Loading...
1995-07-256 L L~-Z;60~ 'gal L60~;-9/0~ 'gd qLO~;- L90E 090~-8170~ L170E-SCOE'Dd '17900 L L 17~;-L L L-C L Old 'lNIOd OOON~AQYHS '0~; 'L 103 '3NV~ NO~H ~ Q~INVHON~ 1V Q31~303 '.I. N3S31:Id SN3ZI.LI3 IhiOId:l SNOI.LS399r~s ONV S.I. N31AIIAIO3 39YtJYD Q3HOVI::IQ ~ NOIIlQQV - ::IONVII:IV^ :J.$3no3. · Lg00 C17 17~-/_ L L-17~; Old 'S3BOHS 3-1ddlHN~ '$ L IO-I "O^-i8 oaaxn.L 9L Lq 'J. NVHS)t:131/4 '::m S:II/4Vr' :6E-q6 yt '01, '6 HOl:lOd/)1030 - 3ONYII:IV^ :1s3no31:1 '6L00 17L 17~-/_L L-SL Old '.LNIOd OOON~,&OYHS )~, 'C L >lOO-I~ "P/d '~ ~ .LO3 '3NV9 J.S~lrlHOql/~A 6LL L '-FIqOA OBVHOIB ~ 'IABgHD :L~-G6 3S¥D ~'1 'L )1030 - 3ONVIBY^ :Is3no3B '17E;00 ~; L lz~;-6 L L-17~: Old 'B J. INFI S991H A39~JIHS 'q )lOOqg 'L~: :10 ~/L AqgN ~ ~ IO9 'QVOB 39¥QN399 0909 ')lOlO 3NIOr~¥qo ~ 39N¥9 3NNVXOB :9~;-q6 3S¥D )1030 - 3ONVI~JVA :IS:IrIO3~I LLL-6L Old "AIQ/SI:II:I S)IBYd ONYqSI SdqgHcl 'LB 109 "oAqB :IBIHSqlN~ 09C17 '993HD111/~ IBgBOB :9~-cj6 LC0~;-9 LO~; 'Od NOIIlOOV - 3ONVItJV^ :lS3nO3t] LCOO Clz I~Z:-L L L-C~: Old 'SQNVqHqlH ')lOO-I~] '8 L 109 'OVO~ OOO/V~:IqOIB L L09 'NOSB313d ¥ON3B8 ~ 3N39 ~ ~ 3AII¥1N3S31:Id31:I ONflOIhl 'HgRd S3-1BYHS) '::IDNVI-I-IV Nvs~r'l~]ns :NOI.LV.LN:IS~]I:Jcl 9 L0~;-866 L 'gd 'q66 L ' L L Aqnr :10 9NI.L::I31~! 1:1¥91'19::11:1 3H.L JO s31rlNII/;I ::IH1 3AOBdd¥ '3:3NVI9399¥ dO 3E)O39d L66L-C66L 'ga 9'1 '9 q'l' '17 'L SI:Jg'alN~'HO -IIONnOO ),110 INd 0C:L 'S66L 'gg; ,~-Inr' 'AV'QSgrll ONI1331N I:lV'-In~D31:l - qlONnO0 AllO QNnOIN VIOS3NNIIN 'QNnOIN QNnOIN JO AIIO VQN39V MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL- JULY 11, 1995 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 11, 1995, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Persons in attendance: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen. Councilmember Phyllis Jessen was absent and excused. Also present were: Curt Pearson, City Attorney; John Cameron, City Engineer; Ed Shukle, City Manager and Linda Strong, Acting City Clerk. The following interested citizens were also present: Charles M. Brown, Bill Erickson and Milton Goldstein. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed those present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 27, 1995 REGULAR MEETING AND THE JUNE 13, 1995 REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Hanus had a correction on the June 27, 1995 Minutes, page 7, he .... +~'"-~" He removed: ,,-r~,. wanted sentence wanted it changed to "There appears no signs of access problems near the road". MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the Minutes of the June 27, 1995 regular Council meeting were approved as changed. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen, and carried unanimously, the Minutes of the June 13, 1995 regular Council meeting were approved. 1.3 APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS NOT APPROVED AT JUNE 27, 1995 MEETING. There was a page of the bills missing at the June 27, 1995 meeting. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to authorize payment of the bills on the pre-list in the amount of $9524.20, when funds are available. By roll call the vote was unanimous. 1.4 PRESENTATION ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTY LIBRARY - CHARLES M. BROWN, LIBRARY DIRECTOR City Manager Ed Shukle introduced Charles M. Brown of the Hennepin County Library System. Mr. Brown introduced Mr. Milton Goldstein, Past President of the Hennepin 1 County Library Board. He informed the City Council of the progress of the Hennepin County Library system. Bill Erickson, Director of the Westonka Library also shared information with the Council, regarding the growth of users at the library. Mayor Polston thanked the library representatives for attending. 1.5 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 6 (FINAL) TO SCHLUMBERGER INDUSTRIES - WATER METER READ SYSTEM PROJECT. City Manager stated this was the final payment request of $9,774.99, from Schlumberger for the new water meter system. City Engineer John Cameron was present. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to authorize final payment of $9,774.99 to Schlumberger Industries for the new water meter system. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZEN'S PRESENT. There were none. 1.7 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MODIFICATION TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CHANGE THE PRINCIPAL USE FROM "MOTOR FUEL STATION" TO "MINOR AUTO REPAIR AND OPEN SALES LOT" AT 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE (SHORELINE AUTOMOTIVE), LOTS 1-4, 21 AND P/5 AND 20, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT 'A', PID 13-117-24 44 0014. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 8, 1995 MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to set August 8, 1995 as a public hearing to consider a modification to a Conditional Use Permit to change the principal use from "Motor Fuel Station" to "Minor Auto Repair and Open Sales Lot" at 4831 Shoreline Drive (Shoreline Automotive), Lots 1-4, 21 and P/5 and 20, Block I Shirley Hills, Unit 'A', PID 13-117-24 44 0014. ' 1.8 APPOINTMENT TO COMMONS TASK FORCE. City Manager Ed Shukle stated that Royal Moffatt had resigned his position on the Commons Task Force and as per the Council's request he had contacted Michael Shearer to fill the volunteer position as a "Type 3 non-abutting dock user". Mr. Shearer stated he would. Ahr ns moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-65 RESOLUTION APPOINTING MICHAI::L ,~Nr-AP, F_.P, TO THE COMMONS TASK FORCE. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. 1,9 DISCUSSION: COMPOST SITE City Manager Ed Shukle reported he had contacted Minnetrista regarding a joint compost site. Minnetrista responded that they will cooperate with Mound in looking at a joint site for composting. The City Manager requested temporary use of the Lost Lake site until Minnetrista and Mound can work out the details. The Council agreed to use Lost Lake site temporarily until the end of September. Consensus was to direct staff to open Lost Lake area on Wednesdays 5-8 pm, and Saturdays 9 am to 1 pm for grass clippings, leaves, yard waste and milfoil for composting. There is no fee for Mound residents and a 50 cent per bag for non-residents will be charged. The City will need to hire an attendant. 1.10 RESOLUTION DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO BEGIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION PROCESS ON MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) PROJECT 145- 108-02 (AUDITOR'S ROAD REALIGNMENT). City Manager Ed Shukle informed Council that the State Aid office had approved the preliminary plans and the City could proceed. Mayor Polston was concerned about the City's bonding for other MSA projects in the future. John Cameron, City Engineer, stated that bonding may not be needed as this was in the planning stages of the acquisition process. Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-66 RESOLUTION DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO BEGIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION PROCESS ON MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) PROJECT #145-108- 02 (AUDITOR'S ROAD REALIGNMENT) The vote was unanimous, motion carried. 1.11 APPROVAL OF DANCE PERMIT FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL - SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1995 8:30 PM - 12:30 AM. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Polston and carried unanimously, to approve 3 the dance permit for Our Lady of the Lake Church for Saturday, July 29, 1995 8:30 pm - 12:30 am. 1.12 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. City Manager Ed Shukle informed the Council that the City of Mound had been a member of the Metro Drug Task Force for four years and annually, this cooperative agreement needed to be reviewed. This resolution expires on December 31, 1996. Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-67 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Polston to authorize payment of the bills on the pre-list in the amount of $713,657.34, when funds are available. By roll call, the vote was unanimous. 1.14 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE City Manager Ed Shukle asked Councilmember Hanus to comment on the Planning Commission progress as it relates to two proposed ordinances sent to them for review and comment. Hanus stated the Planning Commission wants to clean up several old issues that have been studied by the Planning Commission and returned to the Council and no resolution has taken place. The Planning Commission does not want to research any more new issues until the old ones are taken care of. Mayor Polston stated he wanted no new requirements put on the people on the use of their property, referring to the Truth in Housing item. The issue of truck parking in residential areas is a zoning code issue. This Council has only directed the Planning Commission to work on the Streamlining of Variances, and this Council wants the Commission to work in this issue. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to direct the City Manager to assemble and report to the Council on items referred to the 4 1.15 City Council by the Planning Commission which have not been acted on by the Whole Meeting. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to direct the Planning Commission to specifically discuss the Streamlining of Variances at its July 24, 1995 workshop meeting. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS B. C. D. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR JUNE 1995. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR JUNE 1995. LMCD MAILINGS (1996 ADOPTED LMCD BUDGET) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1995 Council was reminded that there is no Committee of the Whole meeting on July 18, 1995. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk 5 June 21, 1995 RECEIVED .~L~N 2 § 1(395 ;uburban fllli fi e Bob Polston, Mayor Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dear Mayor Polston: Enclosed is our request to the City of Mound for 1996 funding. We have also attached some information that we hope you will find useful. Additionally, we would like to have the opportunity to make periodic presentations to your City Council about the important work Suburban Alliance is doing, how it benefits Mound, and how Mound can be involved. Our new municipal committee is working on strengthening ties with the 21 member municipalities that are part of our joint powers agreement, and one of your municipal representatives would like to come before your Council within the next few months. We will be in touch with your city staff soon to arrange a convenient time. You may notice several changes in our proposal this year. You may remember that we changed our name last year from West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board to Suburban Alliance. The first record we had of the need to change our name to something shorter was a recommendation from a group of city managers more than 21 years ago! Our Board of Directors decided in 1991 to look at changing our name because they felt that the name West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board has served us well for 20 years, but is a confusing name that really does not reflect the scope of our activities. Our new name is based on being rooted in the suburban experience and the ability to bring the suburban perspective to whatever level we work at. Because our legal name comes from the Joint Powers Agreement, our Board of Directors decided it would be too cumbersome to change our name legally by getting each city to pass a resolution changing the Joint Powers Agreement. Instead, we are "doing business as" Suburban Alliance in virtually all situations other than legal documents such as contracts. This change in no way affects our relationship with, or commitment to, our member municipalities; but because you have known us primarily as West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, we wanted to remind you again of our name change as we submit our proposal. The second change is that we have a new Executive Director. Michele St. Martin, who grew up in Mound and Minnetrista (both member municipalities), joined us in January of /qq $~.3 West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 9 Seventh Avenue South · Hopkim,/~N $5343 ·~ (612) 930-3356 · Fax (612) 930-3540 this year. Michele brings a background in both private-sector business management and non-profit management to Suburban Alliance. The third change is our address and telephone number. After 21 years in Stz Louis Park, our office in Brookside Community Center became a public school. After an extensive search for new space, we are happily settled in downtown Hopkins. We appreciate your continuing support, and look forward to continuing to work with you in serving the people of Mound. Please call Michele St. Martin at 930-3356 should you have any questions. Yours truly, Mound Board Representative CC: Attachments: Edward Shukle Jr., City Manager 1996 budget request Background information /qqq' Suburbon Rlli E-e 1995 Funding Request to Mound - Suburban Alliance (formerly, West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board) is requesting funding support from Mound for its 1995 operating budget. Our request is for $ 2,183.00. This is at the rate of 22.66 cents per capita based on 1990 Census figures of 9,634. This is the same amount requested last year. We have appreciated the support of our member municipalities. It has been essential to us in order to be able to provide direct services such as energy assistance, emergency services, and energy conservation programs. In addition, it allows us to plan and adovcate for human service needs of the residents of our member cities and for services being provided on a decentralized basis in local communities. An example of this are the 18 Decentralization Round Table Discussions we are sponsoring in collaboration with Hennepin County Commissioners; 3 discussion groups will be held in each of our 6 west I-Iennepin School Districts, and the results will be presented to the I-Iennepin County Board. We also work to bring a fairer share of human service tax dollars back into our communities. We realize the squeeze on local units of government and are very appreciative of your continuing commitment to us. ~000 West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 9 Seventh Avenue South · Hopkins, MN $$343 · (612)930-3356 · Fax (61:2)930-3540 ;uburban RIl ance DIRECT SERVICES PROVIDED IN MOUND BY SUBURBAN ALLIANCE: ENERGY ASSISTANCE (1994-1995 Program Year) Heating Assistance Crisis Assistance Energy Related Repair Number of Household Amount Paid 117 $ 39,348.00 10 1,859.00 4 4,510.00 TOTAL * Average of 2.9 individuals per household EMERGENCY SERVICES (1994) Number of Individuals Assistance Paid 131 $ 45,717.00 156 $15,169.01 ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM (1994) Number of Households Value of Services Total households Served 11 Total Served in 1993 225 West Hennepin Human Servkes Planning Board 9 Sevenlh Avenue South · Hopkins, MN 55343 · (612) 930.3356 * Fax (612) 930-3540 $ 1,210.00 $ 29,250.00 Suburban Rllia Ce Membership Benefits to Municipalities Suburban Alliance's primary activities relate to planning, research, coordinating, and, in general, advocating for the municipalities of western Hennepin County. Suburban Alliance provides the following services to its member municipalities: · A process for citizens, providers, and municipal representatives to be involved in Hennepin County human services decision-making · Information about human service needs and programs · Leadership in the community for the effective mobilization of community resources to meet human service needs · Staffing assistance to the municipalities in areas of their involvement in human services as requested A referral system for citizens with human services needs and/or problems (i.e. elderly, mentally ill, youth, etc.) · Staffing assistance to community groups to organize human services planning efforts to meet specific needs or problems · The ability to do research on human service issues and needs · Planning staff to participate in regional and county human services planning activities on behalf of the municipalities · An avenue to bring county-wide services and programs into our local communities in order to provide better access to our citizens · Assurance that efforts are being made to coordinate the planning of human services delivery systems and to deter unnecessary duplication of services · The ability to make presentations on and provide information about human services needs and delivery systems in the area · The means to develop leadership and interest on the part of citizens to be involved in human services A way to communicate the concern of the municipalities regarding human service issues to the providers and involved citizens of the area. West Hennepin Human Services Planning Bored 9 Seventh Avenue South · Hopkins, MN 55343 · (612)930-3356 · Fax (612)930-3540 In addition, we provide direct services to the citizens of each municipality in the following · Energy Assistance (assistance with home heating bills) Energy Conservation (home energy checkups) · Emergency food, shelter and clothing fund. I:)eephaven L-ore-t-l-o Excelsior' Long L~:ke ©rono Maple Plain Medicine Lake _~t. EBoniFbcius Mound .... ~-t'. Louis Park Plymou-t-h ~-:--_:: -'-... i"'linnetonka Medina Tonka E3ay Wayza't'o Woodland Independence P"linnetris-l-a Deephaven L-ocet't'o Excelsior Medicine Lake ~t. EBoni¢c:cius ..,qt. Louis Park ~lymou'i-h :~ Tonka E~ay Long L~:ke "-::-: Maple Plain Mound --::,. "s Shorewood -' P"linne'l-onka Medina XA/oodland Independence Minne-l'ri~ta West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 1994-1995 Report to Municipelitie Deephaven Lore-i-to Excelsior Medicine Lake _~-ff. Loui~ Tonka l~ay Deephaven Medicine Lake Long Lake Orono Maple Plain ~-t'. EBoni~cc:cius Mound ~c~!,--s ~horewood Park F~lymoui-h - ' '- Mi nefi-onka Medi Wayzato Woodland Independence Lore¢l-o Excelsior Long Lake q' ~'1'. Bonifocius Mound -~.¢~,~,r-¢ Minnetmi~ta Maple Plain ~horewood S~r. Louis Park Plymouth ~F¢irg ~.:r< Minne±onka Medina Tonka E3ay Woyz~±¢ Woodland Independence Deephaven Lorec¢o Excelsior Long Lake Or'ors Medicine Lake ~1-. E~oniEacius Mound -~op<ir¢ -~"r. Louis P k Ply th '- ' E3ay Wayzata Woodland Tonka Minnetri¢'ra Maple Plain .~horewood ¢:,-. h'linne'ronkd Medina Independence I"linne~ri~ta IntroOuction uburban Alliance (formerly West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board) acts mainly as a planning and coordinating agency through which citizens are a part of the decision-making process in delivering needed health and social services for the 160 square mile West Hennepin area. We provide education, consultation and technical assistance on issues pertaining to human service delivery systems; linkages between governmental units, consumers and service providers; work to increase awareness of available human service resources; identify and advocate for needed services and improvements of the existing services system; and assist others in the development of human services programs. Suburban Alliance also coordinates the delivery of services when there is no other agency to do it. Our work in the Emergency Services Program, the Home Energy Check Up Program, and the Energy Assistance Program are examples of this. We are working to promote programs that connect municipal efforts with human services needs. Suburban Alliance is the only agency providing these planning and coordinating services to the West Hennepin area. We rely heavily on the involvement of volunteers to maximize cost effectiveness and increase citizen involvement. We view ourselves as an advocate for the residents of our member cities. We work to make services more accessible on a decentralized basis and get a fair share of human services tax service dollars back into our communities. This effort is critical for suburban residents to have equal opportunity and access to services as do their urban counterparts. We also work for the establishment of new or expanded services when a need is documented through our research and needs assessment process. Community Programs Children & Youth West Hennepin area citizens continue to place a high priority on its young people and Suburban Alliance is active in a number of initiatives related to children and youth. As referenced earlier, our most recent efforts have concentrated on children with serious emotional disorders. Suburban Alliance is also active in several community-based initiatives. We participate in the West Suburban Interagency Early Intervention Committee which conducts planning, advocacy and service coordination for high-risk and developmentally disabled young children. Suburban Alliance is a former co-chair of the West Hennepin Interagency Transition Committee, a group of schools, parents, and community agency representatives concerned with transitioning physically and mentally challenged kids from high school to community life. Suburban Alliance staff participates in the Teens Alone Project, whose aim is to develop a program for homeless and runaway youth in the western suburbs, and is on the Board of The Bridge for Runaway Youth. We provided The Bridge with a survey design and analysis for a survey on runaway and homeless youth. We completed a joint project with Pyramid Mental Health Center and Westonka School District to develop a planning process with students and their families. Citizen Participation Suburban Alliance is officially designated by the Hennepin County Board to obtain citizen input on human services priorities for the west Hennepin County. The target populations for this process include: families in need of child care; children in need of protection; children and adults with emotional problems; and persons with developmental or physical disabilities. However, our citizen participation process also addresses strategic issues that are basic community priorities such as: jobs; affordable housing; intervention, prevention and community education; access to services. Many of Suburban Alliance's community programs have grown out of the information and suggestions obtained.from this process. An annual citizen participation report is prepared each year. Suburban Alliance has continued to experiment with new ways to engage people in the development of programs and public policies that affect their lives. In 1991 we conducted a Citizen's Jury on the Hennepin County budget priorities. This was the first in the nation Citizen Jury on a governmental budget. This was a 6-month process that was done with the assistance of the Jefferson Center in Minneapolis. A panel of 24 people randomly selected to be representative of the demographics of Hennepin County adults heard testimony, toured facilities, and made recommendations on three major areas of the Hennepin County Budget. 2 ,an Alllance was awarded a grant from the Minneapolis Founc atm ~or ~ pro]eot oa~e~ "The Customers Voice." This project evaluated the results of Hermepin County operated or contracted services from the consumer's point of view. The goal of the study was to enable the County to design its services around the needs and defired outcomes of its customers, improve the results of the services, and thus increase the value of services in the areas of human services and corrections. To do this we used several methods for citizen participation including focus groups, one-to-one interviews, and on-site program evaluation by customers of those services who were trained in the evaluation process. Suburban Alliance places a particular emphasis on what we call "Listening to the People." Since the agency's inception we have become more skilled in reaching out to the general public as well as community residents whose unique experiences lead to planning, evaluating and improving human services in the west Hennepin area. The agency has had a long history with providing some traditional methods of collecting input from citizens and continues to use these methods: 2. 3. 4. Demographic data collection, review and analysis Data collection from service providers Random and targeted survey needs assessment Sponsorship and co-sponsorship of public heatings, community forums and community meetings Collection and review of secondary data sources These methods produced satisfactory results but we felt we could take our normal data collection activities a' step further by actively recruiting residents in "invention sessions." While similar to focus groups, these sessions mixed deliberately selected service consumers, providers, and policy makers together to focus on a multi-dimensional view of community needs and "home-grown" solutions. The first of the "invention sessions" was held in 1987. It resulted in the creation of Mazebusters, an empowerment program for low income people who felt stuck in the complexity of the welfare and human service system. Another invention session that was held in the Westonka area came up with the time-shared mini-human service center concept that is now being practiced by Westonka Community Action Network (WeCAN). In the late 80's we wanted to increase the effectiveness of new and existing programs. We shifted our emphasis to focus on consumer input and invention sessions, believing that it is consumers who are in the best position to give direction and focus to a human service system, that was evolving rather than growing. Suburban Alliance staff have conducted or designed over 30 of these sessions on topics ranging from the design of a book for people looking for work, housing options for people with developmental disabilities and meeting the needs of people of color who live in the suburbs. We have found that its special brand of focus groups produces a more profound sense of purpose for service design and modification. The process has also been used to do needs assessment for people with chemical dependency, mental illness and senior citizens. Not are invention sessions productive from a program design viewpoint, most people find them to enjoyable. The following is a list of these sessions. "Invention Sessions" 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. What can be done about the increasing need for emergency services? What can be done for families and children in St. Louis Park? Jobs, income, and self-sufficiency Increasing access to services in an under-served area (Westonka) Emergency services customers (2 groups) Emergency services providers Emergency services board members Working poor (2 groups) Revitalizing ACT (a community group in Plymouth) Housing resources for people with developmental disabilities What advice does an existing group home have for a group home contemplating a move to the western suburbs? Re-design of "Basic Tools: Survival Skills for the Unemployed and Underemployed" (2 customer groups; one group of service providers; one group of advocates) What do average citizens see as needs for human services, what is their most important concern, what are they willing to do about it? How would average citizens like to see their property taxes spent? How is Minnesota's welfare reform program, STRIDE, working for people in the western suburbs? How can services for older people be coordinated? What strategies can be developed to improve the quality of life in the suburbs for people of color? How can west suburban workers over age 50 get back into the workforce? (2 groups) What are the needs of west suburban people with physical disabilities? What are the needs with children and adults in west Hennepin who have a mental illness? What are the needs of people in west Hennepin who have a chemical dependency? How well do clients of the Employment Action Center feel their needs were met? What are the needs of west suburban people with disabilities? How can we make affordable child care more available for families in west Hennepin? What would have to happen to enable public housing tenants in Hopkins to purchase their current units? How can people of color be recruited to be active in area organizations? This year we convened 10 meetings of area school district representatives, community agencies and citizens to design a children's mental health system that will be comprehensive, accessible and flexible. We have strengthened our ties with five grass-roots groups that are building assets in area youth and are working to make sure that Hennepin County services enhance those local efforts. We formed an "Innovations Team" that contributed to a study of how to engage the "hard to reach" parents and children in the Mound-Westonka School District. 4 Suburban Alliance publishes a quarterly newsletter, "Helping Hands," that is distributed to 7,000 residents of suburban Hennepin including the recipients of the Suburban Hennepin Energy Assistance Program. This newsletter is the only written source of information on services and programs for low-income persons in the suburban Hennepin area. D ara Gathering Suburban Alliance gathers data in a wide variety of areas. For example, we have released data reports on poverty demographics, on racial demographics. We also provide technical assistance to area agencies and organizations on data gathering techniques as well as providing data needed for reports and proposals. We participate in an advisory committee for the Urban Coalition's census project in order to provide a suburban perspective in their work. Education and Technical Assistance Suburban Alliance educates policymakers and funders about community priorities and r disseminates information about these issues by participating in conferences, workshops and public meetings. We also provide community groups with technical assistance about organizational structure and administration, and organizing workshops and community events. For example, we designed and facilitated a long-range strategic planning process for a cormnunity-based agency that provides services to persons with developmental disabilities to help them live as independently as possible. Suburban Alliance organized a workshop for community agencies to learn about how the "Integrated Service Networks" being formed in the health care system will affect human service programs. This workshop attracted providers from all of Hennepin County. Suburban Alliance is an active partner in Meadowbrook Collaborative, a project serving a Iow- income neighborhood in St. Louis Park. Other partners are the school district, Methodist Hospital and Foundation, the City of St. Louis Park and Suburban Alliance. The collaborative is currently focusing on activities for very young children and outreach to teens. Employment Suburban Alliance is becoming increasingly more involved in employment issues as the link 'between the need for human services in the west suburban area and the quality of available employment grows. Several years ago we conducted a joint project, "Community Initiatives for the Working Poor", that produced an analysis of suburban Hennepin employment and wage trends and information about issues facing "working poor" suburban Hennepin residents. 5 We updated our survival and resource guide for un- and under- employed persons, "Basic Tools: Survival Skills for the Unemployed and Underemployed". 10,000 copies have been printed and are in distribution. Twin Cities Community Voice Mail (TCCVM), initiated and organized by Suburban Alliance, has just completed its first year. TCCVM has been very successful and has exceeded out expectations. TCCVM provides homeless and low-income people with access to their own voice mail box to level the playing field in their search for jobs and housing. The hardware for the program was donated by Plymouth-based Telesystems Services, and a variety of foundations and corporations have donated funds for sof~ware and operating costs. Over 1,000 mailboxes have been distributed to community agencies and social service organizations who then distribute the mailboxes to people in need. TCCVM has been very successful and has exceeded our expectations. 67% of its clients found housing, and 45% found jobs, by the end of their six months on the program. '~ nergy Because we provide the Suburban Hennepin Energy Assistance Program, a program to help low- .~~income persons pay their utility bills, Suburban Alliance has become involved in activities involving low-income energy issues. Suburban Alliance initiated the formation of a statewide coalition of providers of low income energy services and low income advocates to work on behalf of the energy needs of low income Minnesotans. Suburban Alliance co-chaired the Energy CENTS Coalition and provided start-up staff support. Suburban Alliance also provides input on the energy needs of west Suburban residents as a member of the Hennepin County Urban Consortium Energy Task Force. Health Care Suburban Alliance did an extensive needs analysis on health care in a number of West Suburban communities. A report was developed for Methodist Hospital. We have been monitoring proposals on health care reform and have provided input to county and state officials. We have worked to assist "average" citizens in getting educated and involved in health care reform discussions. Housing The need for more affordable low-income housing in suburban Hennepin County is consistently identified as a priority for west suburban residents. In response, Suburban Alliance is active in a number of different efforts to raise housing as a priority and to increase the resources available. Several years ago Suburban Alliance established a Housing Committee to develop and implement locally-based strategies for addressing affordable housing issues in our community. Based on the 6 recommendations of this committee, we founded West Hennepin Community Builders, which continues to be affiliated with Suburban Alliance. Since its inception, Community Builders has been incorporated as a 501(c)(3) community development corporation, conducted board training, undertaken research to determine the types of programs it would develop, and met with a number of suburban communities and groups to discuss the issue of affordable housing. In the fall of 1994 Community Builders co-sponsored a conference entitled "Building Community" to bring interested people in the community together to develop strategies for meeting the affordable housing needs of low and moderate income members of the west Hennepin Community. Over 90 people attending this conference heard George Latimer, Director of the Special Actions Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Jim Solem, Regional Administrator of the Metropolitan Council. This has been followed up with several meeting of interested individuals and organizations to develop more detailed strategies for increasing the supply of affordable housing in the area. Community Builders has initiated a home ownership program, the Contract/Purchase Program, which has assisted four families and recently received a grant from the federal government which will allow it to assist an additional eight families in becoming homeowners. Additional funding is being provided by the Community Development Block Grant programs from Plymouth and Minnetonka. Suburban Alliance is providing information on affordable housing in the suburbs to a wide variety of groups including the League of Women Voters, Citizens League, Hennepin County Bar Association, Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development, etc. We jointly sponsored with the Citizens League "Speakout" sessions on housing to provide input into the Citizens League research on housing and metropolitan development. We also cosponsored focus group discussions with Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development concerning the Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. Over the past several years, Suburban Alliance has collaborated with the City of Hopkins on a number of projects. The first was to rehabilitate a Hopkins home into a transitional housing unit. The second was to investigate the feasibility of converting a public housing project into a home ownership. While this did not prove to be feasible, a resident council was established and a process was developed to provide residents with the opportunity to be involved in management of the project. We have been active in the Hennepin County Homeless Families Advisory Committee and active on the Minnesota Housing Partnership Board of Directors, the Plymouth/St. Louis Park Self- Sufficiency Project and the St. Louis Park Vision Project. Suburban Alliance continues to administer the St. Louis Park Emergency Home Repair Program, which provides emergency repair services to 6 to 8 families each year. Finally, Suburban Alliance distributes our publication, "Home Sweet Home: A Guide to Help You Find Affordable Housing". nformafion & Referral . ISuburban Alliance finished updating the Directory of Human Services for West Hennepin .,I, Residents." 40,000 copies of this directory were published. A number of municipalities made contributions to help make this a reality. We also publish "Services in Our Community to Help You" which lists resources for persons in a crisis situation. Legislative Agenda ~ We have a legislative agenda of ten categories with active support directed to three issues. Much of our work this year was channeled through various coalitions working on these issues. This year our concerns included increasing state financial support for affordable housing, metropolitan issues and the provision of services to special needs populations. Mental Health Suburban Alliance is actively involved in fostering community involvement in mental health issues. We convened area Children's Mental Health providers to look at developing ways to collaborate more effectively. Suburban Alliance also staffs the West Hennepin Mental Health Advisory Committee that seeks to empower consumers in the decision-making process. The committee focuses its efforts on community education about mental illness and education of mental health consumers. They also do a variety of presentations and have a cable access program. planning & Coordination Suburban Alliance Board and staff actively participate in committeeS, boards and groups that address community problems, promote issues and coordinate and develop services that are a high priority for West Hennepin area citizens. Suburban Alliance staff o~en provides staff assistance to help local initiatives around these issues get started and provides on-going support to local efforts as needed. prevention of Alcohol Abuse Prevention of alcohol abuse has consistently ranked as a high priority with West Hennepin residents. Suburban Alliance was a founding member of the county-wide Community Prevention Council which .facilitates the development of community-based, culturally specific drug prevention activities. Suburban Alliance staff was also on the first advisory committee for the Family Chemical Prevention Program classes. These classes are for families that have been court-ordered to the program due to a demonstrated risk for drug/alcohol abuse by a teenage household member. Suburban Alliance released a report on what happens to family reunification efforts when an AFDC parent gets chemical dependency treatment and the children are placed in foster care. The report is based on a project that Suburban Alliance conducted that provided funding to reunite families. Suburban Alliance successfully advocated for legislation which will take steps to remedy a "Catch-22" that many families fall into. Racism/Diversity Suburban Alliance founded the Suburban Hermepin Anti-Racism Coalition (SHARC) which rmed in the spring of 1991. Suburban Alliance provides technical assistance and organizational support. SHARC is composed of members of local human rights commissions, human service agencies, churches, and concerned residents. The goal of SHARC is to act as a catalyst for action by leaders and communities to combat racism and discrimination and raise awareness and appreciation of increasing diversity in suburban Hennepin. SHARC has completed a survey of 165 Minnesota city governments regarding human rights and diversity in conjunction with the League of MN Human Rights Commissions. SHARC followed up by organizing a coordinating group of Suburban Hennepin Human Rights Commissions. In May of 1992, SHARC and Suburban Alliance co-sponsored the conference, "Hate Crimes, Discrimination, Bigotry, Racism: Tackling the Problems on the Front Lines...Right Here in the Suburbs" featuring Federico Pena. Elected officials, staff of cities and school districts, members of human rights commissions, high school students and other concerned citizens were among the 230 people in attendance at the conference. SHAKC has established a Resource Center, partially funded by Hennepin County, to provide information, coordination, advocacy, education and other resources to undo racism and promote cultural diversity in suburban Hennepin. SI-L~C has also worked with Robbinsdale School District 281 and its Indian Parent Education Committee to determine what American Indian educational materials were needed to accompany established lesson plans, and helped purchase books and materials for the school library with a grant from the Minnesota Department of Education. Current SHARC projects include a joint venture HUD-funded venture with Legal Aid to coordinate "Fair Housing Testing" in suburban Hennepin and compiling a Resouce Directory. SHARC has assisted several cities regarding issues and concerns related to racism, and has also begun publishing a quarterly community newsletter on racism and diversity. S enior Citizens Suburban Alliance has provided staff time and technical assistance to the West Hennepin Chapter of the Metropolitan Senior Federation. A Suburban Alliance board member facilitated the development of their Board. Volunteer Hours During 1994, about 12,000 volunteer hours were donated to our community-based activities. 10 Direct Assistance Programs E mergency Assistance Suburban Alliance coordinates the four emergency service programs in west Hennepin: Interchurch Community Association, Interfaith Outreach, St. Louis Park Emergency Program, and Westonka Community Action Network. This program is designed to provide temporary assistance to people in crisis who are without other resources. In 1994, our Emergency Services Program provided food, shelter, rent, utility assistance, transportation assistance, clothing, and prescription assistance to 1,301 households. Funding for this program comes from Hennepin County and the federal FEMA Program. $110,410 was spent on assistance. Suburban Alliance sponsored an outreach program for west suburban police departments, informing them of the availability of emergency assistance services and training them to provide certain emergency services when the local provider is closed. E nergy Assistance Program Suburban Alliance has sponsored the low income Energy Assistance Program (EAP) for 13 years. Suburban Alliance provides services in a decentralized manner, using 16 intake sites throughout suburban Hennepin County. For the 1993-1994 heating season EAP served 4,668 households with $1,721,803 in heating grants, $101,244 in crisis assistance and $69,563 in energy related repairs. Energy related relbairs include repairing furnaces, water heaters, and others repairs affecting their homes. Final figures are not yet available for 1994-1995. We rely heavily on the contribution of volunteer time to this program. During the 1993-1994 program year 50 volunteers donated more the 3,500 hours of work to EAP. In appreciation of their efforts we sponsor an annual volunteer recognition luncheon with funds donated from area organizations and businesses. Energy Conservation Programs Suburban Alliance conducts the Home Energy Check-up Program. This program provides a quick practical audit, hands-on instruction about weatherization techniques, advice on sensible conservation investments, a kit of materials and a follow-up visit or call. 1,179 home energy check-ups were done in 1993. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95-.(~._~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENTRY ADDITION AND A DECK AT 6017 RIDGEWOOD ROAD LOT 18, BLOCK 6, HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 43 0031 .../~-'~ P&Z CASE #95-24 ' WHEREAS, the owners, Gene & Brenda Peterson, have applied for a variance/ /' to recognize the following nonconforming issues, to allow construction of a two story// entry addition and a lower level deck on the lakeside of the dwelling: ~ ' Proposed/ HOUSE Existing Required Variance Front, north 1' 30' 29' Side, east 5.5' 6' .5' Side, west 9' 10' 1' lakeside (deck) 48.5' 50' 1.5' SHED side, east 0' +/- 4' 4' lakeside 38' +/- 50' 12' LOT AREA 8,027 10,000 1,973 and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 and 10 feet, and a lakeshore setback of 50 feet to the ordinary high water level of 929.4.  HEREAS, impervious surface coverage is conforming at 40% for a lot of and; ~,~.~ :.,~..~- WHEREAS, two previous variances have been granted for this property by Resolutions #74-261, and #90-30, and; WHEREAS, the existing entryway has a very poor layout. The landing is small and is located directly adjacent to a stairway that causes a dangerous condition that the applicant refers to in their request, and; WHEREAS, the proposed encroachment of one foot into the side yard setback has a minimal impact on the adjoining property, and; Proposed Resolution #95-24, Peterson P. 2 WHEREAS, the proposed 10 foot deck extends out slightly farther than the existing upper deck, and results in a nonconforming lakeshore setback of approximately 47+- feet. The 10 foot width provides a functional deck and is a minimal encroachment into this setback. The adjacent property to the west is slightly closer to the lake, and; WHEREAS, both the house and shed are built into a bluff, and a variance will also need to be recognized to the bluff setback requirement. The shed is located at the toe of the bluff, and; WHEREAS, the existing nonconforming 8' x 10' storage shed was recently reconstructed, which did not require a building permit, however, does require a variance due to its location. Due to topography, and the recreational use of the lake it is reasonable to have a shed in this location. The shed is tucked into the hillside and was existing prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Also, the shed walls help retain the hillside, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with the following findings of fact: If the size of the entry addition was reduced, it would not allow for windows which are needed in to allow for natural lighting. A shed at the toe of the bluff is a reasonable use due to topography. The walls of the shed assist in retaining the hillside. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the nonconforming issues as listed below. This variance approval shall include the I foot side yard setback variance for the entry addition. The negative setback into the bluff is also recognized. Proposed/ HOUSE Existing Required Variance Front, north 1' 30' 29' Side, east 5.5' 6' .5' Side, west 9' 10' 1' lakeside (deck) 48.5' 50' 1.5' SHED side, east O' +/- 4' 4' lakeside 38' +/- 50' 12' Proposed Resolution #95-24, Peterson P. 3 LOT AREA 8,027 10,000 1,973 m .. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 6.5' x 9.5' two story entry addition and a 10' x 33' lower level deck on the lakeside of the dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 18, Block 6, This Highlands, PID #23-117-24 43 0031. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 1995 C~SE 95-24: GENE & BRENDA PETERSON, 6017 RIDGEWOOD RO~D, LOT 18, BLOCK 6, HIG~La. NDS~ PID 23-117-24 43 0031. V~.RIANCE - ~DDITION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a two level addition and a lower deck on the lakeside that are nonconforming to the required setbacks. This property is a lot of record in the R-1 single family zone which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 and 10 feet, and a lakeshore setback of 50 feet to the ordinary high water level of 929.4. Impervious surface coverage is conforming at 40% for a lot of record. Two previous variances have been granted for this property by Resolutions #74-261, and #90-30. The existing entryway has a very poor layout. The landing is small and is located directly adjacent to a stairway that causes a dangerous condition that the applicant refers to in their request. The proposed encroachment of one foot into the side yard setback has a minimal impact on the adjoining property, however, the entryway could be reduced in size to have a conforming setback. The proposed 10 foot deck extends out slightly farther than the existing upper deck, and results in a nonconforming lakeshore setback of approximately 47+- feet. The 10 foot width provides a functional deck and is a minimal encroachment into this setback. The adjacent property to the west is slightly closer to the lake. The 8' x 10' storage shed has a nonconforming side yard setback of approximately 0 feet and a nonconforming setback to the lake of approximately 35 feet. The shed was recently reconstructed, which did not require a building permit, however, does require a variance due to its location. Due to topography, and the recreational use of the lake it is reasonable to have a shed in this location. The shed is tucked into the hillside and was existing prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as modified by the suggestion of staff that the entryway be constructed with a conforming 10 foot side yard setback. If recommended by the commission, staff will prepare a resolution that captures similar wording as noted in the previous Resolution #90-30. The Building Official verbally added to his report that both the house and shed are built into a bluff, and a variance will also need to be recognized to the bluff setback requirement. The shed is located at the toe of the bluff. Mueller asked if the shed could be relocated to a conforming location. Mueller also noted that the 929.4 elevation is not shown on the survey. The Building Official noted that the shoreline is riprapped and the shoreline as indicated on the survey is a fairly accurate representation of the ordinary high water mark. ~[~ Planning Commission Minu=es July 10, 1995 The applicant, Gene Peterson, distributed photographs to the Commission depicting the minimum impact the entry addition will have on the adjacent property. He also stated that the houses on either side are located closer to the lake than his house. Peterson stressed the usefulness of the shed due to the steep slope. The Building Official commented that it would be difficult to carry a lawn mower up and down the stairway, and confirmed that the appearance of the shed is good. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the shed walls help retain the hillside. Bob Richards, owner of property across the street at 6023 Cherrywood Road, commented that his only concern is the placement of overhead electrical wires. The applicant confirmed that these wires will not be altered with this addition. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the previously approved resolution was recorded at the County. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance, as requested by the applicant, to include a I foot side yard setback variance for the entry addition. The negative setback into the bluff is also recommended to be recognized. Findings of fact include: If the size of the entry addition was reduced, it would not allow for windows which are needed in to allow for natural lighting. A shed at the toe of the bluff is a reasonable use due to topography. - The walls of the shed assist in retaining the hillside. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 25, 1995. VIEW OF ADDITION FI'~OM ADJACENT PROPERTY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of July 10, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~/~-'~ ~ Variance Request Gene and Brenda Peterson 95-24 6017 Ridgewood Rd. R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a 2 level addition and a lower deck on the lakeside that are nonconforming to the required setbacks. Please note the attached survey and zoning sheet that identifys these issues. This property is a lot of record in the R-1 single family zone which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, a side yard setback of 6 and 10 feet, and a lakeshore setback of 50 feet to the ordinary high water level of 929.4. Impervious surface is conforming at 40% for a lot of record. COMMENTS: Two previous variances have been granted for this property by resolutions #74-261, and #90-30. This history is included in your packet. Comments are listed separately for each issue not recognized by the previous resolutions. ENTRYWAY: The existing entryway has a very poor layout. The landing is small and is located directly adjacent to a stairway that causes the dangerous condition that the applicant refers to in their request. Stairways are difficult and costly to relocate inside the house so it's a natural to bump out the landing and create a new, more functional entryway. The encroachment of one foot into the sideyard has a minimal impact on the adjoining property however, the entryway could be reduced in size to be conforming to setbacks. LAKESIDE DECK: This proposed 10 foot deck extends out slightly farther than the existing upper deck, and results in a nonconforming lakeshore setback of approximately 47 + - feet. The 10 foot width provides a functional deck and is a minimal encroachment into this setback. The adjacent property to the west is slightly closer to the lake. printed on recycled paper EXISTING 8 X 10 LAKESIDE STORAGE SHED: This shed is nonconforming being setback approximatly 3§ feet to the lakeshore, 50 feet is required. It has been reconstructed recently this work did not require a permit, however it does require city council approval of a variance. Due to topography, and the recreational use of the lake it is reasonable to have a shed in this location. The shed is tucked into the hillside and was existing prior to the adoption of the shoreland ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as modified by the~_ssuggestion of staf_~f that the entryway be constructed with a conforming 10 foot side yard setback. If recommended by the commission, staff will prepare a resolution that captures similar wording as noted in the previous resolution #90-30. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. YARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: ~/Z~ City Planner ~/~ Public Works ~ J'J,a City Engineer ~/~ D~ " ~ t 0~er ' Application Fee: $50.00 No. Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Lot Addition District ..~1~ Owner's Name CF~ro Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Use of ~operty: Block Day Phone Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. ~,~;~q,.o¢.~ .,~ a.~,~o%A- ~,.~o~o-~;o~ ~' )7q-- at, ~ Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), Nol~$. ff no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS': required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: t/~S E W ) ~)' ft. ~* ft. Side Yard: ~S~) {o ft. ~,~ r R. ,~-' Side Y~d: ( N S E ~) I 0 ft. ~ ~o~ ~. I.. N EW) ~ ft. ~g,S ~c~5~. ~'~de · ( N E W ) ~'$[- ff. ~0' ft. S~t Frontage: ~ ~. ft. ~t Size: ~9 sq ft ~0~ sq ft H~dcover: ~ JO ,g~q ft ~b, ~sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. [ ~.~ sqft sq ft O' 'q' / ~t' Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes,,IN), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow (~') topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: l O Yaxiance Apptlcat~ou (11/93) Pag~ 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vaxiance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? ..._%. oco. I ._,-3 I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature ~ ~' Applicant's Signature .~ ~"~- Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATION.~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: (~(~ OWNER'S NAME: C~_.~.3~, ~,,.,ct. {~o,~c~, ~_.-~(,~_~ LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% = (for all lots) .............. I = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH HOUSE qS.~' DETACHED BLDGS ~'~IVE~WA~ARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, WIDTH SQ FT x 28'.~ = lac// x = 3 LIO- x /0 = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. 5'.6 ETC.~ 1(.~ X IQ:~ :_ ,=:~_,,._~._~_ ~,oyh, 40,TDA.l_ DRIVEWAY, ETC DECKS Open decks (1/4 min.~ X = opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted es hardcover OTHER TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I ~/OVER (indicate ~ . . . . ......................... I ~-~.~ _ PREPARED BY .~~ ~'~~-- ~' DATE boOZe. LEGAL DE$CRIp~ Lot ]8, Block I hereby cert prepared by m vision, and t Civil Enginee the laws of t COFFIN & GRON Mark S. Gronb Engineers, La Long Lake, Mi Scale: Date : · : o : Bearings assumed · .J 37 February 20, 1990 RESOLUTION #90-30 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 18, BLOCK 6, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24-43 0031, (6017 Ridgewood Road), P&Z CASE NO. 90-904 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a 29 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of a one story garage addition to an existing attached two stall, one story, garage, for Lot 18, Block 6, The Highlands, PID #23-117-24-43 0031, and WHEREAS, a variance was previously granted for this property in 1974, Resolution #74-261, allowing a lot area of 8,027 square feet, a 5 foot front yard setback, a 6 foot and 10 foot side yard setback and a 50 foot (plus) lakeshore setback, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, a 50 foot lakeshore setback, and a 10 and a 6 foot side yard setback for "lots of record" and , WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful, nonconforming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval due to topography and shape of the lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby authorize a front yard setback of 1 foot for the property located at Lot 18, Block 6, The Highlands, PID #23-117-24-43 0031. The City Council authorizes the existing nonconforming lot size and structural setback violations and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 38 February 20, 1990 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. ae To construct a one story pie shaped garage addition approximately 840 square feet in size, setback 1 foot from the front property line (approximately 12'6" from the curb) per Exhibit A. Upon the condition that 70% of the garage will be below grade, with only 2 to 4 feet of the building visible at street level. This variance is granted for property legally described as: Lot 18, Block 6, The Highlands, PID #23-117-24-43 0031 (6017 Ridgewood Road). This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and'seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Ha~or Attest: City Clerk REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: / ~LOT WIDTH: EXISTING LOT DEPTH: REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIP/~ BUILDINGJ HOUSE. FRONT:(._~ S E W FRONT:-N S~ W SIDE: N S (._~ .~ SIDE: N S E R~R: N S E W 15' ~KESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: J ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/~HED FRONT: N S E'W ~t~~ / ~ / FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ~C) ~ EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRI NCIP~'I=,,, BUILDINGJHOUSE. FRONT{_~S E W I ' ~' SIDE: N SIDE: N REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: ~ ~J~,S' 'J'o~J~CY--~ ~I~ TOP OF BLUFF: ~ ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N SIDE: N W ' REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: HAR(J~.~{ CONFORMING~? d~S~ NO/? ilS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES/~)? ,~ summarizes a portion o t e requirements out me in t e ~ty o oun onlng Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. I 40. ;5 ~O'q3 L'~ --31 ~,~ .3 ,,o O I PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 4360 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT 81, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION PID #19-117-23 13 0014 P&Z CASE #95-25 ~. WHEREAS, the owner, Robert Mitchell, has applied for a 13 foot lakeside (~tback variance to replace and slightly enlarge a lakeside deck, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks and impervious surface coverage are conforming. WHEREAS, the adjacent property, 4350 Wilshire Blvd., received a 32.7 foot lakeside variance in 1992 to allow a 2-1/2 story addition, and; WHEREAS, this site is narrow and somewhat limited due to its shape, and; WHEREAS, the proposed 8' x 24' deck is minimally sized and is a reasonable use of the property, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 13 foot lakeside setback variance to allow construction of a deck. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 8' x 24' deck on the lakeside of the dwelling. Pro0osed Resolution #95-Z5, Mitchell P. 2 St This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 81, Phelps Island Park First Division, PID //19-117-23 13 0014. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. OF A OF TH'F MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 199 C]%SE 95-25: ROBERT MTTCHELL, 4360 WILSHTRE BLVD. · LOT 81, PH~_T._P5 ISLAND P/~RKS FIRST DIV. t PID 19-117-23 13 0014. VI~RI~NCE - DECK. The applicant is seeking a variance to replace and slightly enlarge a lakeside deck. The existing deck is 6 feet in width and the applicant is requesting a deck that is 8 feet wide. The request results in a 37 foot setback and a 13 foot variance to the required 50 foot setback. All other setbacks and impervious surface coverage are conforming. The adjacent property at 4350 Wilshire received a 32.7 foot lakeside variance in 1992 to allow a 2-1/2 story addition, however, the buildable footprint in that case was more restricted. This site is narrow and somewhat limited by the lake contour and Wilshire Blvd. which angles in creates the beginning of a pie shaped lot. This coupled with the fact that the deck is minimally sized and a reasonable use of the property results in a favorable recommendation in this case. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of July 10, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Robert Mitchell 95-25 4360 Wilshire Blvd. R-la Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to replace and slightly enlarge an existing lakeside deck. The existing deck is 6 feet in width and the applicant is requesting a deck that is 8 feet wide. The request results in a 37 foot setback and a 13 foot variance to the required 50 foot setback. All other setbacks and impervious surface are conforming. COMMENT: The adjacent property at 4350 Wilshire received a 32.7 foot lakeside variance in 1992 to allow a 2-1/2 story addition, however, the buildable footprint in that case was more restricted. This site is narrow and somewhat limited by the lake contour and the fact that Wilshire Blvd. both angle in and. create the beginnings of a pie shaped lot. This coupled with the fact that the deck is minimally sized and a reasonable use of the property results in a favorable recommendation in this case. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as proposed. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. 1 printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Public Works Planner City Engineer ~ DNR Other '/ Application Fee: $50.00 Ca, Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property /-'/.~{.PCP ~.~! 3,.S/-4/t0~ g'/ mock - Zoning District ~ -~ l ./~ Use of Property: Owner's Name -~061~"'t ~x"XO~£c~ Day Phone ~'-z-~C, ' Owner's Address ~z.~.g ~ 0 ~.)t kZ/-t t t~ [z ~ k Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ?age Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ~_.~ E W) Lakeside: E W ) (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 37 ft. {3 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage OC) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ('0. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date ~ '~DO ' ~-.-~ Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVF. R CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) IIPROPERTADDRESS: ~/~ IOWNER S NAME: ~f~, ~ ,.,~ ? LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA '~ ~ / ~,~ SQ. FT. ~~- (for Lots of Record') ....... I ~.~ I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X = X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x = x : X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPAREDBY ~'-('f,tl ~.-~ ~ON~.~ /'"~0_. DATE Blo. ck Lo, ke CERTIFiC ROBERT OF LOT 81, PHELPS ' HENNEPII~ REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: 4 (.~ ' ~ LOT W,OTH: ~ , EX, ST,NG LoT DE.H: ~ ~0 ' -r/... REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING! HOUSE FRONT: N(S)E W FRONT: N "S F.. W SIDE: N S~V)/~, ~ ' SIDE: N S E REAR: N S E W ..~,' LAKESHORE: ~ 5(...~'~easured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGEJSHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL IJ~t~LDING JHOUSE FRONT: N/S~E W FRONT: N~S~J~ W S,DE: N s~,,~ SIDE: N S S REAR: N S E LAKESHORE: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: TOP OF BLUFF: is en orang n ormatlon eet ony ~ummanz__es_ a porl~on o on~ng ~Ordinance~ information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. LOT I PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95? ~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 5060 GLENDALE ROAD, LOT 22 & NORTHEASTERLY 1/2 OF 21, BLOCK 5, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID 24-117-24 12 0034 P&Z CASE #95-26 WHEREAS, the owners, Roxanne Lange and Claudine Dick, have .65 foot side yard setback variance to allow construction of a conforming de,ok, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 6 and 10 feet, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, Resolution #73-240 also granted a side yard setback variance for this property, and allowed the current situation of the e~Xisting nonconforming setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 4.35' to allow construction of a conforming deck. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming 12' x 12' deck. Proposed Resolution 9.5-26, Lang./Dick P. 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: All of Lot 22 and the NEly 1/2 of Lot 21, Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit B. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THF~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 1995 CASE 95-26: ROX~NNE LANGE & CLOUDINE DICK, 5060 GLENDALE ROAD, LOT 22 & NELY 1/2 OF 21, BLOCK 5, 8HIRL_~Y HILLS UNIT B, PID 24-117- 24 12 0034. V~RIANCE- DECK. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a conforming deck on the rear of the house. A resolution in 1973 allows the current situation of the existing nonconforming setback, impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 4.35' to the dwelling in order to construct a conforming 12' x 12' deck, as proposed. Motion by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of July 10, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ '~ · Variance Request Roxanne M. Lange/Claudine M. Dick 95-26 5060 Glendale Rd. R-I ~ Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a conforming deck on the rear of the house. A resolution in 1973 allows the current situation of the existing nonconforming setback, impervious surface and all other setbacks are conforming. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a conforming deck as noted on the attached survey. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. printed on recycled paper Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: ~ ]'7.."] City Planner Public Works ' ! City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Please type or print the foUowing information: Address of Subject Property Lot~.-~ '~-' >%' / z: --'-~-': /',"-~ Zoning District ? '~--- \ Use of Property: Block PID No. Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (x) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): /I Variance Application (11/93) Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No 00. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ~~ Side Yard: Rear Yard: ( N S'E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) · (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. 5_5 ft. I, cz% ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the presen, t use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes '('9, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Sig Owner's nature Applicant's Signature CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Bond~:rt 1,1 !)t SC~: I r'T ION; ALL HILLS I. NI r '*,~K HERE[~Y CEI.:'rlFY tH., THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENIATIOI~I OF A SllRVEY OF THE f. JOUNDARIE$ OF YHE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION OF' ALL 0UILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE. E/'JCF,'OACHMENTS~ tF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND~ A.G SURVEYED BY TI-IlS .~r.'TH DAY Ol. APRIL, 1972. /2 . , ~ .~ .',,,.. CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: ~<~c~-c~r-.~__.'~.~.:~-.~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. LOT AREA ~,_~ ~:~), ~L SQ. FT. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. X~= (for Lots of Record*) ....... I X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. [ ] *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ~ X ~ = ~ C~;--c° X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER ¢~-r. ~ ~__~, TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY, ETC ........ ~,~i~.~"'.... TOTAL X X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER ! IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE 7~-240 8-.]4-75 RESOlUtION NO, 7~-24o RESOLUTION GRANTING A SIDE YARD VARIANCE (Lot 22 and Nh Lot 21, Block 5, Shirley Hills Umit B) WNEREAS, the owner of Lot 22/and Nh Lot 21, Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit "B" tins requested a side yard variance in order to construct a d~k on his house, and through a surveying error a variance of 2.55 feet is needed at the front of the house and 5.65 feet at the rear of the house, s~ld WHEREAS, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property in the territory in which said property is situated and will not ~mve an adverse affect upon traffic or traffic safety, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VID~GE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND~ MINNESOTA ~ T~t a side yard variance of 2.55 feet at ~he front and 5.65 feet at the rear of the hou~e be granted, provided all other requirements are met. Adopted by the 0ounotl this 14th day of Auguet, 1975. ~os ~ ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA;: SURVEY ON FILE? NO LOT OF RECORD / 7 REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT WIDTH: REQUIRED SETBACKS EXIST. LOT AREA: EXISTING LOT DEPTH: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W ~ / FRONT: ~ W SIDE: ~,~_ EF,.~.~ /,o ' ~ SIDE: N(..~E W~ J~) ' ~/ REAR: N S E W 15' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ACCESSORY BUILDING/G~RAGEISHED FRONT: N S E W -.-,,~)(.~ ! FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: 4' 0r 6' 4' 0r 6' 4' 50' (measured from O.H.W.} EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: pRINCIPAL BUILDINGJHOUSE FRONT: N S E W FFIONT: ~S~ W SLOE: (~ Si/E~W SIDE: -'N S'"IE W .- REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: -- TOP OF BLUFF: By:~r~ -- this al Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a port Ordinance. ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING 7 YES~/? ion of th requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zonip, For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. (~;. / 61 ,/ / PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- "7 / RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AND PORCH AT 1779 WILDHURST LANE, LOT 3 & PI4, BLOCK 13, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0019 P&Z CASE #95-27 WHEREA h S, t e owners, Cheryl and Richard Vogel, have applied for a variance //to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the dwelling in order to construct onforming deck and screen porch on the lakeside, and; WHEREAS, the dwelling is setback 15.8 feet to the front and .11 feet to the side lot line, resulting in a front yard setback variance of 14.2 feet and a side yard setback variance of 5.89 feet, and; WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-1 zone which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet to the property line abutting Wildhurst Lane, a side yard setback of 6 and 10 feet, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, Impervious surface coverage is conforming, and; WHEREAS, The addition is a reasonable use for the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 15.8 feet and a side yard setback of .11 feet with the stipulation that proof of an easement for the roof overhang and driveway encroachment be provided prior to release for filing this resolution. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 16' x 44' deck and lower level screened porch. Proposed Resolution 95-27, Vogel P. 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 3 and that part of Lot 4, lying easterly of a line parallel with and 20 feet westerly of as measured at right angles from the east line of Lot 4, Block 13, Shadywood Point. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. JUL-21-1995 07:]0 FROM UNIU.OP MN. OPERATING RM. 'I'II'I.E ~SLr~E COMPANY I ~P. Vogel and Cheryl L, Vo~ei ed& R.P. Vol~-I ~nd Comtm~y, Inc. 24~, 6 E 26th ~ TO 84?20620 P.02 RE: T~'3ns~n~"~m ~ F"~ No. 92-84398 - Ionm/A"oz¢l D~ Rick ~1 Ci~'ryl: E~. Iose~ is a photocopy of the execut~ r. ascmcnt mip~-=~m~. Commenwe~Jm Lan~ 'l'itl¢ ln~cazr, c Company h~mby ccrtit"~ r.J~t this ~ a~ment wa~ ~d of record Monday, luj. y 17, 1995 as of 4:00 p.m, TI~ actml dccunznt nnmber for this insmrme~ should be sv~mble n~xt M"~n D. ~ensc~l RellanGe JUL-21-1995 I I 07:31 FROM UNIU.OF MN.OPERATING RM, TO 84?20620 P. 03 RECEtVED~.,~ JUL 2 I 1995 i ! J I i ~ent~'a ~ty ~ c~ the exit to 1~, Cc~t~ d~I h~e~ grant ) JUL-21-1995 07:~1 FROM UNIV.OF MN.OPERATING RM. TO 84?20620 P.04 JUL-21-1995 07:31 FROM UNIV.OF MN.OPERATING RM. TO 84?20620 P.05 ) ) A. ,3'd'mes, I m~tc~2,s t At~o~ m~ ~v 15~0 ~o~nda~e Lake Bl~~n, ~ 55437 I ~0~) P JUL-21-1995 87:32 FROM UNIU.OF MN.OPERATING RM. TO 84?20620 P. 06 JUL-21-1995 87:32 FROM UNIU.OF MN,OPERATING RM, TO 84?28628 P. 8? imm JUL-21-1gSS 89:32 FROM UNIU.OF MN.OPERATING RM. TO 84928628 P.08 I JUL-21-1995 FROM UNIV.OF MN.OPERATING RM. TO 84?28628 P.09 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TH'F MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 1995 CASE 95-27: CHERYL & RICHARD VOGEL, 1779 WILDHURST LANE, LOT 3 & P/4, BLOCK 13, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0019. VARIANC~ - DECK/PORCH. The applicants are requesting a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the dwelling in order to construct a conforming deck and screen porch on the lakeside. Miscellaneous remodeling is also proposed, however, does not require a variance. This property is located in the R-1 zone which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet to the property line abutting Wildhurst Lane, a side yard setback of 6 and 10 feet, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water is also required. The existing structure is nonconforming to the 30' foot front setback by 14.2 feet and to the required 6' side setback by ~.89 feet. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. The encroachment on the west side of the property may require the review and direction of the City Attorney. The addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the non-conforming status. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks. The owner, Richard Vogel, confirmed that he does have an easement for the encroachment. MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the stipulation that proof of an easement be provided prior to the City Council meeting. Mueller questioned the possibility of a lot line rearrangement. Mr. Vogel stated that they have already tried to pursue the possibility with the neighbor and he was not in favor of the idea. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 25, 1995. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of July 10, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official .~~ ~ Variance Request Cheryl and Richard P. Vogel 95-27 1779 Wildhurst Lane R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to recognize the existing non conforming setbacks to the dwelling and attached garage in order to construct a conforming deck and screen porch on the lakeside. Miscellaneous remodeling is also proposed however, this work does not require a variance. This property is located in the R-1 zone which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet to the property line abutting Wildhurst Lane, a sideyard setback of 6 and 10 feet, and a §0 foot setback to the ordinary high water is also required. The existing structure is non-conforming to setbacks as noted on the attached zoning sheet. Impervious surface is conforming. The encroachment on the west side of the property may require the review and direction of the city attorney. COMMENT: The addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the non-conforming status. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 No. District Owner's Name Owner's Address Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ,.7 Addition Of~ ')6 U./O 0 d I??? /f~/~ PID No. Use of Property: Block Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner). Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ,1~[ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. ?d ?.-~ ~ 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes lkl', No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) ~Front Yard: (,.Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: ft. I¢,D ft. ( N ~) '~ ff. ff. a. (NSEW) ft. ft. · (NSEW) ff. ft. Street Frontage: f. ft. Lot Size: ,sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft VARIANCE fto ft. ft. ff. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes .(~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: t~/. .~. Yaria. ncc Application (11193) Page 3 Case ~o. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized offi~ia~ of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and remo~~ ~-~r~ired by law. Signature~~'~~~ ~/,,,/-~~7~ v -. ~.~ '-'- /'-' Date ,..J~r,~.~ 2o` ,'P~.C" Applicant's Signature Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: //729 OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% - (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA /,~!/~" SQ. FT. ~__~_0%~- (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT '2 o . ~- x ,Z,~ 4'"= x = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X X X : TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTALDECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... $oG6 I TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (indicate difference) Zx~s~ I -I Sunde tond Surveyin Inc. 9OO1 E. Bloomin§ton Frw¥ (35W) Surveyor', Certificate Bloomington, MN 55420 (612) 881-2455 N'LY LiNE OF LOT 4 ~''~'¢k~ FOUND iRON PROPOSED PROPOSED EASEMENT OVERHEAD' A~ROXIMATE OVERHANG Lot 3 and that part of Lot 4, tying easterly of a line parallel with and 20 feet ~esterly of as measured at right angles from the east line of Lot 4, Block 13, SHADYWOOD PIONT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ~/ R=8~80 T= :57. 53 l = 7'0.9:5 S54o42'36"E :-5,50 IRON / / / / / / / , / ,....~ / ~.~ // , / ~ ' ~ROmOsED DEcK 39.88 Revised: July 27, 1993 ( Prop. Esmt. odded ) Revised: Aug 2, 1993 (Chonged Esmt.) Revised Moy 23,1995(Prop. Deck odded) / 20 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET We herby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, from or on said land. Dated this 30th day of November 1992 SUNDE LAND SURVEYING, INC. By: ~-~, Edward H. Sunde, R.L.S. Minn. Reg. NO. 8612 7'~-5 ~ -10-7~ RESOLUTIO,~I NO. 7r~ - 5 RESOLUTION TO CONCI.IR WITH THE PLA?I~.II:~IG COM~tlSSION RECOMMENOqTIOH TO qqa,~lT THE ~!Aq. IAtlCE &S REQUESTED \-IHEqEAS, owners of pronerty described as Lot 3 and part oF Lot 4, Block 13, Shadywood Point have applied for a street front variance, and WHEREAS, said variance would enal~le the owner to erect a garage on said property. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVEO BY THE CITY COII~ICIL oF MOU:IO. MOU;.ID. MINNE- SOTA' That Council concurs with the recommendation of the .Planning Commission and does hereby authorize the A foot street Front variance for the purpose of allow- ing the building of a garage on the above described property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of the 10 ft. driveway easement should be filed with the City prior to the issuance of the permit. Adopted by Council this loth day oF Jan. 1978. June 23, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87- 117 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE A FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOT 3 AND PART OF LOT 4, BLOCK 13, SHADYWOOD POINT; PID NO 13-117-24 14 0019 (1779 Wildhurst Lane) P & Z ~ase No. 87-639 WHEREAS, Mohamed M. Hamoude, owner of the property, has requested a 2 foot side yard and a 15 foot front yard setback to allow the construction of a 22 by 22 foot attached garage for Lot 3 and that part of Lot 4 lying easterly of a line parallel with and distant 20 feet westerly measured at right angles from the easterly line of said Lot 4, Block 13, Shadywood Point; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 30 foot front yard and a 6 foot and lO foot side yard setback for lots of record in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend a 4 foot side yard and 17 foot front yard setback to allow the construc- tion of a 20 by 20 foot attached garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a 2 foot side yard variance and a 13 foot front yard variance due to the topography of the site to allow a 20 by 20 foot attached garage for Lot 3 and that part of Lot 4 lying easterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 20 feet westerly measured at right angles from the easterly line of said Lot 4, Block 13, Shadywood Point; PID No. 13-117-24 14 0019 (1779 Wildhurst Lane). The foregoing resolution was moved by Counc~lmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Abel ' The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Abel, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Maybr Attest: City Clerk ---II1~! Illllll ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA': EXIST. LOT AREA: t,dildhuc$1'_ :R-I io, FILE?( YE~/NO 5-?-.-"5 "'~5 LOT OF RECORD7 ~'~ES~ NO/7 SURVEY FRONTAGE/VVIDTH: /~,,i'~ ! REQUIRED STREET REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W ~'3{~ lO' FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: )C~ · EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED,, ~RONT: N S E W ~ ",~ ~' FRONT: N S E W ,~---- SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: PRINCIPAI.~BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N~S E W FRONT: N S E SIDE: N S E SIDE: N S E W [I. REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: - ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: HARDC~OV? CONFORMING?~_?_~_ES}NO / ? IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES/~'~) ? ~ DATE: -q._% .... J ~s ~ener~Zoni~ Information ~~ ~ummar~e~ a port,on o ~ e requirements out ~ne ~n t e ~ty o oun orang grdinanee~ info~m~ion, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at ~72-0800. / 5 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING LAKE SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 5116 TUXEDO BLVD., LOT 13, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID 24-117-24 43 0061, P&Z CASE #95-29 WHEREAS, the owner, James E. Merchant, has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming lake side setback of 38 feet to allow reconstruction and remodeling of the existing house and construction of a conforming 25' x 50' detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the proposed work involves reconstruction of the masonry foundation and exterior walls on the portion of the home that does not meet the required setback to the lake, and; WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming, and; WHEREAS, this proposal is a substantial improvement and enhances the use and function of the property without further encroachment, and; WHEREAS, adjoining properties on both sides are located closer to the lake than the subject dwelling which reduces the negative impact of the nonconforming setback, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the nonconforming lake side setback of 38 feet to allow reconstruction and remodeling of the existing dwelling and construction of a conforming detached garage, subject to the condition that a hard surface driveway must be installed prior to October 15, ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT ARE/~: EXIST. LOT AREA: REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: GO Z REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W ~'~30 ' FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W (.~ # SIDE: N S E W l0' REAR: N S E W 15' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ~(~ · EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: ACCESSORY BUILDINGtGARAGE/~HED, FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W ~ SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: PRINCIPA].,BUILDING/HOU SE FRONT: N~S E W FRONT: N S E W_L S DE: N S E ',~_ SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: )rOinance. ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YEs/N~ ? OATE: S summanzes a port~ requirements out ~ne in t e lty o oun onlng For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. 0 (~ I I 0 ~ F~ I 0 0 ~-- I ~-~ ~" 0 0 j~o~% O O O I~. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING LAKE SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE A.T.. 5116 TUXEDO BLVD., LOT 13, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID 24-117-24 43 0061, P&Z CASE #95-29 WHEREAS, the owner, James E. Merchant, has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming lake side setback of 38 feet to allow reconstruction and remodeling of the existing house and construction of a conforming 25' x 50' detached garage, and; _ .. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family ~Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; //~ WHEREAS, the proposed work involves reconstruction of the masonry //foundation and exterior walls on the portion of the home that does not meet the d setback to the lake, and; WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming, and; WHEREAS, this proposal is a substantial improvement and enhances the use and function of the property without further encroachment, and; WHEREAS, adjoining properties on both sides are located closer to the lake than the subject dwelling which reduces the negative impact of the nonconforming setback, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance to recognize the nonconforming lake side setback of 38 feet to allow reconstruction and remodeling of the existing dwelling and construction of a conforming detached garage, subject to the condition that a hard surface driveway must be installed prior to October 15, 1995. Proposed Resolution 95-29, Merchant P. 2 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Phase I (Summer of 1995): Second story addition 26.5' x 53.5' Gut and remodel existing dwelling Phase II (Summer of 1996): Detached garage 24' x 50' This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 13, Whipple Shores This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 1995 CASE 95-29: JAMES E. MERCHANT, 5116 WHIPPLE SHORES, PID 24-117-24 43 0061. D~TA~ED GARAGE. TUXEDO BLVD., LOT 13, VARIANCE - ADDITION & The applicant is seeking a variance to remodel the existing house and add a second story addition. Also included is a 25' x 50' detached garage that is conforming to setbacks. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the required 50 foot lakeshore setback by 12 feet. The remodeling project involves a reconstruction of the masonry foundation and exterior walls on the portion of the home that does not meet the required setback to the lake. This is considered a major structural repair and according to Zoning Code Section 350:420, must have the prior approval of the City Council. Impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming. This proposal is a substantial improvement and enhances the use and function of the property without further encroachment. Work on the foundation and the remodeling has started without a building permit, and a Stop Work Order was issued. In this case adjoining properties on both sides are located closer to the lake than the applicant's dwelling which reduces the negative impact of the nonconforming setback. Staff recommended the Planning commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing and proposed reconstruction of the dwelling in a nonconforming location. This variance includes the proposed second story addition and detached garage. The City Engineer has suggested a new driveway be constructed as a condition of variance approval. Voss questioned if the 12 foot portion of the house which encroaches into the lakeside setback could be removed. The condition of the existing structure was discussed. Mr. Merchant stated that he poured a new foundation on the inside the existing foundation. The structure will not encroach further into the setback, and actually it will be slightly reduced due to the elimination of the overhang. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff, including the condition that a hard surface driveway must be installed, as recommended by the City Engineer. It was questioned if a cash escrow should be required to ensure installation of the hard surface driveway. It was determined a driveway could be installed prior to October 15, 1995. The applicant agreed. MOTION carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of July 10, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ Variance Request James E. Merchant 95-29 5116 Tuxedo Blvd. R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to remodel the existing house and add a second story addition. Also included is a 25 x 50 detached garage that is conforming to setbacks. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the required 50 foot lakeshore setback by 12 feet. The remodeling project involves a reconstruction of the masonry foundation and exterior walls on the portion of the home that does not meet the required setback to the lake. This is considered a major structural repair and according to zoning code section 350:420, and must have the prior approval of the city council. Impervious surface and all other setbacks are conforming. This proposal is a substantial improvement and enhances the use and function of the property without further encroachment. COMMENT: Work on the foundation and the remodeling has started without a building permit, and a stop work order has been issued. This situation puts staff in the unfortunate position of making a recommendation on work that is already completed. In this case adjoining properties on both sides are located closer to the lake than the applicants dwelling. Our ordinance does not allow the lining up on the lake side, however the existing condition and location of the other dwellings does lessen the negative impact of the nonconforming setback. printed on recycled paper STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing and proposed reconstruction of the dwelling in a nonconforming location. This variance includes the second story addition and the detached garage as note on the survey received June 29, 1995. The work that has proceeded without the proper approvals is subject to a double permit fee as required by the building code. Please note the city engineer's memorandum, suggesting a new driveway be constructed as a condition on allowing the new garage. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: ~z~- ~ ~/~'-~ Distribution: City Planner _~_2~5 City Engineer Other Public Works DNR Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~~v_.q__ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Lot Owners N~me--~,a~,oq~_5 ,~, /'9/~C~ay Phone ~- ~ 75Z Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~}/no. ff yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area:, etc.): o SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ff. ft. Rear Yard: (..1~ S E W ) ft. ft. Lakeside: (~ E W ) ,.~tr)' ft. ~ ~_ / r/_ ft. ·EW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: .sq ft sq ft fto ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ff sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~1~ No (). ff no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil .~>glfexisting situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. ff yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: /\ o Are the conditions of hardship for. which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME ADDRESS Jim Merchant 5116 Tuxedo Blvd. EXISTING LOT AREA 9611 SQFT x 40% = 3844-41 HOUSE: GARAGE: TOTAL HOUSE DRIVEWAY: Gravel DECK: TOTAL GARAGE TOTAL DRIVEWAY OTHER: TOTAL DECK TOTAL DECK at 50% Sidewalk TOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER UNDER (OVER) MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS x = 1272 x = 0 x = 0 24 x X 50 = 1200 0 x = 682 x = 0 x = 0 x 80 = X ---= 0 240 0 NO 35.31% 1272 1200 682 0 240 [ 3394J L 450.4J YES BY: Steven K. Behnke DATE: 6/23/95 ju. 5 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JIM MERCHANT OF LOT 13, WHIPPLE SHORES HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 13, WHIPPLE SHORES ~,' o: denotes iron marker set ®: denotes iron marker found : denotes existing contour line, mean sea leve! datum (,~J.d: denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea Ieve! datum Bearidgs shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the bound- · .: · aries, of the above described property. · , the location of an existing house thereon, and the location of two adj- oining houses. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. \ N 89'44-'1,V 55.00 ~%.' Tux e~o I ,.:'- ~ood i 'X I ¢, ,~_.~ 'pAl:El opexn.L 9 L I. Cj b 0 lepo~ue;bl esnoH eioqAA ~uoqo~ehl G 6/'¢ 'l:'9~'cjcj NI, N 'punolAI 'P^I8 opexn/ 9 1. Lg Jr U D UJ 3J 8 JAJ UUJF' r- I _ I I 0 J ,, I ~ I ~ I ^~]0 / penssl ~ 6/;~ ~/9 asnoH a .I-U o qo-~ :;~ O -~ 33N3QIS3~ ~ X 6 ! STRIVE TOWARD ERROR4:REE PERFORMANCE ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA: REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE~IDTH: ~ 0 I ~EXISTING LOT WIDTH: ~ ' EXISTING LOT DEPTH: )~ O ' ~/- REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL .~ILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N(.~E W ~'~f~) ' FRONT: N S,,~, W ~_ SIDE: N SIDE: N S "IE'~.~ REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: ~ ~50~:~measured from O.H.W.} TOP OF BLUFF: ACCESSORY~UILDING~GARAGE/~;HED FRONT: N~'S )E W ~)' /8 ' FRONT: N "5~E W '~ SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N_S~.~E W FRONT: N S~ SIDE: N S SIDE: N S REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: N TOP OF BLUFF: ACCESSORYy,'~UILDING/GARAG E/SHED FRONT: N S~E W "2~"~ · FRONT: N S E ~N SIDE: N S E(~) ,~ ' SIDE: N S REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: "AR~;~C~CONFORMING7 (YES'NO/? ~'~.~'d~O IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 YES~7 BY: DATE: ~summanzes a ~ requirements out,ne in t e ~ty o OUR onmg rdinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. DRAFT...DRAFT... MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 13, 1995 REQUEST TO RELEASE NATURE CONSERVATION AREA LOCATED AT ENCHANTED ~ ,~/HERON LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0064. ~ The Parks Director noted the letter received from the City Attorney and the Park Commission ~ / discussed the conclusions. Darling stated that he concluded from the attorney's letter that / it would be okay to release the parcel with a conservation easement. Casey questioned why~ ~ this should be done, and why should the City pay the attorney for more time spent on drafting -~_an~.easement. Casey suggested that they recommend the status of the parcel not be changed. Casey also noted that an estimate of the costs incurred by the attorney for services rendered relating to this issue was not supplied as requested in a motion by the Park Commission. He feels that the City is mis-allocating their money by spending more time on this issue. Byrnes questioned what use this property has to the City. The Parks Director indicated that this property is utilized for drainage purposes. Geffre referred to a letter from John Cameron dated July 16, 1986 which states that the lot needs to be retained for drainage purposes. Darling stated that it would not make sense for a purchaser to buy this property with an easement on it, because then they would not be able to utilize the land for the value they are trying to get out of it. /SUBJEC-~'"~' MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Meyer to recommend that Resolution ' ~/-- - #93-144 be reaffirmed to retain the parcel for conservation purposes· Byrnes is in favor of the property being sold without an easement. Phil Klein stated that he has not heard any comments from the Commission relating to his letter. It was his opinion, after the last meeting, that the Park Commission was not very familiar with the NCA program. Casey offered to reply to Mr. Klein's letter, item by item. SITE INVENTORY, a quote from the NCA Plan, "The remaining 30 parcels which were tax forfeited property have undergone prior review by the City. The result of the reviews that were conducted was a determination that these Parcels were of more value to adjoining property owners or other individuals than they were to the City.. · the site may be more appropriate for private ownership. In such cases, the City may consider retaining a conservation easement to protect the land..." Casey replied that the review of the 30 parcels was done prior to the adoption of the NCA plan, and since that time, the City changed its mind and created a resolution in 1992 to retain the property for conservation purposes. NCA DESIGNATION PARAMETERS, "if the potential NCA site is in an area that has significant publicly owned natural areas and unless the vegetation and features of the candidate site are truly unique, the site may be more appropriate for private ownership. In such cases, the City may consider retaining a conservation easement to protect the land." This site is directly across the street from public lakeshore commons. Philip A. Klein and Thomas Aune CC: 2 $ Ed Shukle Jim Fackler 6-26-95 June 21, 1995 Park and Open Space Commission City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Commission: We are writing this letter to better inform you of your responsibilities as advisors to the City, and at~er what we saw at your June 8th, 1995 meeting ... you need it. It is apparent to us that you may not have read the "Nature Conservation Area's Plan," as all you should have. We would like you to read it before you incur any undue expense to the taxpayers and before you make any recommendations to the City. To those of you who already have, then you should be of the same opinion as we are provided that you adhered to the Plan's intentions, and general common sense. The plan contains, in short, the following highlights of provisions we would like you study; #I ) INTRODUCTION Describes the P&OSC's involvement. It is work that some of you may be very familiar with. #2 ) SITE INVENTORY item 5 - tax forfeit property, and we quote the bottom of page 2 and top of page 4. "The remaining 30 parcels which were tax forfeited property have undergone prior review by the City. The result of the reviews that were conducted wa~ a determination that these Parcels were of more value to adioininl: vroverty owners or other in~vidu~t~. than theF were to the CitF. ' This section does include some language about retaining the lots as NCA's, but as we continue that language will be mute in comparison. #3 ) NCA DESIGNATION PARAMETERS, item 3, page 5. "If the potential NCA site is in an area that has significant publicly owned natural areas and unless the vegetation and features of the candidate site are truly unique, the site tna~ be more appropriate for private ownership. In such cases, the Cit~ malt consider retaining a conservation easement to protect the land." This site is directly across the street from public lakeshore commons. #4 ) NCA DESIGNATION PARakMETERS, item 8, page 6. This item is probably not relevant here but it does sound the theme that we are trying to drive home. "Such txtrcels may be more appropriately owned and used by private parties to provide addi_'tional buffering from the negative impacts." #5) NCA DESIGNATION PARAMETERS, item 9, page 6. The relevance to this item is very important to Mr. Aune, the addition of part of this parcel to his own would increase his hard cover calculations in respect to the City building codes. Which would give him the ability to expand the size of his home on his existing lot, without developing any of lot #1 ? Thus bringing in more tax revenue to the community. "In such cases, it wouM benefit both the community as well as the property owner to release such a parcel for sale. If the lot has unique natural characteristics, mechanisms other than NCA designation and public ownership couM be employed to ensure resource preservation. One such method would be the Cit~ retaining a conservation easement. ' This Plans theme seems to be repeating itself, don't you think? #6 ) NCA USES Item 1, page 6. There was some concern about Mr. Klein's intention with respect to alterations he proposes to make. This item classifies two major uses for an NCA: "1. Habitat - The provision of habitat for plants and animals is a valid use for Nature Conservation Areas. Depending on site characteristics, this type of use can be accommodated through the protection of existing habitat areas or through the vlantin~ or re-establishment ot' habitat where detrradation has occurred. 2. Recreation - Nature observation is a passive recreational pursuit. .... Low intensity improvements should be considered to accommodate passive recreation." II'this lot was sold to us with NCA easement, we both would conform to this plan as it is outlined. We stand to gain the most fi-om this parcel more than anyone due to close proximity. It is only Natural that we own it, care for it, and enjoy it. Everyone who passes by can also enjoy it, at our expense, not the taxpayers. "Although perhaps not specifically defined as use, aesthetics is another aspect of Nature Conservation areas. The vistas afforded by an open fieM or the colors, textures and shade ora wooded area enhance a community by providing contrast to the built environment." II #7) COST This kem strikes the taxpayer in the wallet, and the current political environment concerning taxes is not providing the funding for proper care by the city. The City should look for alternate ways of accomplishing its goal. Which brings us back to the introduction of the NCA Plan? The need for Natural Open Spaces does not require the City to own these parcels, only preserve them. #8 ) ACTION PLAN Item 4 page 11. "Investigate other methods of preserving open space areas. Establishing conservation easements on parcels sold to abutting propertlt owners or deeding various sites to organizations such as the Nature Conservancy may be viable alternatives to the City of Mound retaining ownership's of all NCA parcels." In closing, if you read or re-read the NCA Plan (July, 1993) you will see why you should recommend to the City Council that this lot be released for sale with a conservation easement. Save the taxpayer's money and come to a resolution as soon as possible. A vote at the next P&OSC meeting is not an unrealistic goal. If the City can not get a response from the City Attorney, maybe we should find a new Attorney. Sincerely, Phillip A. Klein 472-7458 Thomas Aune ~/ 472-7806 ECENEO ? AR Mr. Ed Shukl¢ City Mmmger ¢ily of Mound, MN 7 §95 Thomas M. Aune 5011 Enchanted Rd Mound MN 472-7806 Dear Mr. Shuklc, On March 4th I received a lcttcr from thc city regarding thc request to rclcasc a Naturc Conscrvation Area locatcd at Enchantcd and Heron lane on Three Points. Specifically Lot 1 Block 20, Shadywood Point. PID 13-117-24 11 0064. I contactcd Mayor Polston regarding this rcquest and he advised me to contact you. Since I purchased my home in 1987 1 have learned that this parcel once was a part of the property I have purchased and that it was let go duc to back taxes in thc early 1970's. This parcel rcmaincd as tax forfeited property until the city. acquired it in 1993 as an NCA.( an action I was not aware of or informed of by the city) Now I find that this property is again up for a status change. This property directly abuts my property to the east for the entire depth of my lot. This possible change in status requested by Mr. Phil Klein raises several concerns on my part that Mayor Polston suggested I relate to you: 1. If thc status of this property is to changc now or in thc future, That Ibc grantcd first option to purchase it. I base this on several points. Since I purchased my property in 1987 1 have taken care of thc parcel next to mc by mowing part of the front and side to kccp what would have been a largc growth of noxious weeds from forming. Due to this there arc now several arcas of Day Lib'es growing in thc front area. I have also cleared thc drainagc ditch every spring in order to prevent the ponding of water in thc back half. This drainage ditch is a drainway for the eatirc block and has considerable flow during thc spring and requires cleaning each spring. I have also cleared thc culvert on several occasions of concrete blocks that have blocked thc flow of water and disposed of them. Along with this upkeep I have also taken responsibility for clcaning up thc trash that by some means has a way of finding it's way to thc sides of streets and open areas. This trash has nm thc gambit from thc usual beer can to garhagc bags of fish cleaning remains and baby diapers aH of which I have picked up and disposed of at my own time and cost. In 1992 1 inquired to Henncpin County about thc purchase of this property (copy cncloscd) at that timc thc property was for sale to adjacent land holders only. Duc to thc fact that I J Murphy and myself wcrc thc only adjacent land holders and Murphy had no interest in it,. there was no point in purchasing it since no onc clsc could which lcit it safc until now. Had I been aware of the status change in 1993 1 would have probably purchased it then. Since this parccl was originally a part of thc property I purchased ,sale of it to any party other than myseff would havc adverse effects on my property. Since my house was built with thc two properties intact thc sale of thc adjoining property would leave thc cast Casey commented that it is his opinion this site is not appropriate for ownership because it is unique, it is neeQed for drainane purposes, and the size of the aQiacent public land is not very large. Every parcel of public space is unique and should be retained. NCA DESIGNATION PARAMETERS, "Such parcels may be more appropriately owned and used by private parties to provide additional buffering from the negative impacts." The negative impacts may in fact be more substantial by the private property owners unless we have a conservation easement that is enforceable, and the political will and money to try and enforce that. We have a problem trying to say that there are negative impacts that will be litigated by conveying that to private land owners. o NCA DESIGNATION PARAMETERS, "... it would benefit both the community as well as the property owner to release such a parcel for sale..." Casey thinks it is presumptuous that there is a benefit to the City. He is a member of the Minnesota Land Trust and on the Board of Directors for the West Metro Chapter, and one of the things they want when they get conservation easements is the land to be donated and money allocated for enforcement purposes. So there could be expenses for the both the owner and the City for enforcement and possibly legal fees to resolve issues that may occur. So, money may not be saved by the City by giving the land to a private property owner. Phil Klein noted that the City recently had to remove a fallen tree from the property. The Parks Director confirmed that the cost of removal was probably $250 to $500. Phil Klein stated it is his opinion that the lot would be better off being owned by the adjoining land owner. Chair Schmidt read Resolution//93-144 to the Commission. MOTION carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Darling, Casey, Meyer, and Geffre. Those opposed were: Ahrens, Schmidt, and Byrnes. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 24, 1995. A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. JA~IES D. LARSON, P.A. tHOMAS F. UNDERWOOD. P.A. CRAIG M. MERtZ Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, I-ARSON, UNDERWOOD ~ MERTZ A PARTNERSHIP INCLUE)ING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ONE FINANCIAL PLAZa, SUIte IlO0 t20 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-I803 June 23, 1995 RECEIVEO .;iii 2 $ TELEPHONE (61;~) 338-4200 FAX NUMBER (6i;~) 338-;~625 Re: Park and Open Space Questions Dear Ed: On June 21, 1995, you Faxed to me copies of the minutes of a Park and Open Space Commission meeting held on June 8, 1995. The first item on the agenda related to releasing a property at Enchanted and Heron Lane. The minutes state, "The Park Director explained that a legal opinion, as requested by the Park Commission, has not yet been received from the City Attorney. Ahrens questioned why it was taking the attorney so long to reply. Casey asked for a clarification of what was being requested of the attorney." I would like to start this letter by stating that no opinion had been requested from this office prior to receiving your Fax on June 21, 1995. I would also state that after reviewing the materials submitted, I would agree with Mr. Casey that there is no specific legal question being submitted to me for an opinion. I have read the materials that you sent along with copies of the minutes of March 9, 1995, and you have now also sent me a copy of a report prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. in July, 1993, entitled, "Nature Conservation Areas Plan." After reviewing all of these materials, it appears that a question is being raised relating to a lot at Enchanted and Heron Lane. Nothing that has been provided to me indicates that that lot has ever been classified as a "Nature Conservation Area" by the City Council. The materials Indicate that this property was tax forfeit and was offered to the abutting property owners. Specifically, in a memorandum dated May 1, 1992, Hennepin County offered to sell the property to Thomas M. Aune for the sum of $4,188.20. The County would also have allowed them to use some form of installment plan to pay for the property. WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ In reviewing the materials prepared by the City Planner In 1993, I note that he said that 255 parcels had been Identified in a survey as "potential nature conservation area sites." After looking at the 255 parcels, it appeared that the ones that were open for definition would be those identified in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 on page 2 of his report under Site Inventory. That covers City controlled lands, tax forfeit properties for sale to adjoining property owners only, and tax forfeit property released for public auction. There were 30 parcels in the tax forfeit category, 25 for sale to abutting owners and 5 being released for public auction. I believe the planner did a good job, and you inform me the Council has basically received and adopted the planning report as a guide for establishing a Nature Conservation Area. On page 6 of that report, paragraphs 8 and 9 spell out quite clearly how the land being discussed fits into the policy. The planner states, Zoning Status of Ad!acent Properties - Mound's histodc development pattern has resulted in properties which do not comply with current zoning standards. These parcels are classified as nonconforming lots due to vadous factors but frequently due to lot size. If a parcel eligible for NCA status lies adjacent to a lot that is nonconforming due to lot area, sale of the parcel to the abutting property owner may result in the creation of a lot that meets the zoning standards. In such cases, it would benefit both the community as well as the property owner to release such a parcel for sale. If the lot has unique natural characteristics, mechanisms other than NCA designation and public ownership could be employed to ensure resource preservation. One such method would be the City retaining a conservation easement." I would think that the Park and Open Space Commission would look at this report, and on the face of it, the land in question appears to be a good candidate for sale to the abutting owners. Apparently the abutting owners in the past made no effort to buy it for reasons known only to them, but they have now changed their mind. The enlargement of the small parcels to bring them into conformity with the zoning ordinance has been a long-standing goal of the City. In discussing this matter with you, and asking you to clarify for me what legal opinion is being sought in this case, you told me you thought they wanted to know about conservation easements. A conservation easement, a utility easement or any other type of easement, is drafted to accomplish a specific purpose and establishes the rights of a non-owner to utilize real property for some specified purpose and defines the encumbrance on the WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ property. A conservation easement or utility easement can be drawn to Indicate what can or cannot be done by the party to whom the easement runs. I take it from our conversation that some would like to prohibit any use of the land if it is sold to an abutting owner. I would question why we would want to sell it or authorize the County to sell it if it is needed for a public purpose. If it is not needed for a public purpose and is sold by the County, any restrictions that are placed on the property should allow the purchaser to use the land for some reasonable activity or there would be no purpose in their buying the property, and the value of the property would be severely diminished. This is a judgment question, and you advise me that this particular parcel has not been designated by the Council as an official Nature Conservation Area. CONCLUSION: Ed, I would make the following points: 1. No specific legal question has been posed for an answer by this office. The question of whether this property should be retained for a public purpose is a judgment call to be made by the City council after recommendation of the Park and Open Space Commission. a A conservation easement could be crafted if the fee owner was willing to consent to such an easement. I am not sure that the County will allow us to draft an individual, unique easement if they are going to sell the property to the abutting property owners. Further discussions would have to be held with the Tax Forfeit Tax Department because I am not aware of any uniquely created easement being added to property being sold by the county. The County probably would not object if the purchasers agreed to the easement language. I hope this is responsive to the question you have asked me to tn/to answer, and if you or the Park and Open Space Commission have a more specific legal question, I will certainly attempt to respond to that inquiry. I also apologize to the Park and Open Space Commission If they feel I was delaying the giving of an opinion, but as previously stated herein, no such opinion had been requested of this office. City Attorney CAP:Ih /I property line only 16 to 20 feet away from my house. The effect runs the entire depth of my property whereas sale to me would only affect 30 feet of the Klein property and would not alter his present lot line in relation to his house. As things stand now with the property being a conservation area my options as far as adding on to my house are some what limited but not nearly as bad as they would be ff this property were to be sold to Mr. Klein. If I were to purchase the property I have no intention of building on it due to it's function as a drainage path for the rest of the block. It provides a nice break from both the road and the other surrounding properties. While it is not a piece of fine trim lawn it is a nice green area. It would add considerable area to my yard and would fit in with my existing lot as it did when my house was built. Being unaware of the change in status in 1993 it had been my hope of either grandfathering the two parcels back together by taking care of the tax forfeited parcel or purchasing it outright when we decided to add on to our house. Sale of it to my wife and I would make adding on a much more attractive option as well as the resulting property more attractive to future owners than the odd property that would result from sale to Mr. Klein. In talking to several of my neighbors they agree that if the status of the parcel were to change that it would make more sense that I purchase it. 2. If the property is to remain as a NCA (which I am agreeable to over sale to Mr. Klein) as recommended in memorandum from Mr. Jim Fackler to the Park and Open Space Commission dated February 8th, that Mr. Klein be allowed to remove several small trees at the far south eastern comer of the parcel and replace them with a more astetic variety. These trees have been damaged by over growth of woodbine and probably would not fare well even if the woodbine were removed. I tried to remove the woodbine several years ago but the damage had been done. 3 Mr. Klein and I have discussed the ramifications of his purchase of the parcel and ff my efforts here have been in vain perhaps the parcel could be divided to provide for Mr. Klein's needs as well as lessen the negative impact on my property. In summary: If the property is to change from it's present status as a NCA that I be granted first option to purchase based on the history of the property as being originally part of the plot that my house was built on as well as consideration for my upkeep since 1987 and the resultant continuous lot formed by my purchase versus the odd lot created by Mr. Klein's purchase. And that consideration as to the effect on my property be given thought prior to sale. II'the parcel is to remain as a NCA that Mr. Klein be allowed to replace the above mentioned trees. I agree with it remaining as a NCA parcel. I think that this is a good program as I have watched as more and more houses have been built on smaller and smaller lots. We are loosing our open space and we need to reserve as much as we can. I liko tho lot as it is and if I did own it I would not change it. It may not b~ ovoryon¢'s idem of beautiful but to me it is far better than reaching out your window and knocking on thc side of another persons house. Thank you for your consideration on this mattor. HENNEPIN COUNTY D~PARTMEN~ 0F PROPERTY TAX & PUBLIC PJ~CORDS Tax Forfeit~ ~ Unit ~03 ~e=~nt Center ~ea~lis, ~ ~5487-0063 Date MAY 1, 1992 Property ID No. 13-117-24 11 0064(85-MOUND) DEAR MR. AUNE' THOMAS M. AUNE 5011 ENCHANTED LANE MOUND MN 55364 I HAVE ENCLOSED THE TERMS OF SALE AHD PURCHASE SETUP FORM BY WHICH YOU CAN PURCHASE THE PARCEL OW TAX FORF=_ITED LAND REFERENCED ABOVE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURREHTLY AVAILABLE FOR SALE "OVER THE COUNTER" TO ADJACENT OWNERS O.~ILY. IF YOU OPT TO PURCHASE WITH FULL PAYMENT~ PLEASE TENDER FULL PAYMENT OF $4;188.20~ PAYABLE TO HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER. CONTRACT TERMS ARE AVAILABLE~ IN WHICH CASE THE DOWNPAYMENT AMOUNT TO TENDER IS 5920.00, PAYABLE TO HENN. COUNTY TREAS. PLEASE NOTF THAT A 3% ASSURANC~ CHARGE APPLIES IN FITHF9 CAqF. pt~AqW C~MPlFTU SIGN AND HAVE NOTARIZED THE TERMS OF SALE-PURCHAS~ ~FTllP F~PM AND RETURN IT TO THIS OFF~CE. OR STOP IN AT A-~O~ GOVFRNMFNT DURING OUR 8AM-4:30PM B[JqTNFS~ HOIJR~ QFI WF~DAYq_ ~I ~qF CAll THIS OFFIC~ IF YOU HAVF ANY Q~IFKTTON~(348-3734). Phone Number 348- 3734 ENCLOSURES F~m: Philllp A. KLain To: Peggy r~etm: 2~G/~ T~me: lg.'O4:~ P~j~ 2 d ~ Phillip A. Klein 5010 Woodland Rd. Mound, MN 55364 February 6, 1995 Peggy City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Pegg,v: I am writing to you about the lot behind my house, designated by the City Council as a Nature Conservation Axea. To help bring you up to speed, please see the letter I sent to the City Manager, dated 1-2%95. (Attached). That letter should explain my httentions. The City responded to that letter by forwarding it to John Cameron, who le~ me voice mail informing me that I would have to bring lifts issue to the Park Commission. I would like the Park Commission to address this issue at their March 9, 1995, meeting. I do not know about the procedures for the Park Commission, or who the Commission members are. If you could please confirm this request and explain what happens fi'om here I would be very gratetid. Thanks! Sincerely, Phillip A. Klein 472-7458 Report for Park Commission Due Park Commission Meeting 3-9-95 City Council Meeting 3-28-95 3 -2 -95 CC: Jim Fackler John CamerXon Greg Skinner Fran Clark 2~-95 Phillip A. Klein 5010 Woodland Rd. Mound, MN 55364 1005' January 27, 1995 Subject: Lot l, Block 20, Shadywood Point (PID9 13-117-2401100064) Edward J. Shulke, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Ed: I am writing about lot 1, Block 20 Shadywood Point. I have inquired at City Hall and am unclear of the actual status of this lot. My understanding is the lot was for sale in 1985 to adjoining lot owners. It did not sell, and subsequently the City Council has recommended this parcel be classified as a Nature Conservation Area. See Letter from City of Mound, dated 11-28-93. I further understand that the City would also like to retain this lot for drainage purposes. On July 15th. 1994 I purchased lots 13 & 14, Block 20, Shadywood Point and built a new home on both lots. See attached drawing. I would like to purchase Lot #1 to enhance my property. With consideration to the changes that have taken place since the time when the lots were for sale, I propose that the city reevaluate this lot and the following alternatives; 1.) Place lot for sale to adjoining lot owners, since recent construction of home on lots 13 & 14. 2.) Place lot for sale to adjoining lot owners with drainage and conservation easements. 3.) Divide lot in half, and sell south half to adjoining lot owners with drainage and conservation easements. I believe the value of this lot is worth less on its own, than if combined with another. The combined parcels would have a greater combined value, than the sum of each alone. The sale of this lot would benefit both parties. Selling the lot would release the City from the maintenance, and lost tax revenues, while still maintaining City interest in drainage and nature conservation. I will appreciate any help you can be in working something out that is mutually benefiting to all concerned, hope to here from you soon. Sincerely, Phillip A. Klein 472-7458 105 SD-966 (Rev. 2/92) 6279570 #966 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CONVEYANCE OFFORFEITED LANDS (Issued imrsuant Itt NlmnesL)l;~ Slaluics, S¢clion 282.(ll, Subdivisio,~ I) THIS INDENTURE. made this 18th day of April. 1994. between the State of Minnesota. as party of the first part. and City of Mo~:nd. a Municipal Corporation. as party of the second part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS. the land hereinafter described was duly forfeited to the State of Minnesota to be bold tn trust tn favor of the taxing districts for the nonpayment of taxes, and. Wtt~REAS. pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 282.01. Subdivision la. the party of the second part has applied to the Commissioner of Revenue for the conveyance of lands hereinafter described to be used by tt exclusively for conservation, and. WHEREAS. unless not required mLder Minnesota Statutes Section 282.01. Subdivision lb(b), the Board of County Commlssione[s of the County of Hennepln. State of Minnesota. has recommended to the Commissioner of Revenue by resolution adopted on tile 25th day of January. 1994. that such conveyance be made. NOW'. TI-]~REFORE. the State of Minnesota. pursuant to said laws and tn consideration of the premises, does hereby grant or convey unto the party of the second part. all the tracts or parcels of land lying and being In the County of Hetmepin. State of Minnesota. described as follows, to-wit: PID # 13-117-24 11 0064 - LOT 1. BLOCK 20. SHADYWOOD POINT. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAN[E. together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or In anywise appertai~Hng, to the said party of the second part so long as It shall continue to use said land for tile purpose aforesaid, and upon condition that ff such use shall cease said land shall revert to the party of the first part as provided by law-. TIlE GRANTOR CERTIFIES that the Grantor does not know of any wells on the described rea! prope~ ~y. The State of ~.t.~meseta Is ~sulng this deed for the county and other taxing Jurisdictions and In reliance on the Auditor's certification stating no wells are located on the above described property. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. the State of Minnesota. 'party of the first part. has caused this deed to be executed In its name in the City of St. Paul. Ramsey County. Minnesota. the day and year first above written. STAT~ OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. County of munsey ) STATE OF MINNF~OT,~ Commls~io)her ~ Reven/~ /~ ,~ On this 18th day of April. 1994. before me personally appeared MICHAEl. P. WANDMACHER. the duly appointed representative of the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota. to me known to be the person who executed I.h~ fore//1oin~ conveyance in bchaK of the State of Minnesota. and ac~owledged that he executed the same as the free act and deed of said state pursuant to the statutes ~ such ca~ made ~d prodded. ",.. ~, NOTA[I f This Instrumenl was Oratiecl by The Commissioner ol Revenue Slale o~ Minnesota Del)aliment ol Revenue SI Paul, Minnesota 55146 · 'n ITl ITl ITl Z Z 0900-Lg~gg V&OS~NNI~ 'SHOdV~NNI~ i~38iS q;9 HiROS 00~ Y~N~0 &N~RN~A09 O09V $~OIAU3S 83AYdX¥.L ~LNflO0 NId~NN~H .,'SSel Jo oog$ s! Xp~)doJd ,to Jejsue. q s!~ ~o1 uo!le~PlSUOo i~,o~ et.il., CITY of MOUND ~6', 2~ -177 ,':6,?, November 28, 1993 Mr. Gordy Ramm Tax Forfeit Land Division Hennepin County A-603 Government Center Minneapolis, MN. 55487 SUBJECT: Request for Conveyance PID//13-117-24 11 0064 Dear Gordy, Enclosed is a Certified copy of Resolution//93-144 and an Application for Conveyance of the above property, described as Lot 1, Block 20, Shadywood Point. This property was released in 1985 for sale to adjoining property owners and has not sold. Since then the Park Commission has created a program called Nature Conservation Areas and they and the Council have decided they would like to see this parcel in this catagory. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Thank you. Sincerely, Francene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk cnc. printed on recycled poper October 26, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93.-144 RF~OLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS WHEREAS, there are certain lots in the City of Mound which are tax forfeit; and WttEREAS, the County has requested that the City Council either release these lots for public auction; release for private sale to adjacent owners if the parcels cannot be improved because of non-compliance with local ordinances; or request conveyance; and WHEREAS, it appears in the best interest of the City to obtain certain lots for various reasons, i.e. wetlands, storm sewer drainage, street or park purposes, or topography. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to make application to the State of Minnesota for conveyance of the lots listed below for the public purpose listed: PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION 13-117-24 11 0064 Lot 1, Block 20, Shadywood Point The forgoing resolution was moved Councilmember Jensen. PURPOSE Conservation by Mayor Johnson and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 341 October 26, 1993 1.10 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARKS & QPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS (NCA'S) The City Manager explained that the Park & Open Space Commission is recommending 7 sites for the Council to consider as Nature Conservation Areas. On August 10, 1993, the City 'Council requested the Park and Open Space Commission to recommend 6 to 8 properties as possible NCA's for the Council to review and designation of 3 to 4. The Commission recommended the following properties: PID 24-117-24 44 0196: Located between Churchill and Dundee in Arden. This property is 16,400 square feet and has retained as a park, however, has not been named or developed. 5 PID 23-117-24 31 0077: North of Bartlett, end of Rusticwood (Rustic Place). This parcel is adjacent to the School District property already preserved as a nature study area. This parcel is a relatively undisturbed remnant of "Big Woods" habitat. Classified as a Park. PID 23-117-24 22 0003: Westedge Blvd. (old sewer plant), a nice mixture of prairie, woodlands, and wetlands. This parcel is adjacent to other natural areas. Classified as a Park. PID 19-117-23 33 0216: The north half of Doone Park at Doone and Tuxedo. This is a wooded area which the Commission would like to see developed with a walking path and perhaps a wild flower garden. This area is adjacent to an undeveloped grassy open space with no play structures. PID 13-117-24 11 0064: An undersized 8,125 square foot parcel located in the R-1 zone at the comer of Enchanted and Heron in SHADYWOOD Point. For sale to adjoining property owners only. PID 14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014: Diamond Lane, across the street from Philbrook Park and retained for drainage purposes. e PID 14-117-24 44 0057: Located west of Commerce Blvd. (behind Netka's building) and south of Dakota Railroad abutting Langdon Lake. This area could be useful for a future trail system. The Council thanked the POSC for all their work on this project. They decided they would like to look at each of the parcels in the Spring and then take action on the NCA's. _. ere was concern about Parcel #5 being sold to an adjoining property owner before action can taken. Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-144 DIIO The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONVEYANCE OF THE FOLLOWING TAX FORFEIT LAND - PI]) #13- 117-24 11 0064, LOT 1, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES Motion carried. GOVT ',,, CB-I MH-I PROPOSED STORM SEWER 5 CB-2 sECTION 4 5 -! 6 16 12 RES I D~ ~0 14 15 END 14 SECTION Type of Building - Z ¥ ..J Z 0 Lots 13 and 14, Block 20, "SItApYWOOD POINT, liENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN." McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3 LAND SURVEYORS I PLANNERS July 16, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Inclustr,al Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Edward J. Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Lots 1, 13 & 14, Block 20, Shadywood Point MKA #2113 General Oear Ed: Enclosed is the correspondence from our files pertaining to the filling of the above lots the last time it was proposed in 1984. A different individual, Mr. I.J. Murphy is contemplating purchasing lots 13 and 14 and filling them to create a buildable parcel. I have met with Mr. Murphy and walked the site again to try and determine to what extent these lots could be filled. We would approve the granting of a grading permit to fill all of Lot 14 and the westerly 2/3 to 3/4 of Lot 13 to an elevation slightly above street grade without an overall grading plan. The remainder of Lot 13 and Lot i cannot be filled without such a plan due to problems that could be created. It appears that Lots 13 and 14 could be released for sale since the installation of storm sewer and the street improvement has eliminated their need for drainage purposes. As previously mentioned by myself and in ion Elams letter of September 19, 1984 to Mr. Whitman, Lot i needs to be retained by the City for drainage purposes. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron OC: tdv cc: I.J. Murphy October 17, 1984 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LANO SURVEYORS · PLANNERS ReDly To: 1~800 Industrial Park Boulevard Pl¥crlouth, Minnesota ~6~,41 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Oon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5~41 May~ood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound Lots l, l~, and 14, SHADYWOOD POINT File #211~, General Dear Jori: After our on-site inspection of the above property, I did some digging in our files and found the street improvement plans for t~is area. Enclosed is a copy of the overall plan. These plans show the storm sewer which was installed at that time and the system is located as we found it in the field. It appears that prior to the installation of storm sewer, culverts were located in Enchanted Lane and Heron Lane at the present location of the catch basins and the natural drainageway was to the north across Lots 14, 13, and 1. With the present storm sewer system in place, it does not appear this drainage swale is required any more in Lots l~ and la. Lot i is a different case ~ough. Because this lot is the lowest point in the area, it appears most of rear yard drainage goes through this lot and is picked up by the flared end t Catch Basin 2 in Enchanted Lane. It may be feasible to do some filling of this lot or possibly extending the storm sewer from Catch Basin 2 south to the rear lot lines to pick up the rear yard runoff. We would recommend that a complete grading and drainage plan of this area be prepared before any further action is taken. This plan should include ex- isting and proposed elevations of not only Lots l, 13, and la, but also the ad- jacent lots and all adjacent streets. At this time it appears possible to Oe- velop Lots 13 and la into a building site, but we would suggest looking at the entire area before releasing anything for sale. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOM8S-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. OC:sj prin:ed On rec¥cted ;33oer CITY of MOUND September 19, 1~84 5341 MAYWOO0 ROAO MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364. (612} 472-115.5 Mr. John Whitman 5028 Enchanted Road Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Mr. Whitman: RE: LOTS LOCATED ON ENCHANTED ROAD I have done some preliminary research on the lots you are interested in on Enchanted Road, Heron Lane and Woodland Road. Lots 13 and 14, Block 20, Shadywood Point, are both separate parcels and under State Land Department control. To make those available, the City would have to release them for public sale, under the condition that they be sold as one unit. Together they have 11,O84 square feet which would meet the R-I Zoning requirements for the area. Lot 1, Block 20, Shadywood Point, appears to have been taken by the City for drainage purposes. To determine whether it could be sold would require the City Engineer to evaluate the drainage area the lot serves and what alternative drainage options exist. Off the top of my head, though, it might not make alot of economic sense to sell the lot to you for say $1,000 and then have to turn around and spend $5,OOO-$6,0OO to install a revised system. Thus, this analysis will take a little longer, especially since the City Engineer is on vacation for the next two weeks. Unless all three lots were combined and then resplit, it probably would not make much sense to divide off a section of Lot 13 and recombine it with Lot 1. The remaining questions you asked either are not issues of concern of have already been answered. We will get back to you on thi~, once I.get further information from the City Engineer. Sincerely, City Manager JE:fc cc: John Cameron, City Engineer September 13, Mr. Jon Ei~ City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Jon: About a month ago you and I had a conversation about the three lots at the end of EnchanTed Road. ~nese apparently belong tO the City of Mound° They seem to have been long neglected. You suggested that for a token fee they could be leased, or that you would consider a private sale of the property. I have checked into the lots. The file for lot number 13 (_1~7 ~4__11 0067) has apparently been lost, but the fil~s'~or-~--f6~-n~'9-14 (13 117 24 11 0068) and the file for lot n,~mber 1 (13 117 ~f~-~6Z~are still intact. Lot number 1 was granted a variance in 1968, but no one followed up 'on it to construct a house on an area that did not cover 10,000 square feet° Lot number 14 serves as a drain area. I would like to propose the following to the City of Mound: 1). 2). 3)° 4). I will buy the lots for a token fee. I will clean the lots of debris, weeds and the numerous dead trees that make it such an eye- sore. I will make the lots buildable by adding fill and drainage working with the city engineer if the costs and demands by the City of Mound are not prohibitive. I will then place two homes on the three sites which should enhance the area. The advantages to the City of Mound would be: a). Getting rid of an eyesore b). Tax revenues c). No expense for the cleanup which is inevitable. I would like the City of Mound to guaranty the following: 1.) That I will be able to use the three sites for two homes. If a variance for lot number one is necessary, that it would be granted. 2.) A letter stating precisely what would be necessary to make the combined sites of lot n,~mber 14 and lot number 13 buildable. 3.) A burning permit to get rid of all the weeds, branches and accumulated debris over the years. If this proposal is a~ceptable .to you and the City of Mound, I would appreciate a reply outlining the steps necessary to bring it about. i would be willing to purchase the property in order to pursue the issue of a variance and letter from the City Engineer if the City will agree to buy the land back and pay for tS-~ legal expenses if the variance is not granted or if the expense outlined by the engineer is over a sum that you and I can agree to in advance. I hope that this proposal will benefit both the City and me in the long run° I have no doubt about its benefit to all of the homes in the immediate area. Sincerely, ~Road Mound, MN 55364 472-2784 P.S. My.wife and I have completely remodeled three homes in the past five years. She is an interior designer. If you have any questions about our ability in this area, feel free to call Ted Victor at Wayzata Mortgage Company. He had knowledge of our last two projects which have been exten- sive. Furthermore, we can get the financing to bring this project about. RESOLUTION GP~2~LYG VARIANCE (Lot 1, Block 20, ShadyMood Point) the owner of Lot 1, B19ck 20k Sha~o0d Point has asked for a variance to build on an undersized lot, and ~$, the Planning Commission has recommende~ the request be'g~mnted Provided all other building requirements are met and one addi- tional sewer .unit is picked up, : '-.~ NOW TEEREFORE 'BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUt~, MOUND, ~-h~E$0TA: '. That the lot size variance from lO,O00'.,square .feet to 8,125~. be granted provided all other building requirements and set- . backs are met and one additional sewer unit is picked up. ,ted by the-Counci! this 13th day of August, 19.68. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95-'~.~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 1, BLOCK 7, DEVON DOCK SITE #42077 WHEREAS, Gregory Knutson has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow reconstruction of a stairway on Devon Commons, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a fourrfifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the stairway will provide access to dock site #42077 on Devon Commons, WHEREAS, the existing retaining wall is in good condition, and; WHEREAS, the light located on Devon Common was approved by Resolution #92-13. The '~ ' -~~ *o ~CD WHERE - - ' ~ ~ A~, sna~rways are considered permissible by the Use Plan for Devon Commons and also by the new Shoreland Management Ordinance, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approval of a special permit to allow a private structure on public lands known as Devon Commons, abutting dock site #42077, subject to the following conditions: This permit includes the existing retaining wall and the applicant shall continue to be responsible for repair and maintenance. subject to the following: ~A shield--~sha!!__he installed ~ lights, as approved by the Parks This permit includes the light pole with two spot lights, on the spot Director. Proposed Resolution Knutson p. 2 b) Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City Building Official. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. The applicant is responsible for the installation, costs, labor, and maintenance. The stairway shall be completed within one (1) year of City Council approval. If the stairway has not been completed within one year of the date of approval of this permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. DRAFT...DRAFT... MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 13, 1995 GREGORY KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DEVON COMMON, DOCK SITE #42077. REQUEST TO REPLACE STAIRWAY. The applicant is requesting approval to replace the existing stairway located on Devon Common used to access his dock. The light located on Devon Common was approved by Resolution #92-13. The light must be shielded according to LMCD regulations. This site also contains an existing retaining wall that is in good condition at this time. Staff recommended the Park Commission recommend approval of a 5 year permit to allow construction of a stairway at Dock Site #42077, subject to the following conditions: This permit includes the existing retaining wall and the applicant shall continue to be responsible for repair and maintenance. 2. This permit includes the light pole with two spot lights, subject to the following: a. A shield shall be installed on the spot lights, as approved by the Parks Director. b. Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City Building Official. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. 4. The applicant is responsible for the installation, costs, labor, and maintenance. The stairway shall be completed withih one (1) year of City Council approval. If the stairway has not been completed within one year of the date of approval of this permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. Knutson confirmed that the stereo speakers, as referred to in a previous resolution, have been removed. Knutson also confirmed that the stairway will be construct in the same location as the existing stairs, and they will be constructed to code. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Darling, to recommend approval of the public land permit to allow reconstruction of a stairway on Devon Common, Dock Site #42077, as recommended by staff. Casey commented that it is his opinion the these new stairways should not have to be built to code. It is his opinion that these stairways are over-built, over-safe, and they detract from the shoreline, they look like cattle chutes. Ahrens noted that it was the former council that voted in favor of requiring the stairs be constructed to code, and noted that if this was private shoreline, a permit would not be required. Planning Commission Minutes Draft July 13, 1995 P. 2 Knutson questioned the issue with his light. He stated that the bulbs are frosted, and he has checked with several places and nobody sells shields. His light does not shine into the lake, and it does not stay on all night. The Parks Director stated that he can work with the applicant on this issue, and it is his opinion that if the light is adjusted so it does not shine into the lake it is probably okay. Meyer agreed that the City could ease up on the code requirements for stairways. The Commission determined to place on the next Park and Open Space Commission meeting agenda the discussion of stairways. There was discussion relating to the requirement for an electrical inspection, and Ahrens questioned what the electrical inspector looks at when a light is existing. What is involved in an after-the-fact electrical inspection? Is it really needed? Darling noted that the consequences of having hazardous electrical service on the commons should be considered. MOTION carried with 6 in favor and I abstention. Those in favor were: Darling, Meyer, Byrnes, Schmidt, Casey, and Geffre. Ahrens abstained. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 24, 1995. The issue of electrical inspections was further discussed. Schmidt questioned the consequences of a dock license not be issued. The Parks Director confirmed that no dock licenses have been denied to-date due to noncompliance of a public land permit. Meyer suggested that the Electrical Inspector attend a meeting or provide an explanation about after-the-fact electrical inspections and inspections on commons property. The Commission agreed and direct staff to follow-through. CITY OF MOUND Memorandum 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: July 13, 1995 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official -~-J~J[ ~-~ - Jim Fackler, Parks Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION TO REPLACE STAIRWAY APPLICANT: Gregory G. Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive LOCATION: DOCK SITE #42077, DEVON COMMONS, SHORELINE TYPE 'D' Applicant's Request The applicant is requesting approval to replace the existing stairway located on Devon Common used to access his dock. Backaround and Comments The light located on Devon Common was approved by Resolution #92-13. The light must be shielded according to LMCD regulations. This site also contains an existing retaining wall that is in good condition at this time. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Park Commission recommend approval of a 5 year permit to allow construction of a stairway at Dock Site #42077, subject to the following conditions: 1. This permit includes the existing retaining wall and the applicant shall continue to be responsible for repair and maintenance. 2. This permit includes the light pole with two spot lights, subject to the following: a. A shield shall be installed on the spot lights, as approved by the Parks Director. b. Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City Building Official. printed on recycled paper Staff Report - July 13, 1995 Knutson P. 2 The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. The applicant is responsible for the installation, costs, labor, and maintenance. The stairway shall be completed within one (1) year of City Council approval. If the stairway has not been completed within one year of the date of approval of this permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. JS:pj The abutting dock site holders have been notified of this request. This request will be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound. MN 55364 Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 ~ BUILDING OFFICIAL~ DNR MCWD DATE RECEIVED PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE ne)'cONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I--I I__1 I--I I~1 I I__1 PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CONTINUATION OP STRUCTUI~E - to allow an existing improvement to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). LAND /%LTE~ATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). ~he ;;ruPture o; ,or~ you are requesting is an activity on publici~ own;d lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. Ail permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Applicant Name ~~ ~/~/_\/ ~t~--~'~_~'~,~ /<~t/C/ ~~/ Address' ~ 7 ~ / ~?~ ~/~ ~ ~ ~ Phone (home) V~ ~ ~ (work) ~~~ ~utting Address Property Owner Legal Lot Block Description Subd. Publ i~ Name L ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Property Dock Site ~ Shoreline Type Contractor Name ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Address Phone VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE t~~~ Sig~ ~caht' 16 January 28, 1992 PROPOSED RESOLUTION %92-13 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 3 YEARS RENEWABLE TO ALLOW A LIGHT POLE WITH TWO SPOT LIGHTS, AND AN ELECTRICAL OUTLET, DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE #42077, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 7, LOT 1, DEVON WHEREAS, Greg Knutson has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow an existing light pole with two spot lights, an electrical outlet, and stereo speakers to remain on Devon Commons, Dock Site #42077, abutting property 4701 Island View Drive, Block 7, Lot 1, Devon, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the subject light pole was erected by a previous owner without Council approval and without the proper electrical permit, and; WHEREAS, the subject light serves security and safety purposes for the general public traversing this portion of the commons and the adjacent public access / fire lane. WHEREAS, the lights do not shine out into the lake, only on the shore and beach area WHEREAS, no complaints have been received relating to the stereo speakers and the outlet is used for a weed whip to trim the commons area, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval by a 6-1-1 vote. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit to continue the use of the subject light pole with two spot lights, and an electrical outlet upon the following conditions: ae The permit is approved for three (3) years from the date of City Council approval, at which time an application may be made to renew the permit. be The electrical line be located and shown on a site plan for City records. 17 Ce 17 January 28, 1992 Shielding of the spot lights on the pole to be as recommended by the Park Director. Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City. e. Elimination of the stereo speakers by May 15, 1992. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Mayor Johnson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attes~: City Councilmember Ahrens abstained. Plat off Survey for ]~.7 L, S~den of Lot 1, Block 7, Devon Hennepin County, Minnesota Scale= 1" = 30' Date : 6-16-71 o : Iron ~arker Certificate of Survey: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct represen- tation of a survey of the bou~dariel' of Lot 1, Block 7, Devon. It does not purport to show i~provemente or encroachments. Gordon R. Coffin g. No. Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota / 15 14 ~o ' ~'' tO' / RECEIVED PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4705 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 2, BLOCK ?, DEVON DOCK SITE #42117 WHEREAS, Lands Permit Commons, and; Gene Smith has applied for a Construction on Public to allow reconstruction of a stairway on Devon WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the stairway will provide access to dock site #42117 on Devon Common, and; WHEREAS, and; the existing retaining wall is in good condition, WHEREAS, stairways are considered permissible by the Use Plan for Devon Commons and also by the new Shoreland Management Ordinance, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a special permit to allow a private structure on public lands known as Devon Commons, abutting dock site #42117, subject to the following conditions: This permit includes the existing retaining wall, and the applicant shall continue to be responsible for repair and maintenance of the retaining wall. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. The applicant is responsible for the installation, costs, labor, and maintenance. The stairway shall be completed within one (1) year of City Council approval. If the stairway has not been completed within one year of the date of approval of this permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. DRAFT...DRAFT... MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 13, 1995 GENE SMITH, 4705 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DEVON COMMON, DOCK SITE #42117. REQUEST TO REPLACE STAIRWAY. The applicant is requesting approval to replace the stairway located on Devon Common used to access their dock. The existing retaining wall received a permit in 1978 and is in good condition. Staff recommended the Park Commission recommend approval of a 5 year permit to allow construction of a stairway at Dock Site #42117, subject to the following conditions: This permit includes the existing retaining wall, and the applicant shall continue to be responsible for repair and maintenance of the retaining wall. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. 3. The applicant is responsible for the installation, costs, labor, and maintenance. The stairway shall be completed within one (1) year of City Council approval. If the stairway has not been completed within one year of the date of approval of this permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Geffre, to recommend approval of the public land permit to allow reconstruction of a stairway on Devon Common, Dock Site #42117, as recommended by staff. MOTION carried with 6 in favor and I abstention. Those in favor were: Darling, Meyer, Byrnes, Schmidt, Casey, and Geffre. Ahrens abstained. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 24, 1995. CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: July 13, 1995 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official .-~ Jim Fackler, Parks Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION TO REPLACE STAIRWAY APPLICANT: Gene Smith, 4705 Island View Drive LOCATION: DOCK SITE #42117, DEVON COMMON, SHORELINE TYPE 'D' Aoolicant's Reouest The applicant is requesting approval to replace the stairway located on Devon Common used to access their dock. Background and Comments The existing retaining wall received a permit in 1978 and is in good condition. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Park Commission recommend approval of a 5 year permit to allow construction of a stairway at Dock Site #42117, subject to the following conditions: This permit includes the existing retaining wall, and the applicant shall continue to be responsible for repair and maintenance of the retaining wall. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. The applicant is responsible for the installation, costs, labor, and maintenance. The stairway shall be completed within one (1) year of City Council approval. If the stairway has not been completed within one year of the date of approval of this permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The abutting dock site holders have been notified of this request. City Council on July 25, 1995. This request will be heard by the PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, ~341 Maywood Road, Mound. MN Phone. 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 55364 MCWD DATE RECEIVED PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE ~check~one)= ,__, CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. I I I I__1 NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. Ail permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Applicant Name C~. Phone (home) ~..~- ~0 (work) Abutting Address ~~~~% ~ ~ Property Owner ~_. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ Legal Lot ~ Block Description Subd. Public Name~~ Property Dock Site ~ ~]~ Shoreline Type Contractor Name ~~ ~~ ~~ Address Phone VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): ature of Applicant Date 8 7t o o ¢2 PUTMAN ROAD ,,, ~ ..// / / ,74.°14 -fi, DRAFT...DRAFT... MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 13, 1995 CITY OF MOUND, PROPOSED STAIRWAY AT AMHURST LANE, ACCESS TO DEVOP COMMON. The City of Mound is proposing to install a new stairway located on Amhurst Lane which is used to provide access to Devon Common. Public stairways that are being installed are constructed according to the attached handout as approved by the Building official. Staff recommended the Park Commission recommend approval of a permit to allow construction of a stairway on Amhurst Lane. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. Ahrens polled the Commission to find out who visited the site. None of the Commissioners, other than Ahrens, visited the site. Photographs were reviewed by the Commission. The Secretary informed the Commission that a phone call was received from Janet Nelson who stated that she is in favor of the stairway because recently she suffered from a stroke and it is difficult for her to walk down the steep hill. Nelson also stated that they have had a dock site there for 20 years and her children often fish from their dock. Glenn Hurd, owner of the property two houses down from the proposed stairway, stated that he never sees anyone fishing from those docks, and he thinks that this is the first year the Nelson's have had a boat on their dock. Mr. Hurd stated that they are opposed to the stairway, they are afraid that nonresidents will use the stairway to access the area for fishing. They also feel that the stairway will be too close to their neighbors house as the access is only 15 feet wide. Darling questioned staff why the stairway was proposed. The Parks Director stated that the elevation is very steep slope and this is an area where there are nonabutting dock sites. He feels it is the City's responsibility to provide for safe access to designated dock sites. The estimated cost of the stairway is $3,150, and it will have a life expectancy of 50 years. Fackler stated that a wooden stairway would cost only $1.00 less per tread, but would only last about 10 years. The number of docks which would utilize the stairway was reviewed. It was determined that there are 4 nonabutting dock sites and 2 abutting dock sites in this area. Tom Aune, who is a nonabutting dock site holders, stated that he does not feel it is worth it to spend that much money on a stairway, he is a healthy person and feels the hill is navigable. Darling noted that there is no representation to support the stairway. SUBJECT % ~;~/ MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Ahrens, to recommend to the City Council that the stairway not be installed. Ahrens noted that when abutters have to install a stairway to access their dock, it is not subsidized by the City. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND Memorandum 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: July 13, 1995 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff Jori Sutherland, Building Official ~P}~ '~ Jim Fackler, Parks Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION TO REPLACE STAIRWAY APPLICANT: City of Mound LOCATION: AMHURSTLANE, ACCESSTO DEVON COMMON / Applicant's Request ~ ')~5~'tl('-- ~ The City of Mound is proposing t~eplace the stairway located on Amhurst Lane which is used to provide access to Devon Common. Background and Comments tcLlI~.~ Public stairways that are being replaced are constructed according to the attached handout as approved by the Building official. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Park Commission recommend approval of a permit to allow construction of a stairway on Amhurst Lane. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code as approved by the Building Official. JS:pj The abutting dock site holders have been notified of this request. City Council on July 25, 1995. This request will be heard by the printed on recycled paper REVISED 7/12/95 CC' PARK COMMISS[0N PUBLIC LAND PEP-MIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Ma~wood Road, Mound· Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 55364 DIet'RIp. ION: BUILDING OFFICI~L P~S DIRECTOR DNR MCWD DATE RECEI%~ED P~/~K ME~ING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE 6126195 lcheck ~one): s~--t CONaTItUCTION ON PUBLIC ~ PERMIT - new consnruc=ion. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Sec=ion 3~0, Subd. 1). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Sec=ion 320, Subd. 3). CONTINIrATION OF STRUCTURE - =o allow an existing improvement ~o remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ~--~ I~ ]%LTF~TION- change in shoreline, drainage, slope, ~rees vege~anion, I I . ' fill, e~c. (City Code Section 320, Su~d. 4). The structure or work you are requesting is an ac~ivit~ on ~ublicl~ owned lands. Structures like hoot houses, patios· sheds, etc. ara all NONCONFORMING USES. It.is the intent of the Cit~ ~ bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are grante~ for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Applicant Name City of Mound Ad,tess 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone (home) (work) 472-0600 ~utting Address Am~urst Lane ProDert¥ O%mer C~ty of M0~nd Legal Lot between 1 & 10 Block between 14 & Description Subd. Devon ,,. P~lic Name Amhurst Lane Property Dock Site # 43235-~3450 Shoreline Type B contractor Name C0nceot Landscaping Address 3153 Priest Lane, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 472-4118 - 3 V~LUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING I~BOR & ~TERI~LS): $3,150 ....... DESCRIBE P~QErEST & pLT~DOSE: Install new concrete stairway w~th Dime handrail to provide safe access to Devon Common and direct access to 6 dock s!r~s, Der attached, Date DOUGLAS NELSON 4828 ISLAND VIEW MOUND, MN 55364 BRIAN JOHNSON 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND, MN 55364 MARK RECKINGER 4841 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND, MN 55364 THOMAS AUNE 5011 ENCHANTED ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 DOUG FE]-FER 3025 DUNDEE LANE MOUND, MN 55364 DOUG SMITH 4849 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND, MN 55364 ) : : : : : : 551 : :45265 Devon Common :Common : :Devon | ~MareK, Jerry : : ~Nelsons Douglas : :4829 Island View Dr : :4828 Island View Dr REC# Sty:Site_~:Class~Land_Type :Type:Site~older .......... . ...... + ..... + ..... + ~Address : 472-4614~788-8526~ : : 472-5085:574-5520: : : : :Common : : A :45555-J~ ~D~o~ : : :Common : : : : I :Common : : . _ :455~0-._:B : : :Common Johnson ,__Bcian :' :Reckinge~.~a~k--_ :~B~l_Isiand V~ew. Dr__|.q72~5596.:~&281 : : : ~une ~_~homaL ....... : SH__~'Fe[.te~._Doug ............ ~025_Dundee__Lane ........ 472-5414|~58-145! :Biermann, Brad 5106 Windsor Road 472-1485:8~2-451& LSmi t.h .__Doug : : ...... __J' Goldberg, Mark : ! __48~_cl_I '~ 1 ancL _V_i ew. DM__: a72_-.~4b !: 5Z4_-_65Q- , ! 4855_Island View.O~ 472.4624: : : STAIRWAYS 1988 UBC Section 3306 Minimum Width: 36 Inches (private stairways serving an occupant load of less than 49 persons - Section B) Minimum Run: 9 Inches Maximum Ris~: 8 Inches Headroom: Handrails: 6 feet 8 inches (measured vertically from a plane parallel and tangent to the stairway tread nosing to the soffit above at all points - Section P) Shall be placed not less than 34 inches nor more than 38 inches above the nosing of treads. Rail end shall be returned or terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. Note attached handout for acceptable designs. HANDRAILS ON STAIRWAYS AND CONCRETE STEPS MUST BE PROVIDED IF THREE OR MORE RISERS. Also, provide on both sides if open stairway - Section J. Handrails projecting from a wall shall have a space of not less than I 1/2 inches between the wall and the handrail, The handgrip portion of handrails shall be not less that 1 1/2 inches nor more than 2 inches in cross-sectional dimension and shall have a smooth surface with no sharp corners, Landings: Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of "36 inches. A door swinging over a landing shall not reduce the width of the landing to less than one-half its required width at any position in its swing nor by more than 7 inches when fully open - UBC 3306(g). Ends of handrails, including those on private stairways, shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. 6'8" MINIMUM HANDRAIL J SeC. 330~' (?' 34".36" , M^x,MuM OCCUPANT LOAD LESS THAN 10 (Private ' Stairway) MINIMUM RUN MAXIMUM TREAD RUN VARJANCE OF 3/8 INCH. MAXIMUM RISER VARIATION OF 3/8". HANDRAIL MEASURED TO THE TOP OF RAIL. THERE SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 12 FEET VERTICALLY BETWEEN LANDINGS. 8 LAKE MINNETONKA COMMONS DIAMOND STEPS 25 TREADS WITH HANDRAIL 6" RISER 12"TREAD ISLANOVlEVV DRIVE AMHURST TYPICAL CROSS SECTION DIAMOND STAIR 3/4"- COMPACTE 12" DIAMOND TREAD DIAMOND TREAD DIAMOND TREAD UNEXCAVATED CLAY SOiL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1996 (YEAR XXI) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Mound, Minnesota has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1995 (Year XXI) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and, WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program, and the city is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and, WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement and appropriate Third Party Agreement, which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Council to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreement on behalf of the City. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 95-30 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH TO ALLOW A PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT 2451 FAIRVlEW LANE NO~I. CE-tS-HERE~ GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, M~ will meet in the ~;ouncil Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on T~esdav, Auaust 8_.~1995 td consider the issuance of a conditional use permit for St. J "'ohcCs-Eutt1~neran Church, located within the R-1 Single Family Zoning District, to allow a parking lot expansion. A variance to the parking stall size requirement is also being requested. The subject property is located at 2451 Fairview Lane and 2450 Wilshire Blvd. The legal description is summarized as follows: Tracts A - G, RLS No. 739, PID #24-117-24 12 0014, and; That part of Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit D, PID #24-117-24 12 0058, and; That part of Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit D, PID #24-117-24 12 0059. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. '- ~~g g~y~a~Cn~e(~,~p I a~~ n i~t a ry Mailed to property owners within 350' by July 26, 1995, and published in The Laker on July 24, 1995. 1 printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 95-19 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-IN BANKING FACILITY (RETAILING ESTABLISHMENT) IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AT 5211 SHORELINE DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 8, 1995 to consider the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow a Drive-in Banking Facility at 5211 Shoreline Drive (next to Hardee's and in front of Jubilee Foods). Variances are also being requested for the number of parking spaces and to allow a second pylon sign. The legal description of the subject property is summarized as follows: Lots 7 through 20 inclusive, also Lots 26 through 35. PID #13-117-24 34 0072. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Pe~g-~l'{~m~t~, Pla/~ning Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350' by July 28, 1995, Published in "The Laker" July 24, 1995, prtnted on recycled paper RESOLUTION//95 - luly 25, 1995 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH - JULY 29 -30, 1995 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, approves the Exemption from Lawful Gambling License application for Our Lady of the Lake Church, 2385 Commerce Blvd., Mound, Mn. 55364, for a bingo, raffle and pull-tabs, July 29 and 30, 1995. 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 Manager BILLS July 25, 1995 BATCH 5072 $190,018.29 TOTAL BILLS $190,018.29 ,o ? 7.° ? Z~ r-z I ,~1 ITl c n Z ,ff- ~Jr'~ ? ~° Z Z -, CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT June 1995 50.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Sen/ices Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments June 1995 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,254,200 0 0 (1,254,200) 0.00% 9,800 460 3,319 (6,481) 33.87% 66,000 9,754 43,703 (22,297) 66.22% 888,590 4,988 34,768 (853,822) 3.91% 47,850 727 3,837 (44,013) 8.02% 60,000 5,678 32,665 (27,335) 54.44% 81,900 7,847 15,934 (65,966) 19.46% O 972 5,745 5,745 N/A TOTAL REVENUE 2~408~340 30~426 139 971 ~ 5.81% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FU ND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 325,785 30,560 173,513 (152,272) 53.26% 88,320 6,247 60,670 (27,650) 68.69% 1,400,000 145,568 648,200 (751,800) 46.30% 400,000 33,080 188,738 (211,262) 47.18% 730,000 60,338 346,101 (383,899) 47.41% 5,650 100 1,125 (4,525) 19.91% 70,800 380 70,267 (533) 99.25% 07/12/95 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT June 1995 50.00% June 1995 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 69,330 2,006 38,266 31,064 55.19% Pro motions 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00% Cable TV 1,380 0 99 1,281 7.17% City Manager/Clerk 184,000 10,339 82,358 101,642 44.76% Elections 2,670 44 1,893 777 70.90% Assessing 51,700 52,304 52,616 (916) 101.77% Finance 155,920 10,769 77,678 78,242 49.82% Computer 24,800 0 11,031 13,769 44.48% Legal 103,520 2,142 46,195 57,325 44.62% Police 833,350 57,365 367,095 466,255 44.05% Civil Defense 4,610 291 1,226 3,384 26.59% Planning/Inspections 162,280 11,634 65,275 97,005 40.22% Streets 400,860 28,630 185,442 215,418 46.26% City Property 101,160 5,104 52,798 48,362 52.19% Parks 133,530 10,787 52,756 80,774 39.51% Summer Recreation 28,960 0 0 28,960 0.00% Contingencies 15,000 1,011 9,517 5,483 63.45% Transfers 140,960 10,587 63,520 77,440 45.06% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2~418~030 203~013 1 ~107~765 1 ~31 0~265 45.81% Area Fire Service Fund 285,330 21,688 114,019 1 71,311 39.96% Recycling Fund 118,590 20,810 73,939 44,651 62.35% Liquor Fund 197,410 13,459 96,999 100,411 49.14% Water Fund 371,690 28,051 1 85,183 186,507 49.82% Sewer Fund 1,01 9,480 85,246 528,276 491,204 51.82% Cemetery Fund 5,840 556 1,444 4,396 24.73% Docks Fund 78,700 8,359 32,665 46,035 41.51 % exp95 07/12/95 G.B. .gue of Minnesota Cities 1~6ENED ,-'dL Z ! ~ 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55126-8044 To: From: Date: Subject: Managers, Administrators, Clerks, Cities over 5,000 population James F. Miller, Executive Director July 10, 1995 NLC Congress of Cities, November 29-December 2, 1995 - Phoenix, AZ Registration Complete Immediately A brochure outlining the conference program and registration information for the 1995 NLC Congress of Cities is enclosed. It is extremely important that hotel reservations be made as soon as possible. The earlier your city returns registration forms and requests for hotel accommodations, the more likely you will receive your first choice. Please note that LMC has reserved 70 rooms at the Doubletree Suites and 30 rooms at the Wyndam Garden Hotel for Minnesota delegates. To stay at one of these, write "Minnesota bloc" on your hotel selection form and designate which is your first and second choice. Note that both are some distance from the Convention Center and will require shuttle service or a car. Of course, you may select any hotel if you do not wish to stay with the Minnesota delegation. Conference Program Highlights As in previous years, there are several pre-conference training seminars listed in the brochure. These do provide worthwhile opportunities for city officials to get additional training and leadership skills. Most do involve separate registration and costs. If the League can be of any assistance to you, please contact us. Enc. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER (612)490-5600 1-800-925-1122 TDD (612)490-9038 Fax (612)490-0072 MINUTES OF A MF ETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 199 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Ed Surko, and Becky Glister, City Council Representative Mark Hanus, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioners Frank Weiland and Lisa Crum were absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Gene and Brenda Peterson, Cheryl and Richard Vogel, Phil and Eva Hasch, Bob and Jan Mitchell, John Fitzgerald, Hattie Jensen, Craig Henderson, Robert Williams, and Bob Schumack. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 1995 were presented for approval. Michael requested that his comment on page 4, after the motion, be amended to clarify that he "does" share Mueller's concerns. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 1995 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 95-23: MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT, 2415 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 9 - 13t BLOCK 3t SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT Dt PID 24-117-24 21 0034. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - STORAGE BUILDING. PUBLIC N~RING. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The Mound Fire Department is proposing to add a 16' x 20' storage building addition to the existing well house behind the fire station. Local Government Buildings require a conditional use permit in the R-1 zone. The existing well house building is in a location that is screened from public view because of existing vegetation and due to its location in the rear of the fire station. As a result, the addition should not pose any negative impact to the surrounding residential properties nor should it have any impact on City Hall. The technical aspects of the proposed building expansion can be addressed at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve a conditional use permit for the Mound Fire Department to construct an addition to the existing well house subject to the following conditions: In order to properly address design and code issues pertaining to the addition of a storage building to the existing well house, building permit plans shall be prepared by an Architect registered in the State of Minnesota. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 The materials and appearance of the proposed storage building addition shall match the existing structure. The structure shall be completed in conformance with all building, fire and health code requirements. Drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Utility Superintendent and City Engineer. Mueller questioned if a variance should be required for the building materials. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no persons present to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit, as recommended by staff, with conditions. Staff shall verify prior to the City Council meeting if a variance should be required for the building materials. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 8, 1995. CASE 95-24: GENE & BRENDA PETERSON, 6017 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, LOT 18, BLOCK 6, HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 43 0031. VARIANCE - ADDITION. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a two level addition and a lower deck on the lakeside that are nonconforming to the required setbacks. This property is a lot of record in the R-1 single family zone which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 and 10 feet, and a lakeshore setback of 50 feet to the ordinary high water level of 929.4. Impervious surface coverage is conforming at 40% for a lot of record. Two previous variances have been granted for this property by Resolutions #74-261, and #90-30. The existing entryway has a very poor layout. The landing is small and is located directly adjacent to a stairway that causes a dangerous condition that the applicant refers to in their request. The proposed encroachment of one foot into the side yard setback has a minimal impact on the adjoining property, however, the entryway could be reduced in size to have a conforming setback. The proposed 10 foot deck extends out slightly farther than the existing upper deck, and results in a nonconforming lakeshore setback of approximately 47+- feet. The 10 foot width provides a functional deck and is a minimal encroachment into this setback. The adjacent property to the west is slightly closer to the lake. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 The 8' x 10' storage shed has a nonconforming side yard setback of approximately 0 feet and a nonconforming setback to the lake of approximately 35 feet. The shed was recently reconstructed, which did not require a building permit, however, does require a variance due to its location. Due to topography, and the recreational use of the lake it is reasonable to have a shed in this location. The shed is tucked into the hillside and was existing prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as modified by the suggestion of staff that the entryway be constructed with a conforming 10 foot side yard setback. If recommended by the commission, staff will prepare a resolution that captures similar wording as noted in the previous Resolution #90-30. The Building Official.verbally added to his report that both the house and shed are built into a bluff, and a variance will also need to be recognized to the bluff setback requirement. The shed is located at the toe of the bluff. Mueller asked if the shed could be relocated to a conforming location. Mueller also noted that the 929.4 elevation is not shown on the survey. The Building Official noted that the shoreline is riprapped and the shoreline as indicated on the survey is a fairly accurate representation of the ordinary high water mark. The applicant, Gene Peterson, distributed photographs to the Commission depicting the minimum impact the entry addition will have on the adjacent property. He also stated that the houses on either side are located closer to the lake than his house. Peterson stressed the usefulness of the shed due to the steep slope. The Building Official commented that it would be difficult to carry a lawn mower up and down the stairway, and confirmed that the appearance of the shed is good. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the shed walls help retain the hillside. Bob Richards, owner of property across the street at 6023 Cherrywood Road, commented that his only concern is the placement of overhead electrical wires. The applicant confirmed that these wires will not be altered with this addition. Mueller confirmed with the applicant that the previously approved resolution was recorded at the County. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance, as requested by the applicant, to include a 1 foot side yard setback variance for the entry addition. The negative setback into the bluff is also recommended to be recognized. Findings of fact inclu4e: 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 If the size of the entry addition was reduced, it would not allow for windows which are needed in to allow for natural lighting. A shed at the toe of the bluff is a reasonable use due to topography. - The walls of the shed assist in retaining the hillside. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 25, 1995. CASE 95-25: ROBERT MITCHELLt 4360 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT 81, PHELPS ISLAND PARKS FIRST DIV. t PID 19-117-23 13 0014. VARIANCE - DECK. The applicant is seeking a variance to replace and slightly enlarge a lakeside deck. The existing deck is 6 feet in width and the applicant is requesting a deck that is $ feet wide. The request results in a 37 foot setback and a 13 foot variance to the required 50 foot setback. All other setbacks and impervious surface coverage are conforming. The adjacent property at 4350 Wilshire received a 32.7 foot lakeside variance in 1992 to allow a 2-1/2 story addition, however, the buildable footprint in that case was more restricted. This site is narrow and somewhat limited by the lake contour and Wilshire Blvd. which angles in creates the beginning of a pie shaped lot. This coupled with the fact that the deck is minimally sized and a reasonable use of the property results in a favorable recommendation in this case. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. CASE 95-26: ROXANNE LANGE & CLOUDINE DICK, 5060 GLENDALE ROAD, LOT 22 & NELY 1/2 OF 21t BLOCK 5t SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT Bt PID 24-117- 24 12 0034. VARIANCE - DECK. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a conforming deck on the rear of the house. A resolution in 1973 allows the current situation of the existing nonconforming setback, impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 4.35' to the dwelling in order to construct a conforming 12' x 12' deck, as proposed. 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Motion by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1995. CASE 95-27: CHERYL & RICHARD VOGEL, 1779 WILDHURST LANE, LOT 3 & P/4, BLOCK 13, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0019. V]~RIANC~ - DECK/PORCH. The applicants are requesting a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the dwelling in order to construct a conforming deck and screen porch on the lakeside. Miscellaneous remodeling is also proposed, however, does not require a variance. This property is located in the R-1 zone which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet to the property line abutting Wildhurst Lane, a side yard setback of 6 and 10 feet, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water is also required. The dwelling is nonconforming to the front yard setback by 14.2 feet and to the side yard by 5.89 feet. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. The encroachment on the west side of the property may require the review and direction of the City Attorney. The addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the non-conforming status. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks. The owner, Richard Vogel, confirmed that he does have an easement for the encroachment. MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the stipulation that proof of an easement be provided prior to the City Council meeting. Mueller questioned the possibility of a lot line rearrangement. Mr. Vogel stated that they have already tried to pursue the possibility with the neighbor and he was not in favor of the idea. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the city Council on July 25, 1995. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 CASE 95-28: ROBERT SCHUMACK & ROBERT WILLIAHS, SHOB~LINE AUTOMOTIVE, 4S3X SHORELINE DRIVEt LOTS 1-4m21 & P/$ & Z0t BLOCK SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID 13-117-24 44 0014. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - MINOR AUTO REPAIR & OPEN SALES LOT. PUBLIC HEARING. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the staff report. Since 1969, this property has received 9 different conditional use permits, cumulatively accounting for all of the allowed uses on the parcel. The basis of the original permit approval is the site's use as a motor fuel station. During the past year, the principal use has changed from a motor fuel station to a minor auto repair facility and open sales lot. The location of the site is at the entrance to the City of Mound and across the street from the community sign making this business visibly prominent. Staff suggested that both functional and aesthetic factors be applied when reviewing the proposed change in use of this site. The applicant's proposal involves using the subject site for the following purposes. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Minor Auto Repair Tire Repair Valve Jobs Service Maintenance on Vehicles Gas Welding Open Sales Lot (Total number of vehicles not to exceed 10) Ail of the proposed uses are currently allowed on the site. Uses no longer being required are "motor fuel station" and "sales of small miscellaneous fishing tackle and live bait. In the case of motor fuel stations, vehicle repairs have been a secondary rather than primary use. The change from the principal business activity being a motor fuel station to the principal activity being a minor auto repair facility will increase the potential number of vehicles to be parked on the site for longer periods of time. This raises the questions of possibly limiting the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked on the site. The proposed uses are currently allowable on the site and the permit modification is being completed in order to bring the principal business activity on the property in line with the permit. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve a conditional use permit for a "minor auto repair facility" replacing all previous permits and specifically allowing the following: Planning Commission Minutes July I0, 1995 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Minor Auto Repair Tire Repair Valve Jobs Service Maintenance on Vehicles Gas Welding Open Sales Lot, limited to a total of 10 vehicles on- site, three (3) of which can be on the north side of the site and seven (7) of which may be behind the fence area. It is further recommended that the approval of the uses is subject to the following conditions: Ail signage on the property, including signs painted on windows, shall comply with the Mound Sign Ordinance. No signage shall be placed on any fencing. Vehicles for sale on the site shall be limited to a total of ten (10), three (3) of which can be parked in the area on the north side of the property as shown on Exhibit 95-1 and seven (7) of which must be parked within the fence enclosure. Because of the limited interior garage capacity of the existing structure, vehicles allowed to be repaired and parked on the site shall be limited to automobiles, vans and light trucks. Repairs or parking on the premises of dual axle commercial trucks, semi tractors and/or trailers, buses, motor homes and similarly sized vehicles is expressly prohibited. 4. No major mechanical overhauls shall occur on the premises. The total number of vehicles parked on the site outside of the fenced area shall be limited to a maximum of 15, not including one vehicles per employee working on the premises. e Vehicles parked within the fenced enclosure shall be limited only to vehicles awaiting service and a maximum of seven (7) vehicles for sale. The parking and storage of wrecked, junk or abandoned vehicles within or outside of the fenced enclosure is expressly prohibited. Storage and/or sales of used auto parts shall be expressly prohibited. Wooden fencing shall be maintained in good condition at all times and worn or broken boards shall be replaced immediately. Gates shall be closed at all times except when transferring vehicles into and out of the enclosed area. 10. There shall be no boat storage or repair in the premises. 11. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed annually. 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 It was questioned if a valve job is considered a major overhaul. Surko questioned the definition of a major overhaul. Clapsaddle questioned what are the negatives of allowing major overhauls. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Jim Bedell stated that he is in favor of the proposal. Steve Bedell stated that he is also in favor and that he prefers to see the building occupied. Phil Hasch stated that the property is clean now and they do not want to see the property sit vacant. Robert Williams, owner of the property, stressed to the Commission that he is financially committed to the property and he want to make money because the taxes on the property are $6,000.00. He has been in the automobile business for 41 years and would like to see this property become a used car lot. He received an estimate of $30,000 to remove the gas pumps from the property, which is something he would like to do. He would like to find a way to make this property work. He wants the place to look nice. He would be willing to come back with a revised plan to make this property a used car lot. The Building Official would not sign their license for automobile sales until this conditional use permit was modified. John Fitzgerald, representing the Vern Jensen estate, stated that a used car lot will not up-grade the value of the surrounding land, and he objects to the proposal. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Clapsaddle commented that there is nothing inherently undesirable about a used car lot, if it is properly designed. Mr. Williams commented that he would like to amend their request tonight, if possible. City Planner, Mark Koegler, stated that the public hearing notices would have to be revised to indicate that the primary use of the property would be an open sales lot. The applicant confirmed that they are not selling fuel. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit, as recommended by staff, including the following conditions, as amended: All signage on the property, including signs painted on windows, shall comply with the Mound Sign Ordinance. No signage shall be placed on any fencing. Planning Commission Minutes July I0, 1995 e 10. 11. Vehicles for sale on the site shall be limited to a total of ten (10), three (3) of which can be parked in the area on the north side of the property as shown on Exhibit 95-1 and seven (7) of which must be parked within the fence enclosure. Because of the limited interior garage capacity of the existing structure, vehicles allowed to be repaired and parked on the site shall be limited to automobiles, vans and light trucks. Repairs or parking on the premises of dual axle commercial trucks, semi tractors and/or trailers, buses, motor homes and similarly sized vehicles is expressly prohibited. No major mechanical overhauls shall occur on the premises. The total number of vehicles parked on the site outside of the fenced area shall be limited to a maximum of 15, not including one vehicles per employee working on the premises. Vehicles parked within the fenced enclosure shall be limited only to vehicles awaiting service and a maximum of seven (7) vehicles for sale. The parking and storage of wrecked, junk or abandoned vehicles within or outside of the fenced enclosure is expressly prohibited. There shall be no storage of repair or refuse parts visible to the public. Wooden fencing shall be maintained in good condition at all times and worn or broken boards shall be replaced i~mediately. Gates shall be closed at all times except when transferring vehicles into and out of the enclosed area. There shall be no boat storage or repair in the premises. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed annually. 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1995 Koegler reviewed the definition of "Automobile Repair, Major" as written within the Zoning Ordinance. It was noted that this conditional use permit would specifically allow "valve jobs." eventhough it may be considered major auto repair. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 8, 1995. CASE 95-29: JAMES E. MERCHANT, 5116 TUXEDO BLVD., LOT 13, ~HIPPLE SHORESa PID 24-117-24 43 0061. VARI_~N__CE - ADDITION D~ACHED GARAGE. The applicant is seeking a variance to remodel the existing house and add a second story addition. Also included is a 25' x 50' detached garage that is conforming to setbacks. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the required 50 foot lakeshore setback by 12 feet. The remodeling project involves a reconstruction of the masonry foundation and exterior walls on the portion of the home that does not meet the required setback to the lake. This is considered a major structural repair and according to Zoning Code Section 350:420, must have the prior approval of the City Council. Impervious surface coverage and all other setbacks are conforming. This proposal is a substantial improvement and enhances the use and function of the property without further encroachment. Work on the ~foundation and the remodeling has started without a building permit, and a Stop Work Order was issued. In this case adjoining properties on both sides are located closer to the lake than the applicant's dwelling which reduces the negative impact of the nonconforming setback. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing and proposed reconstruction of the dwelling in a nonconforming location. This variance includes the proposed second story addition and detached garage. The City Engineer has suggested a new driveway be constructed as a condition of variance approval. Voss questioned if the 12 foot portion of the house which encroaches into the lakeside setback could be removed. The condition of the existing structure was discussed. Mr. Merchant stated that he poured a new foundation on the inside the existing foundation. The structure will not encroach further into the setback, and actually it will be slightly reduced due to the elimination of the overhang. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff, including the condition that a hard surface driveway must be installed, as recommended by the City Engineer. 10 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, I995 It was questioned if a cash escrow should be required to ensure installation of the hard surface driveway. It was determined a driveway could be installed prior to October 15, 1995. The applicant agreed. MOTION carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 11