in the blanks below and return this sheet and'Pages .9 and 10 to the City Manager at the City Hall by 10:00 a.m. March 27,-1985. I have read the proposed ~'Agreement for Recycling Services'~ and agree to sign it and comply with it if I am the successful bidder. NAME OF COMPANY ADDRESS (6.1) TELEPHONE 'SIGNATURE DATE 7 5-" QUESTIONS 1-10 TO BE COMPLETED AND MAILED IN WITH COVER SHEET cost/unit collection flat fee/month $ ~/hat collection cost, if any, for 550 dwelling units: cost/ton $ OR $ OR ADDITIONAL FEE for manned drop-off, site 1 day/month (3-/4 hours) S .3 ® Number of day(s) in a one month period required for col-lection of recyclable materials from 550 dwelling units. day(s) · What preparation is required before recyclable materials are.placed on the curb/alley? (check all that apply) Newsprint: Glass: bag bundle other (specify) ." Aluminum: wash rinse remove labels smash other (specify) wash rinse remove labels smash other (~pecify) Preparation of additional recyclable materials: Identify any aspect of this program which would cause a problem or present difficulties to your business to undertake this program, Would there be an alternative day(s) which would be more convenient for your business for the City of Mound's recyclable materials col lection? Yes No If "yes", which day(s)? ~fv~'~- ~'~"~7~] .c/ '~7-~ Y/.,off,~x What is the extent of your current recyclables collection operation? Number of units now serving OR . .- Number of municipalities served / AND ~ Number of years in CONTINUOUS business Please furnish references of,previous/current customers. Are your recyclable materials collection trucks/vehicles clearly marked and identifiable with your company's name? Yes No ocy~e-Number of trucks/vdhicles used for your recycling, hauling services. ® Please furnish a copy of your most recent financial statement or balance sheet. (Audited statement preferred if available). Se Present a brief description of the procedures used to operate your current recyclables collection program. Include comments about the equipment, facilities, and number of employees needed for your recycl lng operation. Is your business for profit or not-for-profit? Other comments.' · RESOLUTION NO. 86- August 26, 1986 RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NEED TO CONSTRUCT A NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY AND TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO PAY FOR THE SAME AND CALLING AN ELECTION WHEREAS, the City Council has studied the need for new facilities to provide public services needed by this growing City and has determined that a new public works facility is needed; and WHEREAS, in order to finance said improvements and acquisitions, it is necessary that municipal bonds be issued pledging the full faith and credit of the City to their payment; and WHEREAS, in order that such bonds may be issued as general obligations, it is necessary to submit the questions of the issuance to the voters of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The City Council of the City of Mound has been informed and has investigated the need for additional public facilities and has found that a public works facility is necessary to store, repair and protect City owned equipment, and has determined and does hereby find and declare that it is necessary and expedient for the city to make such improvements at an estimated cost to the City--of-not"'~6--e~-~-d~~ and to finance the same by issuing bonds as 'authorized by Chapter 475 of the Minnesota Statutes· That the question of providing monies to acquire, construct and equip said facilities shall be submitted to the voters of the City at the regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday,% the 4th day of November 1986, and that this regular Municipal Election shall be held with the polls being open from 7:00 A.M. and remaining open until 8:00 P.M. on said date, in all 6 voting precincts. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause printed ballot pages to be prepared for use in said election in which the proposition shall be stated in substantially the following form: August 26, 1986 OFFICAL BALLOT SPECIAL BOND ELECTION CITY OF MOUND NOVEMBER ~, 1986 SHALL THE CITY OF MOUND ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,700,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MONEY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF A NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, S? INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: Voters desiring to vote in favor of the foregoing proposition shall mark and "X" in the square opposite the word "YES"; voters desiring to vote against the foregoing proposition shall mark an "X" in the square opposite the word "NO". (Blue Ballots - See M.S.A~ 205.17, Subd. 4) The City Clerk shall cause notice of said election to be given by publication in the official newspaper of the City at least two weeks prior to said election and by posting said notice in at least three public places in the City at least ten days prior to said election. She shall also publish a sample ballot in the official newspaper at least one week prior to the election and shall post a sample ballot in her office at least four days before the election and shall post a sample ballot in each polling place on election day. The eleotion shall be held at the usual voting places for the State General Election and as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this resolution, and said election ~hall be held and conducted in accordance with the statutes of the State of Minnesota applicable to City elections. The Council shall meet on Wednesday, November 5, 1986, as required by law for the purpose of canvassing said election and declaring the results thereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk August 26, 1986 Exhibit A Resolution #86- NOTICE OF ELECTION REGARDING THE ACQUISITION AND BETTERMENT OF A PUBLIC WORKS FAClLITX FOR THE CITY OF MOUND CITX OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 4, 1986 NOTICE is hereby given that a special election for the City of Mound, Minnesota, will be held Tuesday, November 4, 1986, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City the following proposition: SHALL THE CITX OF MOUND ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,700,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MONEX FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF A NEI~ PUBLIC WORKS FACILIT~?~ Polling places for said election will be as follows: Precinct #1 - Mount Olive Lutheran Church (Educational Bldg.) 5218 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN. Precinct #2 - Indian Knoll Manor 2020 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN. Precinct #3 - Island Park Hall 4843 Manchester Road Mound, MN. Precinct #4 - Seahorse Recreation Building 5430 Three Points Blvd. Mound, MN. Precinct #5 - Westonka Community Center (The Depot) 5801 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN. Precinct #6 - Hennepin County Library 2079 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN. City Clerk City of Mound, Minnesota / *Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. 0 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36 Engineers & Architects St. Paul, MN 55113 612.636.4600 August 14, 1986 City of Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attn: Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager Re: Possible Revisions for Public Works Bldg. City of Mound, MN File No. 21402 Dear Ed, Enclosed are our brief analysis sheets showing possible reductions in the proposed Public Works Building cost estimates. It should be kept in mind that these are estimates based on preliminary sketches. It should also be kept in mind that there will probably be an increase of cost this coming year due Co inflation. You will note that the items listed may be some of the. desired amenities and will have to be provided for in the future if cut at this time. We would suggest that after you have had time to review these items that we meet to discuss the total situation. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, A~-DERLI~ ASSOCIATES, BAL:li ' / INC. Encl. 7193d / 30 Year · Mound, Minnesota - August 13, 1986 Public Works Building Possible Cost Cutting Revisions ON CITY MALL/FIRE STATION SITE A. Possible Buildin~ Cost Cuts 1. Delete bituminous paving for present Install crushed rock base 2. Delete concrete curb & gutter 3. Delete concrete walks 4. Minimize landscape plantings 5. Delete painting of shop & storage areas 6. Delete lube equipment 7. Delete small hoist 9~o~ cc~p~L~.~ 8. Delete fuel pumps & storage tank~ TOTAL .................................. $ 19,500 3,000 4,000 5,000 8,000. 10,000 5,000 40,000 $ 94,500 B. Possible Storage Area Cuts 1. Delete bituminous surface 2. Delete curb & gutter TOTAL .................................. $ 17,546 720 $ 18,266 C. Other Cuts 1. Cut contingency for old bldg. retrofit TOTAL POSSIBLE CUTS - A+B+C $100,000 $212,766 D. Revised Recap of Costs Original Est. for construction Possible deducts A+B +10% Eng., legal, admin. TOTAL (deleted contingency) ........................ 1,470,000 112 766 1,357,234 135~723 1,492,957 USE $1,500,000 E. Conclusion: The only means of cutting the project cost any further would be to cut the size of the building. This would have to be agreeable to the city staff since it would mean cutting some service areas or storage area. Also the cuts shown will decrease some staff efficiency and over the life cycle are not really ~f~.~ ~ ~,'~. F. Other Comments: It should be kept in mind that these estimates are based on past experience and on preliminary sketches. A 10% margin should be used in setting a budget to allow for variation in contractors bids, bidding time and possible inflation of prices by the time the project proceeds. In other words, this project may come in between $1,350,000 and $1,650,000. 7193d Page 1. II. ON ORIGINAL REPORT SITE (Old Treatment Plant Site) Assuming same building size and facilities as on City Hall/Fire Station Site. The following items could possibly be omitted or changed. A. Possible Cuts: 1. Delete bituminous paving (Bldg. Area) 2. Delete concrete curb and gutter 3. Delete concrete walks 4. Delete landscape plantings (Bldg.) 5. Delete painting of shops & storage areas 6. Delete lube equipment 7. Delete small hoist 8. Delete fuel pumps & storage tanks 9. Delete storage area bituminous 10. Delete curb & gutter from storage 11. Minimize storage area grading 12. Reduce building excavation 13. Delete wood fence 14. Delete storage area plantings 15. Delete sod from storage area 16. Revise bldg. shell to a basically prefabricated metal building Reduce cost by 1.96% .0196 x $1,409,800 TOTAL POSSIBLE REDUCTION ..................... $ 19,500 3,000 4,000 10,000 8,000 10,000 5,000 40,000 17,546 720 1,000 20,000 3,500 4,000 2,900 27~650 $176,816 B. Revised Recap. of Costs 1. Original estimate of const. (on city hall site) 2. Possible deducts 3. Possible contingency deduct +10% gngr/Arch, legal, admin. $1,470,000 - 176,816 - 100,000 $1,193,184 119~316 $1~312,500 C. Based on same as I-E & I-F above Possible range of costs: $1,181,250 to $1,443,750 7193d Page 2. BONESTRO0, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOC., INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS St. Paul, Mimesota Colculo~ions For Project Reviewed Page TOTAL. CC)lO 5T ~, O C-'T El"Jf---R· ) Lr=.-flAI--/ 4 I BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOC~ lNG. Client CONSULTING ENGINEERS Proj. StIPaul, Minnesota Project ~"vJ ~,t-~1 No. . 4 ~?. ~'T' I t,~ ,A~ ;:" Reviewed By Dote co.~-r pew. S~. t:T. = '45-"/--O CHAGY-.A " $44, I /~r BONESTRO0, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOC~ INC. Client ~"~oul~D Page CONSULTING ENGINEERS Proj. St., Paul, Minnesota Project p*~/ ~1._~I No. Reviewed By Date '- 4o4o * 40 MINUTES OF THE CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM, by Vice-Chairman Jim Kutzner. Members present: Jim Kutzner, Gary Paulsen, Linda Paulsen and Marsha Smith. Absent: Jack Braezile, Chuck Champine, Doc Meier and Don Ulrick. Also present was the City Manager, Ed Shukle. Upon motion by Gary Paulsen, seconded by Smith, and carried unanimously, the minutes of the July 24,. 1986 meeting were approved. A discussion of the goals discussed at the July 24th meeting was held. It was the consensus of the Committee to submit the goals to the City Council.at a later date after Mr. Tom Creighton, Legal Counsel, has appeared before the Committee to answer questions that the Committee has with regard to Cable TV and the Committee's role in monitoring Cable Television activities in the City of Mound. A regular meeting schedule was discj~.ssed. It was the consensus to have a monthly meeting on the third Thursday of each month, starting with September 18, 1986. Consensus was also reached on having an attendance pol|cy for the Committee. The policy would reflect.three consecutive absences is cause for dismissal unless absences are excused. With regard to.terms of office for the Committee, it was suggested that three year staggered terms be established having two persons filling two year terms, two.persons filling three year terms and three persons filling one year terms. ---'-The use of legal counsel was discussed. It was moved by Kutzner, seconded by Smith and carried unanimously to have the City Manager request from the City.Counc|l an appropriation of money for up to five hours of Mr. Tom Creighton's time to answer some specific questions with regard to cable television. The Committee would like to have Mr. Creighton appear at the September 18, 1986 meeting. Questions for Mr. Creighton would be as fol.lows: 1. Who should provide additional local access equipment? 2. What should be the role of the Cable TV Advisory Committee? 3. Who should pay for two way inner connection? To what extent is it needed as defined in the franchise? 4. How should we go about doing a performance audit? 5. How has the ability of a city to regulate cable television changed due to the Cable Television Act of 19847 6. If the City of Mound funds equipment for local access, who actually own the equipment and is responsible for maintaining it? Local access was then discussed. It was moved by Kutzner and seconded by Smith, and carried unanimously to request the City Council to.appropriate funds in the 1987 budget, not to exceed $8,000, for projects that the Cable TV Advisory Committee deems necessary. For exapmle: (1) Local access; (2) Legal fees; (3) Annual report/survey; (4) Performance audit; (5) Other items as may be needed. It is to be made clear that the $8,000, does not have to be spent, but only that it is available, based upon the above. ES:ls Information for August 26, 1986 Council Meeting August 13, 1986 Mound Police Reserve Unit requests the following Licenses for Sept. 12, 1986' Public Dance (please waive fee) Charitable Beer Permit Set-Up Permit (please waive fee) CITY of MOUND August 21, 1986 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK RE: ATTACHED APPLICATION FOR TAXI LICENSES Bill Alexander has submitted an application for a Taxicab License (see attached). As you will note there is not much information about the cabs which is required by the Ordinance. I have spoken with the City Attorney and because we can understand that Bill does not want to purchase the cabs before approval and we cannot issue licenses based on the sparse information provided, the following is being recommended. The' Staff recommends approval of 4 taxicab licenses to Bill Alexander for GRA*CABS at 5571 Shoreline Blvd. contingent upon all licensing requirements in Chapter 38, Part D of the City. Code relating to taxicabs, being met before licenses are issued. fc enc. I '"'~ An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race. color, national orig,n, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and actiwties. C!TY OF' tquUJ~u 5141Haywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 ........ ; tee $15.00 1st Veh. (.~L.~t6~c-'~,~qlO df ,'j'~/~. ~.~'7 10.00 Others Payable with Application. TAXICAB LICENSE APPLICATION Class of Vehicle Ca~ying Capacity Length of time vehicle has been in use ~/ Is above car mottled? ~ ~ame of Mo~e t~ Amomnt of Mortgage Is Vehicle Leased License : / Licensed Holder of Legal Title , O~ under any fo~m of contract per- mitred to be used and operated by some other person than the one holding legal title thereto? What person, firm or corporation collects the revenues from operation of above cab? What person, firm or corporation pays the expenses of operating above cab? l~oposed Fare 8ohedulest tw h,,'-o Proposed Hours and Days of Service: This is a true and correct statement to the ~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this Divislon 3 Chapter. 38 - Part C Page g ' SECTION 38.29A Permits. (a) Any person, firm or organi~atlon desiring a license or permit shall make application on a monthly basis on official forms provided by the City Clerk and filed no later than five days prior to the first scheduled Council Meeting of each month. Each application f6r a public dance or the play- ing of live music shall be accompanied with a fee of $25.00 per day, The Coun- cil may issue an annual license; the. fee will be $200.00. -'(Ord. 397 3-7-79) (b) Obligations Due the City. No license shal~ be granted for a dance or mus- ical concert to be-conducted In any. building within the City. for which taxes, sPecial assessments or other financial Claims of the City are delinquent and unpaid. (Ord. 397 3-7-79) ~ .. SECTION 38.29A Subdivision (c) and Subdiv'islon (d) of the Citv'Code are hereby repealed. (Ora 397 3-7-79) PAI~T D SECTION 38.30 Definitions Unless otherwise exoressly stated, whenever used in this ordinance, the following ~ords shall have the meaning given to them by this section: a. Taxicab - the word "taXicab" shall mean' and include ar~r motor vehicle engaged in the 'carrying of persons for hire, whether over a fixed route or not, and whether the same be operated from a street stand or subject to calls from a garage, or otherwise operated for hire, except vehicles subject to control and regulation by the Railroad and War.eho~se Com- mission or vehicles regularly used by undertakers in carrying on their business. %. Street - The word "street" shall mean and include any ~treet, alley, avenue, court, bridge., la~d or public place in the village. c. Taxicab Driver - The words "taxicab driver" shall mean and include any person o~ning or having control of the use of one or more taxicabs used for hire upon the. streets or engaged in the business of ,perating a taxi. cab within the village. d. Operator - The word "operator" shall mean and include any person own- ing or having control of the use of one or more taxicabs used for hire upon the streets or engaged in the business of operating a taxicab with~. the village. C 1 - 19T~ Page 114 Division $ Chapter $8 - Part D P ge e. Taxicab Stand - The words "taxicab stand" shall mean and include any place along the curb or street or elsewhere which is exclusively reserved by the villa§e for the use of taxicabs. Person - The word "person" shall mean and include one or more persons of either sex, natural persons, corporations, partnerships and associa. tions. I~EGTION $8. $1 ' _License. R. eq.uired No operator sh-!! operate a taxicab' within the village limits without first ha~vlng obtained a taxicab license therefor under the provisions of this ordinance. Each applica~, t for a taxicab license sh~,ll apply to the Village Clerk for such llcense upon a form to be provided by the village and must comply with the following provisions to the satisfaction of the ¥illage Councill a. Be i citizen of the United States Be of the age ~ tWenty-one (21) years or over if a person, and in the case of any co-partnership, firm or corporation, must. be authorized to .' · operate taxicabs and carry on busines in accordance with the Laws of the State of Minnesota. c, Must fill out upon the blank form provided by the village a statement covering each vehicle to be so licensed, giving the full name and address of the owner; the class and passenger carrying capacity of each vehicle for which a license is desired; the length of time the vehicle has . been in use; the make of car; the engine number; the serial number and the state license number; whether the same is mortgaged, the name of mortgagee and the amount of said mortgage; also the holder of legal title to said vehicle i/other than the applicant; or whether said vehicle is leased, licensed, or under any form of contract permitted to be used and operated by some other person than the one holding legal title thereto, what person, firm or corporation collects the revenues from the opera- tion of said taxicab and pays the expenses of operating the same, the proposed fare schedules, and proposed hours and days of service. If said application is made by an individual owner, said owner shall sign and swear to said application; ff it is by a partnership, then by one of the parties; and if l~y a corporation, then by one of the duly elected offx'cals o£ said corporation. SEGTION 38.32 Taxicab Fee The applicant applying for taxicab license sh:ll, before being issued said license, pay into the Village Treasury the sum of $15, 00 for the first vehicle to be licensed and if applicant is obtaining a license upon more than on vehicle, the sum of $10.00 for each and every other vehicle to be so licensed; provided, that if the said license is denied for any reason the aforesaid fee or fees shall forthwith be returned to the applicant. All llcenses hereunder shall expire on the 31st day of Sanua~y subsequent to the issuance of such license. No license may be transferred./~5 Division 3 - Chapter 38 - Part D Pa§e $ SECTION 38. 33 Examination of Taxicab~ The council may cause the Chief of Police or some other employee on behalf of the village to thoroughly and carefully examine each taxicab before a license is granted to operate the same, No taxicab shall be licenses which does not comply with the follo~ving: a. It must be in a thoroughly safe condition for the transportation of passengers. b. It must be clean and of ~ood appearance and well painted and varnished. Such 'other examinations and tests of licensed taxicabs may be ordered by the council from time to time as it may deem advisable and the council sh_~ll maintain a constant vigilance to see that all taxicabs are kept in fitness for public service. sEcTION 38. 34 Grantin~ L~.'ce.nse' If_ the Village Council is satisfied that the public con-~enience knd §hod order will be served thereby, they may Erant a license to any such applicant. Each license granted shall be given a number · and shall include therein said number .and an adequate description of the taxiCabs licensed there-under. Taxicab licenses sh=11 be issued as of San- uary 31st of each year and shall expire with the 31st day of January next succeeding with the exception of the'licenses gra.n, ted under and pursuant to the 'within ordinance prior to Sanuary 31st,. 1951, which said license sh~11 be issued as of the date of issuance and shall expire with the 31st day of ~anuary, 1961. Provided, that the maximum number of taxicabs licensed by the Village Council at any one time shall not exceed fifteen (15), until such time as the population of said village shall exceed 15,000 persons. After which time h~e maximum number of taxicabs licensed by the-village, at one time, shall not. exceed one for every one thousand persons of said population, SECTION 38. 35 License Plates and Numbers There shall be delivered to the operator of each and every licensed taxicab a license tag to be fastened and displayed upon the inside 'of the windshield of each and every taxicab so licensed, so that said license may be plainly visable from the front.of said taxicab at all times. · Said license tag shall not exceed two' and one-half inches in the longest measurement and shall bsa9 the license number of the taxicab and proper descriptive words., including the year for which the 'license was issued, and such license tag shall be of distinctly different shape for any three successive years. In case any licensed operator shall lose a license ta§ he shall secure a duplicate thereof by applying .to the Village Clerk therefor before doing any further business with the taxicab from which the tag is lost. Every taxicab, which shall solicit or accept business on the streets of this municlaplity, or stand or wait for hire sha~l~ have some designation of the character of the vehicle painted in plain visible letters on each side thereof. D Chapter 58 - Part D Page 4 SECTION ~8.~6 Taxicab Cards The operator of any taxicab shall cause to be printed in plain, legible letters displayed inside the'taxicab a card giving the number of the license, the maximum rates of fare to be charged, and a statement that any package or article left in the taxicab must be re~ turned by the taxicab.driver to the Village Clerk's office, ~here they may be identified and claimed. The card shall also contain the statement "Ask the driver for Bill and Receipt." in bold type. SECTION ~8.~ Taxicab Stands Licensed taxicabs shall, when not in m?tio~, be parked at stands designate~ for that purpose from time to time by reso- lution of the Village Council. Said resolution shall also designate the number of taxicabs which maybe stmtioned at ar~ stand. After that time it shall move and permit the taxicab next in line to move up to the head of the col,,~u. No taxicab &river shall solicit passengers as fares except when traveling around the streets ar ara regUlarly designated stand. No driver shall dismount from his taxicab at any time for the purpose of solicJ iting passengers; provided that this shall not prohibit any drivqr from dismounting from his cab to assist a passenger entering his.taxicab or dis- mounting therefrom. No taxicab shall park within thirty (50) feet of any cross walk unless this portion of the street has been designated as a taxi- cab starAd. Only licensed taxicabs shall be permitted to park at ar~y taxi- cab stand. Section 38.~0. Taxlcab Drivers. No person, either the owneY or empioye~ of such owner,'shall drive a taxica~ In this City without first having obtained and having In force a proper license to operate said vehicle from the State. of HInnesota. (Ord, 119, 2/lq/61) (Ord. qlq, 7/lq/81) ... -'.~.:~.: Sectfon 38.ql. Insurance Policies..Before a llcense shall be delfvered to any operator he shall deposit with the City Clerk a policy or pollcies of an insurance company or companies du!y licensed to transact business in this state, Insuring the operator of any taxicab to be licensed against.loss from the liability imposed by law for damages on account of bodily injuries or death, or for damages to .property resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of any taxicab to be owned or operated under such license, and agreeing to pay to any judgment creditor, to the extent of-the amounts specified by reason of such liability. The policy oP policies shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and compliance with thls ordinance. The limit in any such insurance policy of such liability of the 'insurer on account of the ownership, maintenance and use of suCh.taxicab shall not be less than $$0,000 for bodily injuries to death of one person and $100,000 on ~ccount of any one accident resulting in injuries to and/or death of more than one person, and s total of $10,000 liabillty for damage to property of others, arisln out of one accident. Said policy or policies may provide for a deductible not to exceed $100 for bodily injuries or death arising out of any one accident end $100 for damage to property arising out of any one accident. 17 ? Divisio~ 3 · · ChaPter'38'~ ?~rt Page SECTION 38.41 Insurance Policies continued: The insurance policy shall contain a provision that the insurance company shall give the City Clerk 30 days notice of cancellation by registered mail. The form of and sufficiency of'such policy and the surety thereon shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. (Ord. 414, 7/14/81) (Ord. 396, 3/7/79) (Ord. 19~, 7/22/65) SECTION 38.42 "~iscellaneous. All taxicab drivers, shall be clean and courteous at all tlmes. No driver of any llcensed taxicab shall, carry any other than the passenger first employing a' taxicab without the consent of such passenger. .. No taxicab driver shall deceive any passenger who may rlde wlth him or who aay deslre to rlde In any ~uch vehlcle, as to his destination or distance travelled or to be travelled. (Ord. C-1-79 BILLS .AUGUST 26, 1986 Computer Run dated Computer Run dated 8/21/86 8/21/86 Batch 864081 Batch 864082 132,816.85 26,667.59 159,484.44 B & D Underground Lyman Lumber Century Mfg Androc Co. Final Beachwood Bldg Supplies-Cemetery Timer Switch Weed-One 1986 State Fire Chiefs Conference--2 Registr. SuperAmerica July gasoline Henn Co. Register of Deeds Filing Fee 1,107.29 137.84 13.23 106.OO 190.O0 957.66 10.OO 2,432.02 TOTAL BILLS 161,916.46 '~, o O0 3:1, Z I-- r'q M ~oo °°~°°°~ NNNNNNNNNNNNNN 17-'7~ I (,4 I ¢3 C Z;~Z -- ('3 ("3 0 (,/3 Dr, CO [~ ~ lin I ? o c~ c3 C3 r'~ p~ ~ rq N N ',.,"1 Id d Z Z Z III IIII · · /77 I r-' i""' r-i- r- ~o~ cdc[:) 133 '11'/1 ~ '~ f'" ~"' ?l- i'"" P1 Pl I~l ~ ~1 C. (,9 Z IIIIIIIII I II ???77T777 7 T7 ?T??77777 ? °°,, ~Z~ZZZZ~ Z ZZ IIIII ????? n ~ ~ZZZ ~ZZZ~ ~Z~Z, ZZ r~r'l 23: ZZ C ~"' '110 I ' I U1 (.n ol I I I ~'ZZ r-r-r- ,=.1 ~3 I I I ~"ZZ Z 7 ZzzzZZZZZZ ~qrqM rtl pi rq r~ Z C r' ;~zZ ~Z Z ZZZ r-CC i-I-r"- n ~ Z ! I I I I i I I I I I ~ ~0 C~ ~'~ :C C: Cc. C: t-- /777 m sl) Z r' ~ z rn r~ I" f- f'= I o 0 'I' Z I-- I ~ ~ P~ I~] m f~ f~ CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR JULY 1986 FINANCIAL REPORT AUGUST 14, 1986 We received one-half of the local government aid and homestead credit payments in July. The state legislature changed the payment schedule from six monthly payments, July - December to one-half in July and the other half in December. ~ have estimated the 1986 year end expenditures for the General Fund and Enterprise Funds. All departments are projected to be on or under budget, except for the Streets Department and the Water Fund. The General Fund revenues are projected to exceed the expenditures by $1OO,000. This would bring the General Fund to a $600,000 fund balance. JN: ls An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatm(;nt o¢ errployrnent m :ts programs and act,',ities August 26, 1986 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK Please set September 30, 1986, as the date for the following Assessment Hearings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. CBD Parking Maintenance Unpaid Clean-Up Charges Unpaid Weed & Grass Cutting Charges Boarding Up of Hazardous Structure Charges Unpaid Capping of Sewer Line Charges Delinquent Sewer & Water Charges Unpaid Tree Removal Charges Thank you. fc An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, cotor, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. A$1~HALT AND OENE~AI.. 24 SOUTH OLIVE WACONIA~ MINNESOTA 55387 (612) 448-7711 August 20, 1986 Mr. John Cameron McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial park Boulevard Plymouth, b~N 55441 City of Mound Lynwood Boulevard and Tuxedo Boulevard MSAP 145-104-03 and MSAP 145-101-05 Dear John: Change orders on the above referenced project have increased the amount of work by approximately 50%. Due to this increase, we are requesting an extension of time to complete the project from the original date of September 1, 1986 to October 1, 1986. This extension will also enable us to lay the final wear course of asphalt after the ,major portions of heavy construction have been canpleted there. This should be advantageous to the finished product. Your prompt attention and reply to this request will be greatly appreciated. .~R.~/~-Res~tfully~ ;~~ Vice President Project Manager cc: Mr. Edward Shukle, City Manager City of Mound, Minnesota CITY OF HOUND Hound~ Hinn¢$ota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED'EASEMENT VACATION FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON, PID 25-117-2q 11 OOq7 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOT!CE'IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a meeting will b~ held at the City Hall,$3q! Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, at 7:30 P.H. on Tuesday, the 3CYch day!of September, 1986, to consider the vacation of a per- petual easement 20 feet in width for publi, c sewer, water and other utility purposes over the following described land, the South line of easement being the South line of said Lot 2, Block 15, Devon, PID # 25-t17-2q 1100q7 (as created in Document No. 779757), ~84q Island View Drive, Mound, Minnesota. Such persons as desire to-be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Frgncene C. Clark, City Clerk 270 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 5510t 612/292-8789 August 21, 1986 Mr. Ed Shukle City of Mound 5341Maywood Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: I want to take this opportunity to invite you to a meeting of legislators and local officials from communities in your area to discuss transit issues. The meeting will be held 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 10, 1986, at the Minnetonka City Hall, 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard. This meeting will'provide me the chance to discuss several of the current activities of the Regional Transit Board. The major topic of this meeting will.be..the T~a~S~t Service Needs Assessment. Our findings of the recently finali~ed',Pl~a~e II ~f~this study will provide us with the alternatives we will use to shape the transit delivery system in the metropolitan area for the next several years. I will spend time discussing our plans for the expansion and restructuring of Metro Mobility service as well as the competitive bidding of transit service. More importantly, I want this meeting to be an opportunity for you to express your ideas and concerns about the current and future direction of transit in the metro area. I would also like to use this session as a forum to answer any specific questions you may have about transit issues. I am a firm believer of good communication in the public decision-making process and hope that you will find time in your busy schedule to attend this meeting on current transit issues. I look forward to meeting with you on September lOth at the Minnetonka City Hall. Si ncere ly, Elliott Perovich Chairman An Equal Opportunity Employer EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BOX ~.6 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA * 55146 DNR INFORMATION AUJ~LtBt 18, 1986 (612) 296-6157 All City Clerks and Administrators: Several years ago the department sent out a request £or information on local restrictions on boat use. We have compiled that infor~ation from both cities and counties and have discovered that some municipalities are unaware of the statutes which regulate this function. In order to clarify this, you should be aware that: Any restriction placed.on the surface use o5 the public waters (lakes, rivers or streams) on or after January 1, 1975, must have the approval of the Co~nnissioner of Natural Regources. Restrictions without this approval are invalid and not enforceable. Those restrictions enacted prior to January 1, 1975 are "granfathered-tn" unless they have been amended since that date. (Restrictions would include speed, trine, horsepower, area or activity restrictions.) For further reference see H.S. S 378.32 and 459.20 and Hinn. Rule 6110.3000 - 6110.3800. If your city is conte~plating restrictions of any type, please contact us by phone (612)296-3310 or by letter., so we can assist you. It is flnportant that this be done before any ordinance is drafted. Another related item is an amendment by the 1986 Legislature to H.S. § 378.32 which prohibits cities, towns and counties from restricting the type and sizes of boats or the horsepower of motors at any access when there is not a s~lar approved restriction on the surface of the lake or river. That is to say that a lake or river that does not have any horsepower restrictions cannot have any horsepower restrictions on an access. Any such restrictions on launch ramps are now invalid as of Hatch 26, 1986. For further reference, please see H.S. § 378.32 as amended by Chapter 439 or give us a call. As always, if you need further information, assistance or copies of laws or · ules, please call (612)296-3310 or drop us a line. XC: Sincerely, nd Water Safety Coordinator Joseph Alexander, Commissioner Steven Thorne, Deputy Commissioner WSU~Task Force Paul Swenson, Trails & Waterways Director Regional Administrators Bob Nethercut, Hetro Council Cindy ~eeler, DEED AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF HOUND 1986 BUDGET REPORT REVENUES JULY 1986 58.3t of Year BUDGET JULY REVENUE YTD REVENUE VARIANCE PER CENT RECEIVEO GENERAL FUND Taxes $ Intergovernmental Business. Licenses Non-Business Licenses & Permits General Gov't Charges Court Fines Charges to other Departments Other Revenue 719,96q 339,891 13,060 285 11h,OOO 6,244 27,750 1,588 82,OOO 7,974 23,000 1,346 5~,3oo 1,o88 465,515 346,766 7,843 80,362 9,608 40,725 16,925 l~,Oll 465,546 373,198 5,217 33,638 18,142 41,275 6,075 42,28~ 50.0 48.2 60.1 70.5 34.6 49.7 73.6 25.5 ToTAL.REVENUE $1,566,135. 358,416 980,755 985,380 49.9 Federal Revenue Sharing 45,000 10,794 23,199 21,801 Liquor Fund 820,000 74,985 424,114 395,886 Water Fund 264,000 35,717 167,937 96,063 Sewer Fund 500,000 45,674 327,024 172,976 51.6 51.7 63.6 65.4 CITY OF MOUND 1986 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES JULY 1986 58.3~; of Year BUDGET JULY EXPENSE YTD EXPENSE UNEN- CUMBERED BALANCE PER CENT EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council $ 36,964 2,629 City Manager/Clerk 89,273 6,775 Elections & Reg. 10,307 365 Assessing 43,369 462 Finance 141,420 11,193 Legal 80,330 3,412 Cable T.V. ---- 48 Contel 20,000 --- Recycling 18,585 .. 32 Police Protection 568,199 42,391 Planning & Insp. 100,333 8,123' Civil Defense 3,000 (39) Streets 369,950 27,631 Shop & Store 47,096 4,420 City Property- 83,449 2,366 Parks 130,093 27,703 Contingency 50,000 3,431 Transfers 75,741 6,312 19,052 52,290 862 4,308 81,123 37,727 775 7,380 5,430 324,653 54,450 846 247,326 27,393 48,698 76,754 3,431 45,378 17,912 36,983 9,444. 39,061 60,297 42,603 (775) 12,62o 13,155 243,546 45,883 2,154 122,624 19,703 34~751 53,33.9 46,569 30,36~ 51.5 58.6 8.4 9.9 57.8 47.0 36.9 29.2 57.1 54.3 28.2 66.9 58:2 58.4 59.0 6.9 59.9 GENERAL FUND TOTAL $1,868,109 147,254 1,037,875 830,233 55.6 Federal Reserve Sharing 52,000 Area Fire Service 142,802 Sealcoat Program -. --- CBD Assessment --- 11,109 32,349 80,695 19,651 62,107 Liquor 153,450 11,835 86,715 66,735 Water 315,022 21,821 208,862 106,159 Sewer 631,084 48,089. 345,032 286,052 Cemetery 3,896 94 1,952 1,944 62.2 56.5 56.5 66.3 54.7 50.1 MINUTES OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 11, 1986 Present were: Vi. ce Chairman Thomas Reese; Commissioners William Meyer, Geoff Michael (who arrived at 8 P.M.), Kenneth Smith and William Thal; Council Representative Steve Smith; City Clerk Fran Clark; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary.Marjorie Stutsman. Chair El'izabeth Jensen and Commissioner Frank Weiland were absent and excused. Also present were the roi. lowing' interested persons: Nancy O'Brian, Sally Armltage, Marjorie Hoag, Peter Hille, Leon and Tammy Stender,' Steven Coddon, Don Frankie, Naida Frankie, Sandie Konnad, Ned and Karen Podany, Kenneth E. Patz, .Barbara Baukner, James Albrecht, Jack Cook, Arnold Endresen 'and Jim Heine. " MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commlsslon meeting of July 14, 1986 were. presented for- consideration. Meyer moved and Ste~e Smith seconded the .mot~ion to approve the minutes as. presented. .The. vote was.unanimously in. favor. BOARD OF APPEALS The Chair asked~ if persons present..on behal, f of Items 1 - 5 on the .Agenda, had any objection to moving Item.6 up because those persons had a 'family. emergency and needed to be out very'~oon.' -.. 6. Case No, 86-534 Side yard Setback variance.for exist.lng detached garage at 6165 s 6167 Sinclair Road - Lbts"l & 2-,.Block 17, The Highlands Ned and'.Karen Podany an'd also MarJorle Hoag and Peter Hille were present. 'The Building. Off|ci. al reviewed the application;· Mr. Podany relocated an existi'ng · garage on his property; there Is a Survey at~ached to the'staff report dated 1982. The garage was relocated in 1984. .The neighbor submitted a survey dated April of 1985 indicating the relocated.garage is' 1.'foot onto Mrs. Hoag's property to the west. Podany is getting ready to try to remove the encroachment and is asking the City t° allow the removed garage to be. zero feet to his west property line due to the narrowness, of his.lot. The encroachment is.about ! foot at the great- est point, 'but is about 14 foot l°ng where it is over the property line. The wetlands (Lagoon Park) Is to the east and Podany has approximately 20 feet to swing into the garages (doors face the east). On the upper right hand corner of Mrs. Hoag's survey, a defleCtion line with 11.2 feet between property markers is shown and the wrong marker was used f°r Podany's property line when garage was relocated; surveyor evidently was not called to locate the proper.iron monuments for Lot 2.. The property marker shown.at time of inspection was actually 11.2 feet onto Hoag's property. There is also a railroad tie retaining wall encroach- ing on the southeast corner of her property. The staff is recommending request be'approved with zero feet to the lot line upon the condition, that the I by 14.4.foot encroachment be removed from Lot 3. Podany stated that he would cut back a foot on the first garage and rebuild that section. .It was discussed that the roof on this garage was hand framed so it could be rebuilt. The Commission had various questions relative to trying to understand how error was made; when permit was taken out and when work was done, whether garage was moved in, etc. Peter Hille, repr~sentlng Mrs. Hoag, stated he's been a general contractor for 20 years. His suggesti'on would be to pick up the garage and relocate for a Planning Commission Minutes August ll, 1986 - Page 2 cost of approximately $2,782. What is being asked, in his opinion, is for Mrs. Hoag to take the punishment for an error she had nothing to do with because Podany failed to hire a surveyor to locate the proper stakes. He stated that this could prevent her from selling her;property to a developer and using it for what they would intend to use. it for; Mr. Podany.is having an extra foot of drive- way at the expense of possibly developing that'Iot. His other concerns are what building would look like with a 14 foot angle and allowing all the water to drain onto her property. (Garage setback from property line requires 4 feet from side lot line). Hi)le's stated Podany moved one.to a wrong location and turned it around ¼ of a turn and built one garage. The Commission asked'Podany how he determined where to locate his garage.."Podany responded that, because of a discussion he had with the late Mr. Moag sometime ago, they both thought that was where the property line stake was. He stated he had tried to locate the garage 4½ feet back from the property line to.give more space. Mrs. Podany stated, if garage.is relocated, they would not have access to the garage because wlth the .present approximately .20 feet to swing into the garage, it is hard now. ' .. The Commission discussed the request-a-t length. Mrs. Hoag stated this has been going on for 15 months and she is against granting a variance. '-Hille stated the garage was.built around a power pole which'would be an indication of where lot line is. ' Ken Smith moved tO table untl'l more-members were present. The Chair was oPpos~ to postponing action. Meyer stated that he was abstaining because he is rel~ to Mr. Podany. The Chair stated the Commission will take no action at for 'lack of a quorum· .This item will be heard at the August 25th Planning mission-meeting.. ... Case No. 85-~43 .Variance to recognize.an existing nonconforming setback at 1599 Gull Lane';. Lots !1 and 12, Block:l, Woodland'Point Don Frankie was present. The Building Official reviewed, the request for a variance to all°w the existing building to be expanded to allow the second floor to have a 26'6" by 10'6" raised roof area which will be used for two bedrooms. She stated applicant has had some property markers located because of the diseased elm. tree in his yard and has submitted a hand drawn site plan indicating house is 30 feet to the east property l. lne and about 12 feet to Woodland Road. The required street front set- backs are'20 feet which makes structure nonconforming. The lot size is within the allowable squa're footage. He 'is requesting to do structural modifications to the home and ~aise'the northerly portion of the roof 26'6" bY 10'6" to correct. some roofline problems and allow better roof run-off and also'construct a new stairway. She stated this expansion' does not affect present setbacks and recom- mends that we recognize existing nonconformancy and approve the.variance· Frankie stated the two dormers need rebuilding and he has choice of suffering with the valleys, flashing, etc. or raising it up and making it livable for future.. Meyer moved and Steve Smith seconded a motion to approve the staff recommenda- tion, recognizing the nonconforming structure, to allow raising roof for 26'6" by 10'6" addition upon the condition that a registered land survey be-submitted showing location of structure. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 198~ - Page 3 Frankle objected to having to submit the survey because of the cost, sion felt it should be required. The vote was unanimously in favor. carried. This will be on the Council agenda of August 26, 1986. Commis- Motion Items .- 2 & 3 Case No. 86-530 Public Hearing on proposed easement vacation located over the westerly.5 feet of Lot 5 and the easterly 5 feet of Lot 6, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. Case No. 86-531 & Case No. 86,532 Front yard. setback variance and subdivision of land; Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shbres Steven Coddon was present. The Chai'r opened the public hearing.. The Building Officlal reviewed the easement vaca{lon along wi. th applicant's request for ]0 foOt front yard set-.. back variance' on'Lots 5, $ and 7 and subdivision of Lot 6, ]2 feet of which ls to go with Lot 7'and the r~ma'inder'to go with Lot 5. S-he stated that the City Engineerdid the'reylew on t.he vacation portion.and as this easement was not used (originally:it was proposed thai-storm sewer be put in there, but none was put in and there was no need as storm sewer was directed to north side of Three Polnts'Boulevara); he.could see no problem with vacation of it. He is. rec°mmending City require.Coddon'.to dedicate 5 foot drainage easements along the-.proposed new side lot-lines-to'the.two parcels being created from Lots 5, 6 and 7. She further stated that the size of the proposed new parcels, A and B, Would be 10,073 square feet and 15,090 Square. feet of lot area.above the ordinary hlgh'wa~er el.evation of 929.4. The Setback variance requested is 20 feet to the-.Three Points Boulevard property line similar, to the previ-' ously gr~nted variance on Lot 8 because of the shallowness of these platted lots. Also 50 foot .is the required setback from the water line. She i:s re- commending approval wlth several conditions. ~ommlssloner G~off Michael arrlved at 8 P.M. Chair. asked if anyone' present~ had any.'questlons or comments. Kenneth E. Patz, 1716 Baywood Lane', questioned clarlficatlon of issues. He has no' objection to vaCation of'dralnage'easement and.commented his concern, is that the neighbor- hood does nbt have substandard housing in terms of size of lots, etc. The Commission discussed front yard setback; the bull.ding line would be approxi- mately 33 feet+ to curb line'; Lots 8 and 4 have previously been granted 10 foot front yard vari--ances The right'of-way along Three Points Boulevard is about 13 feet pi'us the sidewalk. The hardship is the shallowness of the lots caused by the'erosion of. lakeshore.'sinCe they were platted. There were no other comments; the Chair closed the public hearing. Case No. 86-530 Steve Smith' moved and Thal seconded a mot, ion tO recommend approval with staff recommendation the'proposed utility and drainage ease- ment vacation (as shown in ~Paragraph 2 of John Cameron's letter of 7-28-86). The vote was unanimously in favor. Case No. 86-532 Thal moved and Michael seconded a motion to approve the sub- division of 1And per the staff recommendation. The vote was unanimously in favor. / --~o~Sf Planning Commission Minutes August ii, 1986 - Page 4 Case No. 86-531 Ken Smith moved and Steve Smith seconded a motion to approve the staff recommendation for the front yard setback variance on the newly subdivided lots because of the configuration of the lots. The vote was unanimously in favoP. The above items including public hearing on the vacation will be on the City Council agenda for August 26, 1986. Case No. 86-533 Setback Variance.for detached garage at 4568 Denbigh Road Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Avalon Nancy O'Brian was present. The Building Official explained that the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a detached accessorybuilding on lakeshore property O to I foot from the front property line with conforming sideyards. The size of the proposed building is 26 feet by 26 feet. The existing g~rage is 3.7 feet into the public right-of-Way at this time. Also the existing dwelling is' 3.6 .feet to the west property line; it is along a 15 foot fire access lane whichis unimproved. In 198l, the City recpgnized the nonconformancies and allowed her to add a deck. She stated the R-2 Zoning'requires detached accessory buildings be minimum of 4 feet to the side yard and 20 feet to the street front-yard with the doors facing the street or 8 feet.to the front with.the garage doors facing.the side lot line. She feels there ls definitely"a hardship with the topography; she is recommending approval to allow a 4 foot side yard and 4 foot front yard with the doors of the accessory building facing the street to allow a 22 by 26 'foot building. She pointed out that they are trying to terrace area back of garage. The Commission discussed the existing garage and the size and location of the proposed garage. The applicant stated she would like to have-her garage door 8 feet from where It Is now and not 12 feet..She also needs garage that size in Order to store )awn mower, garUen equipment, snow blower, etc. Meyer moved and Steve Smith.seconded a motion .to approve the staff recommenda- tion except to allow the detached'accessory building to have a depth of 24 feet by 26 feet conditioned that the existing garage be removed.. The Commission discussed that proposed garage, would be lO feet from the curb line. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. This will be on the Council agenda of August 26, 1986. 5. Case No. 86-534 Setback Variance for detached accessory building for 4908 Edgewater Drive; Lot 13, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood Barbara Baukner was present for applicant. The Building Official reviewed applicant's request for a variance to allow a detached accessory bu'ilding to be constructed zero feet to the west property line with no ,ave overhang onto the fire access easement and to construct the building 8 feet to his front property line with the garage doors facing the side property line. On lakeshore properties, the required setback is 4 feet to the side lot line and 8 feet to the front property line when the garage doo' face the side lot line. The neighbor together with Mr. Beatty applied for a vacation of the fire access line in 1983 and then withdrew because neighbors petitioned the Council not to grant the vacation. Planning Commisslon Minutes August 11, 1~85 - Page ~ The Commission questioned what objections neighbors had (they did not want to give away more ]and). It was. brought up that topography is quite dlffi- cult; also discussed that a~cesses should be maintained or released. The staff is recon~ending approval of the request wlth a ml.nimum of 5 feet to the existing principal building due to the topography and narrowness of the lot wlth cond!tlons=. 1).the. garage, overhang'not encroach the,access; 2) doors face east slde lot ]1ne. and 3) survey be submitted indicating proposed locatlon and.existing utl. lities and dwelling. Heyer moved and Steve Smith seconded a motion to approve staff recommenda- tions and grant, va~iance. The vote was unanimously in favor. .. This will be on the Councll.agenda of August 26, 1986. Case 'No. 86-536 Variance to Code Section 23.407 (2660 Lakewood Lane) Lot 2,' Shlrley Hllls. Unlt G Applicant was not present. · Steve Smlth moved and Ken Smith seconded a motion. to-table this application. The vote:was unanimously In favor. Case No. 86-537 Setback Variance for Accessory Bu.11ding and Floor Area with a future proposed.Breezeway to the'existing home at':qT01 Aberdeen. Road Lots 1 and'20, BlOck 5,'Devon James Albrecht was present. The Building OffiClal explained that applicant has applied for a variance to -- allow a.-two story 21 foot by 30.foot 6 1n6h garage within 16 feet of the side street and 3 feet of th, east lnterlor Side lot line.' He fronts On 3 streets. For lots.of 'record,'princlpal building wou'ld-requlre on..interior side (west) a 6 foot..setback; 'on Roanoke (east)a 10 foot front yard Setback and'on north and south a 30'foot front yard setback'; for accessory buildings, the setbacks would.be q foot side.yard setback and 20 feet with .the'doors facing the public right-of-way. The app.llcant, ls'proposing fur. ur, attachment.for.the accessory building to the princiPal dwetllng with frost footings'and a second story to be constructed-at' this time.'. Also, the maximum square footage for a detached garage ls"-lO~ of lot area (approx. 640+_.square feet). The Planning Commission.'questloned his use of the accessory building; whether he might convert to an apartment; when he would be attachlng to the prlncipal dwelling;:that a two story garage.would be over the maximum square footage allowed, etc. They dlscussed that applicant should perhaps apply for a condi- tlona~ use permit wlth plans that show exactly what applicant will be doing. Applicant'stated eventually he plaps to attach the'garage to principal struc- ture by an.'enclosed breezeway. He stated he needs a lot'of storage; he does not want to spend the.money for a conditional use permit. The Commission discussed the request. Some of the members were not in favor of allow|ng.lt in residential; did not see a need for a two'Story garage and warehousing type of storage in residential. Variance versus conditional use was discussed. Applicant was requested to draw up some plans and to be more specific in his request, Steve Smith moved and Hichael seconded a motion, to table. The vote was un- animously in favor. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1986 - Page 6 Case No. 86-538 Side Yard Setback and Front Yard Variance for 4452 Denbigh Road; Lot 2, Block l, Avalon. Jack Cook was present. The Building Official explained applicant is requesting tO attach to his house an 18 foot'wide by 24 foot garage within 12 to 13 feet at the closest point of the road. There.is al.so an existing stairway and he wants to go zero feet to the west lot line to enclose what appears to be a 4 foot 1 inch basement stair- way. In the R-2 Zoning District, it would require a 20 foot setback from Den- high Road'and also a 6 foot side yard. A permit was taken out in 1963 for the basement;' no record of any .variances are on file. She mentioned outside.stair- way is at angle and if. line extended toward, street, it would be over property line. Staff Is recomending the front yard variance, but that a 3 foot side yard setback be maintained along the west property line to line up with the existing stairway to the front entrance of home. Mr. Cook stated he thinks both entry~ays to house should be covered to look proper and it .is not practlcal to build a 16 by 24 foot garage. He wants to improve lOoks of neighborhood and get rid of some of the cars parked around there.. Neighbor, Sandie Konnad of 4458 Denbigh, stated she had no objection to house going up to property line, but not on.or over her line. The Commission discussed at length the intensification of the use; what he would do with the stairway on the front of the house, size of garages, etc. Ken Smith moved and Michael seconded a motion to approve the staff recomme~ tion with a minimum Side yard setbqck of 3 feet. The vote was unanimousl~ in favor. This will go to the Council on August 26,.1986. 10. Case.No. 86-539 Recognize existing undersized lot, nonconforming structure and side yard setback for 5032 Crestview Road; Lot 6, Block 19, Shadywood Point Leon and Tammy Stender were present. The Building Official explained that applicant has applied for variances to recognize an existing 3.5 foot side yard setback for the existing dwelling and undersized lot of 6,250 square feet to allow an 18 by 22 foot addition and an 8 by 13 foot deck. In lg78, the former owners received a variance when they 'built the detached garage to recognize existing lot size and also existing dwelling. The garage and home are valued at $22,300. Minimum square footage for a dwelling is 840 square feet. Existing .is 450 square feet. With the 18 by 22 foot addition, they would be in conformance with size of dwelling. Applicant stated he wants to put in frost footings, redo roof and bring home up-to-code; however, he wants variance to leave home where it is. Moving house over 3 feet would cost between $4 and $7,000. He thought cost to bring house up-to-code would be. less than $8,000 and addition would cost $10,500 to $11,000. Applicant stated they've been trying to sel) home for what they owe on it; best offer was $1,O00'less and they would have sold except fellow had bad credit. They need more space. The Commission discussed the request and cost of improvements, etc. Planning Commission Hinutes August 11, 1986 - Page 7 Ken Smith moved and.Heyer seconded a motion to accept the staff'S recommenda- tion with allowing the 3½ foot setback; dwelling to be brought up to bui]ding code within one year from issuance of the building permit. The vote was unanimous]~ in favor. This will come to the Council on August 26, 1986. 11. Case No. 86-540 Setback to Property Lines for New Construction at q958 Wil- shire Boulevard; Part of Lot 8, Block 18, Seton and Part of Block 39, Wychwood Arnold N. Endresen and Jim Heine were present on this request. The Bui'lding Official explained that 'the applicant has applied for a lot area and setback variance, to a11°w the construction of a new dwelling on this parcel. The proposal indicates a $ foot setback at the closest point at the southeast corner of proposed dwelling with a 10 foot front.yard setback to County Roaa 125. Lakeshore setback on nprth Is not marked (basically'about 30 + feet). The existing, dwelling directly to the east is encroaching; this is not sho~n on map as this is for topography only. Lot depth Is approximately 54 to 72 feet. The required lot depth, is 80 feet. Lot area is about 4,680 and re- quirement for that zoning district is 10,000 square feet. Side yard setback ls 10 feet required and a 30 foot front-yard setback or you can average which would bring you up to 20 feet minimum. The staff recommends the front yard setback (of 10 feet) due to the deflection of County Road'125 with the black- top being quite a ways off. The hardship is due to the property shape. 0rigina]ly lot was p'Jatted quite deep; she does not know if it was ever dry land; it had a channel opened up. In 1978, when the flood plain ordinance was adopted, it took lot area away from any property below the OH~ elevation (929.5); so more. than half of that' lot is gone. She explained what would be required for a building permit If the variances were granted, such as having soil tests, getting Hl'nnehaha'Creek Watershed permit, etc. Jim. Heine stated theencroachment had been worked out with a negotiated ease- ment some time agog. Healso'advised that they planned on piling the land as it tends to minimize filling and some of the grade problems. Proposed struc- ture would'have no basement; first level would be 2/3rds garage; other 1/3 would be entry hal.1 and service'area (furnace, laundry, etc.); upper level would be living area with 2 bedrooms. He stated that the house proposed doesn't need bigger lot. They are looking at site costs of about $10,000 and construction cost between $50,000/$60,000. The Commission discussed the ~ariances needed.- over 50~. The posslbility of acquiring adjacent, parcel was discussed and whether such a variance had been granted previously. Ken Smith moved.and H!chael seconded a motion request be denied because of the extreme amount of Variances. required. Steve Smith voted against; all others voted in favor of the denlal. Hotion carried. This will be on the Council agenda of August 26, 1986. ADJOURNMENT Meyer moved and Ken Smith seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:30 P.M. favor, so meeting was adjourned. A!! in Attest: MINUTES OF THE CABLE T.V. ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 24, 1986 The meeting was called to order at approximately 8:00 PM, by Vice Chairman, Jim Kutzner. Members present: Jim Kutzner, Don Ulrick, Marsha Smith and Gary Paulsen. Absent: Jack Braezile, Chuck Champine, Doc Meier. Also present: Mary Smith and Sally Koenecke from Dow-Sat, Joyce Olson. Upon motion by Paulsen, seconded by Ulrick and carried unanimously, the minutes of the June 5, 1986 meeting were approved. A discussion was then held on the Draft of Goals as prepared by Kutzner, Paulsen and Shukle. The goals were reviewed individually as follows: 1. Definition of Committee - It was suggested that the definition be limited to the franchise ordinance which defines the committee as strictly advisory.(/~.'z~-~--,¢~ 2. Community Survey - The Committee felt that this was a good idea and asked to obtain some sample questionnaires that could be mailed for review at the next meeting. 3. Annual Report - The Committee thought this was a good idea. They indicated that the survey results could be included in the report and possibly data from Dow-Sat. 4. Two Way Capacity - This type of information could be included in the Annual Report. Mary Smith of Dow-Sat discussed the existence of two way communications that have been set up in the school districts, of four out state cities. She indicated that the installation of a two way communication system is very expensive. The Committee thought they could pursue this as a long term goal. 5. Electrical Inspection - The Committee indicated that they felt there was not a real problem in this area, but that it could be undertaken if it was deemed necessary at a later date. 6. Channel 6 Interconnection - This was discussed briefly and it was the consensus to have it studied further. 7. Forum for Airing Grievances - This was thought to be a good idea. It was the consensus to set up a process and implement the forum. 8. Public Access - This was discussed at'the goal of the next meeting. 9. Terms of Office - This was to be discussed at the next meeting. 10. Use of Legal Counsel - This was to be discussed at the next meeting. A discussion was then held on the local access proposal as prepared by Sally Koenecke. After considerable discussion, it was moved by Ulrick to recommend to the City Council that $6000 of the franchise fee be used for the purchase of equipment for local access programming. The motion died for lack of a second. Gary Raulsen then indicated that he may ask the City Council to obtain a legal opinion from Mr. Tom Creighton on the facilities provision within the franchise ordinance. The matter of the local access proposal was then continued for further discussion at the next meeting, which will be held August 13, 1986, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers. MINUTES OF THE CABLE T.V. ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 24, 1986 PAGE 2 Upon motion by Ulrick, seconded by Smith, and carried unanimously, the Committee recommends the appointment of Linda Paulsen to serve on the Committee to fill the current vacancy. The City Council will consider this recommendation at their August 12th meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 PM. Edward J Shukle, Jr City Manager ES:Is LEN HARRELL Chief of Police I OU D POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 On August 18th and 19th officer McKinley and his K-9 partner REX took part in the Region 12, U.S.P.C.A., Regional Field Trials that were held in Minneapolis Minnesota. As a result of their efforts they finished 10th overall and took First place in the Agility phase of the trials. Out of a possible 700 points they received 644.67 points...-Tfleir total point score was enough to earn them a spot at the U.S.P.C.A. National Field Trials that will be held in Baton Rouge La. October 5th through the lOth.