Loading...
1987-07-28CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M.z TUESDAY~ULY 28_..z. 1987 COUNCil ~H~-~- Pledge of Allegiance Approve the Minutes of the July 14, 1987, Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills CASE t87-651: Gerald J. Beren~, 50~8 Enchanted Road, Lot 2, BloCk 21, Shadywood Point ~equest: Side Yard Setback Variance CASE #87-652: Leon & Evonne Heller, 4695 Hampton Rd., Lots 13 & 14, Part of Lots 28, 29, 30, 31, Block 9, Pembroke ~uest: Minor Subdivision CASE 187-653: J. Ned o~ 4994 Manchester Road, Lot 12, B-Tock 33, Wychwood ~equest: Lot Size Variance CASE 187-656: Harley E. Jordan, 2193 Cedar Lane, Lot 18 and Part of Lot 19, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addn. to Lakeside Park CASE 187-659: Foot Front Yard Variance Brian johnson/Paul _bLarsom, o49XX Glen Elyn Road, Lots 17, ~8, 19, Block 24, Shadywood Point 10. ~uest: Minor Subdivision Jennings Bay Dredging - Mayor Smith requested this item be put on the Agenda for citizen input· Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Pg. 2152-2161 Pg. 2162 Pg. 216-3-2174 Pg. 2175-2183 Pg. 2184-2191 Pg. 2192-2198 Pg. 2199-2204 Page 2149 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Resolution to enter into a joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County to extend the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Parking on Gull Lane Sign Ordinance Modification - Mark Koegler Approval of Permits: Our Lady of the Lake Church Incredible Festival - Public Dance & Charitable 3.2 Beer Permit Payment of Bills INFORHATION/HISCELLANEOUS A. Notice of Seminar on Council-Manager Relations - Monday, September 28, 1987. I would appreciate all of you attending this with me. Please let Fran know as soon as possible. B. Subscriber'Statistics for january through June, 1987 - Dowden Communications C. 'Congratulations are in order for Sally Koenecke and her efforts and work with Local Access on Cable T. V. She traveled to Chicago to receive a first place award for the development of "Homework Hotline", a program developed through the School district to provide educational programming to students who need additional training in various curriculum offered by the school district. There were 450 nominations for 4 possible awards. Sally was also the chief official in coordinating the Mound City Days video program. Mound City Days received an award through the University of Minnesota, for its presentation on the Local Access Channel. D. Notice from the Met Council on preliminary population and household estimates as of April 1, 1987. E. Notice from the Met Council of public meeting on their proposed 1988 work program and budget. F. Notice from AT&T regarding changes in AT&T's rate structure. pg. 2205-2214 pg. 2215-2223 Pg. 2224-2227 Pg. 2228 Pg. 2229-2243 pg. 2244-2245 pg. 2246-2249 pg. 2250-2252 pg. 2253-2256 pg. 2257-2259 Page 2150 Invitation from AMM (Association of Metropolitan Municipalities) to a breakfast meeting: Date: Wednesday, August 5, 1987 Place: Plymouth Holiday Inn Time: 7:30 A.M. Please let Fran know by Friday, July 31, 1987, if you plan to attend. Memo from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding lake level, flow and precipitation for June, 1987. Letter from Curt Pearson regarding nonconforming uses - planning items. Planning Commission Minutes from July 13, 1987 Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes from July 13, 1987 Pg. 2260-2261 Pg. 2262-2264 Pg. 2265-2275 Pg. 2276-2280 Pg. 2281-2282 Page 2151 115 July 14, 1987 MINUTES -'MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 14, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers a% 5~1 ~sywood Road, ~n sa~d ~y. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Couneilmembers' Don Abel, Llz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, Police Chief Len Harrell, Officer Todd Limond, and the following interested citizens: Mr. & Mrs. Tom Geyen, Mr. & Mrs. James Fox, Arvin Senne, Eric and Michele Berglund, Kurt Berglund, Greg Sycks, Freda Olson, William Bardley, John Peterson and Mr. & Mrs. LaPoint. . The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Abel to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1987, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. pUBLIC HEARING: CASE $87-638,- JAMES ~ KATIE FOX, 2925 STRATFORD LANE, LOTS-l,2 & 3, BLOCK 7~ WXCHWOOD, PROPOSED VACATION OF DO~CHESTER ROAD FROM STRATFORD LANE TO ESSEX LANE The City Engineer explained the request. The City Attorney suggested that the affected property owners have the private access agreement drawn up and filed before the vacation reso. lution is released. The Council agreed. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. 'The Mayor closed the public hearing. There were no comments. Abel moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution with the above condition added: RESOLUTION ~87-12q RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER DORCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN STRATFORD LANE AND ESSEX LANE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 116' July lq, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING= CASE #87-640 -~ARVIN SENNE, 6099 COUNTY ROAD 26, MOUND, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR EXpaN- SION OF CABINET SHOp. AND OFFICE AT 5558 AUDITOR'S ROAD The City Planner explained that this Conditional Use Permit needs to be revised to cover Mr. Senne's expansion. The' Planning Commission recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. There were no comments.. Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-125 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION AND EXPANSION OF A CABINET SHOP - PID #13- 117-24 33 OOQ5, CASE ~87-640 {5558 AUDITOR'S ROAD The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE ~87-641 - NORMAN R. BERGLUND, 4611 THROUGH 4658 KILDARE ROAD, PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A PORTION OF BLOCKS I & 11,..ALL OF. BLOCK 2, ALL IN SETON ADDITION, FROM R-4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 'The City Planner explained this proposal and stated that the request following this item for the vacation of a portion of Longford Road is related. The City Attorney suggested that the Council continue this public hearing, republish and include all the properties in the R-q district for rezoning to R-2, not just Mr. 'Berglund's property. This will avert a spot zoning situation. The 'Mayor opened the public hearing. Mr. Kurt Berglund and Mr. Eric Berglund spoke in favor of the rezoning and the vacation of a portion of Longford Road. Mr. Paul Larson, Merrill Lynch Realty, representing the owner of Lots 21 - 2t, Block 11 and Lots 9 & 7, spoke in favor of the rezoning and the vacation of a portion of Longford Road. The City Planner reminded the Council that the applicant can develop this land without changing the zoning, but wishes to have more liberal setbacks in order to have a slightly wider house than what would be allowed in the R-q district. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Abel to adjourn this public hearing until the August 11, 1987, meeting in order to republish the public hearing and include all the property in the R-4 district in this area for rezoning to R-2. The vote 117 July 14, 1987 was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE t87-646 - NORMAN B~RGLUND, OWNER OF PRO- PERTY ON SOUTH & NORTH OF LONGFORD ROAD, PROPOSED VACATION OF PORTION OF LONGFORD ROAD BETWEEN KINGS LANE AND BLACK LASE LANE (WEST SIDE OF LOT 23, TO EAST SIDE OF LOT ,10~ BLOCK 11 SETON) AND THAT PORTION OF KERRY LANE NORTH FROM LONGFORD The Mayor opened the public hearing. Paul Larson, Eric and Kurt Berglund all spoke in favor the the vacation. The Mayor closed the public hearing. There was Council discussion on this vacation leaving no access to the two Commons docks which could be located at the end of unimproved Kerry Lane. The Planner reported, that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this vacation application. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the vacation as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE..#87-644 -, TOM KELLY, 4831 SHORELINE BLVD., LOTS 1-~, .PT. OF 5 & 20 & 21, SHIRLEY. HILLS UNIT ,"A"~, APPLICATION TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~0 ALLOW BAIT & TACKLE SALES AT 4832 SHORELINE BLVD. The City Planner explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The Building Official explained that she notified Mr. Kelly on April. 28, 1987 that building, plumbing, heating and wiring permits were required for the remodeling that was being done on 4831 Shoreline Blvd. She followed up with a letter on July 6, 1987. To date they have not submitted blueprints nor taken out any permits for the work. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Steve Williams, partner in the business, stated he will be submitting plans for the remodeling and will pay for permits, fees, and penalties. The .Mayor closed the public hearing. · The Council discussed the building violations and signage violations.' The City Attorney suggested the following language be inserted in the proposed resolution: "All applicable ordinances and statutes be complied with prior to the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit and all fees and penalties for existing building violations shall be paid prior to issuance of this permit by the City Building Official. All existing sales in violation of the Zoning Ordinance shall cease and desist within 30 days and the use 118 July 14, 1987 shall be brought into compliance with the Ordinances and this permit within said time period." The Council agreed. Jessen moved.and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-126 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF A VEHICLE IMPOUNDMENT AREA, SERVICE STATION/VEHICLE REPAIR (MINOR) FACILITY AND SALES OF SMALL MISCELLANEOUS FISHING TACKLE AND LIVE BAIT AT 4831 SHORELINE BLVD., PID f13-117-24 44 0014, P & X CASE ~87-644 The voted was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~,UBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CDBG (COMMUNITY)DEVEL~ OPMENT BLOCK GRANT) FUNDS FOR YEARS XII& XIII The City Manager explained that this amendment is to help in a business relocation in Mound. It will reallocate $20,000 for a special economic development project. The Mayor opened the publi:c hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public hearing. : Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-127 RESOLUTION REALLOCATING YEARS.XII AND XIII MOUND/URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~87-643: JOHN_PETERSON, 49XX EDGEWATER DRIVE, WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 17, SKARP & LINDOUIST'S RAVENSWOOD ADDITION, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE The BUilding Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. % Smith moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-128 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 17, SKARP & LINDOUIST'S ADDITION, 49XX EDGEWATER DRIVE, PID $13-117-24 41 0062, P & Z CASE ~87-643 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. July 14, 1987 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were no comments or suggestions. ASSESSING CONTRACT The City Manager explained the memo from the City Clerk regarding costs to contract with other than Henneping County for assessing services. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Abel to stay with Hennepin County for assessing services. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. AUTHORIZATION TO SELL CITY PROPERTY The City Clerk explained that Mr. Sycks would like to purchase the south 36 feet of Lots 13, 14, & 15, Block B3, Wychwood. There would be a street easement over the south 5 feet of these lots and a utility easement on the north 31 feet'of the south 36 feet of these lots. Abel moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-129 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO SELL CITY ~ROPERTY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY A. PORTION OF LOTS 25 & 26., BLOCK 5, ARDEN The City Clerk explained her memo and recommendation. Jessen moved and Johnson secOnded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-130 RESOLUTION RECONVEYING (IF NECESSARY) CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE AND REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS - (PORTIONS OF LOTS 25 & 26, BLOCK 5, ARDEN) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. B. .LOT 16, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE The City Clerk explained her memo and recommendation. 120 July 14, 1987 Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87'131 RESOLUTION RECONVEYING (IF NECESSARY) CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND.TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS AND AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM' THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS - (PART OF LOT 16, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. (:PART OF LOT 32, ALL OF 33 AND PART OF 34, BLOCK 1, THE HIGH- LANDS) AND (PART OF LOT 34, ALL OF 35 AND PART OF LOT 36, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS The City Clerk explained here memo and recommendations. Smith moved and Johnson seconded th~ following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-132 RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONVEYANCE OF PORTIONS OF TAX FORFEIT LANDS; RELEASING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF TAX FORFEIT LANDS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION; CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS; AND REQUESTING AN~ EASEMENT - (PART OF LOT' 32, ALL OF 33 AND PART OF LOT 34, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS) AND (PART OF LOT 34, ALL OF 35 AND PART OF LOT 36, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PARTS OF LOTS 17, 18 & 19, BLOCK 1, ARDEN The City Clerk explained her memo and recommendation. Abgl moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-133 RESOLUTION RECONVEYING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF TAX FORFEIT LANDS:BACK TO THE STATE; REQUESTING _THESE LANDS BE COMBINED; REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS - (PARTS OF LOTS 17, 18, & 19, BLOCK 1, ARDEN) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 121 July 14, 1987 E. (PART OF LOTS R6 & 37, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS) & tPART OF LOTS 38, 38,-& 39, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS) The City Clerk explained her memo and recommendation. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-13~ RESOLUTION RELEASING CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION AND CERTIFIlNG THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS -(PART OF LOTS 36 & 3?, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS) & (PART OF LOTS 37, 38 & 39, BLOCK 1, TBE~HIGHLANDS) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PART OF LOTS 12 & 13, BLOCK 12, AVALON The City Clerk explained her memo and recommendation. Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-135 RESOLUTION RECONVEXlNG (IF NECESSARI) CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK'TO THE STATE AND REQUESTING THE COUNTX BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT.THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS - (PART OF LOTS 12 & 13, BLOCK 12, AVALON) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ,RESOLUTION REVISIN~,,THE 1987 BUDGET ADOPTED IN RESOLUTIONS 86-133 AND 86-13~ The City Manager explained that since the budget was adopted all salaries have been adjusted for 1987. It is now necessary to amend the Budget. Smith moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-136 RESOLUTION RE¥ISING THE 1987 BUDGET ADOPTED IN RESOLUTIONS 86-133 AND 86-134 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION-NO, 87-16, REGARDING PARKING ON GULL ~AN~ AT WREN ROAD The City Manager explained the request. He stated the Fire Chief does have a concern that the elimination of the no parking would make' getting a fire truck through the street a problem. July 23, 1987 The people requesting this change, Mr. & Mrs. LaPoint were present and explained their position. NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to table this item until the July 28th meeting in order to get more input from the Fire Chief. The vote was unanimously in favor, Motion carried. PAYNENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. NOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to approve the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $228,557.62, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES A. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by. Jensen to set August 11, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. for a public 'hearing to ,consider an application for a revision of eondltionsl use permit to allow on site open storage at 5300-5340 Shoreline Blvd., PID 117-24 34 0076. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. NOTION made by'Smith, seconded by Jensen to set August 11, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. for a public' hearing to Consider an application for Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow retail mail order in the B-1 Central Business District by Conditional Use Permit (Amendment of Section 23.625.3 of the City Code). The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. SIGN PERMIT - DOWNTOWN RETAIL COUNCIL The City Manager explained the request. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Abel to grant a sign permit to..the Downtown Retail Council for 4, portable signs, 4' x 6', to be up from July 17 to August 3, 1987.-. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. ~ · AGREEMENT TO MOVE SEWER LINE ON LOTS 4 & 10, BLOCK 12, SETON The City Attorney explained that h'e and Mr. Button's attorney have worked out an Agreement to move the sewer line which is under Mr. Button's home. Ail expenses to be paid by Mr. Burton. 123 July 15, 1987 Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-137 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH MR. & MRS. WILLIAM BURTON TO RELOCATE A SEWER LINE UNDER THE BURTON HOME (LOTS 4 & 10, BLOCK 1~, SETON 22. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: Department Head Monthly Reports for June 1987. School Board Minutes of June 8, 1987. C. LMCD 1988 Budget. De Memo From E.A. Hlckok and Associates, Engineer for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on Lake Level, Flow and Precipitation for April and May. Ee Letter from Police Chief to Around Mound 5 Mile Run thanking them for $100 donation. Police assisted in traffic control and security during 'the race. F. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1987. The Police Chief. introduced the newest Police Officer, Todd Limond. MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager .Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk 'BILLS JULY 14, 1987 Batch 874063 Batch 874064 Computer Run dated 7/8/87 '. Computer Run dated 7/9/87 144,86~.48 ~3,688.14 Total Bills 228,557.62 Delinquenc WaCer and Sewer 7-23-87 33 406 2628 61 33 424%738 33 439 4681 42 33 442 4578 61 33 466 4937 31 33 475 4707. 12 33 484 3134 33 4~4 3201 81 33 484'3331 36 33 484 5072 11' 33 507 4524 01 33 518 4717 72 33 524 3122 91 33 539 4838 71 33 545 4823 66 33 548 3107 93 33 551 3090 1I 33 578 2841 11 / 33 587 3021 02 33 590 5226 72 33 593 5125 51 33 596 4724 91 33 596 5138 11 33 599 4535 31 33 635 5123 91 33 638 3246 41 J. Kinneberg Pd. $149.83 Gary Paulsen Pd'~ 83.~3 John Zamborl * 162.81 Jeff Allison 141.O8 James Grady Pd. 114.24 Ken Kowalke 95.45 Mark Webster Pd. 70.02 Richard Gehlaye Pd. 214.34 Jim Casey 157.93 Corkey Roeh] 370.61. Leanard Lindblom Pd. 157.04 Charles Ham 132.30 Paul Wagener 83.93 Ralnd Sarles 197.94 Marvin BentsfieldPd. 196.07 RobNaughton Pd. 75.41 T.M.Wi]son 133.11 Greg Bruzenak 154.23 Rick Jostrom Pd. 170.97 Gary Uzlik 66.63 Lyle Hall 164.40 Kevin Smith Pd. 46.68 Eric Berg Pd. 103.74 L. Rousseau 104.19 Barbara Miller 64.90 Ken Kowalke 95.07 *made arrangements $3506.85 $2124.58 2628 Tyrone Ln. '4738 Galway Rd. 4681Wilshire Blvd. 4578 Denbigh Ln. 4937 Brunswick Rd. 4707 Manchester Rd. 3136 Tuxedo Blvd. 3201 Tuxedo Blvd. ~31 TuXedo Blvd. 5072 Tuxedo Blvd. 4524 Stirling Rd. 4717 Hampton Rd. 3122 Drury 4838 Glasgow Rd. 4823 Lanark Rd. 3107 Argyle Ln. 3090 Alexander Ln. 2841 Marlboro Ln. 3021 Brighton Blvd. 5226 Windsor Rd. 5125 Drummond Rd. 4724 Hanover Rd. 5138 Hanover Rd 4535 Aberdeen Rd. 5123 Waterbury Rd. 3246 Warner Ln. Delinquent Water and Sewer 7-23-87 33 406 2628 61 33 424"4738 41 33 439 4681 42 33 442 4578 61 33 466 4937 31 33 475 4707 12 33 484 3134 11 33 4~4 3201 81 33 484 3331 36 33 484 5072 11 33 507 4524 O1 33 518 4717 72 33 524 3122 91 33 539 4838 71 33 545 4823 66 33 548 3107 93 33 551 3090 11 33 578 2841 11 33 587 3021 02 33 5'90 5226 72 33 593.5125 51 33 596 4724 91 33 596 5138 11 33 599 4535 31 33 635 5123 91 33 638 3246 41 $149.83 832~3 162.81 114.24 95.45 70.02 214.34 157.93 370.61. 157.04 132.30 83.93 197.94 196.07 75.41 154.23 170.97 66.63 164.40 46.68 103.74 104.19 64.90 95.07 $3506.85 RESOLUTION 87- Proposed Resolution Case # 87-651 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT'2, BLOCK 21, SHADYWOOD POINT; PID #13-117-24110070 P & Z COMMIS- SION CASE # 87-651 WHEREAS, The applicant, Mr. Gerald Joseph Berent, is requesting a 3.3 foot side yard setback variance to construct a second floor on top of an existing single story residence in line with the existing wall within 2.7 feet of the West property line; and WHEREAS, the R2 single family zoning district requires 6 foot side yard setbacks to the property line and the detached accessory building is .4'. from the lot line and requires an 8 foot setback to the right-of-way and a 4 foot setback to the East property line; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the. request and has recommended the 3.3 foot side yard variance and recognizFng the existing non-conforming detached accessory building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the recoginition of the existing detached accessory building and approve the requested 3.3 foot side yard setback to allow the construction of a second story dwelling within 2.7 feet of the West property line upon a condition that it meet building code requirements, the drainage is diverted to the North lakeshore away from the adjoining properties with gutters and a'12" .o~e~hang as shown On the Exhibit A for. Lot 2, Block 21, Shadywood Point; PID #13-117-24110070 (5008 Enchanted .Road). CASE NO. 87-651 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~ Planning Commission Agenda of July 13, 1987 CASE NO. 87-651 APPLICANT: Gerald Joseph Berent LOCATION: 5008 Enchanted Road LEGAL DESC.: Lot 2, Block 21, Shadywood Point; PID 13-117-24 ll 0070 SUBJECT: Side yard setback variance EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a second floor on top of an existing single Story residence. The current structure contains 878 square feet and the proposed addition will approximately double the existing floor area. The existing structure contains a side yard setback of 2.7 feet and 18 feet. The north setback to lakeshore is 64 feet and the setback to the south front yard is 43.15 feet+. The Zoning Code requires 50 foot lakeshore; a 6 foot side- yard setbacks and a 20 fo°t street front setback. The application of the Zoning Code resul.ts in the requested 3.3 foot sideyard setback to the west property line. COMMENTS: The existing structure is nonconforming due to inadequate side yard setback. However, in 1971, a buil.ding permit was obtained to construct a new foundation with.concrete floor on the existing building. The Ordinance forbids alterations of nonconforming residential units when the improvements increase the bulk of the building. A doubling of floor area obviously increases the bulk of the building. There was'no record, of a variance granted before the building permit in 1971. RECOMMENDATION: If the~variance is granted, staff would recommend that the second floor addition stay in linewith the 4.8 foot setback to the west lot line as the home does jog 2 feet. out to the west and could possibly be constructed to remain 3 feet or more from the property line. The Building Code allows no openings and a 1 hour fire rated construction less than 3 feet to the lot lines on single family homes. The drainage mentioned in the applicant's letter could be diverted to the north and toward the lakeshore away from the adjoining property owners. There is room on the property to construct an addition in another location that would con- form to the Zoning Ordinance setback requirements. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Photographs on file. This will be referred to the City Council on July 28, 1987 meeting. JB/ms JB/ms MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 1987 Present were: Chairman Tom Reese, Commissioners Vern Anderson, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Ken Smith, -Brad Sohns, William Thal, and Frank Weiland; Council Representatis Elizabeth Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle, 'City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Holly McLaughlin. Also present were the following interested persons: Gerald Berent, Gene Berent, J Ned Dow, ~ixie Dow, Leon Heller, Harley Jordan, Jerry Kohls, Paul Larson, Brian Johnson Paul. &'nd-Pat Heisel. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Re,se added a 17%."grade".to the June 8, 1987 minutes on page 3. He al~o questioned the process of making corrections stating not having the entire context could have.bearing on future decisions. Smith motioned and Meyers seconded. The vote was unanimous .to approve. The minutes of June 22~:: 1987 correct the recognition of Steve as the Mayor and added the phrase "availability of land· t9 park R.V.'s". W~iland motioned and Sohns seconde~ the vote was unanimous to approve. ,. BOARDOFAPPEALS " Case No. 87-651 Side yard setback variance for 4695 Hampton Road. Lot 2, Block 21, Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0070, Gerald Berent was present. A.variance requeq.t for ~.3 feet sideyard setback to the west property line. Berents stated to go outward to the lake is objected by neighbors. He needs to build up for the addition of two bedrooms and a full bath for his wife and two / children. Jensen proposed to treat this as practical difficulty and Sohns agreed. -Motion by Smith to approve a 3.~ foot variance including a 12'b~erhan9:, seconded by Weiland. The vote was unanimously in favor. Goes before the council July 28. Case No. 87-652 Minor subdivision for 4695 Hampton Road, Lots #13 an~ 14, part of lots 28, 29, 30, and'31, Block 9, Pembroke, PID 19-117-23 33 008010087, Leon Heller was present. '- A subdivision request for a portion· of the rear Lot 13 from Paisley Road to correct a drivew?y encroachment on the adjoining property. Anderso~ motioned and Weiland seconded approval of the subdivision. The vote was unanimously in favOr.. ~. Case No. 87-653 Lot size variance for 4994'Manchester Road Lot 12, Block 33, Wychwood, PID 24-117-24 42 0005, J. Ned and Dixie Dow were present. A variance of 6.5 feet with conforming setbacks is requested by Dow. Dow states that his home is too small to add a second floor, the first floor would be ruined. Smith states that this is "back to the commons problem again." The council is not in favor of expanding on 4700 foot lots, it's a case of practical difficulty. With the commons'.and two roads on either side there is breathinRiroom. We|land favors the comment that he can't consider it as his property for {eniargement-- it is part of the commons. Motion by Anderson to approve the variance, seconded by Michael. The vote was unanimous. '' ..... "r ,~?,-ff'j Street Address of" Pr61~ CITY OF ~OUND Case .o., ~?- 4~', Fee Paid 0~ ~ D&te Filed >LICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION (Please type the'.following information).. :rty ~008 ]i~cbaate~oa~ Mom~i, )ha. 553(,h. Legal Descri'ptilOnof Property: Lot 2 Additi'on ~:U~O0.~ POlar.. Owner's Name Address 5008 ]i:l:tC]laatee[ I[0~d . J~0ttae[, ](1:to ~3(~ Block e , o .o. "'11 Day Phone No. Applicant '(if other than o~ner): Name Address Day Phone No. Type of Request: (Z) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Revie~ (.') ~etland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If ot~er, specify: ( .) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other ~resent ~oning District ~-~- '" Existing Use(s) of Property x4~t.~,~. /~_~, A~/~,, . / - -.-- , Has'an application ever been made for zonir~/l~ariance, or condltional'use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ ' If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies.of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any requlred 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 offlcial of the City of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining 'and removing Such notices as may be requided by law. Signature of Applicant~_-/~~~ ~r~ Date(?~/~'7. Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolutlon No. Date ~/~g Request'.for Zonl.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, e~c. 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 wlll be scheduled. B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to ~l~Yuse regulations for the zone district In which it is located? Yes (~/) No ( ) If 'nott, specify each non-conforming use: Ce Do the existing structures' comply with all area height/and bulk regulatlons for the zone district in which it ls located? Ye~ ~(~) No' ( ) If 'no~, specify each non-conforming use: O. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district? (/) .Too n~rrow (~ Topography' '. ( ) Soil C ) Too. small ~ ) Drainage · . ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallo~ ( ) 'Shape ( ) Other: Specify: E. Was the hardship d~scribed above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~/) If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any Drier 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 peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes If'no, how many other properties are similarly affected? hat ls the "minimum'~ modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulatlons ~mhat will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, uslng aps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinanoe? Prepared for: GERALD BERENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 2i, SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES o Denotes iron monument ' *" Denotes cross chiseled in concrete x 939.7 Denotes existing spot elevation [~ Denotes proposed spot elevation ( Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features .... ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph; 475- 1433 Proposed top of foundation elevation = Proposed basement floor elevation = Propc~sed garage floor elevation = BENCHMARK: 1' hereby certify that this eurvey plan or report wes prepared by me or under my direct supervsion and that I am a duly Regietered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Slate of Minnesota. SCALE BOOK PAGE FILE NO. 870 -A City Planning Cammisa~on Mu. 553~ 1~ ~une 8~ lam requesting a zoning variance for the purpose" of adding a second story to our house. After t~lking with the city building in- spector, I understauA that this is a requirement that must Be met be- fore a Builling permit can Be issued. The following reasons will Just- ify why a variauce shoulA be granted aaa why this is the only ~ay possible for us to make the necese~ry expansion improvemen~s on our house. An aAiition on the front (lake) side of the house is not poe- siBle Because of two main reasons. (1) The front of our house an& that of our neig~Bors on each slaw are roughly equal distance from the lake shore. If we were forced to put au addition on that side of the house:it would lmpare the laXe views of at leas~ one of our neighbors. (~ee 1~o~o ~A ~ak~n from a'ou~t- lng propeA'~y owner's ~.un~ ya~A). Tale woul~ create an ~air situation for them that they have stated they would not accept. (See attached letter from abutting property owner). (2) There is a steep-Bank down to the lake(See certificate of survey) begi~dng at the iron monuments down to ~ter level. An aAdition large enough to give us the two a~lditional Belrooms we seek would elim- inate most of our usable front yard. ~u a~dition o~ the ~ack (street) side of the house is not poe- slble Because 'of two main reasons. (1) The trivewa~ a~A garage are elevat.e~ 'approximately five feet from the Back yard. ( Zee photo ~2 taken from main entrywa~ of house). ~.n addition large enough to give us the two ad~itional be~roms we seek would not only eliminate all of our Back yar~, it would also put the main entranoe to our house right a.t the base of the steps leading to the elevated iriveway. This unique sitnation woul~ amoung other th!..ngs create a potential safety problem. (2) The potential for water damage would exist Because of run- off from the &riveway and garage roof. ~intertime snow removal is usual~ pushed off the ~rivewa~ down into the yard. A large pile of snow could cause major problems during spring melting. I would also like to state 'some reasons why this variance sh°Ul'A Be ap~rove~. They ~re: (1) It would of course increase the value. of the prol~erty. J (2) I~ reducing the width of the so~fet on the side in question it would iacrease the actual distance Between the houses by at least one foot. (See photo ~3). ~ith the ~ldition of gutters on that si&e it would elimiuate any' potential w~ter problems that could arise. (3) I have the full endorsement from the abutting property owner. ($) In 1971 the city of Mound a~proveA a Building permit for the construction of a new foun~ation au~ basement floor. Since the current zoning regul~ions were in effect then, the city thereby appr.oveA construct- ion on the heuse in its present location prior to this request. (5) The house in its current condition is lower in elevation than that of the abutting property owners homes. A seconA s~ory eo~f~et not make the ~ouse stiC~ OUt fro,,, o~ar houses nea~.by, Du~ :vouAA make ~'~ ~ox'e ~n line w~th them ~n elevat~o~o (6) Major repairs are requlreA on the current roof. These must be accompllsheA ~rlor to winter. In closing I voulA like to sa~ that this family, greatly enjoys living in Mou~d. We woulA like to.make .tkie ho~e something ~that both we and the neighborhood Can be prouA of. We are available at all times ~o answer any questions you might have. Our home is also available for your inspection. Th~ You. ~'eralA J~ ~erent Pamela R...]~erent %008 EnChanteA RA. June 1987 Jan Bertram Building Inspector City of Mound Mound, MN 55364 De~r Ms. Bertram, We endorse Gerald and Pamela Berent's, 5008 Enchanted Rd., Mound, proposal to add a second floor addition to their current residence. To not allow the addition of a second floor would: put the new addition on the back (North side) of the house which would block our view of the lake. put the new addition in the front (South side) of the house' would take up the entire front yard. put the addition on our side (West) would'encroach on the .property line and leave them without a side yard. put the addition on the other side (East) would not.allow enough space to be properly integrated into the existing house's structure and would look like a "tack on" addition. All.the above solutions are not acceptable to us as a neighbor. We endorse the second floo~ addition because: We have seen the plans and feel the addition would enhance the existing property. would solve the existing problem of water runoff with the instal- lation of gutters. The objections to other means of addition are~az~st~ng~acn~ f~lt'on our part. We are confident that the Berent's Will do a professional looking job on the addition. If you have any further questions on our feelings about this matter, please feel free to call us. Sincerely, , and Linda Caravelli Gregory' 5016 Enchanted Rd - Mound, MN 55364 472-5788 cc: Gerald and Pamela Berent MOUND.~85 ~ .z 7- ~ ,s'/ Proposed Resolution Case #87-652 RESOLUTION 87- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS 13 & 14; PART OF LOTS 29, 30 & 31 AND THE EAST 20 FEET OF LOT 28, BLOCK 9, PEM~ROOK SUBDIVISION; PID #19-117-2333OO80/O087 P & Z COMMISSION CASE # 87-652 WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of the Lots in Block 9, Pembrook Addition has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 in the Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and 'WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circum- stances affecting said properties such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use.of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights;~and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, the City of Mound, Minnesota; the request of the apPlicant for the waiver from the property of less than 5 acres, described as follows: Lots 13 & 14, that part of Lots 29, 30 & 31 and of the East 20 feet of Lot 28 lie North of a line and its extensions parrallel with an 80 feet Northeasterly as measured at right angles to the Southwesterly line of said Lots 28, 29,30 & 31, Block 9, Pembrook, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said county. PID #19-117-23330080/O087 It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner as per Exhibit (A); Parcel A: Lot 13 & 14, Block 9, Pembrook Subdivision, Mound, Minnesota except that part as described as follows: that part of Lot 13, Block 9, Pembrook~ according to the recorded plat thereof described as follows: beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 14, Block 9, Pembro0k; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 13 to the most Southerly corner of said Lot 13; thence Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 13, a distance of 23.75 feet; thence Northwesterly to the point of the beginning. Page 2 Proposed Resolution Case # 87-652 Bo Co Parcel'B: That part of Lot 29, 30 & 31 and of the East 20 feet of Lot 28 lying North'of the line and its extensions parrallel with and 80 feet Northeasterly as measured at right angles to the Southwesterly line of. said Lot 28, 29, 30 and 3i, Block 9, Pe~brook, according the to plat thereof on file of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said county; also that part of Lot 13 described as follows: that part of Lot i3, Block 9, Pembrook, according to the recorded plat thereof described as follows: beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 14, B'lock 9, Pembrook; thence Southerly ~long the Westerly line of said Lot 13 to the most Southerly corner of said Lot 13; thence Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of sald Lot 13 the distance of 23.75 feet; and thence Northwesterly to the point of the beginning. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community of development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds, or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show a compliance with the subdivsion regulations of the city. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. CASE NO. 87-652 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official. 8~ Planning Commission Agenda of July 13, 19 .CASE NO. 87-652 APPLICANT: Leon A. and Evonne M. Heller LOCATION: 4695 Hampton Road LEGAL DESC.: Lot 13, LOt 14~ Parts of Lots 28, 29, 30 and 31, Block 9, PembrOke; PID Numbers 19-117-23 33 0080/0087 SUBJECT: Minor subdivision EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant is requesting.to subdivide off a portion of the rear of Lot 13 from Paisley Road to correct a driveway encroachment problem on the adjoining property. The R-1 Zoning District requires lot areas of 10,000 square feet and lot widths of 60 feet, and frontage on an improvement public right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and waiver of the public.hearing. This wi'11 provide a subdivision of land in the following manner: Parcel A: Lot 13 and 14, Block 9, Pembroke Subdivision, Hound, Hinnesota, except that part described as follows: That part of Lot 13, Block 9, Pembroke, according to the recorded plat thereof described as follows: Beginning at the southeast cot- -net of Lot 14, Block 9, Pembroke; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 13 to the most southerly corner of said Lot '13; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of'said Lot 13 a distance of 23.75 feet; thence' northwesterly to the point of beginning. Parcel B: That part of Lots 29, 30 and 3-1 and of the East 20 feet of Lot 28 lying North of a line and its extension parallel with and 80 feet Northeasterly as measured at right angles to the Southwesterly line of said Lots 28, 29, 30 and 31, Block 9, Pembroke, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the ~egistrar of Titles in and for said County; also that.part of Lot 13 des- cribed as follows: That part of Lot 13, Block 9, Pembroke, according to the re- corded plat thereof described as follows:. Beginning aL the southeast corner of' Lot 14, Block 9, Pembroke; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 13 to the most southerly corner of said Lot 13; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 13 a distanc~ of 23.~75 feet; thence northwesterly to the point of beginning. These parcels will conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements for platted parcels. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on July 28th, 1987 meeting. . MINU~ OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 1987 Present were: Chairman Tom Reese,. Commissioners Vern Anderson, william Meyer, Geoff Michael, Ken Smith, Brad Sohns, William Thal, and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Elizabeth Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, City Engineer 3ohn Cameron, and Secretary Holly McLaughlin. Also present were the following interested persons: Gerald Berent, Gene Berent, J Ned Dow, ~ixie Dow, Leon Heller, Harley Jordan, Jerry Kohl$, Paul Larson, Brian Johnson Pau! ~nd-,Pat Meisei. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Reese added a 17% "grade" to the June 8, 1987 minutes on page 3. He also questioned the process of making corrections stating not having the entire context could have bearing on future decisions. Smith motioned and Meyers seconded. The vote was unanimous~to approve. The minutes of June 22~ 1987 correct the recognition of Steve as the Mayor and added the phrase "availability of land tQ park R.V.'s". Weiland motioned and Sohns seconde~ the vote was unanimous to approve. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 87-651 Side yard setback variance for 4695 Hampton Road. Lot 2, Block 21, Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0070, Gerald Berent was present. Alvariance requept for 3.3 feet sideyard setback to the west property line. Berents stated to go outward to the lake is objected by neighbors. He needs to build up for the addition of two bedrooms and a full bath for his wife and two children. Jensen proposed to treat this as practical difficulty and Sohns agreed. · Motion by Smith to approve a 3.~ foot variance including a 12'b~erhan§], seconded by Weiland. The' vote was unanimously in favor. Goes before the council July 28. Case No. 87-652 Minor subdivision for 4695 Hampton Road, Lots #13 a~d 14, part of lots 28, 29, 30, and'31, Block 9, Pembroke, PID 19-117-23 33 008010087, Leon Heller was present. A subdivision request for a portio~ of the rear Lot 13 from Paisley Road to correct a driveway encroachment on the adjoining property. Anderson motioned and Weiland seconded approval of the subdivision. was unanimously in favor. The vote Case No. 87-653 Lot size variance for 4994 Manchester Road Lot 12, Block 33, Wychwood, PID 24-117-24 42 0005, J. Ned and Dixie Dow were present. A variance of 6.5 feet with conforming setbacks is requested by Dow. Dow states that his home is too small to add a second floor, the first floor would be ruined. Smith states that this is "back to the commons problem again." The council is not in favor of expanding on 4700 foot lots, it's a case of practical difficulty. With the commons and twO roads on either side there is breathing room. Weiland favors the comment that he can't consider it as his property for!enlargement-- it is part of the commons. - -" ICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND "': :~ - '.~:'i fl ~ec.- . - ~ ~' 7 -'~. ~-.z_ JUN 2 3 1987 ! VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER PLAT PARCEL Leon A. Heller Evonne M. 'Heller ' 7525 Harold Ave. Golden Valley, Mn. 55427 Location end complete legal description of property to be divided: ~ ~, Block 9, Pembroke Subdivision, Mound, Address, . 4695 Hampton Road, Minnesota Mound, 64 Mn. 5~3. To be divided as follows: See attac~ed sheet for following descriptions. (a) 4695 Hampton Road, Mound, Mn. - (before dividing) (b) 4695 Hampton Road, Mound, Mn. - (after dividing) (c) 3t01 Paisley. Road, Mound, Mn. - '(before dividing) (d) 3101 Paisley Road, Mound, Mn. - (after dividing) All supporting documents~ such as sketch plans, surveys, attachments, etc. submitted in 8½" X 11" size and/or '1~ copies plus one 8½"' X 11"-cop¥. (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets., dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) mus,,t, be, A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. . From Square feet TO Square feet Reason: (signature) 'ADDRESS 7525 Harold ~ve. DATE22 Golden Valley, Mn. 55427 Applicant's interest in the property: Owners This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of'the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. "---- - June 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ~ %'~1 DATE (a)Lot 13 & 14, Block 9, Pembroke subdivision, Mound, Minnesota. (b)Lot 13 & 14, Block 9, Pembroke subdivision, Nound, Ninnesota, except that part described as follows: That part of Lot 13, Block 9, PENBROKE, according to the recorded plat thereof ~e~er~e~ as ~o~lows, ~eg~rn~g at the southeast corner of Lot 14, Block 9, PENBROKE; thence southerly along the wester- ly line of said Lot 13 to the most southerly corner of said Lot 13; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said L Lot 13 a distance of 23.75 feet; thence northwesterly to the point of beginning. (C)That part of Lots 29, 30 and 31 and of the East 20 feet of Lot 28 lying North of a line and its extension p~arallel with and 80 feet Northeasterly as measured at right angles to the · Southwesterly line of said Lots 28, 29, ~30 and 31, Block 9, Pembroke, according to the plat thereof on ~file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. (d)That part of Lots 29, 30 and 31 and of the East 20 feet of Lot 28 lying North of a line and its extension parallel with and 80 feet Northeasterly as measured at right angles to the Southwesterly line of said Lots 28, 29, 30 and 31, Block 9, Pembroke, 'according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County; also that part of Lot 13 described as follows,· That part of Lot 13, Block 9, Pembroke, according to the recorded plat thereof described as follows: -Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 14, Block 9, Pembroke; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 13 to the most southerly corner of said Lot 13; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly i~ line of said Lot 13 a distance of 23.75 feet~ thence north- westerly to the point of beginning. ' 4 2 ~?~.L2.6~7 " ,, SURVEY FOR: Wintersun HOmes, .Hr. Lee Heller., '"' , "' · ' '7525 Harold Avenue~, O~lden Yalley,' Minn. 55a27 DESCAIPTION; Lo=s 13 ahd,i4, ~lockiP, PEMBROKE, ¢$t~ of Mound, Hennepin County, ~innesota. o Denotes Irou Monumen~ xxx.x Denotes Exis~in§ Ground ~leva~ions. :' [xx.x] Denotes Proposed Final Grade EleYa~ions. B.M. Top of hydran~ a~ Cumberland and Devon Ele¥/ 1: southea",t corner of/ Lot t~ ~ PROPOSED 'CA~^C~ FnOOR £n~V./Ot_._~,~ LO%{ER FLOOR ELEV.iOI~,~ I hereby ccrti[y that this survey was ~re, p',~-ed ~y me or undec my direct supe~- vision and that I am.~ duly R,:~istered . r- Tha~ part .of Lot 13, Bloc~ 9, PEMBROKE, according ~o the recor~e~ pla~ ~hereof described as follows: Beginning-a~ ~he southeast' corner of ,Lo~ 14,' Block 9, PEMBROKE; ~enCe southerly a$ong the westerly line of said'Lot 137to the most southerly corner of said Lot 13; thence northeasterly a~ong ~he sou{heasterly line of said Lo~ 13 a distance of 23.75 feet; thence ngrthwes~erly to!~he p.oint of begiDning. ,/ HAMPTON 49 ~50 5~ 16 15 14 L id, 27 )6 ,79 ,(; ¢ (,; Proposed Resolution Case #87-653 RESOLUTION 87- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHHISSION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE FOR LOT 12, BLOCK 33, WYCHWOOD: PID #24-117-24420005 (4994 Hanchester Road) P & Z COMMISSION CASE 87-653 WHEREAS, J. Ned Dow, owner of the property has requested a variance in lot size to add an addition of 6.5 feet to the South of his property and construct a new deck on his property all with conforming setbacks to the property line under the provisions of the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the R2 zoning district requires a 6 foot interior side yard and' a 10 foot side yard abutting the Manchester right-of-way, the 20 foot front yard setback to Cambridge, a 15 foot rear yard setback to the West with a 10 foot setback to a deck; and WHEREAS,,the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend the lot size variance. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the lot size variance to build on the lot an addition with conforming zoning setbacks in the R2 zoning district for Lot 12, Block 33, Wychwood; PID # 24-117-24420005 (4994 Manchester Road). CASE NO. 87-653 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official (~ Planning Commission Agenda of July 13, 198 CASE NO, 87-653 APPLICANT: J. Ned Dow LOCATION: 4994 Hanchester Road LEGAL DESC.:' Lot 12, Block 33, Wychwood; P!D 24-117-24 42 0005 SUBJECT: Lot size'variance EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential PROPOSAL: The applicant' is','proposing to add an additio~ of 6.5 feet to the south of his.property with conforming setbacks .to the property lines on an'under- sized 47 by 100 foot lot. . The R-2 Zoning District requires a 6 foot interior side yard and a'10 foot'side yard abutting the Manchester right-of-way, a 20 foot front yard setback to Cam- bridge.and a 15 foot rear yard setback to Zhe west Brighton Commons with a 10 foot setback ~to a deck. The existing dwelling has a 6.5 foot setback to the north, a 16.2 foot setback to the south, a 15.8. foot setback to the lakeshore on the west side from the reer property line and a 9.0 foot setback to the deck, and a 20 foot setback abutting Cambridge. RECOMMENDATION: A variance of lot size was granted for the property to build upon the lotJ. Staff would 'recommend that the addition requested be granted and 'that it conform to all Zoning setbacks for the R-2'District. Recognize the existing 9.0 'foot setback from the property line to the existing deck. Any addition to the deck should conform with the 10 foot setback requi'rement to the rear lot line (on the west side) to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. The abutting neighbors have been notified'. This Will be referred'to the City Council on July 28, 1987. JB/ms . MImYrEs OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION .MEETING JULY 13, 1987 Present were: Chairman Tom Reese, Commissioners Vern Anderson, Wiiliam Meyer, Geoff Michael, Ken Smith,-Brad Sohns, William Thal, and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Elizabeth Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle,-City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Holly McLaughlin. Also present were the following interested persons: Gerald Berent, Gene Berent, J Ned Dow. ~ixie Dow. Leon Hell,r. Harley Jordan. Jerry Kohl,. Paul Larson. Brian Johnson Pau~ ~nd--Pat Meisel. ~- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Reese added a 17% "grade" to the June 8, 1987 minutes on page 3. He also questioned the process of making corrections stating not having the entire context could have bearing on future decisions. Smith motioned and Meyers seconded. .The vote was unanimous ,to approve. The minutes of June 22~: 1987 correct the recognition of Steve as the Mayor and added the phrase "availability of l~nd t9 park R.V.'s". Weiland motioned and Sohns seconde~ the vote was unanimous to approve. BOARD OF APPEALS Case No. 87-651 Side yard setback variance for 4695 Hampton Road. Lot 2, Block 21, Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0070, Gerald Berent was present. A.variance requegt for 3.3 feet sideyard setback to the west property line. Berents stated to gooutward to the lake is objected by neighbors. He needs to build up for the addition of two bedrooms and a full bath for his wife and two t children. Jensen proposed to treat this as practical difficulty and Sohns agreed. -Motion by Smith.to approve a 3.~ foot variance including a 12'b~erhang'., seconded by Weiland. The' vote was unanimously i~ favgr. Goes before the council July 28. Case No. 87-652 Minor subdivision for 4695 Hampton Road, Lots #13 and 14, part of lots 28, 29, 30, and'31, Block 9, Pembroke, PID 19-117-23 33 008010087, Leon Heller was present. A subdivision request for a portion' of the rear Lot 13 from Paisley Road to correct a driveway encroachment on the adjoining property. Anderson motioned and Weiland seconded approval of the sUbdivision. The vote .was'unanimously in favor. case No. 87-653 Lot size variance for 4994 Manchester Road Lot 12, Block 33, Wychwood, PID 24-117-24 42 0005, J. Ned and Dixie Dow were present. A variance of 6.5 feet with conforming setbacks is requested by Dow. Dow states that his home is too small to add a second floor, the first floor would be ruined. Smith states that this is "back to the commons problem again." The council is not in favor of expanding on 4700 foot lots, it's a case of practical difficulty. With the commons.and two roads on either side there is breathlnglroom. Wel]and favors the comment that he can't consider it as his property for,!enlargement-- it is Part of the commons. Motion"by Anderson to approve the'variance, seconded by Michael. The vote was unanimous. Goes before the council July 27, 1987. APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSlON' (please type the following information) Legal Description of Property: Lot Addi~lbn O~ner's Name G. ,~eA ~pplic~nt (if other th~n Name .. IZ Address Case No., Fee' Paid ~-o. D~te Filed ~' B lock__~._~_ Day Phone No..~,5'9-9,~-,-'~.,,:S" Day Phone No. ,.. · 5. Type of Request:'' ~' Variance . ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( , ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( .'.' (') Wetland Permit '(~) P.U.D. ( *If.other, sPecify: 6. ~resent zoning Oistrict' : ~~ ' ~'"' 7. Existing Use(s) of Property ~2~~. TI~(_.- ~l~'(~ ~/6~/I~1C~J ) Amendment ) Sign Permit )*Other Has an applicatlon ever been made for zoning~var_Lance, or conditiona. 1 use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~j~2_-~]-~_~>' If so, l~st date(s) of list date(s)· of application, action taken and~provi~e Resolution No.(s) 71..:z. oV, Copies of previous regolu:ions shall accon~pany 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 purpo~of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing Such notices as.may be requ1~X by./~aw. ~ .. ~~, . "Signature Of' Appllcan~ F~~dation: Planning Commission ' ' Date 7' Date ' ' Council Action: ' Resolution No. Date Request .for Zonl.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case # 77-C~ O. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilitles, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additlonal Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applIcable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. ~equest for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part !1, 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 non-conforming use: ' Ce Do the existing structures' comply with ali area ~ight and bulk regulatlons for the zone district In which it is.located? Yes (~) No'( ) If ~no", specify each non-conforming use;. ~hlch unique physical characteristics of the subject property'prevent Its reasonable pse 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® ~as the hardship d~scribed above created by the action of anyone having property Interests in the land after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, explain: Fe ~as the haP~shlp created by'any'other man-made change, such as thR reloFa- tion of a road? Yes (~') No ( ) If yes, explaln: ~G~C) ~_t~_~ty~ Are'the conditions of hardship for'which you request a varlance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes "( ) No (~) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? ~/hat is the "minimum~' modification (variance). from the area-bulk regulations that ~vill permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanatlon. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) ~/ill granting of the variance be materlally detrimental to property In the same zone,' or to the enforcement of this ordinance? June 25, 1987 John Ned Dow Dixie A. Dow 4~4 Manchester Rd. Mound, MN 555&4-~198 City of Mound Planning Commission 5541Maywood Rd Mound, MN 555&4 Honored Members of the Commission: Attached is my .application for a zoning ?.variance residence I just purchased at 4~94 Manchester Rd..~ at the Prior to purchasing the property my wife and I both agreed that the neighborhood and location on the lake were nice, but the size of the house was insufficient for our needs. Before making an offer on the house I conferred with remodeling possibilities ~that could with the local ordinances. Jan Bertrand as to the be persued in accordance The house is on an undersized lot for requires a 6,000 sq ft minimum lot size. are 15° rear, 6°side, 20° front, 10° R-2 which apparently Setbacks for that from the street. Part of the plan is to move the driveway· and garage entrance from Manchester to Cambridge. When Manchester was widened the driveway was cut down to 16.5 feet. I·f I park my van- in the driveway, the back is in the street. This could be a problem when it comes to winter. Also by moving the driveway and garage opening I would be able to install standard 9° garage doors rather than the 8° that currently exist. In addition it would help eliminate some of the congestion that occurs when people park on Manchester to use their docks on Brighton Commons. Widening the house out to the 10t setback -give me a more standard house size for lower the cost for planning and give space. from Mancheser would remodeling. It would me more actual living I make this appeal based on the information gathered during my discussion with Jan Bertrand. Prior to drawing up remodeling plans and submitting for a building permit I need the approval for the variance. ~nk for assistance in this matter. ~~n Ned Dow CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN NED DOW LOT 12, BEOCK 33, WYCHWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I hereby certi, fy that this is a true and a correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 12, Block 33, WYCHWOOD, and the location of il! existings buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachmen%s. Sca!e: 1" = 30' Date : 4-16-87 o : Iron marker ~-z_'g~: Spot elevation Datum: Mean Sea Level COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg Lic. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors & Planners Long Lake, Minnesota ~AI:TON RD~ 14 ~NCHESTER N RD ~ This black i$ all marsh .,, ~ CL RESOLUTION NO. 87- PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 87-656 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE 14 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOT )8 AND THE SOUTH 38 FEET OF LOT 19, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK; (2193 CEDAR LANE); PID NO. 13-117- 24 32 0015; CASE NO. 87-656 WHEREAS, Harley J. Jordan, owner of the property described as Lot 18 and the South 38 feet of Lot 19~ Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lake- side Park has applied for a 14 foot front yard variance to allow the construc- of a two story attached 24 by 24 foot garage with living area above within 16 feet from the Church Road right-of-way property line at the closest point, and an additional 6 feet (plus or minus) to the curb line of the street; and WHEREAS,.the City Code,.Section 23.408.5 states that lots of record which abut on more than one street shall provide the required front yard along every street, The required setback for the R-3 Zoning District is set at 30 feet; and WHEREAS, the Plann.ing Commission recommended approval of this vari- ance due to the shape of the lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to approve a 14 foot front yard variance as requested for Lot 18 and the South 38 feet of Lot 19, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park; PID Number 13-117-24 32 0015 (2193 Cedar Lane) upon the condition a new survey be submitted with the structure added prior to the Building Permit issuance. CASE NO. 87-656 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff /L FROH: Jan Bertrand, Building Official~ (~ Planning Commission Agenda of July 13, 1987 CASE NO. 87-656 APPLICANT: Harley L. Jordan LOCATION: 2193 Cedar Lane LEGAL DESC.: Lot 18 and the South 38 feet of Lot 19, Block 2' Abraham Lincol~ Addition to Lakeside Park; PID 13-117-24 32 0015 SUBJECT: 14 Foot front yard variance EXISTING ZONING: R-3 1 and 2 Family Residential PROPOSAL: The applicant, Hr. Jordan, is requesting a 14 foot front yard variance to construct an attached 24 by 24 foot drive under garage with living area above within 16 feet from the Church Road right-of-way property line at the closest point and an additional. 6 foot+ to the curb line of the street. Pursuant.to the Zoning Code, Section 23.408(5)--- 'Lots which abut on more than one street shall provide the required front yard along every street except for Lots of Record which shall provide a side yard setback abutting the street based on lot width (see definition for lot, Width Page 7) as follows.: "Lot width 81 feet'or more equals a 30 foot setback". " RECOHHENDATION: Staff recommends approval as requested due to the shape of the property upon the condition that a new survey be submitted with building permit -application.' Attached is a copy of-the Resol'ution-87-136 which approved the same request, but has expired at this time. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council'on July 28, 1987. JB/ms Planning Commission Ninutes July 13, 1~87 Case No. 87-656 fourteen foot front yard variance for 2193 Cedar Lane Lot 18 and part of 19, Block 2 Abraham Lincoln Addn to Lakeside Park, PID 13-117-24 32 0015. A-front yard variance of 14 feet is being requested by the applicant to construct an attached 24x24 foot garage. Resolution 87-136 approved the same request, but it has expired. Reese questioned the necessity of having a 24 ~oOt--g-~rage~ instead of a 22 foot variance. Jordan stated he needs the'additional room to do car repairs..on h|$ own veh|c]e. Motion by Anderson to approve the variance, seconded b~ Smith. The approval was unanimous. CITY OF HOUND Case .o. Fee Paid APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION (please type the following information) Street Address of Property D~te Filed 2. Legal DesCription of Property: Lot /~,~-gl...~,,,C~/~.~'/c/ Block. ~ 3. ~ner's Nam ~ Address ~~ ~~ ~ Day Phone No. ~z' 2 :' - ~'?~' ~" ~. Applicant '(if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: 0~) Variance ( ) ConditiOnal Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: kresent Zoning District' 7. Existing Use(s) of Property 8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, varlance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this prOperty? 'Ifrovid~'"e If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and 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.th.is 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 b~ law.~r~ _ ~' '.Signature Of' Applicant-~~/~~~-~v Date (:~/.~.-~'-~(~'~Z'' P'lanning Co~ission Reco~e~ation: Da te Council Action: Resolution No. Date Request.for Zonl.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilltles, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction .F. Any addltlonal Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and appllcable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. 'Request for a Zonln~ Varlance A. All Information below, a site plan, as described In Part I!, and general '...application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district In which It Is located? Yes ( ) No (~ .-. If *'no*t, specify each nOn-conforming use: Co Do the existing structures' comply with all area height and bulk regulatlons for the zone district in whlch it Is.located? Y~ ( ) No'( ) If "no', specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable'~se for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small .. (') Drainage ( ) Sub-surface .( ) .Too shallow (/.P~Shape: ' ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship d~scribed above created by the action of anyone haying property Interests in the land after the Zoni.ng Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ( ~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by'any'other 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 pecal lar only to the property described in this petition? Yes"(~' No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? H..What Is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that ~vill permit you to make reasonable use .of your land? (Speclfy, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, If necessary.) I. Will granting f the variance be materially detrimental to property In the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? August 9, 198B RESOLUTION NO. 83-136 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD 1~ FOOT VARIANCE AS RF~UESTED FOR LOT 18 AND THE SOUTH 38 FEET OF LOT 19, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK (2193 CEDAR LANE) - PID $13-117-24 32 0015 ~tEREAS,'Harley J. Jordan, owner of property described as Lot 18 and the South 38 feet of Lot 19, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, has applied for a 14 foot front yard variance to allow the construction of a two story attached 24 by 24 foot garage with living area .. above within 16 feet from the Church Road right-of-way property line at the closest point, and an additional 6 feet (plus of minus) to the curb line of the~ streetl and WHEREAS, the City Code, Section 23.408.5 states that lots of record which abut on'more than one street shall provide 'the required front yard along every street. The required setback for the R-B Zoning District is set at 30 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this variance due to the shape of the lot. · NC~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City Of Mound does hereby concur with 'the Planning Cc~nission recommendation to approve the' 14 foot front yard variance as requested for Lot 18 and the South 38 feet of Lot 19, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park (PID. $1B-117-24 B2 0015). The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Charon.. The following Councilmembers ~oted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none· .Mayo~ .~~~,.~ Attest: City Clerk .CHURCH RD LYNWOOD --. , BLVO ~ 3520 37 8 y L.VAN ,~ .i CASE NO. 87-659 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROH: Jan Bertrand, Building Official'O'(~ Plannlng Commission Agenda.of duly 13, 1987 CASE NO. 87-659 AppLiCANT: Hr. & Hrs. James Sharp, Fee Owner Brian'R,. dohnson / Paul W. Larson LOCATION: qgXX Glen. Elyn Road LEGAL DESC.: Lots 17, 18,' 19', Block 2q, Shadywood Point; PID #'s 13-117-2q 11 " .o09 /0095 SUBJECT: Hinor Subdivision ... EXISTING ZONING: ,R-1 Single Fami'ly Resid~ntla.1 PROPOSAL: The applicant'is requesting to split off a.portion of Lot 18 and transfer to Lot 17 andspl, lt off a portion of Lot 17 and-combine with Lot 18 to remove an encroachment'of the building located on Lot 17 to allow conforming side yard setback to the structure and waiver of:the public hearing'proVisions. of the subdivision ordinance. CO~HENTS: Lbt 17 prior to thi.s request is an undersized lot in"the R-1 District with approximately 8561. square feet. The tax parcel for Lots 18 and 19 is a conforming lot. This subdivision does not affect the.nonconforming front yard setback of the existing dwelling on Lot 17. RECOMHENDATION: 'Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and waiver of the public hearing. This will provide a subdivision of land.in.the following manner: Parcel. A: Lot 17, Shadywood. Polnt, accOrding to the recorded p]at thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXCEPT the. east 21.31 feet of said Lot 17 lying southRrly of the north 137.87 feet .thereof. Also: The west 6.80 feet of the north 137.87 feet of Lot'18, Shadywood Point, according to the recorded plat thereof,'Hennepin County, Minnesota. P.arcel B: Lot 18 excepting therefrom thewest 6.80 feast of the north 137.87 feet;.and Lot 19 all .In Shadywood Point, according to the'recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. .. . T~e abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Counci] on July 28, 1987 meeting. JB/ms RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR'WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A M!NOR SUBDIVISION FOR,LOTS 17, 18 AND 19, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT; PID NUMBERS 13-117-24 11 0094/0095 P & Z CASE NO. 87-659 WHEREAS,-the minor subdivision of Lots 17, 18, and 19 in Block 24, Shadywood Point, has been submitted'in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound.Ordinance Code, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 in the Minnesota State Statute.and all proceedingshave been duly con- ducted'thereunder; and WHEREAS, an application to'waive'the subdivision requirements contained !n Section 330 of'the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS.,.said. request, for waiver has been 'reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circum- stances affecting said properties.such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the appl. Jcant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for'the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE~OLVED BY the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota; the request of the applicant for the waiver from the pro- visions of Section 330 of the City Code and the request for property of less than 5 acres,..described as follows: Lot 17, Block 24, Shadywood Point, PID No. 13-117-24 11 0094 and Lots'18 and 19, Block 24, Shadywood Point, PID No. 13-117-24 11 0095, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. A. It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner as per Exhibit (Al: Parcel A: Those parts of Lots 17 and 18, Block 24, Shadywood Point, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying westerly and northwesterly of the following described line; Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 18 distant 6.82'~feet east of the northwest corner of said Lot 18; thence southerly parallel to the west line of said Lot 18 a distance of 138.32 feet; thence southwesterly to a point on the south line of said Lot 17 distant 21.50 feet westerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 17'and said line there termina- ting. Parcel B: Lot 18, Block 24, ShadYwood Point, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota except that part of said Lot 18 lying westerly of a line described as fol- lows; Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 18 distant 6.82 feet east of the northwest corner of said Lot 18; Page 2 PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 87-659 thence southerly parallel to the west line of said Lot 18 a distance of 138.32 feet; thence southwesterly to a point on the south line.of Lot 17, said Shadywood Point, distant 21.$0 feet westerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 17 and said line there terminating. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution.to the applicant for filing in the Office of the Registrar of,Deeds, or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin ~County to show a compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. D. This lot subdivision'is to be filed ann recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. Plannin~ CommissionMinutes July 13, 1987 - Page 4 Case No. 87-659 Minor subdivision for 49xx Glen Elyn Road Lots 17, 18, 19, Block 24 Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0094/0095. Paul W. Larson was present. (Larson is a realtor representing the seller.) Applicant is requesting subdivision to remove an encroachment of the building located on lot 17 to allow conforming sideyard setback to the structur~ and waiver of the Public Hearing provision of the subdivision ordinance. The previous owner of lot 17 built over the property line. A survey didn't show the property line when it was purchased. Meyer proposed to make parcel A a conforming area by increasing the parcel to at least 10,000 sq. st. At this time parcel B is not closed, it is delayed pending approval of this sub- division. Reese suggested tabling, Larson stated "no". Brian Oohnson inquired as to the~-leg$1|t¥ of 9000 sq. ft. for parcel A. Reese stated the need to recognize a maximum 10% variance mandated, Brian wilI try to get over 9000 sq. ft.. Br~em suggested.approval contingent upon the change by the time it will go 'to council, Thal suggested it be tabled until the 27th and then to turn it around to the council. Weiland motioned to table until the 27th and turn it around to the Council Sohns seconded. Approval was unanimous. Warner Road is on agenda for next time with full report to the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION 1. Harold Meeker is interested in building a hotel on 40 acres and wished to deed back the unused land. He is asking for opinions from the Commission for the Lost Leke Request for Propose1. Reese questioned the benefits of buying 40 acres and selling back 38 acres. Jensen asked if he was asking to see if it was protected. Smith questioned if any of it was sellable or marsh. He also asked about potential problems with the DN-R. The city now owns the property. 2. Public Works Facility. Ed Shukle and John Cameron made a presentation of their plan for a downscaled version of the public works facility to be located at Belmont and Lynwood. .There was much discussion by the council questioning alternative sites, other methOds of storage for stock pile, screening, & future plans. Anderson protested stating this was the last of the retail sights and that many people will fight over that location of the proposal. Sohns agreed. Thai stated that Mound has plenty of retail and Meyer agreed. Jensen stated that the City Council is behind this plan. '~iP P L.. . . ICAT ION Sec.FOR22.03- aSUBD IVISION OF VlLL.AGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER fi ~ t pr/,/ .~. ...TO PLAT PARCEL /$.,_//?.. z. c/ // · oe Location 'end complete legal description of Property to be divided: U-~7-~ /~' ~,b "/'7. ~o~ z Y ~//g~/~~" .. 7 .if larger copies than.'8½ X'll inch a.re submitted.for supporting documents, plans, survey, etc., please submit 15 copies plus one. copy that is 8~ X 11 (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent' streets, dimension of P~-ognsed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) such as .sket inches. A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUE~'TED FOR: From ~ Square feet TO Sq~re feet (signature) Applic..rs i.t.r, st i. ,.. prop*m: W~,"~, ,~.,~ FF2"I/ This application must be signed byalI the OWNERS of the ~~:~[~. e~/~t~.~,~._f/,~6 .~ion give. ~ ,.is is not ~..s.. ~ ~m ~& PLANNING COMMI~ION RECOMMENDATION~ PA Prlpore~ !~,l EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: Lot 17, SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Nennepin County, Minnesota. Lots 18 and 19, SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof, llennepin County, Minnesota. ., OF S tJ x(VE~ .ARSON I / ~ C,':' ;6 / ' '"" ... |%: ~ /" e · PAUL W. LAR$ON ~' ~ PROPOSE{) PARCEL DIVISION DESCRIPTZONS~ PARCEL A: recorde~ plat there.t, Ilennep~n County, Mlnnelo~a lying ve/~erly ~o~ ~ SIIAOYW~D ~]~ according to ~hl recorded p~i~ ~he~, GENERAL NOTES: · Denotes iron monument x Denotes cross chiseled in concrete E951.5 Denotes existing spot elevation ~-~ Denotes proposed spot elevation ~ Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denote proposed features So~ld contour lines denote existing features Proposed top of foundatipn elev. - Proposed basement floor elev. - Proposed garage floor elev. - BENCHMARK: SURVEYORS 2~40 Dnniet~ Street ~on9 L. okn, Mlnne$oto 55~56 I I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the S~at~ef-~nesota. ~ -- ~ 0 D~T~ O"u~v I~ /~7 REC. NUMS~R 17 Z~ 30' I~A~ . ._ / / / CERTIFICATE OF UR¥ Y · Prepored for: PAUL LARSON P^RCF. L' A / EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: Lot 17, SHADYW60D POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lots 18 and 19, sHADywooD POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED PARCEL DIVISION DESCRIPTIONS: O ao3 ", PARCEL A: Lot 17, SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXCEPT· the east 21.31 feet of said Lot 17 lying southerly of the north 137.87 feet thereof. Also: _The west 6.80 feet of the north 137.87 .feet of Lot 18, SHADYWOOD POINT, aocording to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL B: Lot 18 excepting therefrom the west 6.80 'feet of the north 137.87 feet; and Lot 19 all in SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the AREAS: ' recorded plat thereof,~ Hennepin County. Parcel A n 8561 sq. ft. Minnesota. Parcel B = 14,146 sq. ft. GENERAL NOTES: Denotes iron monument Proposed top of foundation elev. Denotes cross chiseled in concrete Proposed basement floor elev. Denotes existing spot elevation Proposed garage floor elev. x951.5 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 July 24, 1987 TO: FRO It: RE; CITY HANAGER JIM FACKLER CHRONOLOGY OF DATES ON JENNINGS BAY DREDGING 4-23-85 5-23-85 6-17-86 7 -85 The original application was submitted to the DNR for "T" dredge of Jennings Bay. This application was revised twice due to the size of the channel requested. Originally a 40 foot channel was requested. DNR wanted only a 15 foot channel. A 20 foot channel was decided upon because that was the minimum al- lowance for barge access. The Dredging Permit was approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The DNR issued a permit (#856305) for the work to be done before 6-30-86. The City sought estimates from contractors for the dredging. Only one contractor responded, Minnetonka Portable Dredging, with a quote of $23,000.00. There was only $4,000 budgeted in 1985 for general maintenance of the Commons areas. !his was to allow for things such as stairs, rip- rapping, tree removal, etc. In 1985, $800. was spent on stairs at the south end of Gull Lane and $2,912 for removal of diseased trees from Commmons areas. A letter was sent to all property owners and dock permit holders in this Jennings Bay area. (There were 4 private lakeshore owners and 15 commons dock permit holders. This letter asked for financial help of $1,150 from each dock user who would directly benefit from the dredging. 8-85 An alternative to mechanical dredging was inves- tigated. This was with Industrial Dredging and En- gineering by means of a suction method. This type of dredge required a pumping site within 3000 feet of the dredge. A pumping site was located on Dove Lane. It was a combination of 2 sites, 4 lots owned by Jerry Ellis and 2 lots owned by the City of Mound. Mr. Ellis was contacted and the City had a tentative agreement to pump onto the site upon fur- ther investigation and if the DNR and the Watershed District agreed to the site and form of dredging. 9-13 -85 The City received a quote from Industrial Dredging and Engineering for $13,500. This price on the con- dition that the dredge be done as soon as the ice broke up in the Spring of 1986. The reason for the condition was that their equipment, which is used nationwide, is stored in Anoka in the winter and the mobilization would be cheaper. 9-17-85 Judy Boudreau, DNW Area Hydrologist, was notified by letter about the possible amending of the Permit to allow for a suction dredge and a new disposal site. A series of inspections were set up by the DNR and City representatives which went into October of .1985. 10-85 .10-85 Further contact was made with Mr. Jerry Ellis about the disposal site. He asked about being compensated for the use of the site. It was explained that the fill would settle and would enhance the marketability of the property. He was also told that a cost increase might jeopardize the dredge. He did not give a firm committment, still just a possibility. The 1986 Budget was set allowing $4,000 for Common's maintenance. In 1986 the following was spent: $4,155 for tree removal; $3,160 for rip-rapping; $2,000 filling in the low lands; Total - $9,315. 1-86 Even though the dredge was not funded in the 1986 budget, the City still pursued the permits and cor- respondence with Mr. Ellis on the disposal site. 1986 was a year of high water on Lake Hinnetonka which made Jen- nings Bay more accessible. The dredge was not done due to lack of funds. 6-86 The permits for the "T" shaped dredge were updated to June 30, 1987. 6-86/9-86 Mid 1986 During the budget process $10,000 was recommended for dredging. This was based on the City paying 50% of the cost. Current information was that the dredge would cost approximately $15,000, plus en- gineering and legal costs. A house was being built on one of the sites that wa~ to be used to dump the spoil. The opinion from the dredging company was that the remaining site would not hold all the material to be dredged out. The City still did not have a firm commitment from Mr. Ellis because of his questions on.how buildable the lots would be with the dredge sp'oil. The dredger's opinion was that it would be 4-5 years before they would be buildable and the' footings would have to be below the dredge material. At this point, Mr. Ellis gave a verbal "no" to the use of his site. Fall 1986 - Winter 86-87 The City got estimates from 3 companies on the dredge and tr.ucking the spoil to a location ap- proximately i mile away. $39,000 for a mechanical dredge and the dis- posal of spoil to the contractor's site. $106,100 to suction dredge and dispose of spoil on a city site which we did not have. $28,000 - $38,000 to suction dredge and use a tank truck to di. spose of spoil on a city site. Spring 87 The water level of Lake Minnetonka was way down. The concerns of the dock permit holders and the private property owners again surfaced because there was no lake access. In meeting with this group, it was determined that a change in the dredge design would be done to allow for a channel designed in a "U" shape which would allow better access to their docks. 4-10-87 4-17-87 The City sent a letter to Judy Boudreau, DNR Area Hydrologist, asking her opinion of amending the city's current permit from a "T" dredge to a "U" dredge as submitted by the citizens. The City received a letter from Judy Boudreau con- firming that the amendment procedure was started. She stated on the phone that this would take 3 5-20-87 5-26-87 5-27-87 5-87 5 -87 6-1-87 6-2-87 6-87 Mid June approximately 2 months because of the increase in requests for dredging permits. Notification was sent to the U.S. Corp of Engineers, the L.M.C.D., and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. They were given until May 20, 1987, to respond. The U.S. Corp of Engineers had given their approval to the "U" shaped dredge. The City Council on a request from the citizens directed further study on the dredge regarding the following: assessing possibilites, possible sites to dump the spoil and the costs. The L.M.C.D. gave their approval for the "U" shaped dredge with the stipulation that all spoil materials be removed from the watershed district. This drove the cost of the dredge to $45,385 - $48,639 (as es- timated by D. H. Blattners), because the minimum trucking distance would be 4 miles. Also a site would have to be found in another city and possible charges for the site along with permit requirements for disposal created another problem. The City Manager, Park Director and Dock Inspector met with Ken Weber to review the direction of the City Council. · At the Park Commission Meeting it was decided to relocate the Commons dock permit holders. They also discussed transferring the City's dredging permit to the citizens after final approval from the DNR. There was also discussion on the possibility of as- sessing the private property owners for the dredge. Ken Weber was assigned by his group to represent them. A letter was sent to Curt Pearson, City Attorney, asking about the legality of assessing this project. Mr. Pearson responded that he did not believe that this project could be specially assessed under Min- nesota Statute. The City applied to the DNR for an extension of the original "T" shape dredge permit, noting that an amendment was being processed. The City contacted Kevin Larson of the Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District to apply for an extension of the original dredging permit. The next meeting of the Watershed District was July 16, 1987, and in- formation had to be in by July 9, 1987. 6-25-87 The Park Director was contacted by Judy Boudreau, DNR Area Hydrologist, regarding a request they received from Mr. Ken Weber to change the proposed "U" shaped dredge. Because the City holds the per- mit, the City would have to submit this request. Ms. Boudreau stated that the change requested would require amending the permit again. The Park Direc- tor asked her to mail the information to the City. 7-1-87 7-15-87 7-17-87 7-20-87 The City received the information from the DNR and contacted Mr. Ken Weber. The Park Director sug- gested that because of all the complications and with the information from the DNR,. that it would be better if Mr. Ken Weber submitted his own applica- tion to the DNR. The City would still hold the original "T" shaped dred'ging permit and once the private property owners were committed to the dredge, the City could proceed with just the portion along Dove Lane that would tie into their plan. Mr. Ken Weber agreed. The application and information on dates to meet with the Watershed District were passed on to Mr. Ken Weber. The City received the Watershed District Agenda. On it was Mr. Ken Weber who had applied for a dredging permit to "remove xxx cubic yards of soil". The meeting was July 16, 1987. The Park Director received a call from Mr. Marshall Weber blaming his department for the tabling of their permit by the Watershed District. The Park Director called Kevin Larson, the engineer for the watershed district, asking what caused the tabling of Mr. Weber's permit. Mr. Larson stated it was due to the lack of information on Mr. Marshall Weber's application for the dredge (note attached letter). The Park Director had also requested earlier that the papers from the original application for the "T" shaped dredge be sent out for updating and Mr. Lar- son apologized for not sending them. The Park Director received the information requested above and resubmitted it with the updates for the T dredge. GENERAL COMMENT: The Park Dept. has kept in close contact with all concerned parties. This was done through letters, phone conversations, Park Commission Meetings and in office meetings. ! l ¸17 ' aTfED ~x P.O. Bo~ ~87, Wayzata, Minnesota 55~91 ~ARD 0F MAN~B~ ~vid H. Cochmn, Ees.· Albert L Lehman · ~hn E ~omas ~mille D. ~dre · ~mes R. Spensley · ~chard E Miller · Michel E ~oll Perm,[ Application No.: 87-[33 Owner: Location: Purpose: July 21, 1987 Marshall Weber et al. 1657 Dove Lane Mound, MN 55364 City of Mound, Sec. 13 AB S.W. portion of Jennings Bay, Lake Minnetonka Dredging project to remove 3540 cubic yards of soil from the bay to improve navigational access. Dear Sirs: At the regularly scheduled July 16, 1987 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was tabled pending receipt of: 1. Method of dredging. 2. Existing and proposed elevations in the project area reduced to 1929 NGVD. 3. Revised.site plan with more det'ailed dimensions about lakeward extension of the channels referenced to known points on shore. 4. Review and approval by the City of Mound. These items should be received no later than August 10, 1987 to ensure your Permit Application will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Board of Managers scheduled for August 20, 1987. Should you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at 473-4224. Very truly yours, EUGENE A. 'HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES s .for the District Kevin Larson, Engineer CC: Board G. Macomber ::J. Fac~ler':Ci.%y..of.Mound .... i~itVIv~TOhtKA RESOLUTION NO. 87- July 28, 1987 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ~/E MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO EXTEND THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUN'I"/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, a Joint Cooperation Agreement executed by and between Hennepin County and the City of Mound to establish the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program" expires on October 1, 1987; and WHEREAS, in order to continue the program which began in 1975 and has provided federal funds for local community development activities, it i3 necessary ~a execute a new agreement to cover, the next three years. NOW, THEREFORE, .BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Joint Cooperation Agreement (Exhibit "A" attached) with Hennepln County as a partner in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for federal fiscal years 1988 1989 and 1 990. ' 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 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR A-2300 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 July 17, 1987 The Honorable Steve.Smith Mayor of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Smith: The joint Cooperation Agreement executed by and between Hennepin County and 43 communities to establish the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program expires October 1, 1987. To continue the program which provided over 2.6 million dollars in federal funds for local community devel- opment activities this year and over 40 million since the program began in 1975,~it is necessary to execute a new agreement to cover the next three years. Provided all 43 communities execute the new agreement and therefore remain in the program, it is expected that at least another 2.6 million dollars will be made available to share in 1988. Please bring the option of participating in the program before your governing body. To do so they should act by resolution to authorize the appropriate officials to execute the accompanying three copies of the Joint Cooperation Agreement and returh them to me as provided in Article III., paragraph C., along with a copy of the authorizing resolution by August 28, 1987. The Agreement is for the next three-year period for which Kennepin County qualifies as an urban county. Action on the Agreement at this time will therefore be binding for three years. Electing to execute it will make ~our community a partner in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for federal fiscal years 1988, 1989 and 1990. Electing not to execute will preclude your community from participation for the same period. Other than some formatting, there are only a few changes from the Joint Cooperation Agreement in effect since 1984. ~One is the inclusion of the Current administrative policy limiting the number of activities to three per community per year and each to a minimum of $7,500 (exceptions are joint activities and instances where the planning allocation is less than $7,500). The new agreement also includes a new provision for crediting program income back to the community from which it originates for reprogramming to eligible and fundable activities. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opporlunlty employer . ~,~) ~ July 17, 1987 Page Two Should you have any questions please contact your Hennepin County planning representative or Bob Isaacson at 348-4544. Sincerely, Bruce Kurtz Deputy County Administrator enc. cc: CDBG Contact Contract No. 70484 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the CITY OF Nn,,nH , hereinafter referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59; WITNESSETH; ~OOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COUNTY secure Con~nunity Development Block Grant funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and~ therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. I. DEFINITIONS 'The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR Part 570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the-terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "The Act" means the Housing and Con~nunity Development Act of 1973, Title 1 of Public Law 93, 383, as amended by the Housing and Commu- nity Development Reconciliation Amendments of 1985, 42USC5301ET.SEQ. B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not.limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment, t" D. "Coopgrating Uni means any city or town in Hennepin County which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party 'to each Agreement. E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the docu- ment bearing that title or similarly required statements or docu- ments submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the entitlement. amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community DeVelopment Block Grant Program. Iii PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate in undertaking, or assisting in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grants from Fiscal Years 1988, 1989 and 1990. III. AGREEMENT Ae The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the effective date of October 1, 1987, and terminating no sooner than the end of program year sixteen (XVI) covered by the Statement of Objectives and the Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount authorized by HUD subsequent to the effective date. Ce Notwithstanding any other provision of this A~reement, this Agree- ment shall be terminated at the end of the three-year program period during which HUD withdraws its designa%ion of COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the office of the Hennepin County Administrator, and in no event shill the Agreement be filed later than August 28, 1987. IV. ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to under- take and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable require- ments of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsi- bility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds pursu- ant to 24 CFR 570.300 et.seq. A. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, an annual request for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the UrbanHennepin County Statement of Objectives. mmmm 2, COOPERATING UNIT shall use all funds received pursuant to the Agreement for ~ach annual program within eighteen {18) months of the authorization by HUD 'of the basic grant amount. Expenditure period extensions may be requested in cases where the authorized activity has been initiated and/or subject of a contract. 3. COOPERATING UNIT shall use funds provided pursuant to Section V. of this Agreement to undertake no more than three {3} grant funded activities administered by the COOPERATING UNIT. Each activity shall have a budget of at least seventy-five hundred dollars {$7,500), or the total amount of the planning allocation of COOPERATING UNIT if less than seventy-five hundred dollars {$7,500}. A COOPERATING UNIT may assign less than seventy-five hundred dollars {$7,500) to an activity when the activity is one that is programmed by at least one other COOPERATING UNIT and administered by only one COOPERATING UNIT on behalf of the others, provided that the total activity budget is at least seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500}. . 4. cOOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to accomplish the community development program and housing assistance goals as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Assistance Plan. 5. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and/or activi- ties funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for midorities and women. It shall in implementing all programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply with all applicable federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. 6. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process as established in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Dgvelopment Act of 1974, as amended. 7. COOPERATING UNITS shall comply with all of the administrative guidelines of the COUNTY now in effect or as hereafter promulgated. 8. COOPERATING UNITS shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed' all documents protecting the interests of.the parties hereto or any other party of interest as m~ be designated by the COUNTY. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. 2' COUNTY shall providej to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of the request for funding. 3' 0 COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive ten percent {10%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNITto the activity as reimbursement for costs associatedwith its opera- tion. COUNTY will, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulationg'and HUD administra- tive directives. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GP~NT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be allo- cated as follows: .' Ao COUNTY shall retain ten .percent (10%) of the annual basic grant amount for the undertaking of eligible activities. . .The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to make 6equests for the use of funds so ap.rtl,ned. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. Each COOPERATING UNIT will use as a target for planning purposes an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. ' The extent of overcrowded hous'ing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERAT- ING UNITS. ® In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. It is the intent of this section that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in 24 CFR 570J4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. VI. COUNTYWIDE DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT A. In the event that any COOPERATING UNIT cannot con, nit, expend or does not request its planning allocation, or a portion thereof, pursuant to Section V of this Agreement, COUNTY will assign the unexpended or unallocated grant funds to the Countywide Discretionary Account. The assignment shall also include funds pursuant to Section IV · paragraph A.2. of this Agreement. B. COUNTY will retain ten percent {10%} of all funds placed in the Countywide Discretionary Account to defray administrative expenses. C. COUNTY will, on or before March 1 of each year, inform each COOPER- ATING UNIT of the Countywide Discretionary Account balance and will provide each COOPERATING UNIT the opportunity to make a request for use of all or a portion of the funds. VII. FINANCIAL MATTERS A. Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Sumnary of Project Disbursement form and Hennepin County Warrant Request, and supporting documentation. B. All funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. ~C. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the County to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementa- tion. COUNTY shall perform all audits of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. F® COOPERATING UNIT shall return all program income derived from activities funded in total or part from the basic grant amount COUNTY upon its generation, except as derived from activities with approved reolving accounts. to 1. COUNTY will retain ten percent {10%) of all program income to defray administration expenses. The remaining 90 percent {go%) of the program income shall be credited to the grant authority of the COOPERATING UNIT whose activity generated the income and be used for fundable and eli- gible Community Development Block Grant activities consistent with this Agreement. Should an approved activity be determined to represent an ineligible expenditure of grant funds, the COOPERATING UNIT responsible shall reimburse the COUNTY for such ineligible expense. ® All reimbursements for ineligible expenditures shall be placed in the Countywide Discretionary Account, except as provided for in Section VII.F.2. of this Agreement. When it is determined by the COUNTY that grant funds have been expended on an eligible activity and through no fault of the COOPERATING UNIT the project fails or is no longer eligible, the program reimbursement shall be treated as program income in Section VII.£. of this Agreement. VII. EXECUTION COOPERATING UNITj having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 19 , and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. Assistant County Attorn.~ Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chairman of its County 'BoarO And: Deputy/Associate County Administrator A1-FEST: Deputy County Auditor APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: CITY OF:. Assistant County Attorney Its DATE: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: And: Its The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B- Charter LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 'Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 July 8, 1987 TO: .Ed Shukle, City Manager FROM: Len Harrell, Chief of Police~ SUBJECT: Parking on Gull Lane at WrenRoad .......... I have, again, looked at the area of Gull Lane south of Three Points Boulevard in regards to the parking concerns at the dead-end. The area in question appears to only effect two homes at the end of the block, and users of the commons area. One of the residents, Mrs. LaPointe, has requested that parking be allowed on her side of the street. Both sides of the street from Wren Road to the dead-end are currently no-parking. To allow parking on one side of the street does not appear to present any major problems from .a police standpoint. A concern is the fact that Gull Lane is no-parking on the west side of the street from Three Points Boulevard south to Wren Road and it may be more consistent to allow parking on the east side of the street south of Wren Road. PoS, The Fire Chief has indicated that elimination of no parking on Gull Lane at Wren Road would cause a serious problem for fire fighting. It would be diffi.cult to get a fire truck through the street. This would cert- ainly support retaining the current resolution. -Ed Shukle June 19, 1987 Ed Shukle, Jr. City Manager 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, Mu. 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle, We are writing to ask you to ask the city council to change the ordinance with respect to parking on our dead-end street. Specifically, we would appreciate having the no-parking restriction removed for the west side of Gull Lane, from Wren Road south to the commons. This would not be an inconvenience to anyone, but the no-parking restriction, if enforced, would be a great inconvenience both to us, and to people wishing to use the commons. Kathy LaPointe Mitch LaPointe 1733 Gull Lane 472-6122 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 July 24, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: CITY MANAGER FIRE CHIEF PARKING ON GULL'LANE FROM WREN ROAD TO THE COMMONS If parking were allowed in this area, the Fire Department would not be-able to get a truck thru to the Commons area that lies beyond the end of this street. Therefore, I am recommending that the area remain as is and be posted'"no parking on either side". DB 16 ;laouary 13, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87-16 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING NO PARKING ZONES WHEREAS, Chapter VII of the Mound Code provides.that the City~ Council may from time to time, by resolution, establish rules and~ - regulations relating to the use of streets within the City, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councilof the City of Mound, as follows: The following streets in the City of Mound, Minnesota are hereby designated as no parking, no stopping and no standing zones: 1. Both sides of Edgewater Drive from Fairview Lane to Northern Road. 2. East side of Basswood Lane from Church Road to Tonkawood Road. 3. Both sides of Belmont Lane from Shoreline Boulevard to Tonkawood Road. 4. East side of Waterside Lame for 100' north of Tonkawood Road. 5. North side of County Road #15 200' east of County Road %110. 6. Directly in front of post office for purpose of mail dr?p. 7. North side of County Road #15 by Tonka, Inc. from Fairvlew Lane to Cypress Lane. 8. -Both sides of County Road %15 (Lynwood Boulevard) on the & curve west of the senior high school. 9. East side of Bellaire Lane from Elm Road to Alder Road. 10. South side of Three Points Boulevard from Finch Lane to Heron Lane. 11. West side of Gull Lane South of Three Points Boulevard for 150'. ~ 12. West side of Wilshire Boulevard (County Road %125) north of Wychwood Bridge to Emerald Drive. 13. North side of Wilshire Boulevard (County Road %125).south of Wychwood Bridge for 600' ~14. West side of Wilshire Boulevard (County REad %125) south of Black Lake Channel for 1,450 feet. 15. East side of Wilshire Boulevard (County Road %125) south of Black Lake Channel for 200'feet; parking permitted for 300 feet, and then no parking to Tuxedo. 15. No parking on both sides of Tuxed~ Boulevard from Wilshire Boulevard (County Road No. 125) to St. Mary's Road. 16. No parking on both sides of Tuxedo Boulevard from Wilshire Boulevard (County Road No. 125) to St. Ma~y's Road. 17. Both sides of Piper Road in front of Chester Park Beach for 200'. 18. Both sides of Piper Road from Tuxedo Road to Charles Lane. 19. Both sides of Charles Lane. 20. Both sides of Franklin Lane. 21. South side of Leslie Road from Brighton Boulevard t~ Manchester Road. 17 January 13, 1987 22~ 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. South side of Clyde Road from Tuxedo Boulevard to Island.. View Drive. Both sides of Island View Drive from Clyde Road to Dexter Lane. Both sides of Island View Drive from Radnor Road to Manchester Road. Both sides of Highlana Boulevard from Bartlett Boulevard (County Road 110) to Idlewood Road. Both sides of Meadow Lane. -- North Side of Glenwood Road. Both sides of Holt Lane. Both sides of Fairfield Road from Highland Boulevard to Meadow Lane. North side of Bartlett Boulevard (County Road 9110) from the Museum to Commerce Boulevard. In front of Mound Taxi on Shoreline Boulevard (County Road 915.) West side of Marion Lane from Shoreline Boulevard (County .Road 915) to Auditors Road. Shoreline Boulevard from Belmont Lane to Commerce Boulevard. Commerce Boulevard from Lynwood Boulevard south to the Sears Parking Lot. Marion Lane and Auditors Road from Belmont Lane to Marion Lane and no parking on the south side of Auditors Road from Marion Lane to Commerce Boulevard. The south side of Drury Lane from Tuxedo Boulevard and Burns Road. Both sides of Northern Lane from Edgewater Drive to the Seton Channel. The east side of Devon Lane from Island View Drive to Lake Minnetonka. South side of the alley extending eastward from the intersection of Lynwood and Cottonwood Lane along the south side of the football field from the east side of Lot 18 to the west side of Lot 30 in Lynwold Park. West side of Waterside Lane from Tonkawood Road to Breezy Road. Both sides of Rosedale Road from Hickor~ Lane to Pecan Lane. Both sides of Aberdeen Road from Devon Lane to Island View Drive. Both sides of Aberdeen Road from Devon Lane to Roxbury Lane. Both sdides of Wilshire Boulevard from Shoreline Boulevard (County Road 915) to a point 50 feet south of Shoreline Boulevard. Both sides of Drury Lane from Gordon Road to Tuxedo Boulevard. West side of Eagle Lane from Three Points Boulevard to West Arm Lake. The West side of Finch Lane from Three Points Boulevard to West Arm Lake. 18 January 13, 1987 48~ 49. 50. 51, 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. The West side of Ridgewood Road from Idlewood to Longfellow. The North side of Woodland Road from Gull Lane to Eagl~ Lane· The East side of Donald Drive from Tuxedo Boulevard to Devon Lane. The South side of Ridgewood Road from Westedge Boulevard to Longfellow Lane. Both sides of Gladstone Lane. The West side of Essex Lane south of Bedford Road. Both sides of Tuxedo Boulevard from Drury Lane to Brighton Boulevard. Both sides of Hickory Lane from Northern Lane norther, ly to Lake Minnetonka. The South side of Alder Road from Bellaire Lane easterly to Commerce Boulevard. The North side of Alder Road from Bellaire Lane easterly 200 feet. Both sides of Pecan Lane from Edgewater Drive, south to railroad right-of-way. Both sides of Driftwood Lane from Bartlett Boulevard south to Seton Lake. Both sides of Manchester Road from Devon Lane to Tuxedo Boulevard. Both sides of Bartlett Boulevard (County State Aid Highway 125), from 245 feet East of, to 310 feet West of the Lost Lake Channel .of Lake Minnetonka. 62. 'The East side of Highland Boulevard abutting the publi~ park located east of HJighland Boulevard and just north of Idelewood Road 6~, p The pa~k property located ~n Block 2, The Highlands. ~~~BO~,i~Of ~Gul"iilLane from Wren Ro~d .s~uth;t? 65. The westerly sides of the following streets: Heron Lake from Paradise Lane to Sparrow Road. Gull Lane f~om Enchanted Road. to Wren Road. Finch Lane from Three Points Boulevard to Harrison Bay. Bluebird Lane from Harrison Bay to Jennings Bay. Avocet Lane from Harrison Bay to Jennings Bay. Canary Lane from Harrison Bay to Jennings Bay. Dove Lane from Harrisom Bay to Jennings Bay. Eagle Lane from Three Points Boulevard to Harrison Bay.. Langdon Lane from Lynwood Boulevard south to dead end. Waterside Lane from Tonkawood Road to Breezy Road. Fern Lane from Church Road. to Tonkawood Road. Cedar Lane from Church Road to Noble Lane. Noble Lane from Tonkawood Road to Lynwood Boulevard. Overland Lane from Noble Lane to Harrison Bay. i TO McCOMBS-KNU'I'SON ASSOCIATES, INC. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd, PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 (612) 559-3700 DATE I JOB NO, WE ARE SENDING YOU ~g/Attached [] Under separate cover via / [] Shop'drawings CI Prints I"1 Plans I'-1 Copy of letter [] Change order [] 'the following items: [] Samples CI Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: I"l For approval For your use As requested I"l For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE. [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US EQUA.I. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERS SIGNED: ~i }4i.~ ~:::: ::::::::: :: ....... :i}~ :~' ii':i }i}~!ii:: :i::::::: ~:-:.i ~..~. ~": n~: : : : : : : : : : 2 : : : : : : :+1 : : : : : . ! i i Ill! '1' 1::':''°: ........ : .... ~ :'' ~,, I .... ,,i,tl,,,, .... :l,,I ...... , vii ~: ..... ~,I . ~ ~ . · · I · · ~ · : ~ I i i · : i .... ii:-! ~' ~ } ii ii '~1 ::!'':::: ::::iili~ :!!~ :il: LAliI: [llll!iiiiii'iii'lili! i ,, ]' t-: .. ir -i ill: ii ii t,, !',:¢-. ~ ~b: ..-¢~-~., ,.&i:,~ !!t! ~'.' i{{l"~:' llll'iiill':':l}i'' tt} ,,.,It,i{,,,::!,,,, I!l!,i:tl · .. :::l{:l.. t..: ..... [.. ::Itt! } ' : i iii .... il .! : i ill i i i ii:' .'i-- ....... ::::::.[:, .... !il Ill -..llll:, :i ...... i :.till :i 'i Il i-iili{illtii{ VV~.OT'A 14~? I C.oM I~ 'N 0" - z o 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 · SOB3= P.lanning Co~mission and Staff Mark Koegler, City Planner July 6, 1987 Sign Ordi~nce Modification The recent request for a signage variance for Shoreline Plaza prompted the City Cot~cil to refer the item back to the Planning Commission for possible ordinance modification. The.specific issue focused on the current size restrictions found in Section 365:20, Subd. 5.(c). The variance application for Shoreline Plaza requested an area identification sign totalling 120 sq. ft. compared to the existing 48 square foot maximum. Two approaches to this situation have been discussed. The first is to leave the ordinance "as is" and grant ~ariances, if requi.red, for existing, shopping centers. The second approach is to amend the ordinance to allow larger signs. The City Cot~cil's directive was to consider approach number two. Amendment of the ordinance is most easily accomplished by modifying Section 365:20, Subd. 5.(c) to read as follows: "Area Identification Signs - One area identification sign is permitted 'per street frontage per commercial development provided, however, said sign does not exceed forty-eight (48) square feet except as provided herein, and fifteen (15) feet in height, and is not placed within ten (10) feet of any street right-of-way. Area identification signs for retail shopping centers containing at least 20;000 square feet of attached gross floor area Shall-be permitted to have one area identification sign per street frontage provided said sign does not exceed 120 square feet in area. Shopping center signs shall be subject to the same height and setback limitations of other B-1 area identification signs Where area identification signs are used, no free-standing signs 'shall be .permitted. In addition to area identification signs, one wall sign is permitted for each business use with at least 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. Such signs shall not exceed forty-eight (48) square feet." Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1987 Case No.. 87'624 Sign Variance for Shorel. ine Plaza Shopping'Center, 5229 Shore- line Boulevard; Lots 7-20.& 26-35 including vacated alley, parking.area and Park, Block 1,' Shirley. Hills Unit .F; PID. No. 13-117-13 23 0072 Stuart Chazen was present fo'r Mark Saliterman, owner of' the ShoPping Center · The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The existing sized sign is grandf.athered in and is 8 X .10 feet and 28 feet iO'h~lgh~;', the ordinance limits .free standj.ng signs to 48 square feet"and 25 feet in height..The replacement sign proposed for one on ShoFeline is requested to be 10 X 12 feet and 30 feet in height. .The proposed sign a.l.ong Wilshire Boulevard for Domino's Pizza conforms to the ordinance and does not require a variance. Koegler commented the visibility on Shoreline seems to be quite, good and the staff is recommending denial of the variance f.or'the increased'sized sign. Mr. Chazin disagreed on the visjbillty on Shoreline; he stated some of the ten~ .have ~eques~ed ~ larger sign be put 0p; the proposed sign would be two feet wi, and'2 feet'higher which'would make it more noticeable and bring tenants back to Mound. He did not believe that was'too large a'sign for a 28,000 square foot shopping center. If they can get more tenants,' they would like to expand with a 8,000:sqdare feet-addition onto the east of the structure. The Commission discussed the sign ordinance and one'member commented ordinance may be a little restrictive and that the Commission, at the time of ordinance adoption, had stated they could consider visual impact on a case by case basis. The Subject of the parking lot problems was also brought up. Thal moved and Sohns.seconded a motion to recommend denial of the request because it is 'against the ordinance. The .vot6 was Meyer, Reese and Smith against'the denial; Andersen, Sohns, Thal and Jensen for the denial. Motion carr'ied. 4 to'3. This. will be on the.Council agenda for. May 12, 1987. MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3ULY 13, 1987 Present were: Chairman Tom Reese, Commissioners Vern Andersen, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Ken Smith, Brad Sohns, William Thal, and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Elizabeth Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Holly McLaughlin. Also present were the following interested persons: Gerald Berent, Gene Berent, J Ned Dow, Dixie Dow, Leon Heller, Harley Jordan, Jerry Kohls, Paul Larson, Brian Johnson Paul and Pat Meise]. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Reese added a 17% "grade" to the June 8, 1987 minutes on page 3. He also questioned the process of making corrections stating not having the entire context could have bearing on future decisions. Smith moved-~~ and Meyers seconded. The vote was unanimous to approve. The minutes of June 22~ 1987 correct the recognition of Steve as the Mayor and added the phrase "availability of land to park R.V.'s". Weiland mo~ed.' and Sohns seconde~ the vote was unanimous to approve. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 87-651 Side yard setback variance for 4695 Hampton Road. Lot 2, Block 21, Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0070, Gerald Berent was present. A variance request for .3.3 feet sideyard setback to the west property line. Berents stated to go Outward to the lake is objected by neighbors. He needs to build up for the addition of two bedrooms and a full bath for his wife and two children. Jensen proposed to treat this as practical difficulty and Sohns agreed. Motion by Smith .to approve a 3.3 foot variance including a 12'bverhan§ ~, seconded by Weiland. The vote was unanimously in favor. Goes before the council July 28. Case No. 87-652 Minor subdivision for 4695 Hampton Road, Lots #13 and 14, part of lots 28, 29, 30, and 31, Block 9, Pembroke, PID 19-117-23 33 008010087, Leon Heller was present. A subdivision request for a portion of the rear Lot 13 from Paisley Road to correct a driveway encroachment on the adjoining property. Andersen moved and Weiland seconded approval of the subdivision. The vote was unanimously in favor. Case No. 87-653 Lot size variance for 4994 Manchester Road Lot 12, Block 33, Wychwood, PID 24-117-24 42 0005, J. Ned and Dixie Dow were present° A variance of 6.5 feet with conforming setbacks is requested by Dow. Dow states that his home is too small to add a second floor, the first floor would be ruined. Smith states that this is "back to the commons problem again." The council is not in favor of expanding on 4700 foot lots, it's a case of practical difficulty. With the commons and two roads on either side there is breathing room. Weiland favors the comment that he can't consider it as his property for enlargement-- it is part of the commons. /he Commons are for everyone's use. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1987 - Page 2 Motion by Anderson to approve the variance, seconded by Michael. The vote was unanimous. Goes before the council July 28, 1987. e Case No. 87-654 Public Hearing for conditional use permit for an oversized accessory building with living space. Thi.s.item was tabled until the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 1987 at applicant's request. PUBLIC HEARING ONAPPLICATION TO REVISE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW "ON e SITE OPEN STORAGE." Balboa Construction '~ompany, 5340 Shoreline Boulevard Metes and Bounds descript- ion, Blocks 5&6, Sylvan Heights Addn., etc. PID No. 13-117-24 34 0076. There were no representatives of Balboa. Mark Koegler reviewed his letter of July 1, 1987 discussing background and his recommendations. Chairman Reese questioned the use of thirty days to have trailers parked on the property. Wei]and' was c6ncerned that Balboa m~ht move one (trailer) out and replace it with anther immediately, thus constituting permanent parking. Planning Commission Chairman opened discussion to the audience and asked for comments: Jerry Kohls, 5424 Lynwood Road requested to have a stipulation to clean up their existing mess before they cause more of a mess. Sohn questioned about acceptable landscaping. Harley Jordan, 2193 Cedar Lane, agrees with the necessity to clean up the area and allow the parking of trailers. The public hearing was closed; comments by the commission. Weiland questioned how to control the number of days to allow parked trailers to remain on the property. Smith sdggested that it really doesn't matter how many days a trailer is there, because.they only have "x" number of slots to park trucks in to begin with. Meyer agrees. with staff's recommendation Weiland.~mov~d. the approval of on site open storage/and Meyer seconded. Unanimous approval. Moves on to council. Case No. 87-656 fourteen foot front yard variance for 2193 Cedar Lane Lot 18 and part of 19, Block 2 Abraham Lincoln Addn to Lakeside Park, PID 13-117-24 32 0015. A front yard variance of 14 feet is being requested by the applicant to construct an attached 24×24 foot garage. Resolution 87-136 approved the same request, but it has expired. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1987 - Page 3 Reese questioned the necessity of having a 24 foot garage, instead of a 22 foot StFUC~u~e. Jordan stated he needs the additional room to do car repairs o, his vehicle. Motion by Anderson to approve the variance, seconded by Smith. The approval was unanimous. P_IIBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO ALLOW RETAIL MAIL ORDER ,IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS ~YiSTRICT BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. A. Paul Meisel, 2339 Commerce Boulevard Lots 2 & 3 and Subd. 167 & part of Lots 13,14,15, & 16 lying west of east 70 ft, Kennedys Subd of Lot 56, Lynwood Park, PID 14-117-24~44 0002. Mark Koegler reviewed his letter of July 1, 1987 discussing background and his recommendations. Planning commission chairman opened discussion by the audience: Meisel presentedsketches stating it will make the downtown look better. Meisel will be purchasing both the land and the building. They will continue membership in the downtown parking association. Reese questioned the issue of dock deliv- eries. Meisel stated they will be having one to two deliveries per day with semi trucks. Meisel also stated that Phase III of their plans will close the alley. off to 12 feet. Harold Meeker, 5132 WateFbuFy Rd.,stated t~at the Meisels give the best shot to the City of Mound foF "Mound City Days". Public hearing was closed; Koegler stated there should be two separate motions. Thal moved approval of the required ordinance modification allowing mail order uses as conditional uses in the B-1 zone and Anderson seconded. The approval was unanimous. Weiland moved approval of the conditional use permit contingent upon the three conditions stated in Koeglers recommendation and Anderson seconded. The approval was unanimous. Public hearing before the council on August 11. Se Case No. 87-658 for minor subdivision for 5325 Waterbury Road Lot 54 Whipple Shores, PID 25-117-24 21 0154'f0153. Mr. Lepisto was not present. .Bertrand discussed applicants request to subdivide two properties into 8925 & 8175.sq. ft. They recommend the deflection line be moved, the legal descriptions be approved by Cameron, City Engineer, and that the Public Hearing be waived. Comm. discussed that this would be creating two undersized lots of which only one is currently undersized. There is a question as to the legal size of the lot. Comm .... has decided to table the subdivision until they receive more in- formation and verification of the lot size. Jensen moved to table and Weiland seconded. It was carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1987 - Page 4 Case No. 87-659 Minor subdivision for 49xx Glen Elyn Road Lots 17, 18, 19, Block 24 Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0094/0095. Paul W. Larson was present. (Larson~is a realtor representing the seller.) Applicant is requesting subdivision to remove an encroachment of the building located on lot 17 to allow conforming sideyard setback to the structur~ and waiver of the Public Hearing provision of the subdivision ordinance. The previous owner of lot 17 built over the property line. A survey didn't show the property line when it was purchased. Meyer proposed to make parcel A a conforming area by increasing the parcel to at least 10,000 sq. st. At this time parcel B is not closed, it is delayed pending approval of this sub- division. Reese suggested tabling, Larson stated "no". Brian Johnson inquired as to the!-leg~lity of 9000 sq. ft. for parcel A. Reese stated the need to recognize a maximum 10% variance mandated, Brian will try to get over 9000 sq. ft.. Brian suggested approval contingent upon the change by the time it will go to council. Thal suggested it be tabled until.the 27th and then to turn it around to the council. PaSs it on Weiland moved to table until the 27th and ~I~a~e~ to the Council 7-28-87 Sohns seconded. Approval was unanimous. Warner Road is on agenda for next time with full report to the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Harold Meeker is interested in building a hotel on 40 acres and Wished to deed back the unused land. He is asking for opinions from the Commission for the Lost Lake Request for Proposal. Reese questioned the benefits of buying 40 acres and selling back 38 acres. The · Commission showed an interest in Mr. Meeker's proposed submittal and suggested he pro- Jensen asked if he was asking to see if it was protected, ceed. Smith questioned if any of it was sellable or marsh. He also asked about potential problems with the DNR. The city now owns the property. Public Works Facility. Ed Shukle and John Cameron made a presentation of their plan for a downscaled version of the public works facility to be located at Belmont and Lynwood. There was much discussion by the council questioning alternative sites, other methods of storage for stock pile, screening, & future plans. Anderson protested stating this was the last of the retail si~es and that many people will fight over that location of the proposal. Sohns agreed. space potential available along Commerce Thal stated that Mound has plenty of retail/and Meyer agreed. Jensen stated that the City Council is behind this plan. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1987 - Page 5 Blvd. to'keep it away from down- Sohns suggested moving the location east on Lynwood ~~-~~~. town and poss;b]y'where the ]and may be cheaper. Shukle will look into moving the facility to this location for next time. Signs. Meyer questioned why signs can't be addressed on a case than changing the law. for shopping centers by case basis/rather Meyer motioned and Sohns seconded a case by case decision will be made. No ordinance change to the sign provisions is recommended by the Planning Commission. Jensen and Thal opposed, Michael abstained, and six were in favor. e Tabled exterior storage for next meeting, except for making the correction of inserting the sentence "Temporary storage is controlled by the restrictions found herein." at 23.702 item (1) after the last word in the paragraph (ordinances). Also brief discussion as to the inclusion of a grandfather clause. 5. Housing Maintenance Code. Question of whether it is internal, external, or both. Other questions that surfaced included how to deal with internal, the prospect of running into health aspects, what city/state laws may apply. Primary attention should be for external maintenance, but we have to address both. It will need an ordinance to take care of the issue. It should be applied to both owner occupied and renters. The inspection could take place at the sale of the property. $ohn suggested that we are starting at the wrong end. We need to talk to peoplg, seek alternatives. Committee agreed to gather information to enable committee to approach public for input. 6. Does committee wish to continue advertising meeting dates? Yes, unanimously. 7. Interview dates for position on commission--August 24, 1987 was decided upon. ADJOURNMENT Weiland moved and Meyer seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Ail were in favor so the meeting was adjourned. Chairman Thomas Reese Attest: May 12, 1987 CASE ,t87-62~ .- SHORELINE PLAZA, 52~9 SHORELINE BLVD.. EIDN VARIANCE The City Planner explained the request. The Planning Commission ~ecommended denial because the request is not a hardship. Mark Saliterman, owner of the shopping center, stated that the request is valid and the sign allowed is too small for the center. He stated he does not feel the ordinance was written tb deal with a multi-tenant center. Smith moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-91 RESOLUTION.TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR 5229~ SHORELINE BLVD., · SHORELINE PLAZA There was discussion on the current sign ordinance', sizes of sign allowed, the inte'grity of the current ordinance, variance criteria and hardship. The City Attorney suggested that if the council feels the ordinance should be reviewed or amended they should have the Planning Commission study it. Abel withdrew his second and Smith' withdrew the resolution. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jense~ to table Case ~87- 62~ to a future date and direct the Planning Commission to review the sign ordinance as it relates to shopping centers with multi-tenant occupancy. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1987 -Page 5 Sohns suggested moving the location up east on Lynwood where the land is cheaper. Shukle will look into moving the facil±ty to this location for next time. Signs. Meyer questioned why signs can't be addressed on a case by case basis rather than changing the law.- ~eyer motioned and Sohns seconded a Case by case decision will be made. No ordinance change to the sign provisions is recommended by the. Planning Commission. Jensen and Thal opposed, Michael abstained, and six were in favor. Tabled.exterior storage for next meeting, except for making the correction of inserting the sentence "Temporary storage is controlled by the restrictions found herein." at 23.702 item (1) after the last word in the paragraph (ordinances). Also brief discussion as to the inclusion of a grandfather clause. Housing Maintenance Code. Question of whether it is internal, external, or both. Other questions that surfaced included how to deal with internal, the prospect of running into health aspects, what city/state laws may apply. It will need an ·ordinance to take care of the issue. It should be applied to both owner occup%ed and renters. '.The inspection could take place at.the sale of the property. ' Sohn suggested that we are starting at the wrong end. We need to talk to people, seek alternatives, and see what expenses are involved. Committee agreed to gather information to enable committee to approach public for inputl Does committee wish to continue advertising meeting dates? Yes, unanimously. ADJOURNMENT . .- Weiland.motioned and Meyer seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. were in favor so the meeting was adjourned. Interview dates for position on commission--AugUst 24, 1987 was decided upon. All Attest: Chairman Thomas Reese Information for July 28, 1987 Council Meeting July 22, 1987 Public Dance Permit - 8-1-87 Incredible Festival Our Lady of the Lake Church Charitable 3.2 Beer Permit - Aug. 1 & 2, 1987 Incredible Festival Our Lady of the Lake Church BILLS ...... JULY 28, 1987 Batch 874071 Computer Batch 874072 Computer run dated 7/22/87 run dated 7/23/87 81,961.89 57,539.06 SuperAmerica J.B. ConStruction Audio Visual Ketch-All Co. Paramount Chemical Andy's Hfg Lutz Tree Serv. Hclard & Assoc Gasoline Final-Vestibule Extension cable Pole Shine on Uti1 co,er/animal1 truck Diseased tree removal Hoist 756.43 1,904.00 116.00 70.20 315.14 250.OO 2,250.00 12,466.25 18,128.02 TOTAL BI LLS 157,628.97 I 0 0 'r Z ~r Ltl o '"r' in ZZZZZ~ZZZ w I r,- ,~J 0 ,000 I! ZZZ, 000; W .-- Z ~ Z 0 0 m ? O0 (:30 0303 3:3: O0 fd '1- I-- 0 W 0 0 o OJ I I I I -? W W >- I- 0 M ,.J ,.J ZZ 0 O0 ZZ · T' ~- O0 ~-~,~ l Z 0 4-4- .22 0000 ZZZZ 0000 0000 i 0000 PI: t'l o Z Z ..J f~ o~ UJ 1 Z s"" ¢*J OJ OJ O.J ~J ~ ttJ ~1 t"t./ OJ 0 r' W I o00 UJ Z .J 0 ~0 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 L~L~o 0 W I- -r' 000000000 OJ~J 0 00000=00000 0000000 hi I-I-- ZZ O0 Z 0 I- ..J ..J 0 _1 0 I- Z 0 I-. ti./ It. I-- I,.- O0 ZZ ZZ l~IbJ ..?.? Z o o o o OJ~J o~, ~ I'~ 0 u bJ 0 id 000 ZZZ Ill lit -I Iii Z Z Ill .~. ..J Ld Z Z I 0 0000000~0000000~ 0~ Z 0 r Z ,- 000000000000000 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z bJ Z 0 b. -; Z 0 I-4 Z Z :Z "r I O~ 0 0 O ' I I I I I I u ~ I ~ZZZ 000: 000 -I 41. I ~ 0~0 000 ~ZZ NNN * Z 0 000 ZZZ bJ ld ~J 000 UJ ..J 0 · -r :Z 7 0 0 L~ o o o o oo o o ZZ NN 0000000000 ZZZZ~ZZ~ZZ 0000000000 000 000 W W Z 0 ,,.,., bJ z w u. W "I' "Ir 0 ooo oooo~ooooo ~J Z 0 (.3 Z o Z 0 W ~J Z .J o~oo~ o~oo~ I o o o I-.. Z Ill I-.. '! ! ! b.I fl. fi. lO Z~ZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ; IIIlllllll 0000000000I Z 0 0 (.3 0~ I Z -'r' o o o o Z Ld x 0 ).. Z 0 :3: · OJ Z 0 M W 0 I I hi hi I-- Z 0 O3 ZZ T'~- ~'Z:: O0 .~- Z~- O0 hltU LU Z 0 .l- a. i- 3- i- h ooo~oo~o~o 0 I- ~ Z I.-, Ld n 's'"' -J bJ 0 ~ 0 Z .d 0 U T Z Z Z I Z -;' ~- ¢:- ~.~ ',~ , e,' · -.~N.~ u - - ~". ' - ;'. ,. /.: ?'~ ':"': "~;..: ;",.' "' 'LL; ;'L · ' .....:" ,'"'-W~ ' '"~- "'-." ~', -"' ' - '~ ~' . : ,' ,'.'::,-~: ,:*';: :': ",7-..-,-..'-,¢.' ',.:4L::~ 5.- ;.-.-E.?..' :',~ '".-'.5 : National League of Cities Institute Nonprofit Org. !301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2~ PAID ~rmlt NO. 231 Memfleld, COUNCILO MANAGER POLICY LEADER SEMINARS rtno urea . FRANCHI SE. NAME VIEWING HABITS ~ OF SUBSCRIBF~S I # OF RRSPONSES ~ ,. N/f~ ~ I 2 3 4 PROGRAMMING WATCH WATCH WATCH NOT g/~ OFTEN SOME RARELY : ~'E^Tt, RE MOVIES .CHILDREN'S PHOG~U'~S 11'~''7% ~6- ?.1% CITY COONCIL "LIVE" 22:10%, ~,- o.s. CONGREss 'L~VE,' !2~'1~ q- ="LOCALLY PRODUCED PROGRAMS NEWS PROG~S t1'4 - U'/o 16q - 5'1% SPECIAL ~'M STATIONS !55~25% IR- MOVIES SOMEWHAT NOT W//~ PREFER INTERESTED F,~ILY MOVI~-S 10-5%J~ZO 5&% qO 53% Iq ~% ACTION MOVIES · ,, Iq- 8~25-5~ Io[- 2~% ~1- 5% w~.~ Z~-12~'~-21% tiff- q~%q~- 20% COMEDIES ~s,ER~ Iq- g%lqg-bb%R5- l/~%~lq- 8% NEW PROGRAMMING & OTKER SERVICR~ VERY SOMEWHAT NOT ~/~ INTERESTED INTERESTED CABLE TV SERVICE RATING EXCELLENT GOOD POOR CLARITY OF CABLE TV RECEPTION HELPFULNESS & COURTESY OF SERVICE PEOPLE RESONABLENESS OF BILLING PROCEDURES RESPONSIVENESS TO SERVICE & BILLING CALLS Iq' L~_ !1 .................. Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 July 15, 1987 To: Local Government Contact Persons The Metropolitan Council staff has prepared preliminary April 1, 1987 population and household estimates for your community. These preliminary estimates, together with a fact sheet containing the primary data used to prepare your community's estimates, are enclosed. The Council would like to hear your comments or concerns before finalizing the estimates for the State Department of Revenue. The Revenue Department will use the figures to calculate the amount of aid local communities receive under the Fiscal Disparities Act and the local government aid law. The change in estimated population or number of households is a part of the formula used to determine levy limits applicable in 1987 for counties and for cities of 5,000 or more population. The Council also uses the numbers to monitor population and household changes in Metropolitan Area communities. Please address questions concerning the levy limits and local government aids to Rich Gardner, Minnesota Department of Revenue, 296-2286. We'd like to finalize these estimates by July 30, 1987. To do this we need your comments as soon as possible. If you have concerns about the estimates, please contact Kathy Johnson of the Council's staff at 291-6332 as soon as possible. We will make every attempt to work with you to make any necessary adjustments in time to be incorporated in the Revenue Department's calculations. Written comments may also be directed to Ms. Johnson at the Council's mailing address. Because the population and household estimates are of great importance to the cities, as well as to the Council in its planning work, we want to provide estimates that are not only accurate but treat each city fairly and consistently. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Steve Keefe Chair SK/dc Enclosures An Equal Opportunity Employer METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PROVISIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATE - APRIL 1, 1987 City or Township 1987 Housing Units Estimated Total Housing (Including Estimate 1980 Uncompleted Estimated Estimated By Type Housing Units 1986 Permits) Completed Occupied Household Estimates 1980 Household Estimate 1986 Household Estimate 1987 Household Estimate Population Estimates 1980 Total Population 1980 Group Quarters Population 1987 Group Quarters Population , 1987 Population in Households 1987 Population Estimate 6) Persons Per Household 1980 Persons per Household 1986 Persons per Household 1987 Persons per Household *All numbers are as of April I of each year. HENNEPIN COUNTY APRIL 1, 1987 POPULATION ESTIMATES April 1, 1980 Census April 1, 1987 Estimate Persons Per Household April 1, April 1, 1980 1987 Census Estimate Bloomington 81,831 84,480 2.82 2.55 Brooklyn Center 31,230 29,555 2.89 2.61 Brooklyn Park 43,332 52,392 2.84 2.69 Champlin 9,006 13,261 3.29 3.10 Chanhassen (Pt.) 8 4 4.00 4.00 Corcoran 4,252 4,862 3.42 3.36 Crystal 25,543 25,009 2.82 2.65 Dayton (Pt.) 4,000 4,247 3.45 3.38 Deephaven 3,716 3,699 3.02 2.81 Eden Prairie 16,263 30,712 3.01 2.60 Edina 46,073 45,924 2.55 2.29 Excelsior 2,523 2,587 2.15 2.00 Fort Snelling 223 216 3.12 2.71 Golden Valley 22,775 21,527 2.86 2.52 Greenfield 1,391 1,519 3.46 3.26 Greenwood 653 655 2.79 2.63 Hanover (Pt.) 248 257 3.87 3.63 Hassan Twp. 1,766 1,961 3.91 3.56 Hopkins 15,336 15,065 2.12 1.96~ Independenoe 2,640 2,714 3.35 3.13 Long Lake 1,747 1,969 2.89 2.53 Loretto 297 345 2.72 2.41 Maple Grove 20,525 33,449 3.29 3.17 Maple Plain' 1,421 1,715 2.92 2.72 Medicine Lake 419 396 2.59 2.44 Medina 2,623 2,930 3.41 3.18 Minneapolis 370,951 356,677 2.19 2.09 Minnetonka 38,683 43,025 3.00 2.58 Minnetonka Beach 575 593 3.07 2.76 Minnetrista 3,236 3,584 3.32 3.09 Mound 9,280 9,849 2.74 2.67 New Hope 23,087 22,785 2.91 2.65 Orono 6,845 7,21.2 2.99 2.81 Osseo 2,974 2,761 2.66 2.47 Plymouth 31,615 43,834 2.96 2.65 Richfield 37,851 36,828 2.46 2.34 Robbinsdale 14,422 14,528 2.46 2.32 Rockford (Pt.) 380 462 3.04 2.70 Rogers 652 706 3.10 2.93 St. Anthony (Pt.) 5,619 5,514 2.90 2.56 St. Bonifacius 857 1,084 3.05 2.78 St. Louis Park 42,931 43,363 2.38 2.15 Shorewood 4,646 4,921 3.13 2.94 Spring Park 1,465 1,508 1.97 1.86 Tonka Bay 1,354 1,453 2.74 2.53 Wayzata 3,621 3,668 2.25 2.07 Woodland 526 496 2.87 2.73 986,301 2.51 2.54 941,411 COUNTY TOTAL July 17, 1987 To: Local Government Key Contacts Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 Earlier this year the Metropolitan Council invited your community to partici- pate in our strategic planning process. Council members and I appreciate the opportunities that have been extended to us to meet with you. We've discussed with you the long-range concerns of our region, and have received thoughtful input from many communities and organizations. As we indicated to you this spring, the Council's strategic planning effort doesn't end with identifying thos~ issues it wants to concentrate its efforts on in the immediate future. Strategic planning will continue to be an important part of our work over the next several years and will involve an ongoing dialogue between the Council and its constituencies. Our recently completed six-month process, however, did identify issues, and the goals and strategies to address them, and incorporated the concerns and ideas of our constituencies. Several major areas emerge that suggest a focus for our work in 1988. In the Council's budget document, staff has proposed six priorities for work in 1988 based on the Council's work. These priorities, which the Council will consider next week, are as follows: o The regional economy, with a focus on better understanding of the regional economy and how it ~elates to state, national and international economic activities. o Human resources framework, with a focus on developing more integrated policies that address human needs in the region, as the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework does for physical systems. o Water, with a focus on improved management of the region's water supply and quality. o Transportation, with a focus on gre~ter balance in the regional system through new policy direction and transit strategies. o Strategic planning, with a focus on improving the Council's capability to anticipate and define future regional issues. o Solid waste, with a focus on continuing to move the regional system in new directions set forth in Council policY and legislative action. Enclosed is a copy of the public meeting n~tice and Overview for the Council's proposed 1988 Work Program and Budget. I encourage you to continue to help the Council set its work agenda for 1988 and beyond by participating in our current budget setting process and our ongoing strategic planning efforts. Sincerely, Steve Keefe Chair O~ ~'~ An Equal Opportunity Employer NOTICE OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING PROPOSED 1988 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET The Metropolitan Council's Management Committee will hold a public meeting to receive comments on the Council's proposed 1988 work program and budget. You are strongly encouraged to participate in this meeting and provide the committee with your input during the development stages of the budget document. The proposed budget was developed based on direction provided by members of the Metropolitan Council at three spring retreats· The Management Committee will be reviewing the proposed document during July and August. The Council will hold a public hearing Sept. 10 prior to its final adoption of the 1988 work program and budget on Sept. 24. Enclosed is a summary of the proposed work program and budget. Copies of the full budget document are available from the Council's Data Center. PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION When: Tuesday, July 28, 9 a.m. Where: 3rd Floor, Metro Square Bldg. 7th and Robert Sts. St. Paul Who will be notified: Local Officials Minority organiZations Business organizations Regional Commissions Council advisory committees Interested persons How to participate: You may attend the meeting and offer comments. To register in advance to speak, please call Jane Larson at 291-6500. You may send a letter with comments to: Alan Morris Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55101 Any questions: Call the Council's Finance Division and talk to: Alan Morris (291-6446) or Tim Fleetham (291-6374). To receive a copy of the document call 291-6464. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S PROPOSED 1988 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET WORK PROGRAM The 1988 work program development process was designed to encourage awareness and .understanding of a longer-range strategic perspective on regional issues. The Council identified critical issues for the Twin Cities region's future and identified goals to achieve in addressing these issues. The following goals are identified in the proposed 1988 work program. The first six goals were identified by staff as priorities for Council consideration. 'O O The regional economy. Understand the regional economy and how it relates tostate, national and international economic activities. Human Resources Framework. Develop more integrated policies that address human needs in the region. Water. Improve management Of the region's water supply and quality. Transportation. Develop a balanced transportation system to satisfy long-term social and economic goals of the region. Strategic planning. Anticipate and define future regional issues through an ongoing "environmental scanning" process. Solid waste. Lead region to establish a solid waste System that protects the environment. o Basic Research. Identify, track, interpret and report on trends with .regional policy implications. o MD~F followup. Incorporate the Council's basic growth 'and resource management strategy into Council plans and decisions. o Metropolitan Development Guide/local plannin$. Promote and assist local government implementation of Council policies. 0 0 0 Housing. PromOte and guide orderly development of housing. Arts and cultural opportunities. Encourage access to cultural activities. Services to older persons. Ensure that older people have access to, and are able to obtain, needed assistance. Health costs and Health status. Encourage the containment of health costs while maintaining or improving health. o o Metro governance. Adapt the institutional arrangements of the metro agencies to ensure each is accountable for service delivery decisions. Financin~ infrastructure. Establish regional policy for long-term infrastructure planning and financing. Refflonal parks. Ensure regional recreation open space needs are met. Consensus-buildinff. Help build participation and develop consensus among parties on ways to solve regional problems. Information for Council decision-making. Provide appropriate information to help the Council make informed decisions. General information. Expand people's understanding of regional issues and Council policies and activities. Information for decision-makers. Make appropriate informaiton resources available and accessible to improve regional decision-making. Commitment for Council decisions. Build public support for important Council policies. BUDGET o The proposed budget for 1988 is $11.9 million. This represents a 2 percent increase from the 1987 adopted budget of $11.6 million and a 2 percent drop from the 1987 amended budget of $12.1 million. o o The largest share of the Council's proposed budget, 60 percent, will come from a regional property tax levy. The proposed levy of $7.2 million represents a 5 percent increase over the 1987 levy. The proposed budget for 1988 supports a staff complement of 206. In addition to the proposed budget of $11.9 million for agency operations, the. Council anticipates administering $34.6 million in grants and $1.8 million in loans for various federal and state funded programs. REVIEW SCttF~ULE Following is the schedule for review of the Council's 1988 work program and budget. July 14 July 21 July 28 August August 13 August 18 September 10 September 15 September 23 September 24 Management Committee review Management Committee review Management Committee review Public meeting to receive comments Management Committee sets public hearing and recommends 1988 work program and budget public hearing draft Council adoption of 1988 work program and budget public hearing draft Management Committee discussion (if necessary) Council public hearing on 1988 work program and budget Managment Committee review and recommendation Nearing record closes Council adopts 1988 work program and budget, *.~:.~-! AT&T ~uit® ¢~0 400 North Flob~rt Street St. Paul. IVlinne~ota 55101 July 15, 1987 To: City & County Clerks The attached information regarding changes in AT&~'s rate structure is being sent to you pursuant tQ Order by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Please post or distribute this information to those in your organization as you see fit. Assistant Manager-External Relations NOTICE OF W~THDRAWAL OF RATE and NOTICE OF RATE CHANGE In April 1987, AT&T Co,~,~nications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T) published a Rate Change Notice (Docket No. P-aa2/M-87~5~) announcir~g {ts schedule of proposed restructured rates for MrS, WATS and Channel Services. The filing of the rate restructure was in compliance with the Minnesota Public Utilities cora~ission (~[f'uc) Orders: Docket Nos. P-442/M-85-408 and M-85-583 (AT&T's Operator and Credit Card Surcharges and its Evening and Night/Weekend Discount cases), and Docket No. P-442, P-421/CI-85-454, the Commission Investigation into the Provision of and Billing of Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS). On May 1, 1987, in accordance with Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Order dated March 30, 1987, the following interim rates became effective. Full Time Service: AT&T Outward WATS Prior Rate: Interim Rate: $974.00 per month $869.00 per month 'AT&T 800 Service: Prior Rate: Interim Rate: $869.00 per month $758.25 per month Tapered Service: Hours Groups 0-15 15-40 40-80 Over 80 AT&T WATS Prior Rates: $15.25 $14.75 $13.75 $11.75 Interim Rates: 13.30 12.85 12.00 10.25 AT&T 800 Service Prior Rates: $17.00 $16.50 $15.50 $14.00 Interim Rates: 14.85 14.40 13.50 12.20 Two-Way WATS Prior Rates: $18.70 $18.15 $17.05 $15.95 Interim Rates: 16.30 15.85 14.90 13.90 The interim rates shown above, reflect a $4.5a3 million annual reduction in rates previously charged for AT&T's Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS). (continued) On'June 9, 1987, AT&T filed for a Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of its Notice of Rate Charge. (Docket No. P-442/M-87-54). In addition to the Voluntary Dismissal, AT&T requested that the Convnission allow the interim cards to remain in effect as final cares. On June 30, after interested parties were given the opportunity to co~ent on AT&T's request for voluntary dismissal, the Con~nission allowed AT&T to voluntarily dismiss its proposed rate restructure case. The Co~ission also allowed the interim rates shown above to become final rates. RATE CHANGE On AuEust 8, 1987, AT&T Midwest, Inc., will revise its rates for eveninE lon~ distance rates for calls placed within Minnesota. The discount for eveninE lonE distance rates will be reduced for 39% to 32%. This revision is bein~ made to recognize the end of a rate refund period, pursuant to tt%e M~nn~ota Public Utilities Co-m~ssion Order, Docket Nos. P-442/M-85-409 and 583. .. The Order, issued September 29, 1986, required'AT&T to temporarily reduce eveninE intrastate rates by 7%, effective October 1, 1986 throuEh AuEust 8, 1987. The purpose was to refund the overcharEes collected durin~ the period of December 15, 1985 to September 30, 1986. Copies of AT&T's WATS tariff, and lonE distance rates tariffs are available and may be reviewed by the public durinE normal business hours at the Department of Public Service, 790 American Center Buildin~c 160 East Kello§E Boulevard, St. paul, MN 55101 and at AT&T's Marketi~ Office, 83Q0 No~man Center Drive, 9th Floor, BloominEton, MN 55437. Customers who have questions re~ardinE any of the chanEes may call AT&T, toll-free at 1-800-325-0138 (business customers) or 1-800-222-0300 (residence customers). AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. a ociation of metropolitan municrpalitie July 17, 1987 Mr. Edward Shukle City Manager 5341M'aywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Ed: You are invited to a "dutch treat" breakfast meeting on Wednesday, August 5th. at 7:30 A.M. We will be meeting in the Plymouth Holiday Inn, Plymouth Room, 3000 Harbor Lane, (I 494 & Hwy. 55), Plymouth, Minnesota. Please R.S.V.P. to Carol Williams at 227-5600 by Monday noon August 3, 1987· This "get-together", sponsored by the Association of Metropolitan MUnicipalities (AMM), has a three-fold purpose: To provide member city officials the direct opportunity to help establish the yearly AMM agenda and work program with respect to city issues and concerns (local-regional-state). Issues raised at this meeting will be forwarded to the appropriate policy committees. e To provide the AMM Board and Staff the opportunity to appraise you of major program and issue priorities as seen by the Board and St aff. To provide a forum to educate selected non-member city officials in your area as to what the AMM is and what it does. We expect this to be a very informal gathering with lots of give and take. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 The impetous for this series of meetings originated in the recommendations put forth by a Membership Services Committee study of the AMM services and operations. The study concluded that there was a need for better and more direct communication and dialogue between the AMM office (Board and Staff) and member city officials. We sincerely hope you can attend and that you will pass on this invitation to members of your City Council as well. We are inviting your Mayor by separate letter. We look forward to seeing you on August 5th. Most Sincerely, Neil , AMM President Bloomington City Councilmember Karen Anderson AMM Boardmember Minnetonka Councilmember MEMO TO: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers FROM: E.A. Hickok and Associates DATE: July 16, 1987 RE: Lake Level, Flow and Precipitation Summary for June, 1987. Lake levels in Lake Minnetonka have continued to decline through June as illustrated by the attached graph and lake elevations. There has been virtually no discharge from Lake Minnetonka into Minnehaha Creek since October 20, 1986. Minnehaha Creek at the Browndale Avenue Dam in Edina has maintained a flow throughout June. This is shown by the Monthly Flow Summary. The 30 year average precipitation for June at the National Weather Service ~ation in Maple Plain is 4.83 inches. The actual precipitation recorded in Wayzata for June.was 2.41. A summary of precipitation is attached. 9..~0.00 929.80 929.60 929.40 929.20 929.00 928.80 928.60 928.40 928.20 928.00 927.80 927.60 g27.40 927.20 927.00 07-dul-86 Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distric} NOHW(929.4) RUNOUT ELEVATION (928.6) LAKE ELEVATION I I I I I I I 15--0c t--86 23-Jean--07 03- Mc;y-87 11 --Au9--87 Dal:e :.:~,~,, =~ev::~on Flow Date Eievatimq ..... /-~-~5 928.51 5 06-M~r-87 928.35 '0 928.35 12 01-Cc]-~ ;~= ..... :~: !50 .... 08-De:-86 928.42 0 '=-~"-u,,-=, '? 927.6~ 9£%84 12 :]-Oct-~5 928,~0 75 18-F~:-~7 929.35 0 Maple Plain Mi nneapol i s-St. Int' 1 Airport Wayzata * Estimated by time of this Preci pitati on Summary Actual Paul Ju ne 2. O* Ju ne 1.95 .June 2.41 State Climatology Office, actual summary 30 Year Average 4.83 4.07 reading unavailable at the June 8 June 10 June 12 June 15 June 17 June 19 June 22 June 24 June 26 June 29 Monthly Flow Summary July 16, 1987 Gray's Bay (cfs) Browndale Avenue Dam (cfs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.85 2.11 6.46 2.47 2.47 4.09 15.47 5.96 4.99 5.47 A. THOMAS WUI~ST, P.A. CURTIS A P£AI~SON, P.A. ~IAM£S D I~RSON. P.A. THOMAS I~. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CRAIG M. MERTZ ROGE:R ~1. ~I~LLOW$ LAW OFFICE~$ WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ IIOO FIRST BANK I='LACE W£ST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 July 17, 1987 ($12) 338-4200 Mr. Mark Koegler VanDoren, Bazard & Stallings 3030 Barbor Lane North Suite 104 MinneapOlis, Minnesota $5441 Re: Nonconforming Uses - Planning Items Dear Mark: This will confirm our conversations and our meeting on July 17, 1987. You have asked to have me send you any materials I have which might help to explain the recent Supreme Court cases of First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California and the case of Nollan v. California Costal Commission. Both of these cases have been resolved by the Supreme Court in a manner which is contrary to the best interests of local government controls. I am enclosing a copy of a summary from the Court report which I think in the summary form points out that if a local government is involved in adopting a regulation which takes the use of a person's property the constitution requires that compensation be paid from the time of the taking. Previously, when damages were allowed, they were calculated only from the time that the ruling or regulation was determined to be unconstitutional or unenforceable. I am also sending you a copy of a report from the Urban Land Institute which goes into and comments on the case of Nollan v. California Costal Commission. I also enclosed, at this time, 4 pages which relate to Minnesota'Law and the municipal land use field. These.are general cases and also go into rezoning, special uses, variance, subdivision and plat approval questions and conditional use permits. T~is is probably the most current and updated report we have on Minnesota zoning decisions. You have indicated that the Planning Commission may want to review or read these cases and that it would be helpful to them'in carrying out their duties. I suggest that the same thing may be true for the City Council and I am enclosing copies of this letter and enclosures to Mr. Shukle for his review, and if he deems it advisable he can pass them on to the City Council. The last item of interest which you will find in this material is a Syllabus of the Supreme Court of the United States - (First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles), do take a look at that case, too. WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & JVIERTZ As I stated in our meeting on July 17, 1987, I think that it is imperative that the Planning Commission and the Council understand their goals and the policies and then consistently apply those goals and policies. When Courts review zoning cases, they are very critical of municipal officials who do not make adequate findings or state reasons for their actions, and as we both know, it is impossible for either Planning Commissioners or City Council Members to state those reasons unless they understand the process and their own goals. The whole purpose of a Comprehensive Plan and a Zoning Ordinance is to indicate that at some future date the City will have arrived in utopia and all properties will have been brought into conformance with the goals and the standards established by the City's Ordinances. In the case of Mound, we will always live with the 1890's platting which established 80 X 40 ft. lots, and it will be several generations before those problems are brought into total control if even at that time. Very truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney City of Mound CAP: kl cc: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager COURT HOLDS LANDOWNER MAY CLAIM DAMAGES FOR TEMPORARY 'TAKING" BY REGULATION In F/~t English Evangelical ~ Church of Glendale v. County ol Los Angeles, California, the Court ruled, 6 to 3, that when an invalid land use regulation denies all use of property, the landowner may claim compensation for a "taking" for the period that the regulation remains in effect before it is invalidated. The decision has given rise to much speculation concerning its potential effect on health and safety regulations, zoning laws, and other regulations restricting land use. In this case, the Church's property, called Luther- glen, had been used as a campsite. After a destructive flood, the county adopted a temporary ordinance prohibiting construction within an "interim flood protec- tion area" that included Lutherglen. The Church, claiming that the ordinance denied it all use of the property, sought compensation. The claim was dis- missed because of a California rule that a property owner may seek declaratory or injunctive relief against a land use regulation, but not damages for a regulatory "taking.' The Supreme Court reversed. Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion for the Court carefully defined the issue. He made it plain that the Court was not deciding whether the ordinance actually denied the Church all use of its property. Nor did 'the Court determine whether there had been "a compens- able taking," or rather a valid exercise of "the State's authority to enact safety regulations.' The Court simply ruled that, "in the event of a taking, the compensation remedy is required by the Constitution"; that a land use regulation that "goes too far" may result in a compensable taking; and that California could not, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, disallow 'damages that occurred prior to the ultimate invalidation 'of the challenged regulation." The opinion confirmed previous rulings (which had been cited in the Legal Center's amicus brief} that, when · *a regulation is held to be invalid, "the government may elect to abandon, its intrusion or discontinue regula- tions"; and that, if it does so, there is no permanent "taking." The Court ruled, however,-by analogy to cases allowing compensation for the federal govern- ment's temporary appropriation of private property during World War II- that the Fifth Amendment requires compensation for "temporary" takings which "deny a landowner all use of his property." The Court noted that it did not "deal with the quite different questions that would arise in the case of normal delays in obtaining building permits, changes in zoning ordinances, variances, and the like." However, on the assumption that the ordinance has denied the Church "all use of its property for a considerable period of years,' its invalidation "without payment of fair value for the use of the property during this period of time would be a constitutionally insufficient remedy.' Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Blackmun and 'O'Connor in a stinging dissent, termed the Court's decision a "loose cannon," which would ignite "a litigation explosion" with "a significant adverse impact on the land-use regulatory process." The dissent thought that "the type of regulatory program at issue here cannot constitute a taking.' The County's ordi- nance, enacted in the interest of public health and safety, was entitled to a 'presumption of validity," particularly because the complaint did not even allege that it was invalid. The dissent also thought that "the fact that a regulation would constitute a taking if allowed to remain in effect permanently" is not "dispositive of the question whether the effect that the regulation has already had on the property is so severe that a taking occurred during the period before ~he regulation was invalidated." Unlike a physical occupation, "a regulatory program that adversely affects property values does not constitute a taking unless it destroys a major portion of the property's value." The dissenters also criticized the Court's "artificial distinction" between "normal delays in obtain- ing building permits, changes in zoning ordinances, variances and the like" and "the delays involved in obtaining a court declaration that the regulation consti- tutes a taking." The dissenters thought that the Due Process Clause, rather than the Takings Clause, "is the primary constraint on the use of unfair and dilatory procedures in the land-use area." COURT RF ORT ST^TE ,oc^ EGAi CE"TE I COURT REPORT is published by the State and Local Legal Center. which was established to improve the quality of repre- sentation of state and local governments before the United States Supreme Cou~ The center is an arm of the Academy for State and Local Government, a tax-exempt nonprofit public research and educational training foundation, sponsored by the'Council of State Governments, International City Manage- ment Association, National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governors' Associa- tion, National League of Cities, and U.S. Conference of Mayors. State ami Local legal Cente~ 444 Norl~ Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 349 Washington, DC 2(X)01 (202) 638-1445 Beale Bloch, Editor Beftna Ruth 5olomoet, Chief Counsel Enid Beaumont, Director Academy for State and Local Government ~) 1987 State end Local Legal Center. all rights reserved. Published monthly; subscriptions $95.00 a year. J MUNICIPALITIES IN THE JNITED STATES SUPREME COURT June 9, 1987 - Special issue containing entire text of the Court's landmark 'takings' opinion. (For an NOTE: W~ it is feuible. · syll~bus ¢l~ndnote) will be ~le~ed. a~ is ~b~ do~ in eonn~-tion ruth this en~,..~ t~e tm~e t~e .opimon in issued. T~ ~y~abus eomtitut~ no ~ of the opinion of t~e Court out ~ Mn p~ ~ by ~ b~ ~ ~h~M f~ ~ ~ve~ of t~ ~er. ~ U~ ~ v. ~ Lum~ Co., ~ U. S. ~1. ~. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPEIJ-&TE DISTRICT No. 85-1199. Argued January 14, 1987--Derided June 9, 1987 In 1957, appellant church purchased land on which it operated a camp- ground, known as 'Lutherglen," az a retreat center and a recreational area for lumclieapped children. The brad is located in a canyon along the b~mks of a creek that is the natural drainage channel for a watershed area.. In 1978, a flood destroyed Lutherglen's buildings. In response to the flood, appellee Lo~ Angeles County, in 1979, adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the construction or reconstruction of any building or structure in an interim flood protection area that included the land on which Lutherglen had stood. Shortly after the ordinance was adopted, appellant fled suit fna California trial court, alleging, inter alia, that the ordinance denied appellant nil use of Lutherglen, and seeking to recover clama~s in inverse condemnation for such loss of use. The trial court granted a motion to strike the allegation, basing its ruling on Ag/ns v. Tiburtm, 24 Cal. 3cl 266, 598 P. 2d 25 (aff'd on other grounds. 447 U. $. 255), in which the CalLfornh Supreme Court held that a landowner may not maintain an inverse condemnation suit based upon a "regulatory" taking, and that compensation is not required until the challenged regu- ¼fion or ordinance has been held excessive in an action for declaratory relief or a writ of mandamus and the government has nevertheless de- tided to continue the regulation in effect. Because appellant alleged a regulatory taking and sought only damages, the trial court deemed the allegation that the ordinance denied all use of Luthergien to be irrele- rant. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. Held: L The claim that the Ag/ns case improperly held that the Just Com- pensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require compensation announcement concerning the dissent, refer to the last: page of this issue.} NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF/~UNICIPAL I.AW OFFICERS 1000 CONNECTICCIT AVENCIE. N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-5424 Charles S. Rhyne, Editor-in-Chief Jan MaJewski, Editor Rachel Sobln Ollman, Assistant Editor FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Syllabus as a remedy for 'temporary" regulatory takings--those regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts--is properly pre- sented in this case. In earlier cases, this Court was unable to reach the question because either the regulations considered to be in issue by the state courts did not effect a taking, or the factual disputes yet to be resolved by state authorities might still lead to the conclusion that no taking had occurred. Here, the California Court of Appeal assumed that the complaint sought damages for the uncompensated "taking" of all use of LutherElen by the ordinance, and relied on the California Supreme Court's Ag/~,s decision for the conclusion that the remedy for the taking was limited to nonmonetary relief, thus isolating the remedial question for this Court's consideration. M~cDon~ld, $ommer & Fmtes v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. ,; Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172; San Diego Gas & Elects,lc Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621; and Agina, all distinguished. Pp. 5-8. 2. Under the Just Compensation Clause, where the government has ~mken" property by a land-use regulation, the landowner may recover damages for the time before it is finally determined that the regulation constitutes a ~king" of his property. The Clause ia designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interfer- ence amounting to a taking. A landowner is entitled to bring an action in inverse condemnation aa a result of the self-executing character of the constitutional provision with respect to compensation. While the typi- cai taking occurs when the government acts to condemn property in the exercise of its power of eminent domain, the doctrine of inverse con- detonation is predicated on the proposition that a taking may occur with- out such formal proceedings. "Temporary" regulatory takings which, az here, deny a landowner all use of his property, are not different in 'k/nd from permanent takings for which the Constitution clearly requires compensation. Once a court determines that a takiffg has occurred, the government retains the whole range-of options already available--:. amendment of the regulation, withdrawal of the invalidated regulation, or exercise of eminent domain. But where the government's activities have already worked a taking of all use of property, no subsequent action by the government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation for the period during which the taking was efl'ective. Invalidation of the ordinance without payment of fair value for the use of the property during such period would be a constitutionally insufficient remedy. Pp. 9-16. Reversed and remanded. the Urban Land Institute SPECIAL .REPORT June ~0, 1987 TA~I~GS UPDATe--HIGH ~OURT BACKS PROPERTY L~s% week the U.S. SupTeme CouT% did some~hin~ it hasn't done fo= 8§ yeats. I% ~uled %h~ ~ ~owernmen% regulation ~moun~ed %0 & "%~kin~" undeT ~he Fifth &nd Fourteenth Amendments. In & five-to-fonT vote, %he oveT%uTned %he Californl~ Coastal Commission's condition Tequirin~ o~ne~s of & be~chfTon% lo% %0 dedicate ~u e=semcn~ pmovi~in~ fo= public ~oeess ~O=OSS %hei~ prope=%y lu exchange for pc=mission %0 oonve~% ~ di!=pida~ed bunfalo~ into & two-story home. The ¢~se of ~ v. ~ ~ ~--decided ~us% before ~he Court ~d~ourned--follows ho% on %he heels of another ma~o= decision bols%eTin~ %he rights of l&ndo~ners. On june 9, %he 0our= held fo= ~he firs~ time ~hm% property owners must be compensated when m government regulation "goes %oo fmr" ~n~ overly restricts mn owner°~ use, even if the deprivm%ion is only tempor=ry. Before %his decision in ~ ~lish ~ Lutheran ~hureh of Glend5!e v. LO~ AD~91P~ County, ~he rule in mos% s%&%es'was %h~% inv~!id~ion of %he re~u!a~ion w&s %he only remedy .. =v~ilable to m l~ndowner who h~d established m "regul=%ory taking." A governmen~ ~gency could either revise or rescind the regulm%ion without payin~ compensation for ~he period it was in effect. Land use ~%o~neys oh~r~c%eTize these two decisions as oomp~nion pieces: ~ describes %he parameters of an impe~missib!e re~ul&%ory %akin~ and Firs~ ~ deline~es ~he remedy. Washing%on D.C. a~torney Rober~ Linowes cmumions %hat these oases are no~ "revolutionary." Neither'are %hey "0ocmsion for developers to be euphoric nor for government officials %0 be crying that %he sky is falling." According tp Linowes, these decisions merely refte¢% the Court's overarchin~ policy and evolving philosophy concerning %he constitutional rlgh~s of landowners ~nd ~he Court's a~empt to swin~ ~he proper~y rights pendulum %o m more conservative bem~. However, Gus Baum~n, litigation counsel for %he National Assooimtion of Home Builders, %old The W_~ ~ilS/~: "The psyoholo~icml impmc~ of two decisions is considerable .... The court is s~yin~ ~o localities that you've ~o% to'regulate fairly. If you ~re ~oin~ to be harsh, you risk runnin~ mfoul of the takings olsuse. And if you run afoul of %hmt, you ~ill pmy for i%." No~ed l&nd use attorneys Donald Conners &nd D~niel Mandelker observe thmt Justice Antonin $o~li&, who wrote the majority opinion in Nollan, suggests %he need for more rigorous scrutiny of the connection between the public purpose and %he means used for advanoin~ ~hat foal. So~lia writes %hm% "abridgment of proper~y rights throufh the police power" is only permitted ms a "~~ ~dvanc[in~] of a lefi%im=te S%m~e in%crest." This t~o-part tes~ of constitutionality requires ~ha~ the st&%e mus~ £irs~ prove %ha% the re~ulation ~dvances 5 legitimate public interest and second %h~% the requisite "nexus" between the two is "substantial." In the ~oll~ c~se, %he California Coastal Commission soufh% %o ¢&rry OUt its mandate %o preserve "public access ~o the oo~s~ for recreational purposes." The Commission &r~ued %h=~ the deed restriction, which ~ave the public l~ter~l zccess &cross the beach. ~dvanced ~he public interests of proteotin~ "the public's ability ~o see the beach, mssis%in~ the public in overcoming the 'psychological bmrrier' to using the beach ore.ted by a, developed shore front, and preven%in~ congestion on the public be&ches." The Court found the mr~umen% implausible and suggested tha~ & height limit, ~idth res%tic, ion, b~n on fences, or even z viewin~ spot on ~he property for passersby would h=ve been m more direct me~ns for ensurin~ visual ~ccess. "Whatever may be the outer limits of 'legitimate state interests' in the t~kings ~nd l~nd use con%ex%," writes Justice Soalia, "~his is one of %hem. In short, unless %he permit condition serves ~he same governmental purpose as the development ban, %he building restriction is no% a valid regulation of land use but 'an out-and-ou~ plan of Al%hough courts traditionally accord deference ~o the exper~ findings of state and local ~genoies, %ha% "constitutional propriety disappears," writes Scalia, when "%he prohibition [ms here] utterly fails ~o further end'advanced ms Zhe justification for ~he prohibition." Norman Marcus, former general counsel ~o New York City's Planning Depmr%men~, remarks ~h5t %he Court's unusually close &%%en%ion %o the de%ailed conditions attached to a Duilding permit application makes this decision an "inordina~ely nit,y-gritty one" Dy Supreme Cour~ s~andards. The ~ decision marks the first time the Supreme Court used the nexus test to decide a takings case, although state courts have routinely required municipalities to show a connection Detween specific burdens created Dy development and mandatory dedications of parks and schools , traffic impact fees. or low-income hOuSing exactions. The question is: How close need the fit be? The nexus link articulated by the Supreme Court appears to De more stringent than that used Dy some state courts, where the condition attached to the Building permit need only De rationally or reasonably connected to the Durden imposed Dy development.The dissenting Justioes--Blaokmun. Brennan, Marshall. and Stevens--criticize the "eye for an eye" approach of the majority position with its insistence on a "precise quid pro _cmo o£ burdens and Benefits." Because the majority does not define the precise elements of the substantial nexus test. local government officials have inadequate guidelines and. as Justice Stevens observes. "must pay the price for the necessarily vague standards in this area of the law." Most land use experts agree that clarification will only be reached through litigation, although it need not be interminable, says Linowes. The ~ypes of government regulations that will most likely be scrutinized more closely as a result of the ~ decision will be those mandatory off-site dedications and exactions such as programs for low-income housing. child care, or mass transit, where the link between the imposed condition and.the construction may be tenuous, particularly when the requested zoning is a matter of right. Fred Bosselman, a well-known Chicago attorney, notes that negotiated conditions attached to~rezonings on a case- by-case basis might he particularly suspect, as those ordinances typically would not include the requisite legislative i~tent outlining the public interest. On the other hand. Bosselman points out that the Nollan decision will spur local officials to evaluate methodically their policies, announce them in advance, and spell out clearly the nature of the demanded contributions. thereDy providing developers wi~h a modicum of certainty and a set of ground rules. This report was prepared by Terry Lassar and Douglas Porter of the ULI research and education staff. For copies of the Supreme Court's decision, contact the Public Information Office, Supreme Court, One First Street, N.E., Washington. D.C. 20543 (202-479-3211). ULI will continue to cover developments on these and other court cases in future issues of Urban Land: for more information from ULI. please contact Maura Hughes. 202-289-~305:or Terry Lassar, 202-289-5551. SPECIAL REPORT the Urban Land ~n$~Hu~e 1090 Vermon! Avenue. N.W. Washing'ton, D.C. 20005 I:IRST CLASS U.S. POSTAGE PAn:) War~hing~on. D.C. Permit No. 8017 FIRST CLASS it the 3ury'a inabiltt7 to raaeh a verdict that he laid, "X discharge this O~e ~uror, "Why not?~ asked the ~udga. · Because 7ou didn't hire me. That ~an did,e he responded, pointing tO the deflnle attorney. MUNICIPAL Lied USE DECI$IOB$ The review of municipal land use decisions baa been In state of uncertainty since . rttv of Coon Ra~lds, court in Bonn establisnec · ce move typ~-~view procedure for municipal land use decisions. The reason given by the court for requiring ~his type revie~- ts that aovernmental bodies do not u~ually keep an a~equatm record of land use proceedings to insure a proper review by thm courts. ~r~or 1979 the judicial review land usa decisions were treated the ~cope of the distrte~ decimion vas tn a quasi- ' JudiCial or ' legislative t~e the district court would apply a limited scope of revle~ and if it was quash-Judicial the' dis(rte( court would apply a clearly erroneous standard. overruled prior case haw to extent tt ~eclared or ~mplted that the scope of review for land use dec~sion~ was the ~ame as ~ny other civil matter. The court replaced t~la standard wXtb tbs standard of review used for &dmints~rative agency decisions, ~tating, "We · · · expressly a~opt a rule which have heretofore tacitly accepted, ~ba~ It l~ o~ function to ~ake an independent ex~lnat~on of an adm~n~tra- ~t-- .~.ncv,~ r~cord and conclusions a~ to the propriety o~ that de~e~s~m~tion v~hout according ~ny special deference to the s~me rev~e~ conducted by the ~rial court. ~.V.2d~O8, 82~ (Minn. 19~T). The cour~ ~op~ed administrative agency of revie~ for municipal land [~t the di~tr~ct court's revte~ woul~ ~e o~ :be recor~ body, tbs same as for a goveromental agency'~ Bon~, The court ~n ~ however, ~ooked at th~s s~dar~ and the ~lfferences between administra- tive a~ency hearinss and municipal hearings and found that municipalities do not usually create an adequate record since ' the decision making body often eco~duct~ its heari'ngs In an informal fashion, with no accurate verbatim record kept and wlLh relatively fe~ remarks "' minutes to suffice as findings of fact and conclusions.· 313 X.V.ld at ~15. Consequently, the court established the following rocsdurs for review of and use decisions· ~) Type of Review ~eview of · decision on ravening may be obtained by · declaratory Judgment action or injunctive relief may ·leo be requested. Certiorari Xs not appropriate. 2) Trial In a declaratory judgm~actlon, the parties are entitled to a trial. ' i)Standard Whether there was ~ basis for the governmental body'· legislative declllon? ~) mccord The record of the procee~ should include evidence pre·coted to the 'city eounnil and a su~ar.v of statementS' Of · interested persons at the he·ring should be made at the time of the . hearing by the city council and kept tn the official file. The governmental body need not ~ecesssrlly prepare formal findings of fact, but it must, st a minimum, have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to eriting and In more than Just · conclusory fashion. 5) Evidence New or additional evidence may be received at the trial, but it must be relevant to the issues that were raised and considered before the governmental body. Witnesses may ' testify and be oross-examed, but their testimony ~ust be relevant to the issues that were raised and considered by the governmeotal Body. The court's(ate6 that the above procedure should be followed whenever a court (including the land use decision, whether legislative or quasi-Judicial. It left open, however, the possibility that the prior standard of review will t epplied in certain eituatior without defining vhf situations will be reviews. under such a stacdard. The Current Standard rbe current standard of review used by Minnesota Courts In reviewing municipal laud use regulations ia · reasonable basis test. The determination of what is reasonable depends upon the subject matter being reviewed and the capacity in which the ~over~entsl body making the dicta{on. A governmental body acta either In & legislative or quasi- Judicial capacity which under ~dmlniatrative law differen- tiates between questions of fact and questions of law. A decision making body la deciding · question of fact whenever it B·kes · policy or legislative type decision. "The general rule In Minnesota that where · municipality acts in its fact-finding or legisl·tive pclicymaktng capacity under its delegated power· the ·cops of review ia very narrow, subject only to the broad limits of tbs standard · ." Amc°n Corporation V. 'Cl[y Of ~B N.W.Yd bb at 72 ~). To determine what reason·bls for decisions related to questions 'of fact the courts looks to eec If there ia any rational basle related to promoting the public health, safety, morale, or general welfare, or that the decision ·mounts to · taking without compensation. X.¥.2d at 72. To facilitate the Judicial review of legislative land use decisions a governmental body should st·ts Its decision in writing in more than oonclusomy fashion, though it does not have to make formal findings of fact. The reviewing court will assess the legal sufficiency of the reasons given by the governmental body in its .decision and determine whether they have any factual basle. The party challenging the decision of the gove~cing body bas ~he'~urden ~f ~ho~lu~' thmt the stated reasons are. either without factual support in the record or ·re legally Insufficient. It is not required that all the reasons stated by the governmental body be legally sufficient or factually supported since the courts have found that ~0~ sufficient to affirm the decision. See also, Bonn v. City of Coo~apids, ~ ~09 (Minn. 19B1)~ Odell v. City of Eaten, ]#5 M.W.~d ~Mlnn. App[~9S~){ Prior Eake As~rexates, Inc. v~ City ~avaze, BAS M.W.ld 575 City of Blaine, ~ I.e.ZC A decision Bakin~ body ~eci~lna a question of law applte~ an existing ordinance to tbs facts Mefcre ~t. ~nterpret~ng the or~ln~nce a court will generally (1) strive to  otrue .a tera..accorgln~ to p~ain an6 ordinary .meaning, construe strictly against city and in favor of the ~erty owne~, and 91ge~ tbs ordlnance'a erly~ng policy. The ~ew~ng court will ex,mine record o~ the governmental y and take' additional d~nol ~O de,ermine tf the and whether tbs reasons have a factual bssis. The burden for the prop. arty owner to overturn a adverse land uae decision depends upon ~he ,abject-matter Of his original petition. The higBest burden la on variance decialOnl and the lowest is on conditional and special use decisions. See, Amcon Corporation v. CiT,-of Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Hlnneapolie, 395 N.~.ld 115 Barnum v. County of ~arAton, Inc. v. City of Alton, ~.W,ld ?5? (~lnn. 1~52)1 u~ v. City of Burn,wills M.W.ld 60~ (~tnn. Prior Lake i~regsteeI Inc. v. CLt~ of Savage, M.W.2d 575 ~lnn. App. and TP~ Ins. v. Cit~ of ~o~e, 3~ M.W.2d" 390 ~ 3986)j ~urrent A~pllcstion of Standard to ipeclfAe 4and Use Decisions 1. Freundahuh v. Cit~ of Blaine, 385 I.¥.2d 6 (~lnn. The plaintiff purchased a tract of land in Blaine when it was %Shed Far· Beaidence (F2-1) he wanted to hive it rezofled to Single Family (~-1) so that he could subdivide his property into $~ lots. The Planning Co~lealon recommended denial of the application.. The city council agreed and issued extensive findings to explain its decision. The plaintiff challenges the city's action inconsistent with the city's onmprehensivs plan. The court stated that the city' council's decision w·~ a l~g~-lative tc~ since' tt involved, the determination' of whether a toning classification should be changed. The court stated that the council's decision will be upheld even if it iS debatable, es long there ia a rational basis for the decision. The city's extensive findings and reasoned analysis waa sufficient to support its decision by a rational'basil. a. . Orl~inal Zontnx Classification. The burden ~n the plaintiff to show that there was some mistake In the 'or~gi~sl zoning or that the character of the neighborhood has changed tO such an extent that no reasonable use can be made of the property lm its current zoning classification. The plaintiff f~lled to present any evidence indicating · mistake or change in character, therefore, the ~ourt ffound the city's findings sufficient. b. 'Comprehensive Plan. A euniclpality may not adopt any official control or fiscal device that conflicts with its comprehensive ~lan . &nd m refusal to zone in accordance with the comprehensive plan is evidence that the city acting in an arbitrary manner. The court rejected the plsintl£f'a contention slate the city's had extensive thrust of the city's oompYeheflsive plan vas not the landitory extension Of developed are&s~ but rather progru of staged growth. ~. ~arson vt ~ount% or ,e.hin, ton, ,.,.,, ~inn. App. Tho plaintiff purchased property Xn Grant Township, Washington County which classified lA agricultural by the township and residential by the county. The townships no·prehension plan indicated the plaintiff's property intended for future commercial development. The plaintiff applied to hays his property retched to commercial. The township granted the request but the county denied the reaching except for a strip of the property abutting Sigh, ay When a gn~ernmental body adopts or amends · zoning ordinance it acts within its legislative capacity, which sill be upheld if supported by a rational basis. This standard of.review reflects a policy that the governmental body ia in the best position to assess what zoning classification beat serves the public welfare. To facilitate meaningful review, the govern·ental body should state its decision in writing in more than oonclusory fashion, though tt does not have to make formal findings of fact. The court will then assess the legal sufficiency of the 'reasons given and determine whether they have any factual basis. When action for review is heard the nhallenger bears the burden of showing that the stated reasons are either without factual support in the record or are legally insufficient. The court found three out of the fo~ stated re. sons : to · be · 'legs!lT. sufficient and that.fore'upheld the county board's decision to deny the a. Taking arEu~ent, To have compensable motion for an unconstitutional taking the plaintiff must sho~ that the regulation of land use deprives the property of all reasonable use and that the governmental action had no legitl~ate com- prehensive planning objective. Special Uae 1. Frank's Nursery Sales v. The plaintiff brought- this action to compel the o~ty to issue a building permit for the construction of · lawn mad garden center in an area zoned 21mired business. The plaintiff bought the property under the lmpre~alon that the city would allow it to build a store on the property that would sell crafts as .well as lawn amd garden supplies. The city interpreted lea ordinance strictly to allow only 2awn and garden businesses as permitted uses tn limited business areas. The city argued that the court should defer to the city's interpretation of its ordinances aa required under Arcadia Development Core. v. involving Judr·ent end discretion ehould not substitute its own iud%meat for that of the body ·eking such decision. Tbs court rejected thin argu·ent and adopted the following rules of construction which COUrtS should uae deter·lning if a govern·snail body has interpreted the applicable law correctly! (1) Strive to construe a term according to its plain and ordinary meaning, (2) Construe the ordlnanne strictly against the city and iD favor of the roperty owner, and (3) smoldered the ordinances underlying policy. The court found that the meaning of "lawn and garden" included · store like Frank's iuraery and Crafts, therefore, it ordered loaeville to Issue all necessary building permits. 2. Hubbard Broadcasting. inc. v. City of Arton, 323 N.W.2d 757 {~lnn. 1982). The plaintiff sought to acquire property in ' After lot'*the nonstruction of · satellite eommun~cation and receiving tower, equipment building and antennae. The plaintiff entered into a option agree,eat with the owners of property in the City of Alton for ~7 sores surrounding a BAs,eli's Hound. ?be purchase was conditioned upon the granting of · special uae permit by the City of gfton. The city denied the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff brought an action for declaratory Judgment seeking a trial de-nero. review ha,ed solely on the record. The trial court ordered that additional matters or records could be added to make the record complete and an aggrieved party could make motion to supple.eat the record. Neither party submitted further evidence. The district court limited the scope of roy/e, to the record and ordered briefs to be filed noncernlng the sufficiency of the evidence for the denial of the application.. The district court found for the city. The court found that thc very complete record developed before the no.la.ion and council, ms well as the ldietrint court's order allowing the record to be Supplemented ~y further evidence, per~ltted the parties to present their respective positions fully to the ~tatrict court. "~here c/tM eSuncila and ~oning boards do not . . make records of their prods;dings as ec~.p~ete and as formal as those or a state administrative adency or co~lselon, the proper procedure for revle~ before the dan:race court provides that nee or a~dittonal evidence be received at the trial. Bonn V. Cit~ Ct Coon Rapld9,~ ~981)" 323 N.~.Yd :at -761 footnote 3. The coup: then looked at the record' to determine Iff the reasons for denying the application were legally sufficient. The court found four out of the five rea,cna g~ven to be legally sufficient. Clt~ et ~svsle,~k9 l.~.2d ~7'~ ~Xnn. App~ operation that mine~ lind Ir&Ye1. It Il ~o~lted In In tree soned rural within the city limits of Savage. It operatinJ ·s · use ·lice it· operations predate the StrAfe zoning ordinance. The plaintiff Joined with another commercial operation which manufactured · sphAlt. The plaintiff applied along with Its nonconfo~ing u~e. The city dented the request for the following ~ooss (~) the proposal does --,nforB with the land use of · rural area and (2) the propmsll was not similar in 1. Lu[er City of Burn·wilde. (AXnn. 1~0). The plaintiff petitioned the city council for a variance lc he could construct a home on a piece of property he owned. The council dr·hied the Variance conditioned on the plaintiff receiving [ette~l of consent From all abutting lind owners. ~be plaintiff brought an action for mandamus to compel the city to issue the variance without the restrictions. An applicant for a variance carries a heavy burden to show that it· grant l· appropriate, since a variance is · request to use a parcel in a manner ~ve~son vt ~It! of The propert! owner submitted an subdivide in iliet~ng platted, lingle-fa~lly residential lot into two lots. After holding a the city denied the property CWnlrl application stating leverll reasons for the denial of the application. The trial court granted summary Judgment for the city after deterainimg the city's decision had onal basis. Theproperty owner argued that the grafltq0g of summary Judgment was improper '·ince under Bonn he was mntitlad to prasent~ditional evidence at trial. The procedure outllne~ nature to the permitted uses of forbidden by ordinance. The court will review the decision · rural area. The reasons were of the city council in a narrow primarily conclusory and followed the llnguige of ~he Banner, hut will still strictly construe the ordinance in favor ordinance, of the property owner. The delegation of the authority to The determination to issue a grant a variance to the special uae permit is question of law ·lace it plalotiff'a abutting property requires the governing body to owners wa· found contrary to In Bonn ia required to b~ follow--~'~ when reviewing any zoning Batter, whether legislative or quasi-Judicial and clearly Bust be followed in this case. This right to a full trial cam be limited by the parties ~f they agree or acquiesce to a review of e clear and complete record, end apply the standards laid out in its sorting ordinance to 'determine whether a special use permit should be issued. Therefore, the court In reviewing the city's decision must determine whether the interpretation of the ordinance ia correct. The court in using the rules of construction found that the refusal to les~e the special use pe~lt properly based upon the meaning and policy of Savage's sorting ordinance. ~. Day v. Yrl~ht Count~, i.V.Yd 32 (Minn. App. l~b). The plaintiff brought an action for · writ of mandamus to compel the county to issue building permit· for him to build & single family residence. The lot owned hy the plaintiff did not meet certain setback and sewer' r·quirement·, If · party leektflg · permit meets all the standards prescribed in the ordinance, the council has os discretion to deny the permit and the refusal to grant the permit will he sees &s arbitrary as a matter of law. This requires the governing body to clearly express any restriction of land use in its ordinances to ensure its effectiveness. a. Mandamus. Mandamus will issue only when the petitioner has oho~n the existence of a legal right to the eot demanded 'which is ·o clear ·nd complete as not to admit any reasonable controversy. Therefore, manda- mus will lie only to compel performance of · duty which the law clearly and positively requires. At I minimum city councils and toning boards must have reasons for their decision the city council'· authority, where the parties are alloyed Therefore, the court issued · -l;o-augment that record with any writ of mandamus compelling the new and additional evidence city to grant the variance. Subdivision and Plat ~. Odell v. Clt~ of £eEan, I.W.Yd 792 (Minn. App. The plaintiff brought %his ~ctlon for declarstory Judgment when the city refused to grant hi· request for · waiver of m plat and a preliminary plat. The plaintiff bought the' ~roperty in question with the intention of subdividing it into tvs lots. The lots met all the conditions required in the ordinance, except that a garage on one of the lots did not neet the setback requirement. Thio garage was a nonconformiog ~se since it was built prior to the adoption of the Esgan aching ordinance. The city council refused to -approve the plat based upon relevant to the issues considered below. The court found that the trial court erred in granting summary Judgment based solely on tbs record before it. Conditional Oas 1. TP~ Inc. v. City of ~,--355 ~.V.2d 390 (Minn. fpp. The property owner was · corporation which intended to open · fast-food restaurant in an area toned Auto-Oriented Business District. A feat-food restaurant to a conditional use in Mew Bope'S toning ordinance. The city council denied the co,diagonal use permit reasoning that the property too small to adequately support the proposed use indic·ted in no shoving of hardship by the its site plan. ' plaintiff, (2) plat would change t~--'nhWF~£te~---~'--t~e-- 'The determination of whether neighborhood, and (3) the the zoning authorlty's action neighbors objected to the subdivision of the property claiming their was restrictive covenant in the deed· requiring lots of no less than 5 scream. The court will determine 'if the city council's decision wes reasonable as measured hy standards in ~he local ordinance. If the city council provides a written dete~lna- (ion &tying ~he Pca~.s for the decision, the court will examine the record, which includes evidence submitted at trial, to nee if the reasons are legally sufficient ·nd have a factual basis. A decision will be arbitrary ms a matter of law when a subdivision was reasonable requires the court to assess the legall · ufficiency of the reasons given hy the governing body ann whether there is a fectual basis for them. Mot all of the ~e·sons given by the city council' for denial of the conditional use permit have to be legally sufficient. Tbs court found two of the four reasons to be legally · ufficient, therefore, tbs decision of the city council was upheld. A ~eniel will be arbitrary as a metier of law if · 11 Of the ordinences etanderds for conditional use permits have been met. I3~orbel v. City or Eam Lske, ~.~.'2d'$ (Minn. App. ~6'~ recorded or reduced to writing and in nero than Just cpnclu·ory f&shioo. ordinance specifies standsrds · to which a proposed plat must conform and the city council denies spprovel of a plat which complies in all respects with the ·ubdiviolon ordinance. The city based its decision on tbs stated purpose of the · ubdiviolon which the court said cannot be used as an The plaintiff applied for a conditional use permit to establish a group home for troubled adolescents. The p~aq,xlng commission advised Lhe city council to grant the permlt~ ' however, the city council denied the'platntiff*a request. .? The ·curt ~ound that the city failed to IpPI7 the standards outlined in its ordinance when it denied the plaintiff's application for a conditional ule permit. Com~unity fear not a legally sufficient rea·on for denial. a. Certiorari. A writ of certiorari la proper for Judicial review of denial of conditional use pernit, where the city council's findings were insufficient. See also, White Bear Rod and 0un Club v 3. City of Barnum v. ¢oun~ of Carlton. ]9# #,~.Yd 2~b In 19B~ the City of applied for · conditional use permit rot the construction of a atabllzstlon pond wastewater treatment facility. The county board denied the pernlt because it appeared that the project would substantially diminish and impair property values with the l~medlate vicinity of the ponds. The trial court upheld the county board's decision. The county argued that when a district court revle~ing a municipal zoning decision conducts a trial and hears additional evidence beyond that which was before the: ~ounty board, the district findAng~ of fact should not be se~ aside unless clearly erroneous. The court rejected thin type of de ~ovo review by ~uoting ~eserve ~Inin~, H.W.Yd 808 -(~lnn. 1977). ewe have consistently viewed with afavor statutes which specify ;rials de nord and which attempt to confer original Jurisdiction .on trial courts over policy matters which are the responsibility of the legislative and executive branchs. We have repeatedl~ called attention to the danger · of eroding barriers ~hich guarantee the separation of powers.' 255 E.W.Yd at The court did give the district court'· decision some weight to the extent it is a Judgment of the credibility of elects·es, houever, beyond that the revleelng court mill make its own lndependect review of the decision. n. Court ~ssuinZ a permit. If a dell'sion making body does not state the reasons for its decision, ltl decision will be prl~ f·cia arbitrary and it will bear the burden of persuading the reviewing court that -. the .... facts ..... tnd- circum~tances gave rile to ~ega]ly sufficient reasons for deolnl. However, no record ~o review the court should remain the case hack to ,he decision ~aklflg body to ~ke further findl~gs. need to remand the i~sue must be weighed against the risk the decision a&king'body will merely ratlonalixe their for~er ~lelon. The court in this case found that remanding the · ~ I case to the county board would · 1 not further the decision, since l any that the county findings ;board m~kes on rem~nd ~ould not be supported by the record. City of Eden Prairie v. Llepke. Faote~ Defendant presented plan to ~be city for the expansion of n gar·ge on his property. Defendant claimed that the city knee or should have known that the garage was intended aa an expanded storage area to be uaed by defendant in his construction &nd contracting business, The city eventually approved the various plans and specifications for the building but on later flndimg that the building Yea to be used &aa ~o~ercial storage garage the ol%y co, ended prosecution ~agalnst defendant for violation of the city's sorting ordinance. Defendant claimed that the City wa~ estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinance alleging that city officials had lnplledly authorized the use by failing to object to the structure during either the planning or construction. The trial court found that the city was not estopped. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. Issue! Assuming the facts as presented by defendant are true can a city be estopped from enforcing its xoning ordinance aa a result of acts or omissions on the part of lea zoning officials? Dlscusslon~ The briefs of the City and the amicus League of ~innesota Cities argue that the estoppel can not be used against a city to keep it enforcing its zoning ordinance. Semi ~_Jj~es v. Clt~ of St. Paul, 2~0 ' ~lnn. 5~, ~.~.Yd ~63 (1953); W.H. Barber Co. v. City of Minneapolis! 227 ~lnn. 77, ~A N.W.2d ?~0 (~9~5)~ Alexander v. City of Owetcnna 222 Nlnn. 312, reasons that · zoning ordinance and its consequent benefits Inure to the b~nefit of citizens. Consequently, a city'· Inability to enforce the zoning ordinance would impede a substantial public concern of the municipality. The briefs distinguish Hesaba Aviation v. County of Its·ca, d'577 (~lnn. 1~77) and cites Frank's ~urser. y Sales, IInc. v.' City of ~osevlll!~ the court stated; "The law in ~lnnesota is clear that administration of zoning ordinances is a goYernmental not a proprietary function and ~he municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing the ordinance even if the property owner relied to his detriment on prior city action? The Judge spoke to a prOspective · Juror during a lurder trial. · ~·ve you formed, an opinion regarding the guilt or Innocence of the UNo, Tour Honor," ~ald the prospective Juror. · Do you have any conscientious objection against the death penalty if the accused Is found guilty?, '~ot in thte case, Your replied the MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 1987 Present were: Chairman Tom Reese, Commissioners Vern Anderson, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Ken Smith, Brad Sohns, William Thal, and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Elizabeth Jena.n, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Ko.gl.r, Building Official Jan Bertrand. City Engineer John Cameron, and Secretary Holly McLaughlin. Also present were the following interested persons: Gerald Berent, Gene Berent, J Ned Dow, ~ixie Dow, Leon Hell.r, Harley Jordan, Jerry Kohls, Paul Larson, Brian Johnson Paul ~nd~-Pat Meise]. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Reese added a 17% "grade" to the June 8, 1987 minutes on page 3. He also questioned the process of making corrections stating not having the entire context could have.bearing on future decisions. Smith motioned and Meyers seconded. The vote was unanimous .to approve. The minutes of June 22%;: 1987 correct the recognition of Steve as the Mayor and added the phrase "availability of land tQ park R.V.'s". Weiland motioned and Sohns seconde~ the vote was unanimous to approve. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 87-651 Side yard setback variance for 4695 Hampton Road. Lot 2, Block 21, Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0070, Gerald Berent was present. A.variance request for J3.3 feet sideyard setback to the west property line. Berents stated to go outward to the lake is objected by neighbors. He needs to build up for the addition of two bedrooms and a full bath for his wife and two t children. Jensen proposed to treat this as practical difficulty and Sohns agreed. Motion by Smith to approve a 3.~ foot variance including a 12'bverhang'., seconded by Weiland. The vote was unanimously in favor. Goes before the council July 28. Case No. 87-652 Minor subdivision for 4695 Hampton Road, Lots #13 and 14, part of lots 28, 29, 30, and'31, Block 9, Pembroke, PID 19-117-23 33 008010087, Leon Heller was present. A subdivision request for a portion' of the rear Lot 13 from Paisley Road to correct a driveway encroachment on the adjoining property. Anderson motioned and Weiland seconded approval of the subdivision. The vote was unanimously in favor. . Case No. 87-653 Lot size variance for 4994 Manchester Road Lot 12, Block 33, Wychwood, PID 24-117-24 42 0005, J. Ned and Dixie Dow were present. A variance of 6.5 feet with conforming setbacks is requested by Dow. Dow states that his home is too small to add a second floor, the first floor would be ruined. Smith states that this is "back to the commons problem again." The council is not in favor of expanding on 4700 foot lots, it's a case of practical difficulty. With the commons~and two roads on either side there is breath|n§ room. Wei]and favors the comment that he can't consider it as his property for !enlargement-- it is part of the commons. Planning'Commi, ssionMinutes July 13, 1987 - Page 2 Motion by Anderson to approve the variance, seconded by Michael. The vote was unanimous. Goes before the council July 27, 1987. e Case No. 87-654Public Hearing for conditional use permit for an oversized accessory building with living space. No discussion. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO REVISE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW "ON SITE OPEN STORAGE." Balboa. Construction '~ompany, 5340 Shoreline Boulevard Metes and Bounds descript- ion, Blocks 5~6, Sylvan Heights.Addn., etc. PID No. 13-117-24 34 0076. There were no representatives of Balboa. Mark Koegler reViewed his letter of July 1, 1987 discugsing background and his recommendations.' Chairman Reese questioned the use of thirty days to have trailers parked on the property. We|land3 was concerned that Balboa m~ht move one (trailer) out and replace it with anther immediately, thus constituting permanent parking. Planning Commission Chairman opened discussion to the audience and asked for Comments: Jerry Kohls, 5424 Lynwood Road requested to have a stipulation to clean up their existing mess before they cause more of a mess. Sohn questioned about acceptable landscaping. Harley Jordan, 2193 Cedar Lane, agrees with the necessity to clean up the area and allow the parking of trailers. The public hearing was closed; comments by the commission. Weiland questioned how to control the number of days to allow parked trailers to remain on the property. Smith suggested that it really doesn't matter how many days a trailer is there, because 'they only have "x" number of slots to park trucks in to begin with. .Meyer agrees. , ~eiland motioned the approval of on site open storage and Meyer seconded. Unanimous approval. Moves on to council. Case No. 87-656 fourteen foot front yard variance for 2193 Cedar Lane Lot 18 and part of 19, Block 2 Abraham Lincoln Addn to Lakeside Park, PID 13-117-24 32 0015. A front yard variance of 14 feet is being requested by the applicant to construct an attached 24x24 foot garage. Resolution 87-136 approved the same request, but it has expired. I Planning Commission M~nutes July 13, 1987 - Page 3 Reese questioned the necessity of having a 24 foot garage, instead of a 22 foot variance. Jordan stated he needs the'additional room to do car repairs, on h|s own veh|cle. Motion by Anderson to approve the variance, seconded by Smith. The approval was unanimous. P_IIBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO ALLOW RETAIL MAIL ORDER .IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS 1YISTRICT BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. A. Paul MeiSel, 2339 Commerce Boulevard Lots 2 & 3 and Subd. 167 & part of Lots 13,14,15, & 16 lying west of east 70 ft, Kennedys Subd of Lot 56, Lynwood Park, PID 14-117-24 44 0002. Mark Koegler reviewed his letter of July 1, 1987 discussing background and his recommendations. Planning commission chairman opened discussion to the audience: Meisel presented'sketches stating it will make ~he downtownlook better. Meisel will be purchasing both the land and the building. They will continue membership in the downtown parking association. Reese questioned the issue of dock deliv- eries. Meisel stated they will be having one to two deliveries peT.day w~th semi trucks. Meisel also stated that Phase III of their plans will .~!~e_the.al_ley~ off to 12 feet. Harold Meeker, 5132 Waterbury Rd.,'stated t~t the Meisels give the best shot to the City of Mound for "Mound C~ty Days" Public hearing was closed; Koegler stated there should be two separate motions. Thai motioned approval of the required ordinance modification allowing mail order uses as conditional uses in the B-1 zone and Anderson seconded. The approval was unanimous. Weiland motioned approval of the conditional use permit contingent upon the three conditions stated in Koeglers recommendation and Anderson seconded. The approval was unanimous. Public hearing before the council on August 11. Case No. 87-658 for minor subdivision for 5325 Waterbury Road Lot 54 Whipple Shores, PID 25-117-24 21 0154~0153. Mr. Lepisto was not present. Bertrand discussed applicants request to subdivide two sroperties into 8925 & 8175 sq. ft. They recommend the deflection line be moved, the legal descriptions be approved by Cameron, City Engineer, and that the Public Hearing by waived. Comm. discussed that this would be creating two undersize~ lots of which only one is currently undersized. There is a question as to the legal size of the lot. Comm.._ has decided to table the subdivision until they receive more in- formation and verification of the lot size. Jensen motioned the table and Weiland seconded. It was carried unanimously. Planning 'Commi ssion Minutes July 13, 1987 - Page 4 Case No. 87-659 Minor subdivision for 49xx Glen Elyn Road Lots 17, 18, 19, Block 24 Shadywood Point, PID 13-117-24 11 0094/0095. Paul W. Larson was present. (Larson is a realtor representing the seller.) Applicant is requesting subdivision to remove an encroachment of the building located on lot 17 to allow conforming sideyard setback to the structur~ and waiver of the Public Hearing provision of the subdivision ordinance. The previous owner of lot 17 built over the property line. A survey didn't show the property line when it was purchased. Meyer proposed to make parcel A a conforming area by increasing the parcel to at least 10,000 sq. st. At this time parcel B is not closed, it is delayed pending approval of this sub" division. Reese suggested tabling, Larson stated "no". Brian Johnson .~ inquired as to the~-leg~lit¥ of 9000 sq. ft. for parcel A, Reese stated the need to recognize a maximum 10% variance mandated, Brian willtry .... to get over 9000 sq. ft.. Brian suggestedapproval contingent upon the change by the time it will go 'to council. Thai'suggested it be tabled until.the 2?th and then to turn it around to the council. Weiland motioned to table until the 27th and turn it around to the Council Sohns seconded. Approval was unanimous. Warner koad is on agenda for next time with full report to the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Harold Me~ker is interested in building a hotel on 40 acres and wished to deed back the unused land. He is asking for opinions from the Commission for the Lost Lake Request for Proposal. Reese questioned the benefits of buying 40 acres and selling back 38 acres. Jensen asked if he was asking to see if it was protected. Smith questioned if any of it was sellable or marsh. He also asked about potential problems with the DN-R. The city now owns the property. 2. Public Works Facility. Ed Shukle and John Cameron made a presentation of their plan for a downscaled version of the public works facility to be located at Belmont and Lynwood. .There was much discussion by the council questioning a~ternative sites, other methods of storage for stock pile, screening., & future plans. Anderson protested stating this was the las~ of the retail sights and that many people will fight over that location of the proposal. Sohns agreed. Thal stated that Mound has plenty of retail and Meyer agreed. Jensen stated that the City Council is behind this plan. Planning Com~ssionMinutes July 13, 1987 - Page Sohns suggested moving the location up east on Lynwood where the land is cheaper. Shukle will look into moving the facility to this location for next time. 3. Signs. Meyer questioned why signs can*.t be addressed on a case by case basis rather than changing the law. Meyer motioned and Sohns seconded a Case by case decision will be made. No ord|nance change to the s|gn provis|ons is recommended by the. P]snn|ng Comm|ss|on. Jensen and Thal opposed, Michael abstained, and six were in favor. e Tabled exterior storage for next meeting, except for making the correction of inserting the sentence "Temporary storage is controlled by the restrictions found herein." at 23.702 item (1) after the last word in the paragraph (ordinances). Also brief discussion as to the inclusion of a grandfather clause. Housing Maintenance Code. Question of whether it is internal, external, or both. Other questions that surfaced included how to deal with internal, the prospect of running into health aspects, what city/state laws may apply. It will need an ordinance to take care of the issue. It should be applied to both owner occupied and renters..The inspection could take place atthe sale of the property. Sohn suggested that we are starting at the wrong end. We need to talk to people, seek alternatives, and see what expenses are involved. Committee agreed to gather information to enable committee to approach public for input. 6. Does committee wish to continue advertising meeting dates? Yes, unanimously. 7. Interview dates for position on commission--August 24, 1987 was decided upon. ADJOURNMENT Weiland motioned and Meyer seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Ail were in'favor so the meeting was adjourned. Attest: Chairman Thomas Reese 75YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 July 20, 1987. Mr. Jerome D. Ross President Dakota Rail Little Crow Division Washington Avenue & Adams Street Hutchinson, MN 55350 Dear Jerry: Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager You'were in my office some time ago and we discussed briefly the tree and other debris that has been left along the railroad tracks going through the City of Mound. I have a number of calls and complaints regarding this debris and I would appreciate it if you would get it cleaned up as soon as possible. The area that is specifically bad is near the intersection of County Road 15 and Northern Road at the crossing. Please work on getting this cleaned up. Thank you. ES:ls mm . Dalcot t "Route of the Charging BuflMo" LITTLE CROW DIVISION: Washington Ave. & Adams St., Hutchinson, MN 55350, Phone (612) 587-4018 WESTERN DIVISION: Rt. 3, Box 2D, Milbank, SD 57252, Phone (605) 432-9218 July 21, 1987 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City. Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Shulke, RegarUing clean-up of Railroad in area of Northern Road. We intend to get to this as soon as possible. One must be aware and notice that we have done considerable work on the Line from Wayzata to Hutchinson, many areas are the same as your inquiry. We are working and improving as .rapidly as we can. I assure you that our mess is not intentional but necessary, as the Line was in such neglect for the past years. We will be replaCing old ties, rocking and installing some heavier rail from Commerce Street to Wayzata in August and at the same time cleaning ditches, etc. We also wi1! be requiring al! residents to vacate our properties where they have encroached with firewood, sma!! buildings, etc. We always appreciate any suggestions on constructive criticism you may have. Feel free to contact us at anytime. Si erely, JDR/rlr CC: Jan Bertram Duffy Geno Lisa Anderson