The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-08-22 AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1995, 7:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 8, 1995 REGULAR MEETING AND THE AUGUST 15, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. -~3. CASE #95-31: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH, t~23-'~C'-~'~'~I~RCE BLVD., LOTS 6- 10, AUDITOR'S [~'~-~ ~~ & LOTS 1-3, GUILFORD'S REARRANGEMENT OF MOUe, PID #14-1 17-24 44 0005. s.o." S, N CASE #95-37j~; & SON, INC., BASSWOOD AND CHURCHc'LOTS 14 - 17, BLOCK 2, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE I~A'~ib-~13-117-24 32 0014. I~I~OR SUBDIVISION '5. CASE #95-33.'_ L.~J~~'~& SON, INC., BELMONT LANE, LOTS (~o.; ~/~KESIDE PARK, A.L. CROCKERS 1ST DIV. '~ PID #1~1.]J-'7-24 32 0120, 0121 &0122. ~" ,M~;~SUBDIVISlON~ 6. CASE #95-35: T/E~ENCE ALMQUIST, 4515 MANCHESTER ~~ ROAD, LOT/S~-3, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 31 0060. 7. CASE #95-36: ERIK FIGNSKAU, 3070 HIGHLAND BLVD., ~.;~. ~ ~ ~-~, BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 '~ ~ 43 001. VARIANCE FOR DECK oC'9. CASE #95-37: SCOTT NAGEL, 4586 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 5, BLOCK 3, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 31 0005. VARIANCE FOR NEW HOUSE, LOT AREA & SETBACKS COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PG. 2397-2404 PG. 2405-2416 PG. 2417-2426 PG. 2427-2438 PG. 2439-2448 PG. 2449-2465 PG. 2466-2488 2395 /./ol 1. /,//12. /. /./_~ 14. RESOLUTION TO REMOVE AND RELOCATE STOP SIGNS - WOODLANB LANE ON THREE POINTS. PG. 2489 CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE: LOT 1, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0064. REQUEST TO PURCHASE- PHILUP KLEIN AND THOMAS AUNE. APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. I(('F~AL~, ~95 SEALCOAT PROGRAM, ALLIED BLACKTOP ~AMOUNT OF $37,288.19. LICENSE RENEWAL: ON-SALE BEER LICENSE - MOUND LANES. RECOMMENDATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RE: BANNERS IN DOWNTOWN MOUND. PAYMENT OF BILLS. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR JULY 1995 AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR B. LMCD MAILINGS (TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY) C. JULY 1995 UTILITIES REPORT D. LETTER FROM MINNEGASCO RE: PROPOSED RATE INCREASE. E. COMMONS TASK FORCE MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 1995. F. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 14, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION G. NOTICE FROM CITY OF ORONO RE: LAKE AREA MAYORS MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 1995, 7:30 AM, AT THE LAFAYETTE CLUB. IF INTERESTED IN ATTENDING, CALL CITY OF ORONO TO RSVP. PG. 2490-2525 PG. 2526-2527 PG. 2528 PG. 2529 PG. 2530-2540 PG. 2541-2542 PG. 2543 PG. 2544-2549 PG. 2550-2551 PG. 2552-2561 PG. 2562-2563 2396 PERSONS PRESENT AT MEETING PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME & ADDRESS 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Mound City Council Minutes August 8, 1995 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 8, 1995 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 8, 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, Phyllis Jessen, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Mark Saliterman, Robert A. Williams, Phil and Eva Hasch, Helen Eiss, Vera Frahm, Bob Seeger, Robert Schumack, Bob Nelson, John Edewaard, Eric Gustavson, Marsha Smith, Chet Harrison, Lorrie Ham, Sharon Cook, Scott Bryce, Jim Bedell, Dudley Bartholow. The Mayor opened the meeting, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 25, 1995. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the Minutes of the July 25, 1995 meeting were approved. 1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #95-19: MARK A. SALITERMAN, 5211 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35, PID #13-117-24 34 0073. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE IN BANKING FACILITY. City Planner Mark Koegler informed the Council that Mr. Saliterman is seeking approval of a conditional use permit and the issuance of variances to allow construction of a new free-standing Norwest Bank building in the parking lot area of Shoreline Plaza, next to Hardee's Restaurant. The proposed bank will contain approximately 3600 square feet and will have a drive-in facility that includes 4 teller lanes and I ATM lane. Approval of a conditional use permit involves submittal and review of a site plan and a grading plan, drainage plan, lighting plan and landscaping plan. The B-1 Business District allows for a drive-in retailing establishment. The requested variances include parking space count and space size, sign placement, impervious cover and distance between drive-in facilities and residential uses. The Mayor opened the public hearing asking if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding this item. Bob Nelson, owner of Hardee's Restaurant, stated he was concerned about the loss of the open area used to drive between the center and the restaurant. He would like to apply to the City to consider approval for a driveway out of Hardee's onto Eden Road. There are curb cuts already present. He is in favor of the bank being built there. There were no more comments from the attendance. The Mayor closed the public hearing and turned it back to the Council for action. Mound City Council Minutes August 8, 1995 City Attorney Curt Pearson stated item "B" in the resolution that read.."Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be reviewed by the Watershed District" should read to say "..plans shall be reviewed and approved as conditioned by the Watershed District" Councilmember Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution as amended. RESOLUTION #95-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A DRIVE-IN BANKING FACILITY IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AT 5211 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 7-20 & 26- 35, PID #13-117-24 34 0072, P&Z #95-19 Mark Saliterman approached the Council regarding item "B" in the resolution stating that the Watershed District could be tough to please. He asked that the Watershed District not be given full authority over these issues. Could the City be the approving agent? City Attorney Curt Pearson stated that the Watershed District has a right to condition the permit. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #95-30: ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH, 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, TRACTS l-G, RLS 739 & P/BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PID 24-117-24 12 0014, 0058 & 0059. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING LOT EXPANSION. City Planner Mark Koegler informed the Council that St. John's Lutheran Church, together with Independent School District //277 has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a new parking lot and an expansion of a current lot to be built between the church and Shirley Hills School. Chet Harrison of Clark Engineering presented the Council with a landscape plan and discussed with the Council the removal and planting of trees. Approval was recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-78 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING LOT FOR ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD. AND 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, TRACTS A THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 739, & THAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PID'S 24-117- 24 12 0014, 0058 AND 0059. P&Z CASE #95-30 2 Mound City Council Minutes The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. August 8, 1995 1.4 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CHANGE THE USE FROM MOTOR FUEL STATION TO MINOR AUTO REPAIR AND OPEN SALES LOT AT 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE. City Planner Mark Koegler informed the Council that since 1969 the subject property has received 9 different conditional use permits accounting for all of the allowed uses on the parcel. The ones in use now are: minor auto repair, tire repair, valve jobs, service maintenance on vehicles, gas welding, open sales lot (not to exceed 10 autos). The request is to approve these uses for a minor auto repair facility listing the above uses with conditions. The facility will no longer pump auto fuel. The Mayor opened the public hearing asking if anyone wished to speak to the Council on this item. Jim Bedell, property owner across Bartlett Blvd. from subject property, stated he was in favor of the use of this property. Phil Hasch, 4804 Northern Road, stated he lived close to the business and that the property is neater since the new owner came. He encouraged the Council to vote for it. There being no more comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Council. City Attorney Curt Pearson suggested that item//2 of the resolution should drop "It is further recommended" to just say "Approval of the uses is subject to the following conditions:" Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution as amended: RESOLUTION #95-79 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A MINOR AUTO FACILITY AND OPEN SALES LOT IN THE B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT FOR SHORELINE AUTOMOTIVE, 4831 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-4, 21 & PART OF 5 & 20, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID 13-117-24 44 0014, P&Z CASE #95-28. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION TO MODIFY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO A MUNICIPAL WELL HOUSE (FIRE DEPARTMENT STORAGE AREA) AT 2415 WILSHIRE BLVD. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, informed the Council that the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing asking if there was anyone present who wished to speak on this issue. There was no one. The Mound City Council Minutes August 8, 1995 Mayor closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Council. Councilmember Jensen asked the fire department representative what was to be stored in the addition. The reply was tables and chairs. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 895-80 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO A MUNICIPAL WELL HOUSE BUILDING TO BE USED AS A STORAGE BUILDING WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT AT 2415 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 9-13, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PID 824-117-24 21 0034, P&Z CASE 895-23. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE 94-44: REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE, RESOLUTION 94-~.~., BY DUDLEY BARTHOLOW, 5926 BEACHWOOD ROAD, PART OF LOT 47, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 168, PID 823-117-24 13 0023. Jon Sutherland, Building Official stated that the Planning Commission and staff had recommended approval. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 895-81 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION 894-102 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH, AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 5926 BEACHWOOD ROAD, PART OF LOT 47, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 8168, PID 823-117-24 13 0023. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.8 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC UTILITIES (SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN AND STORM SEWER) IN THE NEW SUBDIVISION OF PELICAN POINT. Mound City Council Minutes August 8, 1995 John Cameron, City Engineer, stated the developer of Pelican Point had installed the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer and has requested the City take ownership. There is a bond for one year maintenance and warranty. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated that this resolution does not approve any other items to be installed in the right-of-way. Separate consideration would be needed for further utility installation on easements. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-82 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES (SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN AND STORM SEWER) IN THE NEW SUBDIVISION OF PELICAN POINT. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE, REMOVAL AND RELOCATION OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT USED FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OR RELATED SERVICES IN THE PUBLIC GROUND OF THE CITY OF MOUND. City Attorney Curt Pearson informed the Council that the League of Minnesota Cities has proposed an ordinance regarding the installation, etc., of telecommunication equipment. The League states that cities adopting a uniform ordinance will create a comfortable environment in which telecommunications companies can operate. Mayor Polston inquired if this had gone through the Planning Commission. It had not. He recommended and the council agreed it be given to the Planning Commission to research as it involves land use. 1.10 COMMONS TASK FORCE UPDATE - MARK GOLDBERG Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Commons Task Force, reviewed with the Council the task force's process, groups, survey results, problems and desires. He said the task force is now preparing a "quantitative survey" asking specific questions and it will be presented to the Council for approval. He stated most of the complaints came from the abutters. Goldberg commented that the idea of selling the commons to the abutters came up. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated that it would not happen, as the City is unable to sell this property. 1.11 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION by Councilmember Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize payment of the bills on the pre-list in the amount of $304,609.89, when funds are available. By roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. 5 Mound City Council Minutes August 8, 1995 1.12 INFORMATIONAL/MISCELLANEOUS A. DEPARTMENT HEADS MONTHLY REPORT FOR JULY 1995. B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR JULY 1995. C. COMMONS TASK FORCE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 1995. E. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1995. INFORMATION FROM GABRIEL JABBOUR, ORONO COUNCILMEMBER RE: LMCD BUDGET FOR 1996. G. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 24, 1995. REMINDER: NCL PHOENIX CONFERENCE - EARLY REGISTRATION IS SUGGESTED. PLEASE ADVISE ASAP IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING. REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, AUGUST 15, 1995, 7:30 PM, CITY HALL. A LETTER DATED AUGUST 1, 1995, FROM PHIL KLEIN AND TOM AUNE RE: THE RELEASE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY IN THREE POINTS AREA FROM LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THEY ARE WITHDRAWING THEIR REQUEST BUT HAVE REQUESTED THE CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY AS A NATURE CONSERVATION AREA (NCA), SINCE THIS ITEM WAS TABLED UNTIL 8/22/95, DO YOU WISH TO HAVE THIS LATEST REQUEST PLACED ON THAT AGENDA? PLEASE ADVISE. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - AUGUST 15, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston. Also present: Shirley Andersen and Rod Wilkening of the Westonka Retail and Professional Council. Mayor Polston introduced Ms. Andersen and Mr. Wilkening regarding the idea of purchasing banners for downtown Mound. These banners would be purchased for the summer season and winter season, along with brackets to place on the light poles for an estimated cost of $9,750. It is the intent of the Retail and Professional Council to get donations from civic organizations and others to cover the cost. They were asking for permission for the City workers to install the banners and take them down with no other costs for the City to incur with the possible exception of a more customized banner that would have the City's logo and Welcome to Mound. This would cost extra money and the City may be asked to come up with the dollars to cover this additional cost. City Manager Ed Shukle explained that it was his understanding that this matter would be brought before the Economic Development Commission at its August 17th meeting and subsequently back to the City Council for their approval. The City Council agreed that input from the EDC is important and asked that the matter be considered at the August 17th meeting. The City Manager indicated that it had already been placed on the agenda. The City Council will then subsequently look at the EDC's recommendation and will provide direction. Len Harrell, Police Chief, was present to discuss the Cooperative Policing Initiative. City Manager Ed Shukle introduced the item on the agenda to the Council as it relates to the retirement of the police chief in Wayzata which will occur on December 31, 1995, and the recent resignation of the police chief in Orono. Both cities have not announced any plans as yet for replacing their chiefs. Both Len Harrell and Ed Shukle have contacted Orono and Wayzata to discuss the possible merging of the police departments for Mound, Orono and Wayzata. A meeting was held in July with representatives of those cities and a summary of that meeting was given to the Council. The Council reviewed the summary and the consensus was to proceed with exploring options with Wayzata and Orono. The City Manager also gave a follow up report on the items that had been directed by the City Council as it related to the mid-block crosswalk on County Road 15. He reported that the crosswalk was installed using special signage that is a federal pilot project. The request for the illuminated sign/warning light was denied by Hennepin County. A letter will be sent from the County officially denying that request and explaining why. He indicated that he had met with the Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO) regarding moving the bus shelter across County Road 15. A number of options were looked at and it was the consensus to leave the shelter where it is presently and look at the long term when a possible park and ride will be installed on the Lost Lake site. He also reported that the Post Office mail boxes could be moved further south if the Council so desired it. Also, the City Manager stated that additional crosswalk signs using the fluorescent strong yellow-green diamond grade Minutes - Committee of the Whole - August 15, 1995 Page 2 sheeting had been requested from the County. He indicated the County was not willing to install this type of signage due to the fact that it is a federal program and is in an experimental stage. A crosswalk will be installed at Church Road and County Road 110, and the other crosswalk signs will be enlarged. Hennepin County will be communicating this information in writing in the near future. A handout was presented that had been drafted by the city planner's office relating to domestic abuse shelters and the appropriate zone for those shelters in the City of Mound. A number of communities were contacted and a summary was given of what is occurring in those particular communities in Metropolitan and Outstate Minnesota. The Council consensus was to bring this back to the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Pending ordinances that had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and subsequently submitted to the Council for consideration were discussed. The City Council consensus was to deal with the Park Land Dedication ordinance change first. After some discussion they recommended the city attorney draft an amendment that would charge only $500 on a minor subdivision for an additional lot that is created. Currently, the ordinance calls for $1000 if a lot is divided into two lots ($500 per lot). With regard to commercial and industrial property, the Council discussed the idea of charging a fee on a per acre basis. It was suggested that perhaps $2000 be used on a per acre basis. No consensus was reached on major subdivision fees. With regard to Truth in Housing and truck parking in residential areas and driveways, these matters will be considered over the next few months at subsequent Committee of the Whole Meetings. It was also noted that the streamlining of variances is presently at the Planning Commission for review and consideration. More information on that will be coming through the city planner's office. The telecommunications ordinance proposed by the League of Minnesota Cities was also at the Planning Commission level for discussion. Other business included the recent lack of quorums at the Park and Open Space Commission meeting. The city manager is to follow up on this matter. Also discussed was the progress of the Commons Task Force and related matters. The next meeting of the Committee of the Whole is scheduled for Tuesday, September 19, 1995, 7:30 pm. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 pm. City Manager ES:Is RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SI~N V~[ANCE FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH 2385 COMHERCE BLVD., P&Z CASE #95-31 WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Lot 6 - 10, Auditors Subdivision #167, and Lots 1, 2, & 3, Guilford's Rearrangement of Mound Bay Park, PID #14-117-24 44 0005, and; WHEREAS, Our Lady of the Lake Church has applied for a variance to the Sign Ordinance to allow two (2) free standing signs along one street frontage, and a 9 foot setback variance to the street right-of-way (ROW). The ordinance allows one sign per street frontage and a minimum setback of 10 feet to the right-of- way, and; WHEREAS, the proposed sign will service the Pennywise Thrift Shop, will be 48" x 36" in size, and will be 60" high, and; WHEREAS, on this site there is a considerable length of street frontage. The street also has a curve that limits the visibility and reduces the negative impact of the additional sign, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the B-1 Central Business Zoning District, that allows a zero setback to the front property line, 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 approve a variance to the sign ordinance to allow two free standing signs along one street frontage due to the extended amount of street frontage, and the minimal impact of the additional sign, and a 9 foot setback variance to the street right-of-way. This variance is granted for the Pennywise Thrift Shop sign to be located on the property owned by Our Lady of the Lake Church, as shown on the attached Exhibit A. OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION #95- Z'/2" 'WRli. R ~m.R¥1~E. To SERVICE ACTIVITY C[ItTER R~)PlTION l'lfliN NEW, Ivy" 'WRTER Sll)EWRL½ (~ MECHANICAL UTILITIES SCALE: 1"=40. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 1995 CASE ~95-31: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH, 2385 COMMERCE BLVD. t LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10, AUD. SUBD. 167, & LOTS 1, 2, & 3, GUILFORD'S REARR. OF MOUND BAY PARKt PID 14-117-24 44 0005. VARIANCE FOR "PENNYWISE THRIFT SHOP" SIGN. The applicant is seeking a variance to the Sign Ordinance to allow two (2) free standing signs along one street frontage, and a 9 foot setback variance to the street right-of-way (ROW). The ordinance allows one sign per street frontage and a minimum setback of 10 feet to the ROW. On this site there is a considerable length of street frontage. The street also has a curve that limits the visibility and reduces the negative impact of the additional sign. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for two free standing signs due to the extended amount of street frontage, and the minimal impact of the additional sign. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the sign variance, as requested. Mueller questioned the number of parking spaces in the lot serving the Pennywise shop. Applicant, Rhonda Eurich, stated that there are three parking spaces. She explained that Pennywise sells used clothing at very reasonable prices. Mueller questioned why the sign needs to be so large for such a non-robust retail outfit. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the city Council on August 22, 1995. CITY OF MOUND 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 August 14, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official -~'? ' Variance Request Our Lady of the Lake Church 95-31 2385 Commerce Blvd., Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10, Auditor's Subd. #167, and Lots 1, 2, & 3, Guilford's Rearr. of Mound Bay Park, PID #14-117-2444 0005 B-1 Central Business District BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to the Sign Ordinance to allow two (2) free standing signs along one street frontage, and a 9 foot setback variance to the street right-of-way (ROW). The ordinance allows one sign per street frontage and a minimum setback of 10 feet to the ROW. COMMENTS: On this site there is a considerable length of street frontage. The street also has a curve that limits the visibility and reduces the negative impact of the additional sign. The setback variance request is presumed to be a result of the reduced visibility caused by the masonry wall along the sidewalk to the north. The masonry wall is not shown on the site plan, and should be observed while visiting the site. An alternate location for the sign could be considered on the opposite or north side of the sidewalk, this would allow for a greater setback, however, the visibility would also be reduced. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for two free standing signs due to the extended amount of street frontage, and the minimal impact of the additional sign. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss the impact of the reduced setback 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 August 22, 1995. printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 47~-0600, Fax: 472-0620 i 2 0 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner "}-~l-q ~o Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~ 9 --.'~ I Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Addition District Owner's Name Owner's Address Block ~/~z~r~ ~.0o <5~ Pm No. //'7-aJ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an app.lication ever been made fo[~zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed 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 (t)g/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: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. fi. ft. ft. fi. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. fi. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq fi sq ft sq fi Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ~/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 ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case tq % 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 variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (,)fi, 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 tree 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 ~ Date ~'__-t__~-'--/~/C~ Applicant's Signature ~~~~. ~~ Date ~-7/~'- CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE LAKE 2385 COMMERCE BLVD. MOUND, MN 55364 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PENNYWISE SIGN The sign that we are requesting permission to put up will be located outside of our new Parish Activity Center building at 2408 Co....~.erce Blvd. We are asking to put the sign one foot from the sidewalk on Co---erce Blvd., which is the property line, so that it can be seen from the street. Attached is a drawing of the sign and also a survey of the property showing the property lines. 'ROM SIGN ~OLUT IONS ,-,;USTOMER 'PROJECT: Lady of The Lake Catholic OhurCh , New Si~]ns D Side View Maroon' Background, White Copy Double Sided Sign 2 THUS Front View Top View Double Sided Maroon Background White Copy 1 Thus 4"x 16" Panel Double sided 2 Thus: ) UI-'I;; N 24" Side View Front View Janu,~ l 1, RESOLUTION NO. 94-9 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 2385 COMMERCE BLVD., (OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH), LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10, AUDITOR'S SUBD. #167, AND LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, GUILFORD'S REARRANGEMENT OF MOUND BAY PARK, PID #14-117-24 44 0005, P & Z CASE g93.-059 WtlEREAS, Our Lady of the Lake Church has applied for a variance to impervious surface coverage to allow construction of a one story parish activity center addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the B-I Central Business Zoning District which allows churches as a permitted use; and V(HEREAS, the Shoreland Ordinance states that, 'impervious coverage in lots in the business and industrial zones shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. In business and industrial zones that are included within areas covered by an approved stormwater management plan, impervious cover shall not exceed 75 percent of the total lot area.' Therefore, when the City eventually adopts a stormwater management plan, the church, even with the new expansion, will be well under the maximum threshold of 75 % impervious cover; and WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage calculations are as follows: existing 54.3% including addition 57.4 % net increase 3.1% WHEREAS, the total amount of the new hardcover is offset by removal of an existing building and removal of an existing access drive and parking area; and WItEREAS, positive features of the proposal include replacement of driveway and parking lot drainage with roof top drainage which is relatively cleaner run-off; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 10 January 11, 1994 The City does hereby grant an impervious surface coverage variance of 27.4 percent to allow construction of a one story parish activity center addition. 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 one story parish activity center addition (15,600 square feet) represents a reasonable use of the property, and given tight site conditions, reasonable efforts have been made to accommodate additional stormwater run-off by routing drainage by turf areas where possible. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Auditor's Subdivision //167, and Lots 1, 2, and 3, Guilford's Rearrangement of Mound Bay Park. 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 (I). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, and Johnson. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk Councilmember Smith was absent and excused. c. 11 ADDRESS: II Corn SURVEY ON FILE1 NO REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: SQ FT LOT OF RECORD'/ / 7 EXIST. LOT AREA: EXISTING LOT WIDTH: REQUIRED SETBACKS EXISTING LOT DEPTH: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: J~k~,S E W / ,- 0 · ,- I SIDE: ~ E W ~ /~ REAR: N S E W- 1§' LAKESHORE: 50' (measUred from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED 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: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE 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: 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: HARDCOVER CONFORMING? n / BY: ~ This G~i~al Zoning Information Sheet only summar,zes a port Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. 6 &~VT IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING~/ YES,~,~ ? In ' on of the requirements out' eo in the City of Mound Zon; ; __( ~ ) (8t ,1 4-D o ,~3'G0'C0' ere KE~OLUTION ~95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT LOTS 14 - 17v BLOCK Zv A.L. ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID 13-117-24 32 0014 (BASSWOOD & CHURCH) P&Z CASE #95-32 WHEREAS, the owner Luse & Son, Inc. has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by the Mound City Code, Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WHEREAS, the subdivision will create two new lots out of four existing lots of record. Lot A will have a total lot area of 9,228 square feet, and Lot B will total 10,285 square feet. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, and also comply with all setback requirements, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks for non-lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the subject parcel is heavily wooded and has a number of very large trees. Therefore, the Tree Preservation Policy needs to be applied. The provisions of the Policy state: "Prior to the granting of a building permit, it shall be the duty of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site", and; WHEREAS, there are no pending assessments or deficient unit charges due, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a minor subdivision establishing Parcels A and B from Lots 14 - 17, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: Ae Lots A and B shall comply with all requirements identified in the Mound Zoning Ordinance including impervious cover limitations. Proposed Resolution Luse & Sons, 95-32 August 22, 1995 p. 2 Be The City Planner shall review and approve the lot surveys for Lots A and B that are submitted for building permit issuance. The surveys shall contain significant tree locations and proposed grades in order to assess compliance with the Tree Preservation Policy. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided along all lot lines, 10 feet in width along the front and rear and 5 feet wide on all side lot lines. These easements shall be filed concurrent with this Resolution. A revised survey shall be provided which shows the easements and the existing 6" watermain and services. ~°~~~ ~ A park dedication fee of $I,000 '~=~" ~ - ~vv ~c. lot) shall be paid prior to release of the resolution for filing· The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A: Parcel A: Lot 14 and the North 32 feet of Lot 15, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park. Parcel B: Lot 16, 17, and that part of Lot 15 lying South of the North 32 feet of said Lot 15, all in Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. RESOLUTION #95-__ EXHIBIT A PROPOSED LOT DIVISION AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR · -' JOHN LUSE OF LOTS 14 THROUGH. 17, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADD. TO LAKESIDE PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA Parcel A: Lot 14 and the #orth $2 feet of Lot 15. Block'Z. P .... I ': Lot '$. 17, and that ,art o_fLotll$~l~ South of the b: denotes Iron aarEer set e: denotes Iro~ marker found ~a: denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum ,matings sho~n are based upon an assumed datum. 1his survey~ Intends to shou the boundaries of the above described property. and the ,roposed location of s proposed dividing line thereoR. It does not purport to sho~ any other Improvements or encroachemnts. MINIYIT3 OF A MEETING OF TI{E MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 1995 C~SE ~95-32: LUSE & SON, INC., B&BS#OOD & CHURCH, LOTS 24 - 17, BLOCK 2, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID 13-117-24 32 0014. MINOR SUBDIVISION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two new lots out of four existing lots of record. Upon approval of the subdivision, new single family homes will be constructed on the lots. As proposed, Lot A will have a total lot area of 9,228 square feet. Lot B will total 10,285 square feet. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, and also comply with all setback requirements. The subject parcel is heavily wooded and has a number of very large specimen deciduous trees. Therefore, the provisions found in the Tree Preservation Policy need to be applied. The provisions of the Policy state: "Prior to the granting of a building permit, it shall be the duty of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site." The Planner recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision consistent with the following conditions: Lots A and B shall comply with all requirements identified in the Mound Zoning Ordinance including impervious cover limitations. The lot surveys for Lots A and B that are submitted for building permit issuance shall contain significant tree locations and proposed grades in order to assess compliance with the Tree Preservation Policy. In addition to the Planning Report, the City Engineer recommended approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan is approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Provide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, 10 feet in width along the front and rear and 5 feet wide on all side lot lines. Provide a revised survey which shows the proposed easements and the existing 6" watermain and services. Weiland questioned if there are any assessments on the property. The Secretary confirmed that there are none. Weiland questioned if park dedication fees are due and the Building Official confirmed yes. Voss questioned what constitutes "significant trees." MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as proposed, subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planner and Engineer, including the requirement to pay park dedication fees. The Building Official confirmed that the City Planner will also review the surveys submitted for building permit issuance to insure the application of the code relating to the Tree Preservation Policy. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. lmm Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. II1 ittn TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: August 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Luse and Son, Inc. (John Luse) CASE NUMBER: 95-32 HKG FILE NUMBER: 95-5k LOCATION: Basswood and Church (Lots 14 - 17, Abraham Lincoln Addition) EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two new lots out of four existing lots of record. Upon approval of the subdivision, new single family homes will be constructed on the lots. As proposed, Lot A will have a total lot area of 9,228 square feet. Lot B will total 10,285 square feet. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Both lots also comply with all setback requirements. The subject parcel is heavily wooded and has a number of very large specimen deciduous trees. Therefore, the provisions found in the Tree Preservation Policy (Zoning Section 350:725, Subd. 7.) need to be applied to the proposed subdivision. The Tree Preservation Policy is intended to encourage the retention of existing tree cover wherever practicable. It is not intended to preclude the reasonable development of property. The provisions of the Policy state: "Prior to the granting of a building permit, it shall be the duty of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site." In other words, in the case of the construction of a new home, the developer needs to demonstrate that all reasonable methods have been employed to retain as much existing tree cover as possible. In order to make such a determination, it would be helpful to have all significant trees and proposed grades noted on the survey that is submitted with the building permit application. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Luse Minor Subdivision August 8, 1995 Page 2 The City Engineer is addressing engineering issues pertaining to this subdivision in a separate report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision consistent with the following conditions: 1. Lots A and B shall comply with all requirements identified in the Mound Zoning Ordinance including impervious cover limitations. The lot surveys for Lots A and B that are submitted for building permit issuance shall contain significant tree locations and proposed grades in order to assess compliance with the Tree Preservation Policy. IVlX:MOUN D\95 -5\LUSESUB 1 .RPT McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612'476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Case No.: File No.: City of Mound Planning Commission and Staff John Cameron, City Engineer August 7, 1995 Minor Subdivision-Lots 14-17, Block 2 Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park 95-32 MFRA #11132 COMMENTS: The survey furnished with the application shows only the buildable area based on the setback requirements; thus the proposed building elevations and site grading is not shown. There is an existing 6" watermain located in Basswood Lane with services to Lots 14 and 16 which are not shown on the survey. This is one of the older plats in the City which typically did not provide drainage easements along the lots lines. The property is heavily wooded including a number of large Maples and Oaks. Planning staff will be commenting on any impact the City's tree preservation policy will have on this site. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the proposed minor subdivision is recommended subject to the following conditions. e m:Jc7.28 A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan is approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Provide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, 10 feet in width along the front and rear and 5 feet wide on all side lot lines. Provide a revised survey which shows the proposed easements and the existing 6" watermain and services. An Equal Opportunity Employer Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 4?2-0600, Fax: 472-0620 JI JUL 553~ Case No. J ClH O£-'MOU ND Application Fee: $50.00 Distribution: Escrow Deposit: $1,000 ~' Public Works Other ~-~l 45 City Engineer ...J2._. ~~cx~ Delinquent Taxes? J VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address INFORMATION EXISTING Lot /g/'~ -/~ 7 Block ~ Plat LEGAL /~r~.~ .~/~//~/1~, DESCRIPTION Subdivision,v ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 8-1 DISTRICT B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner other: OWNER Name {if other than applicant) Address Phone (H) (W) (M) $URV~OR/ Phone (H) (W) ~7]-- ~/~/ (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, I ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This ap~ticati~ /~e s/~ed by a_Ltl owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this/s not the case, O/w/(~'s ~gr~ature /c(~ -, ~ 5,~. Z~ Date ' Owner's Signature Date HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNE~SU'IA 112.5 t ZO' ,o, zest s,i, +,', I ~ I ~'~.~ ~.. ~~ ~..' ~'"""~ ........... "¥,x ............. "~ Block 2, ABRAHAH LINCOLN ADD. 10 LAKESIDE PARK ~ ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA: J saFr ~-- ~2-7..~ soft I REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/VVIDTH: 4 0 ' EXISTING LOT WIDTH: REQUIRED SETBACKS LOT OF RECORD7 EXISTING LOT DEPTH: PRINCIPAL BUILDIJAG/HOUSE. FRONT: N ,~E(~f~ ~ ' FRONT:,~ S~E W ~) ' SIDE: (1~- E W I~ ~' SIDE: ~J~ {~E ~,,~ J (") ' REAR: N 'S~E W(~. 15' LAKESHORE: ,50' (measured from O.H.W.J TOP OF BLUFF: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED 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: EXIS.TING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE 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: 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: HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO / 7 IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES / NO / ? [his Gc~heYal Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a port:on of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoni Ordinance, For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600, 4 e= CNURC~ < x :~> x o x :~, x z C) o z rtl c) c) RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT LOTS §t ?t 8~ BLOCK 9~ LAKESIDE PARK~ A.L. CROCKER'S 1ST DIVISION, (BEI~MONT PID 13-117-24 32 0120, 0121, & 0122 P&Z CASE #95-33 WHEREAS, the owner Luse & Son, Inc. has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by the Mound City Code, Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WHEREAS, the subdivision will create two new lots out of three existing lots of record. Lot A will have a total lot area of 6,184 square feet, and Lot B will total 6,090 square feet. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Both lots also comply with all setback requirements, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to city Code requires for single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks for non-lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, there are no pending assessments or deficient unit charges due, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: me The City does hereby approve a minor subdivision establishing Parcels A and B from Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 9, Lakeside Park, A.L. Crocker's 1st Division as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: Ae Lots A and B shall comply with all requirements identified in the Mound Zoning Ordinance including impervious cover limitations. Be A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be approved by the city Engineer at the time of building permit application. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided along all lot lines, 5 feet wide on side lot lines and 10 feet in width along front and rear lot lines. These easements shall be filed concurrent with this Resolution. Proposed Resolution Luse & Sons, 95-33 August 22, 1995 p. 2 De A revised survey shall be provided which shows the easements and the existing 6" watermain and services. A park dedication fee of $I~O~-~$~I0-per lot) shall be paid prior to release of the resolution for filing. The Minor Subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal descriptions and according to attached Exhibit A: Parcel A: Lot 6 and the North 22.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 9, Lakeside Park, A.L. Crocker's 1st Division, Mound, Mtka. Parcel B: Lot 8 and that part of Lot 7 lying South of the North 22.00 feet of said Lot 7, Block 9, Lakeside Park, A.L. Crocker's 1st Division, Mound, Mtka. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. .AESOLUTION #95- EXHIBIT A PROPOSED LOT DIVISION AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: JOHN LUSE IN LAKESIDE PARK,A. L. CROCKERS FIRST DIVISION H~N'NEP'IN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I EXISTING LEGAL DECRIPTION Lots 6,7,8, Block g, Lakeside Park A. L. Crockers 1st Division, Hound, Mtka PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION A. Lot 6 and the North 2~.o~ feet-of Lo~'7, Block"9, "- ' Lakeside Park, A. L. Crockers 1st Division, Mound, Mtka a. Lot 8 and that part of Lot 7 Jying South of the North ~.oo feet,of said lot 7, Block 9, Lakeside'Park, A: L. C~o~kers 1st Division, Mound, Mtka t I A. '-~," , ....... ~ .... --,~W- I ' '~*' ~ ,,~- m, . , ,, [ .... g ' I", I ~9 0 ~ S~. ~ I ~ I e: denotes iron marker found o{ denotes iron marker set .(~m: denotes existing spot elevation datum mean sea level Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the above described properties. It does not puport to show any other improvements or encroachments. c~$- 222 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMIgSION AUGUST 14, 1995 CASE ~95-33: LUSE & SON, INC., BELMONT LANE, LOTS 6, 7, 8, BLOCK 9t LAKESIDE PARK, A.L. CROCKERS 1ST DIV. t PID 13-117-24 32 0120~. 0121, & 0122. MINOR SUBDIVISION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report· The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two new lots out of three existing lots of record. Lot A will have a total lot area of 6,184 square feet, and Lot B will total 6,090 square feet. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Both lots also comply with all setback requirements. The Planner recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the condition that Lots A and B shall comply with all requirements identified in the Mound Zoning Ordinance, including impervious cover limitations. In addition to the Planning Report, the City Engineer recommended approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan is approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Provide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, 5 feet wide on side lot lines and 10 feet in width along front and rear lot lines. If water services to both parcels do not exist, they either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond, before the subdivision is recorded. Provide a revised survey which shows the proposed easements and the existing 6" watermain including services, either existing or proposed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as proposed, subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planner and Engineer, including the requirement to pay park dedication fees. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. PHONE NO. EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 772-7910 F~uE NO. August 14, 1995 Mr. Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Luse and Son, Inc., Minor Subdivision of Land, Belmont Lane, Lake Minnetonka (27-133P), City of Mound, Hennepin County (City ~95-33) Dear Mr. Sutherland: We have reviewed the site plans (received August 1, 1995) for the above-referenced subdivision (Section 13, Tll7N, R24W). We do not object to the proposal and have the following comments to offer: It is unclear if the site is within the 1000 foot shoreland district of Lake Minnetonka (27-133P), a general development lake. Should the lots be within the Lake Minnetonka Shoreland District, then their development must be consistent with city shoreland management regulations. The lots occur on high ground. The area to be subdivided is open and contains very few trees. The few trees that do exist on these lots should be preserved to screen the structures from view from Lake Minnetonka. We recommend that DNR District Forester Alan Olson (442-2317) should be consulted for advice on preserving the trees. Color and other means approved by the city may also be used to screen these structures from view on Lake Minnetonka. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Jon Sutherland August 14, 1995 Page 2 The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist JR/cds c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Eugene Strommen City of Mound Shoreland File Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. III! ffH TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: August 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Luse and Son, Inc. (John Luse) CASE NUMBER: 95-33 HKG FILE NUMBER: 95-51 LOCATION: Belmont Lane (Lots 6, 7, and 8, Lakeside Park) EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two new lots out of three existing lots of record. Upon approval of the subdivision, new single family homes will be constructed on the lots. As proposed, Lot A will have a total lot area of 6,184 square feet. Lot B will total 6,090 square feet. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Both lots also comply with all setback requirements. The City Engineer is addressing engineering issues pertaining to this subdivision in a separate report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff reconm~nds that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision consistent with the following condition: · Lots A and B shall comply with all requirements identified in the Mound Zoning Ordinance including impervious cover limitations. M\:MOUND\95-5~LUSESUB.RPT 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: City of Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer DATE: August 7, 1995 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision-Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 9 Lakeside Park, A.L. Crock,rs let Division Case No.: 95-33 File No.: MFRA #11133 COMMENTS: The survey furnished with the application shows only the buildable area based on the setback; thus the proposed building elevations and site grading is not shown. There is an existing 6" watermain located in Belmont Lane, but our record drawings do not indicate if there are any existing services. This should be verified with public works. These lots are in one of the older plats of the City which typically did not provide drainage easements along the lot lines. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the proposed recommended subject to the following conditions. minor subdivision is m:Jc7.28a A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan is approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Provide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, 5 feet wide on side lot lines and 10 feet in width along front and rear lot lines. 'n t e~.- If water services to both parcels do [st, they either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond, before the subdivision is recorded. A revised survey provided, which shows the proposed easements and the existing 6' watermain including services, either existing or proposed. '~ ~ '~' An Equa, Opportunity Employer liii Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: Application for !['~ ,' ~'' City of Mound, 5341 ~ywood Road, Mound, ~ 553~] ~ ~ [ ~one: 472-~, F~: 472-~20 [" 1 4Oq~ __L OPMOUN Appli~tion F~: $50. City Planner I I DNR Public Works Other rl -~ I-q_~ City Engineer I '..U.... a...~5~ mci ) Escrow Deposit: $1,000 O~ -'Z~oO--10'~5 Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? lle~e type or print tee following information: PROPERTY Subject Addraas INFORMA~ON ~STIN; Lot ~ ~GAL ZONING DISTRICT Gircle: ~-1 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~wner other: O~ER Name {if other than applicant} Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Name SURV~OR/ Phone (") (W) ~73-- ~/~ / (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( } yes, ( ) no. If yea, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Owner's Signature Date ~ .. I .: ;-~ d~,i+'"'r:, ,..., !STING LEGAL DECRIPTION '0,,,"" ,.;U,ri:3 6,7,8, Block 9, LakesIde Park kers 1st Division, Mound, Mtka ]POSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION and the North Z£.o~ feet' of Lo~'7, Bloc~"9, ' .... :eside Park, A. L. Crockers 1st Division, Mound, Mtka - 8 and that part of Lot 7. ly. Jlng South of the North Z 0 .(m.~):' denotes existing spot datum mean sea level Bearings shown are based u assumed datum denotes iron marker fou denotes iron marker set IADDRESS: ZONE: J EXIST. LOT AREA: I/t~ ~1 ~zI s~ off REQUIRED STREET FRONTAG E/WIDTH:40 ° EX,ST,NG LOT W DTH: 60 ' 4- REQ, LOT AREA: LOT OF RECORD? YESL~97 NOT AI~E~ DI~/I<~I0N EXISTING LOT DEPTH: I C)0 / ~'/.-- REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILI~I~/HOUSE ~RONT: N S EC~ "~-O ' FRONT:,,J~ S E -W SIDE: (~)~,S~E W Ih ' SIDE: N ~ W ~ -~'") · RE*R:_ LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED 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: TOP OF BLUFF: 50' {measured from O.H.W.) EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: .PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N $ 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: 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: IHAR~CZ~VERCONFORMING7 YES/NO/7 IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES/NO/7 BY:G~n~a. his Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a pot{ion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zonir,. Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. e; C~URCH I (78) -~ X 3=,. X (~ X :z=,, X z .--I ITl r- .-~ C~ ;Z --..! I-' 3::> ITl RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS & LOT AREA TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 4515 MANCHESTER ROAD, THAT PART OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 31 0060 P&Z CASE ~95-35 WHEREAS, the owner, Terence Almquist, has applied for a variance to re~.~~ the existing nonconforming south si~e setback of 7 feet and west r~-~tback of 8 feet, and a lot size variance of approximately 1,900 square feet in order to construct a conforming deck, and; WHEREAS, a minimal portion of the proposed deck will be nonconforming to the south rear setback, 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 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage is conforming, and; WHEREAS, the deck addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function 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 approve a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming south side setback of 7 feet and west rear setback of 8 feet, and a lot size variance of approximately 1,900 square feet in order to construct an 8' x 30' deck which follows the line of house and does not increase or negatively impact the existing nonconforming setback. 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 an 8' x 30' deck. Proposed Resolution Almquist, 95-35 August 22, 1995 p. 2 e Se o This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lot 3 lying East of the West 40 feet thereof, and that part of Lots 1 and 2 lying East of a line drawn from a point on the North line of said Lot 1 distant 19 feet East of the Northwest corner of said Lot 1, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 2, an there ending, all in Block 14, Avalon. 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 MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 1995 CASE ~95-35: TERENCE ALMQUISTm 4515 MANCHESTER ROADt LOTS 1, 3m BLOCK 14# /%VI~LON~ PID 19-117-23 31 0060. VARIANCE FOR DECK. The Building official reviewed the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming south side setback of 7 feet and west rear setback of 8 feet in order to construct a conforming deck. Impervious surface is conforming. The deck addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming 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. Mueller clarified that a minimal portion of the proposed deck will also be nonconforming to the south rear setback. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Crum, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a 8' x 30' deck which will follow the line of the house at the south side due to fact follows line of house and does not increase negative impact of existing nonconforming setback. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. PHONE NO. STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, ~[N 5510~LENO. 772--7910 August 14, 1995 Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Luse and Son, Inc., Minnetonka (27-133P), (City ~95-32) Minor Subdivision of Land, Lake City of Mound, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Sutherland: We have reviewed the site plans (received August 1, 1995) for the above-referenced subdivision (Section 13, Tll7N, R24W). We do not object to the proposal and have the following comments to offer: The site occurs within the 1000 foot shoreland district of Lake Minnetonka (27-133P), a general development lake. The development must be consistent with City shoreland management regulations. In particular: Less ~han 2.~~ area o--f--~c-h~ should be covered wit~q~vious surface· The structures on each lot should be screened from view from Lake Minnetonka using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. The area to be subdivided is wooded and contains some fine trees. We recommend that these lots be developed in a manner that will preserve as many of the trees as possible. DNR District Forester Alan Olson (442-2317) should be consulted for advice on preserving the trees. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Jon Sutherland August 14, 1995 Page 2 If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. de The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist cc: Minnehaha Creek WSD, Eugene Strommen City of Mound Shoreland File CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of August 14, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ Variance Request Terence J. Almquist 95-35 4515 Manchester Road, Lots 1, 2, & 3, Block 14, Avalon, PID 19-117-23 31 0060 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming south side setback of 7 feet and west rear setback of 8 feet in order to construct a conforming deck. 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 lines abutting Tuxedo and Manchester Road, a side yard setback of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet to the south. The existing structure is nonconforming to setbacks as noted on the attached zoning sheet. Impervious surface is conforming. COMMENT: The deck addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming 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 August 22, 1995. Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 City Planner t ! Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.__~---~ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Addition District Owner's Name Owner's Address Day 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? ( ) yes, I~ 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.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. ff no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S {~)W )~}_ ~J- ~ ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N{~71~ W )lO~ft. r7 ft. Side Yard: ({~S E_~.W ~O ~._?z~~ ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E~ )/0_~_~[~rft- r~ ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ~ ft. · (NSEW) ft. -'~ ft. Street Frontage: cc{ ~/~Jg3' 8 ft. ft. Lot Size: ' ' sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft ft. sq ft sq ft o Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No 9~. If no, specify each non-conforming use: £o,<t. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil (~) existing 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 1~. 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 variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: ~ ?oce~~' '7~-,'5 /3 ,.-o ~.~..-'~ ,L,T ~. Iq~ ~J ~J ~'~e I / *--': ~ -- I mffify ~at ~1 of the above statements ~d the statements con~n~ in ~y r~uir~ papers or plus to be sub~ herewi~ ~e ~e ~d accumm. I consent to ~e en~ in or u~n the premises descfib~ ~ ~is app~cafion by ~y au~ofiz~ offici~ of the City of Mound for ~e pu~ose of ins~cfing, or of posting, maintaining and removing such.gm~s as may~ired b~gJau~ Si.a Applicant's Signature ~.~.../' Date ~//~.~/~--- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA O~u~/~/~,.~ SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... : (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 ere not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ::z ,x q3 TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIO~SURFACE I AUG l? '95 11:44AM U S A DIRECT P.E/B August 17~ 1 To: Subject: Request for Consideration Building commission recommendation is to remove two accessory buildings from the property duc to number and condition. For the following relevant ressons,.I would ask you to consider a compromise: (I) (2) ($) (4) The two accessory buildings that make lot non-conforming are garages tl, mt are in good repair and many years as is. There are five buildings (two described above) and one is an interesting interpretation. It is an underground bomb shelter near the house with a ground level door and only a $" chimney above ground. (Is the purl~se of the ordinance to limit the number of visible structures?) My belief is that this should not enter thc count of ~ccssory buildings. It is an extremely large lot and an accessory building away from the water would c.~use great inconvenience. It's current usc is storage of dock, boating accessories, etc. It's proximity to the lake is critical to it's usc. Currently, the yard shed is approximately 125 feet from thc house. Total square footage of the lot is $2,700 and can support 1 $,0g0 of hardcover per zoning ordinance. My current hardcover calculation is 4,250 and leave $,$$0 square feet available for structure. Current Ordinance '10,000 square feet and under - Two accessory buildings *"10,000 square feet and over - Three accessory buildings Allows *One building per 5,000 square foot lot **One building per 6,500 square foot lot (assumes 11,000 square foot lot) S070 Highland Boulevard = 32,700 square feet with three buildings; one buidling per 10,900 square foot - If an accessory building is meanst to aid in the use/maintenance of personal property, why are larger parcel owners penalized? Should thc number of accessory buildings have a more direct correlation to lot size when dealing with larger lots? The elimination of this shed would cause undue inconvenience and cost at a time that the homeowner cannot afford to replace the structure. RUG 17 '95 ll:44RM U S R DIRECT P.B/B Requested Compromise: Immediate elimination of accessory building #5 (changing shed) Reconsidera{ion of "defined" below ground structure #$ (bomb sh¢Iter) and elimination from accessory buildin$ count if necessary or approved for four accessory buildings Replacement of shcd (accessory building #4) will be done within one year and will be conforming. This re~luest for new variance will allow for storage use until clcmentation can be afforded. It allows the homeowner reasonable time, but accomplishes the city's request to remove thc current mediocre structure. ~ De.~crlvtio, Count. #1 Gara~ A I ~2 Garage B 1 #3 Bomb Shirr #4 Yard Shelter 1 #5 Chr~ Room Proposed Action K¢Inain Remai~ Not to be considered in count Rcplacc within 12 months w/conformir~ shed (variance requested at this time) 'I'o be rentoved immediately Eld/mar erOS17 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE & Vi~[ANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKB TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CON~ORMIN~ DECK AT 3070 HIGHLAND BLVD., LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDSv PID 23-117-24 43 0001. P&Z CASE $95-36 WHEREAS, the owner, Erik Figenskau, has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming accessory structures and setbacks~~r~h~g-t~euk~; ~H~-~A~--"-~'~-~'~e'~'~'~ontains five (5) accessory buildings and the Zoning Ordinance limits the number of accessory buildings to a maximum of three for this site. The accessory buildings include: Garage #1: nonconforming front setback of 10.97' resulting in a 9.03' variance, and a 23.85' setback variance to the west. Structure is in good condition. Garage #2: nonconforming front setback of 6.73' resulting in a 13.27' variance. Structure is in good condition. Lakeside shed: nonconforming side setback of 0' +/- resulting in a 4' variance. The lake setback is also questionable at about 50 feet. Condition of shed is fair. Lakeside Changing Room (as nonconforming to side setback. lakeside shed (#3). described by the owner): Is located adjacent to the Storm shelter (underground) is conforming to setbacks. and; WHEREAS, setback variances to the dwelling and garage #1 will also need to be recognized due to the fact that the property to the west is actually a platted right-of-way which results in a 30 foot setback requirement to the east side, and; WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage is conforming, and; WHEREAS, one garage has a second story and that is unfinished at this time. Building permits are required for any alteration or construction work to this area, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District, and is a lot of record, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions. Proposed Resolution Figenskau, 95-36 August 22, 1995 p. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby recognize the following variances in order to allow construction of a conforming deck and screened area below as it is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks. Required Existing Variance Dwelling West Side 30' 12' 8' Garaqe ~1 North Front 20' 10.97' 9.03' West Side 30' 6.15' 23.85' Garage ~2 North Front 20' 6.73' 13.27 This variance is approved subject to the following conditions: ~-~uildings on the lake side, t~ed and changing building, must be removed. The two story garage on the street side shall not be utilized as a dwelling unit. 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 deck approximately 12' x 37' with a screened area under the deck approximately 12' x 28'. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 19 and 20, Block 2, and that portion of Lot 18, Block 2, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the line dividing Lots 19 and 18, Block 2, 75 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot 18; thence running from said point on said dividing line at right angles to Proposed Resolution Figenskau, 95-36 August 22, 1995 p. 2 said dividing line, Easterly for a distance of 16 feet; thence running Southerly from last named point parallel to the said line dividing said Lots 18 and 19, to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 18; thence running Westerly along the Southerly line of said Lot 18 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 18; thence running Northerly, along the West line of said Lot 18 to the place of beginning in The Highlands. 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. MINLrFES OF A MEETING OF TH'E MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 1995 ..CASE ~95-36: ERIK FIGENSKAUt 3070 HIGI~L~TD BLVD., LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK 2t THE HIGHLANDS~ PID 23-117-24 43 0001. V~J~IANCE FOR DECK. The Building Official reviewed the staff report and pointed out that Commissioner Weiland has informed him that there are actually 5 accessory buildings on this property. The applicant is requesting a variance to recognize existing nonconforming accessory structures in order to construct a conforming deck. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. This property contains five (5) accessory buildings and the Zoning Ordinance limits the number of accessory buildings to a maximum of three for this site. The accessory buildings include: Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 Garage #1: nonconforming front setback of 10.97' resulting in a 9.03' variance, and a 23.85' setback variance to the west. Structure is in good condition. Garage #2: nonconforming front setback of 6.73' resulting in a 13.27' variance. Structure is in good condition. Lakeside shed: nonconforming side setback of 0' +/- resulting in a 4' variance. The lake setback is also questionable at about 50 feet. Should be relocated or removed. Lakeside Changing Room (as described by the applicant): nonconforming to side setback. Is located adjacent to the lakeside shed (#3). Should be relocated or removed. 5. Storm shelter (underground) is conforming to setbacks. The Building Official noted that setback variances to the dwelling and garage #1 will also need to be recognized due to the fact that the property to the west is actually a platted right-of-way which results in a 30 foot setback requirement to the east side. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as the proposed deck is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks, upon the condition that the two lakeside sheds be removed, and the total number be conforming, or limited to a maximum of 3. Weiland questioned if electrical situations can be addressed at this time. He indicated that there is an outlet projecting out of the ground which was used for a fountain in a pond, and there is a light on the lakeside which is attached to a tree. He would like to confirm that these electrical services are not hazardous. Weiland commented that one garage has a second story and that is should not be finished a used as a house. He would like to see assurance that this garage will remain a legal use. Weiland knows that this garage has not been used as a residence for a long long time. The Building Official stated the second story is unfinished and is being used for storage at this time. The applicant, Erik Figenskau, commented that the storm shelter is completely underground, and the only visible sign of the structure is the chimney and doors. He agreed that the changing building (the building located next to the shed on the lakeside) can come down. He argued that the shed is not visible to the neighbor and the neighbor does not oppose to the shed remaining. Weiland commented on the poor condition of the shed. Planning Commission M/nu=es Augus= 14, 1995 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks in order to allow construction of a conforming deck, subject to the following conditions: The two accessor~ buildings on the lake side, the shed and changing building, must be removed. The two story garage on the street side shall not be utilized as a dwelling unit. Mr. Figenskau's neighbor, Rock Sathre, suggested that the storm shelter should not be considered as a structure because it is underground. Mr. Sathre also suggested that they allow a shed on the lakeside if it is in a conforming location. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 22, 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 August 14, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official .~,,~-~, ' _ Variance Request Erik R. Figenskau 95-36 3070 Highland Blvd., Lots 19 & 20, Block 2, The Highlands, PID 23-117-2443 0001. R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to recognize existing nonconforming accessory structures in order to construct a conforming deck. This property is located in the R~I zone which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet to the property line abutting Highlands Blvd., side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a lake setback of 50 feet. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. The nonconforming setbacks are: 1. Garage//1: nonconforming front setback of 10.97' resulting in a 9.03' variance. 2. Garage #2: nonconforming front setback of 6.73' resulting in a 13.27' variance. Lakeside shed' nonconforming side setback of O' -I-/- resulting in a 4' variance. The lake setback is also questionable at about 50 feet. The two accessory buildings located on the street side need minor maintenance but are otherwise in good condition, it appears unlikely removal can be gained at this time. The nonconforming shed on the lakeside, however, should be relocated or removed. This property contains four accessory buildings, Zoning Ordinance Section 350:645, Subd. 2.C. limits the number of accessory buildings to a maximum of three for this site. COMMENT: The deck addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. printed on ,ecycled paper Staff Report 95-36- Figenskau Page 2 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, with the condition that one accessory building be removed, and that the lakeside accessory building be relocated to a conforming location, JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution; VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ' Cii'i t.;? Application Fee: $50.00 mo. C4% City Planner City Engineer Other "7-3~ x:t5 Public Work~ DNR Please type or print the following information: .......................................................... Address of Subject Property B(~?6 ~["~" ~¥x~. -t2x~x, Lot ,~' .~e.~ .~.~ tl.t~.~\ (~e.,',i~5~;,e:,~ Block Zoning District ~ ._d/' Use of Property: ~'"-$t Oty_~__.~~-'- · 4_ Day Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address 1. Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure f6r 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.): _. x 3'7 -ri-- Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 e Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located.9 Yes (), No~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS': required ~ F : ~ ._ ront'YardSl(N $ E W) , Fro rst j Yard~'~ N ~ ) -..~~ ~ide Yard: ( N ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ~lX~ Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ' (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hard¢over: sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft VARIANCE ft. ,~[/4"/L ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. xft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it ir 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 .~['~xisting situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of any~o~ having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. ff yes, explain: Was~lle hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No/9~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship ~f~ which you request a variance peculiar only to the ~roperty described in this petition? Yes (), No'~ ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? maintaining and removing such notice~i may be required by law. ~Owner's Signature ~'~ .~ ~ ~ l~Applicant's Signature ~~, ~.~ ~ c 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, Date Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) ! I PRO PERTY ADDRESS: ~:::)-7 (~ ~'~'°~r'~'~'(::~ '-~:>\ ~'~ ]OWNER'S NAME: ~"~ '~--'..' ~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% -- (for all lots) ., ............ "A'LOTAREA ~,~7~);~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (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 ~: \ OHED) Ju~E_- · DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT 1~.7_ x 'x~.~ = ~.~ $-7, o~ x ~t .'~ = _. ~ ~ ~.~ TOTAL HOUSE .\~,~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DECK X = TOTALOTHER HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE '~ I ~7__ ~-O OVER (~~ ~, iffere~.ef ............................... l: ~O ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA: REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE~IDTH: ~O ~ EXISTING LOT WIDTH: ~ ~ ' EXISTING LOT DEPTH: %~0 / + REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIP/)~BUILDING/HOUSE_ FRONT:(N)S E W ~ ~ ! FRONT:'"N S ~F~W SIDE: N S(~/~ IO r SIDE: Ns IO ' REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: S · sured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ACCES~IB, Y BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED / FRON'I~ N~S E W /-~("~ / /' '~ / FRONT:--~ 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: I ~ / EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: ~1,~--,. ~.-~,. 5~.'~1~. ~ PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE SHED FRONT: N S E W (~)J~ FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E~ FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S ~ J~.~' SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N~W i~. ~' SIDE: N S R~R: N~E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE J~ ~ ~/- LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: ~ TOP OF BLUFF: ~g Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the reqmrements :y of Mound Zoning Ordinance. 100 '~ O~+/. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR 4586 DENBIGH ROAD LOT 5, BLOCK 3, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 31 0005 P&Z CASE #95-37 WHEREAS, the owner, Scott Nagel, has applied for a lot area variance ___~~ a side setback variance to allow construct~on~--o a ~%~d~lling, and; WHEREAS, this property is located in the R-iA Zone which has a required lot area of 6,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 40 feet, front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, a rear yard setback of 15 feet, a lake setback of 50 feet, and a maximum of 40 percent impervious surface coverage is permitted with conditions, and; WHEREAS, the lot area, as calculated by the surveyor, is 5,960 square feet, a minimum of 6,000 square feet is required, resulting in a 40 square foot variance. The lot area according to the plat is conforming, and; WHEREAS, a side setback of 5.39 feet to the east was also requested, resulting in a variance of .61 feet, and; WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage at less than 40% will be conforming, due to the fact that virtually 100% of the drainage from this site will be diverted away from the City's storm water system and filtered through grassy areas on the site, and; WHEREAS, Mound's Ordinance allows a maximum building height of 35 feet or 2-1/2 stories. This dwelling does fall within the maximum overall height provisions, and; WHEREAS, setback, and; there is no hardship evident for the requested side WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with a 7 to 2 vote. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lot area variance of 40 square feet in order to construct a new dwelling, subject to the following conditions: Be The side setbacks be conforming to the 6 foot requirement with construction of only a 2~7 foot wide house. A drainage plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Building Official and shall be in compliance with the Shoreland Management Ordinance for lots exceeding 30% impervious surface coverage. Proposed Resolution Nagei, 95-37 August 22, 1995 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 remain~ 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 new single family dwelling that will conform to the required setbacks. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 5, Block 3, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 31 0005. 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. FAX ~1Z 474 ~Z0? ADVANC~ SUR¥'~¥ ~ CI'I'~ OF ~OU~D ~0UZ .4 D VANCE 5300 Highway 101 August 1B, 1995 SURVEYING Minnetonk~ ~ 55345 & ENGINEERING CO. Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 Mr. Scott Nagel 2224 26th Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55406 Re: Bluff status and height of proposed home on Lot 5, Block 3, AVALON, Mound, Minnesota. Dear Scott: You asked that we look at your proposal to build a new home on Lot 4, Block 3, AVALON and comment on compliance of the proposal with respect to the provisions of Mound's Code with respect to height and with respect to blufflim~tafions. These are to some extent legal issues but involve surveying considerations as well and with the caution that we are not attorneys and do not purport to give legal advice, we make the following comments from the viewpoint of a surveyor: I. The Mound City Code, Section 350 - Zoning Ordinance, Subd. 14 says (I have added bold letters): "~ Height The vertical distance to be measured from the average grade of a building line to the top, to the cornice of a fiat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall or a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof." As your home is proposed, per your house plans, we measure that distance to be 31 feet. The code provides in Section 350:625 Subd. 2. A. that: "No building shall exceed two and one half stories or thirty-five feet in height." Your proposal meets this criteria in that 31 feet is less than the required 35 feet. The code is a bit vague in that it does not specify whether one or both of these criteria must be met. My understanding of the meaning of the word "story" in common English language usage as applied to a home is as follows: Most people would say that a one story home is a home with one story at entry level. They would not say that such a home is a two story home because it has a basement, even if that basement is a "walk out" basement. If the home ha.q a story at entry level and a story above that level, they would say that it i.q a two story home. In that context, the home you propose is a two story home with a two level "walk out" basement and thus complies with the code requirement of a maximum of two and one half stories. 2. The Mound City Code, Section 350:310. Subd. 9 makes the following definition: "~luff Topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having all of the following characteristics: A. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; B. The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body; C. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluffto a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; D. The slope must drain toward the waterbody; an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance of 50 feet or more shall not be considered part ora bluff. The elevation at Denbigh Road in the center of the Lot is 966 and I measure 115 feet to the 934 contour at the toe of the slope on the lot. This is a 32 foot drop in a distance of 115 feet or a 27.8% grade which is less than 30% and thus the site does not qualify as a bluffunder the above ordinance definition. Sincerely, e~-I~, l~arker, P.E. & P.S. No. 92~5 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill MEMORANDUM TO: Jon Sutherland FROM: Mark Koegler DATE: August 17, 1995 SUBJECT: Nagel Variance Request - Case #95-37 When this case was reviewed by the Planning Commission, considerable discussion focused on the height of the proposed structure. As noted in your planning report on this item, you determined that the height of the structure was in compliance with the Mound Zoning Code. The Mound Zoning Code requires that the height of buildings be limited to two and one-half (2V2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet. Building height, according to the Code, is measured from the "average grade". Average grade is a term that is not de£med in the Zoning Code. It is my understanding, however, that this term is defined in the Building Code and that you have applied the Building Code definition to this case as you have done on all previous building permit requests. It is also my understanding that you have calculated the measurement from the "average grade" as identified in the Building Code and that the proposed house is 31 feet tall, despite the fact that it consists of four stories. Since the overall height is under the 35 feet stipulated in the Code, I concur with your interpretation that the proposed structure complies with the City's height restriction. The minutes also reflect questions on your determination that the subject parcel is not located in a bluff area. We collectively reviewed this issue with John Cameron and all three of us concurred that although property in the area is classified as bluff, the Nagel property is not in a bluff area as def'med by the Mound Zoning Code. If you have further questions on this matter, please call me. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMtqSION AUGUST 14, 1995 CASE ~95-37: SCOTT NAGELt 4586 DENBIGH RO]tD, LOT 5~ BLOCK 3t AVALON~ PID 19-117-23 31 0005. VARIANCE FOR NEW HOUSE~ LOT AREA ~ SETBACKS. The applicant is seeking a lot area variance and side yard setback variance in order to construct a new dwelling on this vacant lot. The lot area, as calculated by the surveyor, is 5,960 square feet, resulting in a 40 square foot variance. The lot area according to the plat is conforming. A side setback of 5.39 feet to the east is also being requested, resulting in a variance of .61 feet. This request is a result of the lumber yard informing him the lumber cost is the same for both a 27 foot wide or a 28 foot wide house. This is due to the fact that materials come in standard sizes and the difference between 27 and 28 feet is waste product. Impervious surface coverage at less than 40% will be conforming. Virtually 100% of the drainage from this site will be diverted away from the City's storm water system and filtered through grassy areas on the site. Mound's Ordinance allows a maximum building height of 35 feet or 2- 1/2 stories. It is debatable whether this is technically a 2-1/2 or 3 story house, however, it does fall within the maximum overall height provisions, and staff feels it meets the intent of the ordinance. Buildings of this type with a greater number of stories and heights are commonplace and permitted in other municipalities. 8 Planning Commission Minutes August 14, I995 Staff reconunended the Planning Co~unission reconunend approval of the variance request as proposed, with the condition that a drainage plan be reviewed by the City Engineer and Building official and it shall be in compliance with the Shoreland Management Ordinance for lots exceeding 30% impervious surface coverage. The Building Official confirmed that this site is not considered to be a bluff. He explained that this issue was reviewed extensively with the City Planner and City Engineer. Mueller disagreed that this site is not a bluff. Mueller contested the building height and emphasized that this structure is 4 stories on the lakeside. He is concerned about this building being so tall and being squeezed onto the lot and its close proximity to neighboring lots. It is a lot of house for such a little lot. Crum questioned the driveway encroachment. It was noted that it is the owner's choice to grant an easement to the neighbor for the driveway, and the City should not get involved. The Building official confirmed that the building does not meet the 2-1/2 story minimum, however it does meet the 35 foot height requirement. Mueller commented that this will be the only 4 story house in the area. Hanus commented that Cook's house, located on the same Denbigh Road, is also four stories on the lakeside. Mueller stated that the building should meet the required side yard setback. Michael questioned if the reason for the requested side setback would not be considered a "financial" reason, which does not constitute a hardship. Mueller commented that this house is pushing the envelope, and this neighborhood already has a problem with too many people parking in the street because they do not have enough parking area on their own properties. Mueller stressed the importance that the Shoreland Management practices be enforced with the development of this property. MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the lot area variance, subject to the following conditions: The side setbacks be conforming to the 6 foot requirement with construction of only a 27 foot wide house· It shall be confirmed that this lot is not a bluff, and if it is deemed that it is a bluff, the request shall be reviewed again by the Planning Commission. 9 Planning Commission Hinutes Augus= 14, 1995 & drainage plan shall be reviewed by the city Engineer and Building Official and shall be in compliance with the Shoreland Management Ordinance for lots exceeding 30% impervious surface coverage· 4. Building height compliance shall be confirmed. MOTION carried ? to 2. Those in favor were: Surko, Clapsaddle, Weiland, Michael, Glister, Voss, and Hanus. Crum and Mueller were opposed. Crum commented that the house is too large and feels it will only create problems for the neighborhood. Mueller agreed and commented that they are pushing the building envelope. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN d, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of August 14, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ,. Variance Request Scott Nagel 95-37 4586 Denbigh Road, Lot 5, Block 3, Avalon, PID 19-117-23 31 0005 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a lot area variance and side yard setback variance in order to construct a new dwelling on this vacant lot. The lot area, as calculated by the surveyor, is 5,960 square feet, resulting in a 40 square foot variance. The lot area according to the plat is conforming. A side setback ~er4ar~ee-to the east of 5.~ feet is also being requested. ~, Impervious surface coverage at less than 40% will be conforming. Virtually 100% of the drainage from this site will be diverted away from the city's storm water system and filtered through grassy areas on the site. This property is located in the R-lA Zone which has a required lot area of 6,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 40 feet, front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 6 feet, a rear yard setback of 15 feet, and a lake setback of 50 feet. Side Setback Variance. The original house plans were designed to be conforming to setbacks. The applicant's side yard setback variance request is a result of the lumber yard informing him the lumber cost is the same for both a 27 foot wide or a 28 foot wide house. This is due to the fact that materials come in standard sizes and the difference between 27 and 28 feet is waste product. pr~nted on recycled paper Staff Report 95-37, Nagel P. 2 Building Height. Our ordinance allows a maximum building height of 35 feet or 2-1/2 stories. It is debatable weather this is technically a 2-1/2 or 3 story house, however, it does fall within the maximum overall height provisions, and staff feels that this meets the intent of the ordinance. Buildings of this type with a greater number of stories and heights are commonplace and permitted in other municipalities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as proposed, with the condition that the drainage plan be reviewed by the City Engineer and Building Official and shall be in compliance with the Shoreland Management Ordinance for lots exceeding 30% impervious surface coverage. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request, This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. PROPOSED ELEV/,T1ONS: Top of Foundation: ':)66.5(I Garage Floor: 966.10 Lowest Floor: 949.3(I Benctmmrk: 930.20 JOB NO. 94.075 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission ~te: ~LJI 0 ~)~__~ City Council Date:, Di~tfib~ti0n; _/ City Planner ~ Z-c/5' Public Works City Engineer '~'.-Z.-q5 DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~C~L~_~_~__ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property 45~ Addition Zoning District Owner's Name Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Use of Property: Block Day Phone 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. _(vsDe~iled descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type oI use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Pa~e 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 J)~(. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): I SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S~W ) Side Yard: ( N S E ~ ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (N. SEW Lot Size: /_d2x30 Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. qO 'ft. -7 ft. sq ft VqO:3 sq ft z/O sq ft o Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? Please describe: 3q ((~) too narrow too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. m Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lan~ after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No Q6. If yes, explain: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), Nop{. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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 ~ official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, be required by law. ach notices as,6~nay application by any author~ maintaining and removing Owner's Signature ~ Applicant's Signature Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EX~Sn.G'OT AREA %~' SQ FT X 30% = EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: SQ FT X 15% = LENGTH WIDTH ~ x ~ = ~ x z_ = ~ x II. 2- = <3 / TOTAL HOUSE ******************* DRIVEWAY: TOTAL GARAGE ****************** X TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) OTJ-IER: /© x 7_~ = _-7 x z_ = /q TOTAL DECK * TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** 5 x q : zo X TOTAL OTHER /37. --- TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* L~3qz ~ J [ UNDE~I~ (OVER) ***************************** MEET~.OT COVEI~E REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XYES NO CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: ~1T- LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ~0 SQ. FT. X 40% = (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 surfade under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH X SQ FT TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x 6, : Zq TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I~-) ~O¢. (DO I /OVER (indica. l:e difference) .............................. [ /(~. O0 I PREPARED BY .~__....~< ,..~. A/~,'~ ~__~- DATE _('~,/ ,/~.~ .pq i! ~£f ^v£~,,~r:,F_.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r ~.L-----r-l, ...... ~ .................. ..~ II i.~FT ELEVATION 6g~9-9~9-EI9 :euoqcI '.~'N Oi A'~N~HDIH Z62.1~ STUDS O 16' ~ ~ INSUL THING G JOIST INSUL .;AL TO 30YE 4' SOUO <lNG 2X6 TREATED PLATE W/1/~'X~S* & SILL ~ 0 INSUL t2' BLK XS" Fi'G GP, N)E 12 MASTER BEDROOM WlC ~ :1C 6' BLK 12" BLK O'X6' FTG 3/4' T&'G PL~OD GLUED AND NAILED 16' TOP CHRD. BRG. FLOOR TRUSSES ~ 19.2' O.C. W/ V,B. GARAGE f 2X6 5'TUDS · 16 R-19 INSUL SHEATHING SIDING ID ,,, RIM JOIS'T INSUL 4" CONC SLAB ~...~w/6x6 ~o/lo wwM TYPICAL TO ABOVE 2X6 TREATED PLATE CROSS SECTION "B" 12 l0 MF.R DESIGN TRUSS 24" OC 3.5 R-44 INSUL w/ V.B. c/ LOFT DINING c/ ~ ROOM ~ SHEATHIN( ~ SIDING !~a_ 3/4' T&G PLYWOOD mm ) / BL~KING / 2X6 12C 1~ BLK lC 6X4 B TREATED PLATE 50,5' INSUL SOUO /2'×~' ~ * ~'oc SILL SEN.ER INSUL BLK ~l -,,,io~ ~-~ 20"x8" FTG DRAINTILE--"~[ ,.,..,~20' XS" F'FG ~ 2¢ XB" F'rG CROSS SECTION "A" i I~F-1F i ~F-~l-qP 4586 Denbi§h Road Avalon 37850 x Lot 5 Block 3 19-117-23 31 0005 ]AVAN ~ Survey ,yes -Ne--+2~)- ( ) Z I_ .0~ ~0 [ ~0 ~ FOL~ OVT GOVT LOTS 3 HAR 2 8 EIg~ RESOLUTION #95 - RESOLUTION TO REMOVE STOP SIGNS FROM THE INTERSECTIONS ON WOODLAND LANE AND FINCH LANE, EAGLE LANE, DOVE LANE, CANARY LANE AND BLUEBIRD LANE AND RELOCATE THESE SIGNS AT THE CROSSROADS OF WOODLAND L~ ~ WHEREAS, there are stop signs on Woodland Lane and the east and west crossing roads of Finch, Eagle, Dove, Canary and Bluebird Lane; and, WHEREAS, this causes the east and west bound traffic to stop at each of the five intersections; and, WHEREAS, the residents of the area have requested the removal of these stop signs; and, WHEREAS, the Mound Police Department and Public Works has reviewed the request and observed the Woodland Lane stop signs; and, WHEREAS, the Mound Police Department and Public Works suggests the removal of the stop signs along Woodland lane east and west; and, WHEREAS, the Mound Police Department and Public Works suggests to relocate the stop signs onto the intersecting north and south streets of Finch, Eagle, Dove, Canary and Bluebird Lanes of Woodland Lane. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the stop signs on Woodland Lane that intersects the lanes of Finch, Eagle, Dove, Canary and Bluebird will be removed and relocated onto the north and south lanes of Finch, Eagle, Dove, Canary and Bluebird intersecting Woodland Lane. 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: Attest: City Clerk Mayor McCombs Frank RoDs Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 RECEIVED - 4 gg5 July 27, 1995 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Edward J. Shukle Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Lot 1, Block 20, Shadywood Point PID-13-117-24 11 0064 MFRA #11138 Dear Ed: I was unaware that the purchase of the above mentioned City owned property was still an issue until receiving the Council packet for the July 25th meeting. As stated in my previous letters from 1984 and 1986, this lot was retained by the City for drainage purposes. Since that time, lots 13 and 14 were released for sale by the County and a new home was constructed in 1994. Runoff from the rear of this property along with other adjacent lots is directed thru lot 1 and picked up by the City's storm sewer system in Enchanted Road, thus requiring the use of lot 1 for drainage purposes. In addition, a possible future use of this property by the City may become necessary. In the very near future, the City will be required to address their stormwater management needs, which will include designating potential areas for retention of runoff prior to discharge into Lake Minnetonka. This lot could possibly be used in future stormwater management plan. Because Mound is almost fully developed, vacant City owned parcels such as this, are very scarce. An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Ed Shukle July 27, 1995 Page 2 We again are recommending that the City retain this lot for the reasons stated. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jb p:ms:ll138/Jc7-27 Phillip A. Klein and RECEIVED Thomas Aune August 1, 1995 City Manager, Ed Shulde City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, lVrannesota 55364 Subject: Releasing proposed NCA; Lot 1, Block 20, Shadywood Point, PID 13-11%24 11 0064 Dear Ed, We would like to withdraw our request for the City to release the subject lot for an adjoining lot owner's sale. The comments of the City Engineer bring forth a much more valid mason for the City to maintain ownership. I expect you to receive a report from him that will validate your reason to recommend maintaining possession. We do however insist the City take the recommendation of the Park & Open Space Commission and officially classify this lot as a Nature Conservation Area. In doing so we would like the City to remove the "No Dumping" signs, and replace the with wooden signs stating "Nature Conservation Area." Similar in style used by the State & Federal Department of Natural Resources. There is currently two signs in place now, and two of the new signs should be adequate. We would like the City Council to Vote on our newest proposal at the August 22, Council meeting when this subject was to continue. We hope we can have your support as well as the rest of your stat~ it is our hope this issue can come to a close soon with everyone happy. Sincerely, Phil Klien & Tom Aune CITY OF MOUND 1995 GREEN SPACE ADOPTION AGREEMENT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 SPONSOR: CONTACT PERSON: ADDRESS: ~--O/O GREEN SPACE TO BE ADOPTED: ACTIVITIES TO BE PERFORMED: Clean up garbage and litter. Plant flowers, shrubs, and trees as approved by the Park Director. Remove non-native plants and noxious weeds by hand or by cutting as approved by the Park Director. Water the adopted Green Space regularly. TYPES OF PLANTS TO BE PLANTED: COLORS: ~pr#ltedonrecycledpaper O~k~q ~ 1995 Green Space Adoption Agreement Page 2 SPONSOR AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. Clean up the green space at least one time each season and deposit the garbage at a site designated by the City of Mound; 2. Furnish plants approved by the City Park Director; 3. Keep plants properly watered, maintained, and weeded; 4. Refrain from using fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides without written permission of the Park Director; Furnish transportation and equipment for their workers; Provide adult supervision for workers under 15 years of age; Observe every safety precaution to protect workers from injury; Obey all traffic and parking restrictions in the area people are working. Nc vehicles shall be driven or parked on green spaces except for immediate loading or unloading of materials; Protect all monuments, signs, and equipment; Notify the Park Director at least 48 hours before starting work; Return unused material and supplies furnished by the City within three days after completion of work; Perform the work in a safe and attractive manner; and Indemnify and hold harmless the City of Mound, its officers and employees from all liability and claims for death, injury, or property damage arising out of the performance or non-performance of said work. Sponsor(s) acknowledge that they or their volunteers are not cor.sidered to be employees of the City of Mound or any of its agencies. Se 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. THE CITY OF MOUND AGREES TO: 1. Furnish trash bags; 2. Pick up garbage collected by sponsor at a designated site and dispose of same; 3. To the extent possible, furnish plants if sponsor unable to do so; 4. Advise the sponsor regarding management of the green space; and 5. N~t~f~, th~ me~ia an~ ~k~ oti~er e~o~'~ ~o p~D]iciy acknowie~ge sponsor's contribution. It is further a. greed that the City of Mound reserves the right to ~t is found that the Sponsor has not satisfied the of the Park Director, _ terms and conditions of this Agreement. Date Received By City of Mound Date 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. 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. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 13, 1995 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. Casey commented that it is his opinion this site is not appropriate for ownership because it is unique, it is needed for drainage purposes, and the size of the adjacent 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. 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. JAM£S D, [_ARSON, P.A. THOIulAS F'. UNDERWOOD, CRAIG M. Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 1AW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, I-ARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA, SUITE I;30 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1803 June 23, 1995 RECEIVED {6i,~) FAX NUMB£R 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 bccn 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, /ARSON, ~,INDERWOOD & ME:RTZ: 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 convemaflon 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 nccded 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 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 try 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 D~oo Philip A. Klein and Thomas Aune CC: JUN 2 6 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; #1 ) 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 was a detertnination that these Parcels were of more v~_!ue to ~dioinin~ tmopert~ owners or o~.hcr indlvid~__al~ than the~ were to the Cit~. ' 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 maF be more appropriate for private ownership. In such cases, the CitF mag consider retaining a conservation easement to protect the land." This site is directly across the street from public lakeshore commons. #4 ) NCA DESIGNATION PARAMETERS, 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 lxtrcels may be more appropriately owned and used by private parties to provide ad_~_'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 CitF 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 plan.tine or re-establishment of habitat where degradation has occurred. 2. Recreation - Nature observation is a passive recreational pursuit. .... Low intensity improvements should be considered to accommodate passive recreation." Ir'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 from 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." #7) COST This item 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 propert~ 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 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JUNE 8, 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 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. Schmidt reviewed the motion made at the March 9, 1995 meeting, "to get some legal council on conservation easements and drainage easements." Casey stated that the City would have better control over the property if the City retained it, and he questioned why the City should spend money on legal advice. Phil Klein explained that they currently take care of the property and he would like to own the property so that if he wants to plant some bushes or flowers he does not have to come to the City for permission. Tom Aune commented that the neighbors were not notified when the status of this property was changed from "for sale to adjoining property owners" to "retain for conservation purposes." Goode questioned what happened with this property between 1986 when the property was retained for drainage purposes, and 1992 when it was made available for sale to adjoining property owners. Darling questioned Aune and Klein what their motivation is to own the property. Klein commented that it will enhance his property, he would like to plant wild raspberries, flowers, etc., and clean up weeds, dead brush, etc. Aune commented that it would increase the square footage of his lot to help with hardcover, and he would like to use the area to store his boat. In turn, they questioned the City's motivation to retain the property. Goode replied that the City's interest in the property is for conservation purposes, according to Resolution #93-144. Schmidt questioned if this property has officially been declared as a Nature Conservation Area (NCA). The Parks Director suggested that the neighbors could clean-up the property through the adopt-a- green space program, and that the City would assist in the removal of debris when dumping occurs. The intent of a Nature Conservation Area is to maintain the property in a natural state, it does not allow the storage of vehicles. The Secretary is to mail adopt-a-green space information to Aune and Klein. Ahrens stated that a Land Alteration Permit is required in order to allow the trimming of trees, or the removal of vegetation, according to City Code Section 320. It was questioned if this permit would be required for work on a NCA. Is this property actually an NCA? Can the property be released with easements? MOTION made by Darling, seconded by Goode to table discussion on this request until more information is gathered. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Goode, Ahrens, Byrnes, Schmidt, Geffre, and Meyer. Casey was opposed. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Darling, to provide the Park and Open Space Commission with the cost for rending the opinion from the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. o4- PARK COMMISSION 5-11-95 ADD-ON: AGENDA ITEM #3 Phillip A. Klein and Thomas Aune HAY 81995 February 6, 1995 Peggy City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Peggy: We are writing to you about the lot abutting our lots. We would like to advise the Park and Open Space Committee of our joint effort to purchase this lot. Would you please forward this letter to each of them for reference material at the next meeting. Our intention of joining together to purchase this lot is a compromise, we both want to buy the lot. However neither of us want the liability of the whole lot. We would like to subdivide the lot into two parcels as follows; Parcel 1 = 65' x 85' & Parcel 2 = 65' x 40'. Mr. Aune wants Parcel 1 which fronts Enchanted Lane, Mr. Klein wants parcels 2 which is to the rear of his lot. We both feel this proposal is good for the City and good for us. Sincerely, Phillip A. Klein 472-7458 and Thomas Aune 472-7806 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1995 REQUEST TO RELEASE NATURE CONSERVATION AREA LOCATED AT ENCHANTED HERON LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11 0064 A request was received from Phillip A. Klein to release the subject NCA for sale to the adjoining lot owners, as noted in his letter to the City Manager dated January 27, 1995. Mr. Klein owns the adjoining property to the south, 5010 Woodland Road. The Park and Open Space Commission previously recommended this parcel be retained as a NCA, and on October 26, 1993the City Council approved Resolution #93-144authorizing the conveyance of this property for conservation purposes. If drainage and conservation easements were to be established, this would not guarantee that future owners of Phil Klein's property will have knowledge of the easements or its conditions. Staff recommended that the ownership of this parcel remain with the City in order to ensure conservation protection of this parcel. A copy of a memorandum from Thomas Aune, 5011 Enchanted Road, was distributed to the Commission. Mr. Aune verbally summarized the memorandum and explained that the subject property lies directly east of his property, and he is against the releaSe of the property, but if it is released, he would like to be offered the first opportunity to purchase it due to its relationship to his property. He has been maintaining this property for the last eight years. In 1992he inquired about purchasing the property, but he did not see a need to do so at that time, and then in 1993 the status of the property was changed by the City, and he was not notified. He would like the property to remain as an open area. Ahrens stated that this property was not formally designated as a Nature Conservation Area. The Secretary confirmed that Resolution #93-144 states that the property was retained for conservation purposes. Ahrens commented that this means the property is under our jurisdiction, but it was not specifically designated as a "Nature Conservation Area" by the Council. Ron Gavin, who resides across the street from the subject property, explained the history of this property and that there use to be cattails on the property, it was a holding pond for drainage, but now the drainage goes directly into the storm sewer and then into the lake. 3 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes March 9, 1995 Phil Klein, applicant, stated that he agrees this property is not a NCA. He would like to make improvements to the lot so that it is not such an eyesore, but if he is going to invest in it, he wants to own it. He does not want to have to get permission from the City every time he wants to do something to it. He feels the City could control the property through easements. He has a lot of landscaping to do to his new house and would like to incorporate some of his landscaping onto this lot. Schmidt questioned the appropriateness of the City holding onto some of these parcels. She recalled from a tour taken by the Commission that some of these parcels were identifiable only by the "no dumping" signs. The City will not generate sizeable funds from selling these properties, and the amount of funds that could be generated by taxes are consequential. There may be a perceived care for these parcels if they are not held by the City and maybe this is a way to begin setting a precedence. Meyer commented that the neighbors concerns and the City's concerns are basically the same, and the City's concern is that the conservation easement and buffer zones remain intact. Part of the NCA plan is to get neighborhoods to adopt these areas and take care of these properties. It is his opinion that the City should retain the property for the seventh generation. Ahrens commented that she has been an advocate of the fact that ownership breeds pride in what property looks like, and when people own property, "no dumping" signs don't need to be erected. All properties need maintenance.This property was available for sale at one time, and maybe there was some wisdom then. The City can't keep and maintain all parcels. There was discussion whether easements could work. Mr. Aune stated that if he had been notified of the City's action in 1993 to change the status of this property, he would have purchased it at that time, but he was not notified. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Schmidt, to get some legal council on conservation easements and drainage easements. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Schmidt clarified that discussion will take place at the May 11th Park and Open Space Commission meeting on the issue of the pros and cons of creating conservation and drainage easements on private property versus the City retaining the property as a Nature Conservation Area. CC: PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION HANDOUT @ 3-9-95 MEETING RECEIVED MAR Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager C~' of Mound, MN 7 1995 Thomas M. Aune 5011 Enchanted Rd Mound MN 472-7806 Dear Mr. Shukle, On March 4th I received a letter from the city regarding the request to release a Nature Conservation Area located at Enchanted and Heron lane on Three Points. Specifically Lot 1 Block 20, Shadywood Point. PID 13-117-24 11 0064. I contacted Mayor Polston regarding this request and he advised me to contact you. Since I purchased my home in 19871 have learned that this parcel once was a part of the property I have purchased and that it was let go due to back taxes in the early 1970's. This parcel remained 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 the status of this property is to change now or in the future, That I be granted first option to purchase it. I base this on several points. Since I purchased my property in 19871 have taken care of the parcel next to me by mowing part of the front and side to keep what would have been a large growth of noxious weeds from forming. Due to this there are now several areas of Day Lilies growing in the front area. I have also cleared the drainage ditch every spring in order to prevent the ponding of water in the back half. This drainage ditch is a drainway for the entire block and has comiderable flow during the spring and requires cleaning each spring. I have also cleared the culv~'t on several occasions of concrete blocks that have blocked the flow of water and disposed of them. Along with this upkeep I have also taken responsibility for cleaning up the trash that by some means has a way of finding it's way to the sides of streets and open areas. This trash has mn the gambit from the usual beer can to garbage bags of fish cleaning remains and baby diapers all of which I have picked up and disposed of at my own time and cost. In 1992 1 inquired to Hennepin County about the purchase of this property (copy enclosed) at that time the property was for sale to adjacent land holders only. Due to the fact that I J Murphy and myself were the only adjacent land holders and Murphy had no interest in it, there was no point in purchasing it since no one else could which left it safe until now. Had I been aware of the status change in 1993 1 would have probably purchased it then. Since this parcel was originally a part of the property I purchased ,sale of it to any party other than myself would have adverse effects on my property. Since my home was built with the two properties intact the sale of the adjoining property would leave the east prop~y line only 16 to 20 feet away from my house. The effect runs the ~ntir~ d~pth of my properly 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 thc property being a conservation area my options as far as adding on to my house arc some what limited but not ncarlv as bad as they would be ff this property were to be sold to Mr. Klein. If I were to purchase thc property I havc 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 thc road and thc 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 thc 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 thc3' agree that if thc status of thc 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. Tun Faclder 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 corner 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 ff 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 thc ramifications of his purchase of thc 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 thc negative impact on my property. In summary: ff thc 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 thc resultant continuous lot formed by my purchase versus thc odd lot created by Mr. Klein's purchase. And that consideration as to the effect on my prop~n~y be given thought prior to sale. ff thc parcel is to remain as a NCA that Mr. Klein be allowed to roplace 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 like the lot as it is and ff I did own it I would not change it. It may not be everyone's idea of beautiful but to me it is far better than reaching out your window and knocking on the side of anoth~ pm~ons houss~. Thank you for your ~onsideration on this matter. HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPAETMENT OF PROPEKTY TAX & K~LIC Tax Forfeited Land Unit A60] Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0063 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 OF TAX FORFEITED LAND REFERENCED ABOVE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR SALE "OVER THE COUNTER" TO ADJACENT OWNERS ONLY. IF YOU OPT TO PURCHASE WITH FULL PAYMENT~ PLEASE TENDER FULL PAYMENT OF ~4z188.20z PAYABLE TO HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER. CONTRACT TERMS ARE AVAILABLE~ IN WHICH CASE THE DOWNPAYMENT AMOUNT TO TENDER IS ~920.00, PAYABLE TO HENN, ~O~JNTY TREAS. PLEASE NOTE THAT A 3% ASSURANCE CHARGE APPLIES IN FTTHF~ CAgF_ Pi .'.'FAqF' F'~N,~P~ ~'r~ SIGN AND HAVE NOTARIZED THE T~R,M$ OF SALE-PURCHA_~F qFTIIP FFlPM ANn RETURN IT TO THIS OFFICE. OR STOP IN AT A-603 GOVERNMENT DURING OUR 8AM-4:'~0PM BU~INFSg HOIIR~ THIS OFFICE IF YOU HAVE ANY mIIF.STfQN.~(348-3734). 348-3734 ENCLOSURES · CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: February 8, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Park and Open Space Commission Jim Fackler, Parks Directo~ Request to Release Nature Co~nservation Area (NCA) Lot 1, Block 20, Shadywood Point, 13-117-24 11 0064 A request has been received from Phillip A. Klein to release the subject NCA for sale to the adjoining lot owners, as noted in his letter to the City Manager dated January 27, 1995. Mr. Klein owns the adjoining property to the south, 5010 Woodland Road. The Park and Open Space Commission recommended this parcel be retained as a NCA, and the City Council approved Resolution #93-144 on October 26, 1993 authorizing the conveyance of this property for conservation purposes. The definition of a Nature Conservation Area is: "City owned and/or controlled lands which are, or could be, essentially natural and would conserve flora and fauna. Such areas are to be established in recognition of the benefits of preserving natural open space for present and future generations." If drainage and conservation easements were to be established, this would not guarantee that future owners of Phil Klein's property will have knowledge of the easements or its conditions. Staff recommends that the ownership of this parcel remain with the City in order to ensure conservation protection of this parcel. JF:pj printed on recycled paper GOVT .... iSgl, 54 RES IIIJ Phillip A. Klein 5010 Woodland Rd. Mound, MN 55364 February, 6, 1995 Peggy City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Peggy: I am writing to you about the lot behind my house, designated by the City Council as a Nature Conservation Area. To help bring you up to speed, please see the letter I sent to the City Manager, dated 1-27-95. (Attached). That letter should explain nay intentions. The City responded to that letter by forwarding it to John Cameron, who left me voice mail informing me that I would have to bring this 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 gratefi, fl. Tha~iks! 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 Camerson Greg Skinner Fran Clark 2~-95 Phillip A. Klein 5010 Woodland Rd. Mound, MN 55364 F~ECEiV73 January 27, 1995 Subject: Lot 1, Block 20, Shadywood Point (PID# 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 nsider 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 .3 CI'FY of MOUND L~,)Ui'.I~. klll It il:: Sr.:. T.~ FAX ~6:2~ 47~ Nove~nber 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 I I 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 Com~nission 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 enc. ~ printed on recycled paper October 26, 1993 RF_,SOLUTION NO. 93-144 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS WItEI1EAS, there are certain lots in the City of Mound which are tax forfeit; and WHEREAS, 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 13-117-24 11 0064 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 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. October 26, 1993 1.10 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARKS & QPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: .NATURE CQNSERVATION 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. e 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. e PID 23-11%24 22 0003: woodlands, and wetlands. a Park. Westedge Blvd. (old sewer plant), a nice mixture of prairie, This parcel is adjacent to other natural areas. Classified as 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 13-11%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. 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. There was concern about Parcel #5 being sold to an adjoining property owner before action can Q~ taken. Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-144 ISU_B,IE .C_-> The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONVEYANCE OF THE FOLLOWING TAX FORFEIT LAND - PID #13- 11%24 11 0064, LOT 1, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES Motion carried. pROPOSED STORM SEWER CB-I MH'I CB-?-- ' FLARED END~' - sECTiON 4 5 6 t 16 RESID, 14 t / 15 END 14 sECTION ;7.3 /4.. Z .< · .J Z 0 Lots 13 and 14, Block 20, "SItApYWOOD POINT, iiENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN." McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS :3 LAND SURVEYORS I PLANNERS July 16, 1986 ~eply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota ,55441 (612) 559-3700 Edward O. Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, ~innesota 55364 SUBOECT: City of Mound Lots 1, 13 & 14, Block 20, Shadywood Point MKA #2113 General Dear 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.O. 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 1 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 Jon Elams letter of September 19, 1984 to Mr. Whitman, Lot 1 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. Oohn Cameron JC: tdv cc: I.J. Murphy _ McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSL)L;IAi b.b, October 17, 1984 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. 5on Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound Lots 1, 13, and 14, SHADYWOOD POINT File #2113, General Dear 3on: After our on-site inspection of the above property, I did some digging in our files and found the street improvement plans for this 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 13 and 14. Lot i is a different case though. Because this lot is the lowest point in the area, it appears most of the rear yard drainage goes through this lot and is picked up by the flared end at 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 14, but also the ad- jacent lots and all adjacent streets. At this time it appears possible to de- velop Lots 13 and 14 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, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3oh~n Cameron~'~~ OC:sj printed on recycled ~ai~er CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 September 19, 1984 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 ~Voodland 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-1 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 $5,000-$6,000 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, JE:fc cc: John Cameron, City Engineer September 13, 1984 Mr. Jon Elam 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. These 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 (%3_117 24 11 0067) has apparently been lost, but the fil~s' ~6~-I~~mber 14 (13 117 24 11 0068) and the file for lot n~ber ! (13 117 ~2-4--££ UOB4) 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). 3). 4). I will buy the lots for a token fee. I will clean the lots of debris, weeds and the n~,~erous dead trees that make it such an eye- s ore. 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. 0 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 guaranuy uhe 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 number 14 and lot number 13 buildableo 3°) A burning permit to get rid of all the weeds, branches and accumulated debris over the years. If this proposal is ac'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 i~ediate 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- siveo Furthermore, we can get the financing to bring this project about. McCombs Frank RoDs Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 RECEIVED AUG 1 6 lg[l§ Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors August 15, 1995 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota 1995 Seal Coat Program Final Payment Request MFRA #6173 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Allied Blacktop's Final Payment Request in the amount of $37,288.19 for the 1995 Seal Coat Program. The contract price for the project was $42,898.50. Because this work is fully completed, we do not recommend that any amount be retained. We have reviewed this project with Greg Skinner, your Street Superintendent and find that the work was completed in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:3b Enclosures J: temp: 6173Jc-2 An Equal Opportunity Employer 0~ ~ 0 0 · 0 Z 0 U ~ Z ~ 0 Z Z 0 0 m Z 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 co ¢~ ~ D Z 0 Z 0 0 4J E 4J 0 · '~ 0 4~ 0 O = Z Z Z 0 ~ U CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 August 15, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MOUND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK ON-SALE BEER LICENSE FOR MOUND LANES MOUND LANES, 2346 CYPRESS LANE, IS APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR ON-SALE BEER LICENSE FOR THE BOWLING ALLEY. LICENSE TIME IS 7-1-95 THROUGH 6-30-96. APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON ALL REQUIRED FORMS, INSURANCE, ETC. BEING SUBMITTED. ls printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 August 17, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING BANNERS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Shirley Andersen and Rob Wilkening were present at the Economic Development Commission meeting of August 17, 1995. They made the same presentation that they made to the City Council at the Committee of the Whole meeting on August 15th. The EDC was very supportive of the banner project and endorses the project from the standpoint of getting donations from local civic organizations and others to purchase the holiday decorations as soon as possible. The EDC would like, however, to have the Westonka Retail and Professional Council explore further options as they relate to the summer season banners, for example, it was mentioned that perhaps a local company could make the summer season banners. Also discussed was getting other prices from other companies that do banners. Further, the EDC was more supportive of having a customized banner that would have the city's logo and "Welcome to Mound" on the banner as part of the research that will be done by the Retail and Professional Council. This will be discussed in more detail. Therefore, the Economic Development Commission took action to endorse the banner project for Christmas and to explore options for the summer season, with the understanding that funds for the holiday banners will be gathered through local civic organizations and others and that the options for the summer season would include a customized banner that would have the city logo and "Welcome to Mound" on the banner. In addition, local vendors should be contacted with regard to making the banners and to compare those prices to what the specialty companies will provide. ES:Is printed on recycled paper BILLS. August 22, 1995 BATCH 5082 Total Bills $156,029.27 $156,029.27 o 0 ,, ? ?? ! I I I ?o oooo oo ! c~ ,o c~ c ..-r I o'1;, Z oo 0 r~ 0 ~.~ Z (30 m r'n ~-~ rn z ??? Z C: C ~oooo ~o~ooooooo ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ zz c I -~ ,--.< ,7~ r-> ~-.< 7-< t rq c ??? O' r'- o'. L/1 u1 f- ,b I- ,.,'- -t ZZ IG~ ??? I I CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT July 1995 58.33% GENERALFUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments July 1995 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,254,200 618,256 618,256 (635,944) 49.29% 9,800 0 3,319 (6,481) 33.87% 66,000 6,961 50,664 (15,336) 76.76% 888,590 404,540 439,308 (449,282) 49.44% 47,850 971 4,808 (43,042) 10.05% 60,000 5,411 38,076 (21,924) 63.46% 81,900 628 16,562 (65,338) 20.22% 0 796 6,541 6,541 N/A TOTAL REVENUE 2 408 340 I 037 563 I 177 534 {1.230,806) 48.89% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 325,785 34,678 208,191 (117,594) 63.90% 88,320 6,119 66,789 (21,531) 75.62% 1,400,000 144,709 792,909 (607,091) 56.64% 400,000 37,543 226,281 (173,719) 56.57% 730,000 59,147 405,248 (324,752) 55.51% 5,650 440 1,565 (4,085) 27.70% 70,800 305 70,572 (228) 99.68% 08/10/95 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT July 1995 58.33% July 1995 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 69,330 6,201 44,467 24,863 64.14% Pro motions 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 100.00 % Cable TV 1,380 125 224 1,156 16.23% City Manager/Clerk 1 84,000 10,606 92,964 91,036 50.52% Elections 2,670 12 1,905 765 71.35% Assessing 51,700 13 52,629 (929) 101.80% Finance 1 55,920 12,488 90,166 65,754 57.83% Computer 24,800 919 11,950 12,850 48.19% Legal 103,520 14,070 60,265 43,255 58.22% Police 833,350 62,783 429,878 403,472 51.58% Civil Defense 4,610 409 1,635 2,975 35.47% Planning/Inspections 162,280 14,371 79,646 82,634 49.08% Streets 400,860 31,343 216,785 184,075 54.08% City Property 101,160 7,803 60,601 40,559 59.91% Parks 133,530 15,258 68,014 65,516 50.94% Sum mer Recreation 28,960 11,033 11,033 17,927 38.10% Contingencies 15,000 3,152 12,669 2,331 84.46% Transfers 140,960 10,587 74,107 66,853 52.57% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2~418T030 205~173 1T312~938 1~105~092 54.30% Area Fire Service Fund 285,330 79,019 193,038 92,292 67.65% Recycling Fund 118,590 3,106 77,045 41,545 64.97% Liquor Fund 197,410 17,551 114,550 82,860 58.03% Water Fund 371,690 28,775 213,958 157,732 57.56% Sewer Fund 1,01 9,480 67,460 595,736 423,744 58.44% Cemetery Fund 5,840 368 1,812 4,028 31.03% Docks Fund 78,700 2,708 35,373 43,327 44.95% exp95 08/1 O/95 G.B. City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: July 1995 No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Total Residential 1,118 1,114 22,721 $30,795 $51,269 $4,928 $86,992 Commercial 123 123 5,060 $5,003 $12,807 $105 $17,915 08/11/95 Utility-96 Total 1,241 1,237 27,781 $35,798 $64,076 $5,033 $104,907 Payments: Water Sewer Recycle Total $29,033 $49,920 $4,868 $83,821 $4,515 $10,682 $71 $15,268 $33,548 $60,602 $4,939 $99,089 Mmnegasco· A ~E~.J~&J~ ENERGY COMPANY RECEIVED AU6 1 4 lgg5 August ll, 1995 Edward Shulke Jr. Mound City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dear Mr. Shulke: In an effort to keep you informed about issues that affect the residents and businesses in your community, I want you to know that on August 11, 1995 Minnegasco filed for a 4.2 percent increase in its gas rates with the Minnesota Pubic Utility Commission (MPUC). I have attached a news release dated today which explains the essential information about the filing. As in past filings, Minnegasco has asked that interim rates be put into effect in October until a final decision, expected in June, 1996, is made. Minnegasco will be providing individual customers more detail through their monthly bills. If you or your staff wish additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Arne Hendrickson Local Government Relations 612-321-5375 Eno. 800 LaSalle Avenue P.O. Box 59038 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0038 /Jlllnneg sco' A ~Ol~ ENERGY COMPANY For More Information, Contact: Patty Pederson, Manager Public & Community Relations 612/321-4609, Pager, 612/$38-1234 Don Follett, Manager Public Affairs Communications 612/321-4783, Pager, 612/538-1234 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 11, 1995 MINNEGASCO REQUESTS 4.2% RATE INCREASE MINNEAPOLIS -- Minnegasco today filed a rate increase request with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) to raise overall revenues by $24.3 million or 4.2 percent. A final decision from the MPUC is expected in June, 1996. Minnegasco also asked to begin interim (temporary) rates on October 1, 1995, that would raise overall revenues by $18.9 million or 3.3 percent, adding about $1.70 to most residential customers' monthly bills. If the final approved rate is lower than the interim rate, the company will refund the difference with interest. "We need this increase for environmental cleanup required by government mandates, and for expanded energy conservation programs" said Tracy Bridge, director of regulatory services. "We also need to meet the rising operating costs of providing safe and reliable service to our customers." The distribution system is being improved through additions and reinforcements, as well as through replacement of older pipe and equipment. In addition, increases in operating costs caused by inflation make this filing necessary. The expanded energy conservation programs offer customers energy audits, rebates and other incentives to help them cut their energy consumption and lower energy bills. Minnegasco also seeks funding for administering a three-year Pilot Discount Program for 3,000 low income -More- @545 800 IatSalle Avenue, FI 11 ~ Printed on recycled paper with soy ink Minneapolis, MN 55402 '~ 50% recycled and 10% post consumer waste Minnegasco 1995 Rate Filing -- Page 2 residential customers as directed by the MPUC and mandated by the Minnesota legislature. 'iMinnegasco is also proposing to redesign its price structure to more fairly reflect the actual costs of serving each type of customer," said Bridge. "Currently, the rates businesses pay subsidize residential customer rates. Going forward, residential customers can expect to pay rates that are more in line with what it costs to serve them." The requested changes continue the gradual process of eliminating price subsidies. The proposed final rates add about $3.90 to the average monthly residential bill of $50.85. Minnegasco, a division of NorAm Energy Corp., is Minnesota's largest natural gas utility, serving approximately 620,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in more than 220 communities. Minnegasco, founded in 1870, has provided energy services to Minnesota customers for 125 years. -30- -More- /j//l##egasco' A g~OIT.~lll ENERGY COMPANY MINNEGASCO 1995 RATE FILING Quick Facts Revenue increase request: $24.3 million, 4.2%, effective June, 1996 Average residential customer increase: $3.90/month, 7. 7% Residential Basic Charge increase: from $5 to $6.75~month Rate of return requested: 10.24% Interim rate request: $18.9 million, 3.3%, effective October, 1995 Interim impact on average residential customer: $1.70~month Major factors that make the 1995 Minnegasco rate filing necessary Providing safe and reliable natural gas service to customers: The safety and reliability of the distribution system is being improved through the replacement and upgrading of older facilities, as well as through expansion .and reinforcement of other physical plant and equipment in new areas. The company operates and maintains more than 9,800 miles of natural gas mains, distributes about 134 billion cubic feet of natural gas each year to customers, and employs approximately 1,400 full and part time employees. Working on environmental cleanup: Minnegasco is fulfilling its legal responsibility to clean up environmental problems, including former manufactured gas plant sites (MGPs). Most of the requested funding will be used to complete an environmental cleanup of a MGP in Minneapolis. Minnegasco has been responsive to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other interested parties and is pursuing a cleanup plan that effectively protects the environment and public health while efficiently managing costs. The company is also actively working with the local community and has formed a Community Advisory Council (CAC) to ensure that community representatives are able to share their views and concerns about all phases of the cleanup process. The CAC includes a balanced representation of the community and representatives of agencies such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Health. Expanding energy conservation programs: Minnegasco continues to expand its offering of energy conservation programs for residential, commercial and industrial customers. The programs focus on energy conservation and energy efficiency through audits, rebates, equipment replacement and other incentives, with the goal of lowering energy consumption and bills. Minnegasco and NSP Gas and Electric recently won a national award for a collaborative pilot program, Energy Advantage Home. The goal of this pilot program is to accelerate the building of energy efficient housing to include insulation, windows, heating, cooling, water heating and kitchen lighting. Buyers of these homes can benefit from energy bills that can be 30 to 40 percent lower. Designing rates to better reflect costs: Minnegasco is proposing changes in its price structure to achieve cost-based rates and eliminate cost subsidies within and among customer rate classes. Currently, businesses are paying more than what it costs to serve them. By better matching prices with actual costs of providing service, Minnegasco is preparing for the increasingly competitive energy marketplace that continues to emerge -- a 800 LaSalle Avenue, Fl 11 Minneapolis, MN 55402 ~,~ Printed on recycled paper with soy ink result of deregulation of the industry. The filing requests an increase in the monthly Basic Charge for residential customers from $5.00/month to $6.75/month. The Basic Charge pays for a portion of the costs, sometimes called "fixed costs," that don't change with the amount of gas used. Fixed costs include things such as installing and reading meters, preparing and sending customer monthly bills, and purchasing and maintaining vehicles and equipment. The result of the rate filing will add about $3.90, or 7.7 percent, to the average monthly residential bill of $50.85. · Administering the Discount Rate Program: The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) selected Minnegaseo to conduct a Pilot Discount Program following state legislation passed last year. The program began February 1, 1995 and offers a 30 percent discount for 3,000 low income residential customers. The customers were randomly selected from those eligible for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program through various agencies. The program applies across Minnegasco's system. Ultimately the program will provide the 1V/PUC and the legislature.with information to help them decide if such a program helps ensure customers of continuing, affordable natural gas service. Examples of what Minnegasco is doing to help keep rates low Keeping prices low: Nationally, Minnegasco's residential customer rates are lower than 78 percent of 139 companies sampled by the American Gas Association. In Minnesota, Minnegasco's residential rates historically have either been the lowest or among the lowest of the seven rate-regulated natural gas distribution companies. Minnegasco is an experienced and aggressive buyer of natural gas, working hard to balance price, availability and deliverability to ensure our customers a highly reliable gas supply at competitive prices. Becoming more efficient: In 1994, Minnegasco relocated its headquarters employees and additional employees to one centralized location in Minneapolis. To increase efficiency for the operations of the company, Minnegasco implemented a computerized distribution system mapping program and began using new technology for installing underground service lines for customers without trenching through established lawns. Improving customer service: Some examples of customer service improvements include extending the hours of the Minneapolis customer information center to 7 a.m. - 8 p.m.; expanding the number of payment drop boxes; decreasing the number of estimated meter readings; and implementing a Summary Billing option which allows customers with multiple locations to receive one consolidated bill with one payment due date. Timetable Dates are approximate, based on Minnegasco's August 11, 1995 filing. August 11 October 1 January 1996 June 1996 August 1996 Filing submitted Interim rates effective Public hearings begin Final Order Final Rates ]~O]~0~GASC0 1995 R~TE FILINC - ATTACHMENT 1 - ]VIH~'qECASCO CUSTOIVIERS SERVED BY NORTHERN NATURAL PIPELINE chart below shows the effect of both the proposed interim and [mai rate changes on monthly bills for customers with average usage. The monthly Basic Charge is included. Rate class Average monthly Average monthly bill: Average monthly Average monthly (usage shown in Therms) usage in Therms current rates bill: interim rates bill: proposed rates Residential 98 $50.85 $52.53 $54.75 Commercial/ Industrial -up to 1,500/yr 77 $43.53 $44.97 $46.86 -1500-5,000/yr 246 $125.31 $129.45 $130.56 -5,000 or more/yr 1,289 $613.03 $633.26 $600.06 Small Volume Dual Fuel -up to 120,000/yr 3,210 $915.67 $945.89 $900.46 -120,000 or more/yr 16,612 $4,471.86 $4,619.43 $4,310.06 Large General Service 38~227 $15,134.81 $15,634.26 $15,134.81 Large Volume Dual Fuel -up to l~00,000/yr 50,000 $12,147.50 $12,548.37 $12,035.50 -1,200,000 or more/yr 100,000 $24,095.00 $24,890.14 $23,553.00 This chart shows the Basic Charge for each customer class, including any changes up or down. The Basic Charge covers a portion of the fixed costs of providing service to customers. Rate class Current basic charge Proposed basic charge (usage shown in Therms) Residential $5.00 $6.75 Commercial and industrial - up to 1,500/year $9.00 $11.00 - 1,500 to 5,000/year $15.00 $16.00 - 5,000 or more/year $35.00 $35.00 Small Volume Dual Fuel Sales Service - up to 120,000/year $50.00 $50.00 - 120,000 or more/year $75.00 $75.00 Transportation - up to 120,000/year $150.00 $150.00 -120,000 or more/year $175.00 $175.00 Large Volume Dual Fuel Sales Service - up to 1,200,000/yr $200.00 $300.00 - 1,200,000 or more/yr $200.00 $450.00 Transportation - up to 1,200,000/yr $300.00 $300.00 - 1,200,000 or more/yr $300.00 $450.00 Large General Service $100.00 $175.00 MINNEGASCO 1995 RATE FILING - ATTACHMENT 2 - M]NNEGASCO CUSTOMERS SERVED FROM VIKING PIPELINE The chart below shows the effect of both the proposed interim and £mal rate changes on monthly bills for customers with average usage. The monthly Basic Charge is included. Only customers living in the communities of Dalbo, Foreston, Milaca and Pease are served from the Viking Pipeline. Rate class Average Average Average Average (usage shown in Thenns) monthly monthly bill: monthly bill: monthly bill: usage in current rates interim rates proposed rates Therms Residential 88 $42.57 $43.97 $45.85 Commercial/Industrial (general services) - up to 1,500/yr 101 $47.86 $49.44 $51.48 - 1,500-5,000lyf 231 $101.74 $105.10 $108.73 - 5,000 or more/yr 1,002 $450.27 $465.13 $450.27 Small Volume Dual Fuel ; (interruptible) - up to 120,000lyf 2,417 $685.12 $707.73 $685.12 -120,000 or more/yr 10,417 $2,803.84 $2,896.37 $2,803.84 This chart shows the Basic Charge for each customer class, including any proposed changes up or down. The Basic Charge covers a portion of the fixed costs of providing service to customers. Rate class Current basic charge Proposed basic charge (usage shown in Therms) Residential $5.00 $6.75 Commercial and industrial (general services) o up to 1,500/year $6.00 $7.00 - 1,500 to 5,000/year $6.00 $7.00 - 5,000 or more/year $35.00 $35.00 Small Volume Dual Fuel (interruptible) Sales Service - up to 120,000/year $45.00 $45.00 -120,000 or more/year $45.00 $45.00 COMMONS TASK FORCE MINUTES OF A MEETING AUGUST 1, 1995 Chair Mark Goldberg opened the meeting at 7:30 PM. Those present were: Frank Ahrens, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, Jim Funk, Chair Mark Goldberg, Dennis Hopkins, Rita Pederson, GordyTulberg, Councilmember Mark Hanus, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Secretary Peggy James. Rodney Beystrom arrived late. Rodrigo Plaza was absent. FINALIZE LIST OF PROBLEMS ! PRIORITIES FOR EACH CONSTITUENCY GROUP Chair, Mark Goldberg, handed out a preliminary draft of an "unranked" listing of the constituency groups and their desires, problems, and range of emotions. Goldberg reviewed the information and asked for input on items he may have missed. Pederson noted that the list for nonabutters should indicate the importance of resale value of nonabutter's homes due to inexpensive dock access near their houses. Ahrens stated that the abutters have a problem with how properties abutting the commons are taxed compared to private lakeshore properties, and eVen though the Task Force will not be addressing this problem, it should still be listed as a problem. Ahrens also requested that an abutting "desire" is not to have other peoples docks in front of abutters houses. Beystrom confirmed with Goldberg that it is the Task Force's intention to also send the survey to a random sampling of citizens at large. Another "desire" for abutters was added, Ahrens suggested abutters be allowed to give input or have control of what certain areas of commons may be used for, according to the Use Plan. In other words, should all commons areas be open for bank fishing and picnicking? Pederson agreed that neighbors should be able to give input on the uses. Hopkins noted that the most significant desire for the nonabutters is that they don't want their docks taken away. Goldberg agreed and added that the nonabutters also prefer to have their docks located close to their homes. How the LMCD charges the City of Mound to operate under a multiple docking system was reviewed by the Parks Director. Fackler noted that if the dock system changes, the LMCD would have to re-evaluate our program. Ahrens requested that Fackler supply him with a copy of the current formula used by the LMCD. Fackler confirmed that the Mound dock program was pre-existing to the establishment of the LMCD. Commons Task Force Minutes August 1, 1595 The Task Force determined that the constituency groups should be broken down as follows: CITIZENS AT LARGE NONABU'I-I'ERS - IN DEDICATED AREAS - ABUTTERS: - IN DEDICATED AREAS - WITH ONLY THEIR DOCK SITE IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE - WITH OTHER DOCK SITES IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE - WITH ENCROACHMENTS DISCUSS PRESENTATION OF ABOVE TO CITY COUNCIL & REVIEW TIMETABLE Chair Goldberg stated that he would like to present their list of problems and desires for each constituency group to the City Council on August 8th. When the surveys are sent out, in order to keep track of responses by constituency groups, it was suggested that staff could attached a label to each survey which indicates that persons shoreline type, if they are an abutter or nonabutter, and if they are in a dedicated common. MARK HANUS Councilmember, Mark Hanus, stated that he would like to clarify the issue of the commons in front of his property on Denbigh, known as Stratford Lane. Hanus reviewed the history of the property and how it became public shoreland. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. TOUR COMMONS ON HARRISON'S BAY The Task Force proceeded to continue their tour of the commons. 2 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 1995 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Lisa Crum, Ed Surko, and Becky Glister, City Council Representative Mark Hanus, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: Rhonda Eurich, Dorene Hanson, Scott and Heidi Nagel, John Luse, Erik Figenskau, Daryl Nehring, and Kevin Johansen. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 1995 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 1995 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~95-31: O~IR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH, 2385 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10, AUD. SUBD. 167, & LOTS 1, 2, & 3, GUILFORD'S REARR. OF MOUND BAY PARK, PID 14-117-24 44 0005. VARIANCE FOR "PENNYWISE THRIFT SHOP" SIGN. The applicant is seeking a variance to the Sign Ordinance to allow two (2) free standing signs along one street frontage, and a 9 foot setback variance to the street right-of-way (ROW). The ordinance allows one sign per street frontage and a minimum setback of 10 feet to the ROW. On this site there is a considerable length of street frontage. The street also has a curve that limits the visibility and reduces the negative impact of the additional sign. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for two free standing signs due to the extended amount of street frontage, and the minimal impact of the additional sign. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the sign variance, as requested. Mueller questioned the number of parking spaces in the lot serving the Pennywise shop. Applicant, Rhonda Eurich, stated that there are three parking spaces. She explained that Pennywise sells used clothing at very reasonable prices. Mueller questioned why the sign needs to be so large for such a non-robust retail outfit. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 CASE ~95-32: LUSE & SON, INC., BASSWOOD & CHURCH, LOTS 14 - 17, BLOCK 2t A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARKt PID 13-117-24 32 0014. MINOR SUBDIVISION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two new lots out of four existing lots of record. Upon approval of the subdivision, new single family homes will be constructed on the lots. As proposed, Lot A will have a total lot area of 9,228 square feet. Lot B will total 10,285 square feet. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, and also comply with all setback requirements. The subject parcel is heavily wooded and has a number of very large specimen deciduous trees. Therefore, the provisions found in the Tree Preservation Policy need to be applied. The provisions of the Policy state: "Prior to the granting of a building permit, it shall be the duty of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site." The Planner recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision consistent with the following conditions: Lots A and B shall comply with all requirements identified in the Mound Zoning Ordinance including impervious cover limitations. The lot surveys for Lots A and B that are submitted for building permit issuance shall contain significant tree locations and proposed grades in order to assess compliance with the Tree Preservation Policy. In addition to the Planning Report, the City Engineer recommended approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan is approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Provide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, 10 feet in width along the front and rear and 5 feet wide on all side lot lines. Provide a revised survey which shows the proposed easements and the existing 6" watermain and services. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 Weiland questioned if there are any assessments on the property. The Secretary confirmed that there are none. Weiland questioned if park dedication fees are due and the Building Official confirmed yes. Voss questioned what constitutes "significant trees." MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as proposed, subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planner and Engineer, including the requirement to pay park dedication fees. The Building Official confirmed that the City Planner will also review the surveys submitted for building permit issuance to insure the application of the code relating to the Tree Preservation Policy. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. CASE ~95-33: LUSE & SONt INC., BELMONT LANEt LOTS 6~ 7~ 8~ BLOCK 9, LAKESIDE PARK, A.L. CROCKERS 1ST DIV.~ PID 13-117-24 32 0120t 0121, & 0122. MINOR SUBDIVISION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two new lots out of three existing lots of record. Lot A will have a total lot area of 6,184 square feet, and Lot B will total 6,090 square feet. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Both lots also comply with all setback requirements. The Planner recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the condition that Lots A and B shall comply with all requirements identified in the Mound Zoning Ordinance, including impervious cover limitations. In addition to the Planning Report, the City Engineer recommended approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan is approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Provide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, 5 feet wide on side lot lines and 10 feet in width along front and rear lot lines. 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 If water services to both parcels do not exist, they either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond, before the subdivision is recorded. Provide a revised survey which shows the proposed easements and the existing 6" watermain including services, either existing or proposed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision as proposed, subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planner and Engineer, including the requirement to pay park dedication fees. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the city Council on August 22, 1995· CASE ~95-34: PERRY & DOREENHANSON, 2459 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 15, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE, PID 24-117-24 22 0029m VARIANCE FOR POOL/DECK. The Building Official reviewed the staff report· The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming swimming pool and surrounding deck. This site is nonconforming due to the existing upper deck that is setback approximately 44 feet to the ordinary high water (OHW). A 50 foot setback is required. The proposed pool and deck are setback approximately 19 feet to the OHW. Hardcover is nonconforming at just over 30%, 40% is allowed for lots of record, however, no changes are being considered at this time. The proposed pool and deck encroach into the required 50 foot setback. Hardship has not been identified in their request, however, other properties in this area enjoy decks of a similar nature with a minimal setback to the lake. The neighboring houses at 2453, 2465 and 2503 all have decks that are less than the 50 foot setback. The existing decks have varying degrees of encroachment, with their setbacks being approximately 10 to 15 feet from the OHW. Hardship has not been shown, however, the Planning Commission may wish to consider practical difficulty due to the situation of the other properties in the areas, and the fact that the deck and pool will have a minimal impact to the main body of the lake due to the expansive wetland. The Building official proceeded to give comparisons of other properties on Lost Lake Road abutting the same wetland and indicated that all sites but one, constructed in 1994, are nonconforming to the lake side setback. One property was issued a building permit in July 1988 to allow construction of a deck closer than 50 feet to the OHW, without a variance. It was determined these conconforming structures were constructed prior to the Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Building Official indicated that the applicant informed him today that they are seeking another option involving an in-ground pool, 24 feet from the OHW, with a 5 foot high fence surrounding the rear yard. The 5 foot high fence would require a 2 foot fence height variance. Pools are required to be surrounded by a 5 to 6 foot high fence. Fences within 50 feet of the ordinary high water are limited to a maximum of 3 feet in height. Copies of a site plan drawn by the applicant showing Option #2 were distributed to the Commission. The Building Official stated the DNR would not object to a line-up with adjoining structures, however, they would recommend approval of any encroachment inside the shore impact zone of 25 feet. The distance from the house to the pool was questioned. Sutherland confirmed that 10 feet is required from the house to the pool. It was noted that the adjacent deck is 10 to 15 feet high. The applicant, Dorene Hanson, stated that if a variance is approved, the pool will not be constructed until soil tests are completed. Mueller questioned if the Lost Lake Development was a PDA and if they were granted special provisions for setbacks to the wetland. Weiland recalled that they allowed this development to have shallow back yards towards the wetlands in order to make the development fit and get as many lots as they did. The Building Official commented that he and the Planner has confirmed that since the adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance, a variance would be required and that the adjacent properties are also now nonconforming. Mueller questioned how this affects other existing PDA's, will Pelican Point now be considered nonconforming? MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the request for two weeks until clarification is received on the following: Can zoning ordinance amendments (adoption of SMO) alter special provisions approved for existing PDA's? What setbacks were approved with the Lost Lake PDA? Clarification of all variances being requested for proposed pool. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 MOTION carried 7 to 2. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Michael, Crum, Hanus, Surko, and Glister. Weiland and Voss opposed. This case will be heard by the Planning Commission on August 28, 1995. CASE ~95-35: TERENCE ~T.MQUISTt 4515 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, 3t BLOCK 14~ AVALONt PID 19-117-23 31 0060. VARIANCE FOR DECK. The Building official reviewed the staff report. The applicant is requesting a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming south side setback of 7 feet and west rear setback of 8 feet in order to construct a conforming deck. Impervious surface is conforming. The deck addition is a reasonable use, enhances the use and function of the property without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming 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. Mueller clarified that a minimal portion of the proposed deck will also be nonconforming to the south rear setback. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Crum, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a 8' x 30' deck which will follow the line of the house at the south side due to fact follows line of house and does not increase negative impact of existing nonconforming setback. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the city Council on August 22, 1995. CASE ~95-36: ERIK FIGENSKAU, 3070 HIG~nkND BLVD., LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK 2, TW~ ~TGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 43 0001. VARIANCE FOR DECK. The Building official reviewed the staff report and pointed out that Commissioner Weiland has informed him that there are actually 5 accessory buildings on this property. The applicant is requesting a variance to recognize existing nonconforming accessory structures in order to construct a conforming deck. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. This property contains five (5) accessory buildings and the Zoning Ordinance limits the number of accessory buildings to a maximum of three for this site. The accessory buildings include: Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 Garage ~1: nonconforming front setback of 10.97' resulting in a 9.03' variance, and a 23.85' setback variance to the west. Structure is in good condition. Garage #2: nonconforming front setback of 6.73' resulting in a 13.27' variance. Structure is in good condition. Lakeside shed: nonconforming side setback of 0' +/- resulting in a 4' variance. The lake setback is also questionable at about 50 feet. Should be relocated or removed. Lakeside Changing Room (as described by the applicant): nonconforming to side setback. Is located adjacent to the lakeside shed (#3). Should be relocated or removed. 5. Storm shelter (underground) is conforming to setbacks. The Building Official noted that setback variances to the dwelling and garage #1 will also need to be recognized due to the fact that the propertY to the west is actually a platted right-of-way which results in a 30 foot setback requirement to the east side. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as the proposed deck is a reasonable use of the property and does not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks, upon the condition that the two lakeside sheds be removed, and the total number be conforming, or limited to a maximum of 3. Weiland questioned if electrical situations can be addressed at this time. He indicated that there is an outlet projecting out of the ground which was used for a fountain in a pond, and there is a light on the lakeside which is attached to a tree. He would like to confirm that these electrical services are not hazardous. Weiland commented that one garage has a second story and that is should not be finished a used as a house. He would like to see assurance that this garage will remain a legal use. Weiland knows that this garage has not been used as a residence for a long long time. The Building Official stated the second story is unfinished and is being used for storage at this time. The applicant, Erik Figenskau, commented that the storm shelter is completely underground, and the only visible sign of the structure is the chimney and doors. He agreed that the changing building (the building located next to the shed on the lakeside) can come down. He argued that the shed is not visible to the neighbor and the neighbor does not oppose to the shed remaining. Weiland commented on the poor condition of the shed. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks in order to allow construction of a conforming deck, subject to the following conditions: The two accessory buildings on the lake side, the shed and changing building, must be removed· The two story garage on the street side shall not be utilized as a dwelling unit. Mr. Figenskau's neighbor, Rock Sathre, suggested that the storm shelter should not be considered as a structure because it is underground. Mr. Sathre also suggested that they allow a shed on the lakeside if it is in a conforming location. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. CASE ~95-37: SCOTT NAGEL, 4586 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 5, BLOCK 3, AVALONr PID 19-117-23 31 0005. VARIANCE FOR NEW HOUSE, LOT AREA & SETBACKS. The applicant is seeking a lot area variance and side yard setback variance in order to construct a new dwelling on this vacant lot. The lot area, as calculated by the surveyor, is 5,960 square feet, resulting in a 40 square foot variance. The lot area according to the plat is conforming. A side setback of 5.39 feet to the east is also being requested, resulting in a variance of .61 feet. This request is a result of the lumber yard informing him the lumber cost is the same for both a 27 foot wide or a 28 foot wide house. This is due to the fact that materials come in standard sizes and the difference between 27 and 28 feet is waste product. Impervious surface coverage at less than 40% will be conforming. Virtually 100% of the drainage from this site will be diverted away from the City's storm water system and filtered through grassy areas on the site. Mound's Ordinance allows a maximum building height of 35 feet or 2- 1/2 stories. It is debatable whether this is technically a 2-1/2 or 3 story house, however, it does fall within the maximum overall height provisions, and staff feels it meets the intent of the ordinance. Buildings of this type with a greater number of stories and heights are commonplace and permitted in other municipalities. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as proposed, with the condition that a drainage plan be reviewed by the City Engineer and Building Official and it shall be in compliance with the Shoreland Management Ordinance for lots exceeding 30% impervious surface coverage. The Building Official confirmed that this site is not considered to be a bluff. He explained that this issue was reviewed extensively with the City Planner and City Engineer. Mueller disagreed that this site is not a bluff. Mueller contested the building height and emphasized that this structure is 4 stories on the lakeside. He is concerned about this building being so tall and being squeezed onto the lot and its close proximity to neighboring lots. It is a lot of house for such a little lot. Crum questioned the driveway encroachment. It was noted that it is the owner's choice to grant an easement to the neighbor for the driveway, and the City should not get involved. The Building Official confirmed that the building does not meet the 2-1/2 story minimum, however it does meet the 35 foot height requirement. Mueller commented that this will be the only 4 story house in the area. Hanus commented that Cook's house, located on the same Denbigh Road, is also four stories on the lakeside. Mueller stated that the building should meet the required side yard setback. Michael questioned if the reason for the requested side setback would not be considered a "financial" reason, which does not constitute a hardship. Mueller commented that this house is pushing the envelope, and this neighborhood already has a problem with too many people parking in the street because they do not have enough parking area on their own properties. Mueller stressed the importance that the Shoreland Management practices be enforced with the development of this property. MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the lot area variance, subject to the following conditions: The side setbacks be conforming to the 6 foot requirement with construction of only a foot wide house. It shall be confirmed that this lot is not a bluff, and if it is deemed that it is a bluff, the request shall be reviewed again by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 A drainage plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Building Official and shall be in compliance with the Shoreland Management Or4inance for lots exceeding 30% impervious surface coverage. 4. Building height compliance shall be confirmed. MOTION carried ? to Z. Those in favor were: Surko, Clapsaddle, Weiland, Michael, Glister, ross, and Hanus. Crum and Mueller were opposed. Crum commented that the house is too large and feels it will only create problems for the neighborhood. Mueller agreed and commented that they are pushing the building envelope. This case will be heard by the City Council on August 22, 1995. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Hanus confirmed that all the conditional use permits at the previous Council meeting were all approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Weiland requested clarification relating to the corn stand located in the parking lot in front of Brickley's Market. He questioned why they can get a license to operate in that location. He also stated that those people participating in the farmer's market have to pay a fee for their space. He expressed a concern about the signage on the site by both the corn stand and Brickley's Market and questioned if they had a permit. Mueller commented that the difference between this corn stand and the farmer's market is that the corn stand is on private property and the farmer's market is on city property. The Building Official was requested to provide a response to Weiland's concerns. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Crum, to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 10 OBx15x95 15:S? THE CITY OF ORONO 612-47S-?~59 002 CITYoF ORONO Munlclpall ~ S~r#t Addllss: IIMllng lddr~ss: 2750 ~lle~ Pa~way P.O, B~ 66 Omno, MN 55356 C~stal Bay, August 15, 1995 Mayor Bob Polston City of Mound 5750 Lynwood Blvd Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: Mayor's Meeting August 24 Dear Mayor Polston: A meeting of thc Lakc Arca Mayors has bccn scheduled for 7:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 24 at thc Lafayette Club in Minnctonka Beach. Please R.S.V.P. to thc City of Orono at 473-7357 by Monday, August 21. Sinccr¢ly, Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator T~kpbo~ ¢612) 473-735"/ · FAX 473-0510 OBxlSxg5 15:36 THE CITY OF ORONO 612-473-7357 CITY of ORONO Mu~icipai Offlce~ Street lddre~ Mailing iddress~ 2750 Kelley Pa~way P,O, ~ 66 Omno, MN 55356 C~stal Bay. MN 55323.0066 FAX Transmittal DATE: August 15, 1995 TO: Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor ~ayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor FROM: SUB3~CT: Howard Bennis, City of Deephaven FAX: 474-1274 John E. Anderson, City of Excelsior FAX: 474-6300 Thomas Swanson, City of Greenwood FAX: 474-1274 Karen J. Anderson, City of Minnetonka FAX: 939-8244 Nancy Check, City of Minnetonka Beach FAX: 471-8878 Paul Pond, City of Mirmetrista FAX: 446-1311 Bob Polston, City of Mound FAX: 472-0620 Robert Bean, City of Shorewood FAX: 474-0128 Ieronle Roek'vam, City of Spring Park FAX: 471-9055 L. H. Haug, City of Tonka Bay FAX: 474-6538 Ma~7 Meuwi.~.~en, City of Victori~ FAX: 443-2110 Robert Oisvold, City of Wayzata FAX: 4734178 Nicholas Duff,.City of Woodland FAX: 474-1274 Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator City of Orono Mayor's Meeting August 24 Telephone (612) 4?3-?35? · FAX 473-0~10