Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1995-09-26
AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995, 7:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Pledge of Allegiance. Approve the Minutes of the September 12, 1995 Regular Meeting and the September 19, 1995 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Case//95-38: Robert Thompson, 6200 Red Oak Road, Lot 1, Block 1, Mound Terrace, PID 14-117-24 32 0001 Variance for a Deck. Case//95-39: Howard Richards, 2982 Westedge Blvd., Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 14, The Highlands, PID 23-117-24 31 0061. Variance for Deck/Porch. ~ q (~ Case//95-40: Don Scherven for Gene Smith, 4705 Island View Drive, Lot 2, Block 7, Devon, PID 30-117-23 22 0050. Variance to Expand Detached Garage. ~ '~ Case//95-41' Jerry Sholts of Patio Enclosures for Anthony's Floral, 1861 Commerce Blvd., Part of Gov't Lot 1, Section 14, PlO 14-117-24 14 0004. ~ ~ Variance for Porch. 7.1,~ Case//95-42: Florence & Nell Finnicum, 3225 Gladstone ~,.,~ Lane, Lot 47, Whipple Shores, PID 25-117-24 21 0116. Variance for Detached Garage. q~' 8.1,'l~,case//95-43: Craig Forcier, 4431 Dorchester Road, ~ Lots 21 & 22, Block 17, Avalon, PID 19-117-23 31 0082. Variance for Detached Garage. /~ 9.1'~ Comments and Suggestions from Citizens Present. 10.1'~ Set Public Hearing Dates for Special Assessments - Central Business District (CBD) Assessment - Delinquent Utility Bills Suggested Date: October 24, 1995 Pg. 2768-2776 Pg. 2777-2787 Pg. 2788-2802 Pg. 2803-2817 Pg. 2818-2830 Pg. 2831-2844 Pg. 2845-2857 Pg. 2858-2862 2765 11.t. Proclamation Declaring October 1-7, 1995 as Minnesota Cities Week in Mound. 12.~.t~ Approval of Charitable Gambling Permit - Knights of ,, . Columbus #6005 at Our Lady of the Lake School - ~t November 18, 1 /~13., iYRecommendation from Parks and Open Space Commission 14.'j~ Appli~tion for Land Alteration Permit for Tr~mmmg Trees on Public Land - Brian and Patty Steven, 1580 Heron Lane, Pebble Beach Commons, Dock Site $02605. 15 . Payment of Bills. 16. I.[~lN FORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: Financial Report for August 1995 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Notice from Alan Willcutt, Executive Director, LMCD, Re: Mayor Meeting scheduled for Monday September 25, 1995 at 7 AM in Room 135 of the Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss revised allocations to the cities in LMCD re: the approved 1996 LMCD budget. A letter received by fax from Steve Farnes, Orono, re: LMCD issues. Letter dated September 12, 1995 from Robert V. Langley, Regional Manager for Minnesota Triax Cablevision re: "Regulatory Fee" to be assessed to cable subscribers. Fee is being assessed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to cable operators to defray the cost of regulating the cable industry. Planning Commission Minutes of September 11, 1995. Parks and Open Space Commission Minutes of September 14, 1995. Pg. 2863 Pg. 2864 Pg. 2865-2873 Pg. 2874-2884 Pg. 2885-2895 Pg. 2896-2897 Pg. 2898-2904 Pg. 2905-2906 Pg. 2907 Pg. 2908-2914 Pg. 2915-2920 2766 Letter dated Septe~nber 15,1995 from James Solem, Regional Administrator, Metropolitan Council re: a possible work stoppage and interruption in transit service provided by the Council to Communities throughout the region. REMINDER: Annual Fall Cleanup Saturday, October 14, 1995, Lost Lake. Pg. 2921 Pg. 2922-2923 2767 September 25, 1995 Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer RECEIVED SEP 2 CERTIFIED MAIL To All Interested Parties: On September 12, 1995, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners approved Resolution No. 95-9-665 which establishes a public hearing on proposed Hennepin County Ordinance No. 18, County Collected Solid Waste Fee for Solid Waste Management Services, and on proposed fees associated with the Ordinance. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 12, 1995, at 11:00 a.m. before the Environment and General Govemrffent Committee of the Hennepin'-C'0-fih-~y Board of Co~-~i3-sioners in Room A2400 of the Hennepin County Government Center. The purpose of the Ordinance is to establish authority for a Hennepin County Collected Fee for Solid Waste Management Services for the service area of the entire County to fund waste management programs which protect the health and welfare of Hennepin County citizens pursuant to State mandates governing waste management programs. A draft of the proposed o~//~.dinance has been enclosed. ~ The recommended fee for 1996 is approximately .019 percent of the market value for all taxable stmement-Pr'-°'-Pe-~-Y-}. The fee will be County collected via a separate line item on the property~tax~] This fee will not replace the existing hauler collected Solid Waste Management Fee pursuant to Ordinance 15. The current Solid Waste Management Fee will remain the same. A fact sheet has been attached which summarizes features of both ordinances. If you wish to testify at the public hearing, please contact the Committee Clerk, Lois Hawkins, at 348-4019. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or my assistant, Mike Natysin, at 348-4843. ~Sin~cerely' ~~. Division Manager Environmental Management Division Enclosures Department of Public Works 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1309 (612)348-6846 FAX:(612)348-8532 Recycled Paper FACT SHEET HENNEPIN COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1S Ordinance Name: Ordinance No. 15, Solid Waste Management Fee Ordinance for Hennepin County Adopted on: November 30, 1993, per Resolution No. 93-11-937R1 Amended on June 6, 1995, per Resolution No. 95-6-352R1 Provides funding for activities provided by the County or by persons under contract with the County which support the preferred waste management responsibilities, described in Minnesota Statutes Sections 115A.01 et seq, 473 and 400.08 including, but not limited to waste reduction and reuse; waste recycling; composting of yard waste and food waste; and management of problem materials, and household hazardous waste. Collection Method: Hauler Fe~: Residential Generator: a 9 % fee applied to Mixed Municipal Solid Waste collection and disposal services as defined in Minnesota Statutes 297A Non-Residential Generator: a 14.5% fee applied to Mixed Municipal Solid Waste collection and disposal services as defined in Minneso~ Statutes 297A FACT SHEET PROPOSED HENNEPIN COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 18 Ordinance Name: Ordinance No. 18, County Collected Solid Waste Fee for' Solid Waste Management Services for Hennepin County Adopted on: Pending Board approval on October 17, 1995 Provides funding for activities provided by the County or by persons under contract with the County that support the preferred waste management responsibilities, described in Minnesota Statutes Chapters l lSA and 473 and Section 400.08, including but not limited to waste reduction and reuse; waste recycling; composting of yard waste and food waste; resource recovery, transportation and transfer station costs, closure and postclosure care of solid waste facility, responses to releases from a solid waste facility or closed solid waste facility, and management of problem materials and household hazardous waste. Collection Method: County collected via a separate line item on the property tax statement Fee: Staff has recommended that $9,000,000 must be raised in 1996 to fund Solid Waste Management Services. If the Board adopts the recommendation, the fee will be approximately .019 percent of the Market Value for all property taxpayers i_n Hennepin County. Formula: Market Value (from tax statement) X Rate = Solid Waste Fee Annual Fee Example: Market Value $1,000,000 X .00019 = $190.00 $100,000 X .00019 = $19.00 $50,000 X .00019 = $9.50 ORDINANCE NUMBER EIGHTi~EN COUNTY COLLECTED SOLID WASTE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMF~ SERVICES FOR I:IFNNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMF~NT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMF, NT DIVISION ADOPTED BY TH'F. FFF. NNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMI~qSIONERS ON ORDINANCE FOR COUNTY COLLECTED SOLID WASTE FEE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICF_~ FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PURPOSE The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish authority for a Hennepin County Collected Solid Waste Fee for Solid Waste Management Services for the service area of the entire County to fund waste management programs which protect the health and welfare of Hennepin County citizens pursuant to State mandates governing waste management programs. The Ordinance includes: Establishing and imposing a County Collected Solid Waste Fee for Solid Waste Management Services and establishing the Fee payment method and collection procedures. This. Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § § 375.51,400.08 and 473.811. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners does ordain: SECTION I DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Ordinance, the terms defined in this section shall have the meaning given them, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Subsection 1. "County" is the County of Hennepin, Minnesota. Subsection 2. "County Board" is the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Subsection 3. "Fee" is the County Collected Solid Waste Fee for Solid Waste Management Services authorized by Minn. Stat. § § 400.08 and 473.811, subd. 3 (a), and imposed by this Ordinance. Subsection 4. "Market Value" has the same meaning as in Minn. Stat. § 273.032. Subsection 5. "Person" includes, but is not limited to: an individual, business, public or private corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, trust, unincorporated association, government or agency or political subdivision thereof, and other legal entity, and any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent or other legal representative of any of the foregoing. Subsection 6. "Solid Waste Management Service" includes all activities provided by the County or by Person under contract with the County that support the preferred waste management responsibilities, described in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 115A and 473 and Section 400.08, including but not limited to waste reduction and reuse; waste recycling; composting of yard waste and food waste; resource recovery, transportation and transfer station costs, closure and postclosure care of solid waste facility, responses to releases from a solid waste facility or closed solid waste facility, and management of problem materials and household hazardous waste. SECTION H GENERAL PROVISIONS Subsection 1. Fee Imposed. Pursuant to the authority of Minn. Stat. § § 375.51,400.08 and 473.811, the County Board hereby imposes a Fee on all property subject to taxation under Minn. Stat. Chapters 272 and 273 located in the County. The Fee shall be imposed against the Market Value of the taxable property in the County. Subsection 2. Procedures for Establishing the amount to be generated by the Fee. Each year following a public hearing, the County Board shall establish by resolution the amount to be generated by the Fee. Subsection 3. Fee. The Fee shall appear on the property tax statement as a separate line item. The Fee shall be due and payable at the same time as the property tax payable in 1996 and every year thereafter. Subsection 4 Unpaid County Collected Solid Waste Fee for Solid Waste Management Services. If not paid, the Fee becomes delinquent and is subject to collection as delinquent real property tax with the same penalties and the same rate of interest as for delinquent property taxes under Minn. Stat. Chapter 279. SECTION HI SEVERABILITY It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable in accordance with the following: A. Validity of Provisions. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall role that any provision of this Ordinance is invalid, other provisions not specifically included in said judgment shall not be affected. B. Application to Particular Person or Property. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall rule that the application of any provision of this Ordinance is invalid to a particular person or property, such judgment shall not affect the application of said provision to any other person or property not specifically included in the judgment. SECTION IV PROVISIONS ARE CUMULATIVE The provisions of this Ordinance are cumulative and are additional limitations upon all other laws and ordinances covering any subject matter in this Ordinance. 2 SECTION VII EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon passage by the County Board of Commissioners and publication as required by law. COUNTY OF I-IF~NNEPIN STATE OF MINNF, SOTA Approved: BY: Chair of the County Board Assistant County Attorney Attest: Clerk of the County Board Minutes - Mound City Council September 12, 1995 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 12, 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, Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also present: City Attorney Curt Pearson, Assistant City Planner Bruce Chamberlain, Finance Director Gino Businaro, City Manager Ed Shukle and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following citizens were also present: Marilyn Byrnes, June Estelle, Dorene Hanson, Jean Stortz, Tyler Stortz, Aaron Stortz, Rita Pederson, Mark Goldberg, Dock Meier, Tom Reese, Bill Morris, Jim Rose, Pam Myers, Mary Alexander, Karol and Bruce Charon, J. Ned Dow, Peter C. Meyer, Gordy Tulberg. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed those present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 22, 1995 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the August 22, 1995 regular meeting. 1.2 PRESENTATION OF SURVEY RESULTS -WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER - DR. BILL MORRIS, DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the school district had appointed a task force of members from the community representing businesses and citizens. The task force met and created recommendations regarding a new community facility. The task force asked that the school district and the cities in the area do a professional statistical survey that could be done on a random sample basis by a professional firm. This survey would collect the interest of citizens in the area as to whether or not the facility that exists should continue to exist or if it should be demolished and a new community center be placed there or modify the existing center. He introduced Dr. Bill Morris, President of Decision Resources, Ltd. and Jim Rose. Mr. Shukle also introduced members of this task force that were present: Doc Meier, Westonka Seniors; Tom Reese, Citizen on Building Committee; Marilyn Byrnes, Citizen; Peter Meyer, Citizen; Ed Shukle, City of Mound. Dr. Bill Morris presented survey results pertaining to the development of a new community center and he used figures that represented only Mound residents. 189 residents were surveyed in Mound by phone. Awareness of this project was about 33%. About 40% favored a new development, 25% unfavorable, 17% mixed and 17% had no decision. A Minutes - Mound City Council September 12, 1995 swimming facility was assumed as a key feature. 51% surveyed in Mound were in favor of a new center concept, 23% were opposed. The overall results of the survey from all of the involved cities was favorable. Dr. Morris stressed the success would depend on marketing the center. The Mayor thanked Dr. Morris and Mr. Rose. The City Manager indicated that the purpose of this presentation was to present the results of the survey. He added that the task force will continue to meet and will be following up with a recommendation to be made to the School District and various cities surveyed as to what the next step should be, i.e., pursue the demolition of the existing center and build a new center, modify the existing structure, etc. 1.3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED QUANTITATIVE SURVEY - COMMONS TASK FORCE - MARK GOLDBERG, CHAIR Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Commons Task Force, introduced members of the task force that were present: Marilyn Byrnes, Gordy Tulberg and Rita Pederson. He stated the objective of the task force was to define and resolve problems and priorities of the commons dock program. He briefly discussed with the Council the proposed survey that would be mailed in September to all commons dock holders and about 100 citizens at large. As Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent, consensus was to discuss the survey at the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 19, 1995 when the entire Council would be in attendance. Mark stated the survey would be anonymous but the commons areas would be identified. Councilmem ber Jessen questioned the assumption of "multiple dock slip systems", indicating this was not a part of the current dock program. Also, she questioned the "private structures on commons" and the responsibility of owners, private structures were not allowed on commons. Mark will have the survey reviewed by a market research company. The task force hopes to have the surveys returned by October 1st, allowing the task force to have one and one half months to review and present recommendations to the Council by the first meeting in December. 1.4 CASE #95-34: REQUEST FOR A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A POOL, AND/OR DECK OR FENCE AT 2459 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOTS 15, BLOCK 1, PID #24-117-24 22 0029. Bruce Chamberlain, Assistant City Planner and Economic Development Coordinator, stated the owners have applied for a variance to allow for the construction of a pool within the 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water. Two options were requested to be approved as the below ground pool may not be permitted due to soil conditions (a soil test is pending). Dorene Hanson was present. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the resolution. Councilmember Polston moved, and Councilmember Jessen seconded the following resolution: Minutes - Mound City Council September 12, 1995 RESOLUTION #95-89 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A POOL, AND/OR DECK OR FENCE AT 2459 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 15, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE, PID #24-117-24 22 0029. P & Z CASE #95-34 The Council discussed this subdivision. Councilmember Hanus stated the Planning Commission considered recommending this subdivision be rezoned a special zone to allow for these special uses. City Attorney Curt Pearson was hesitant in creating special use zones. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.6 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,123. City Manager Ed Shukle stated there are sufficient funds to cover the principal and interest due so the levy needed to be cancelled. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-90 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ON 1980 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,123. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 REQUEST FOR STOP SIGN AT RESTHAVEN AND THREE POINTS BLVD. City Manager Ed Shukle stated a petition had been received from residents of the area, the Police and Public Works Departments had reviewed this request and concurred to change the "Yield" sign to a "Stop" sign on Resthaven at the intersection of Resthaven and Three Points Blvd. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-95 RESOLUTION TO REMOVE YIELD SIGN ON RESTHAVEN LANE AND THREE POINTS BLVD. AND INSTALL A STOP SIGN ON RESTHAVEN LANE AND THREE POINTS BLVD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Minutes - Mound City Council September 12, 1995 1.8 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVER Y OF RELATING TO THE $160,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE OF 1980 (VICTOR J, JUDE DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH PROPERTIES PROJECT) AND DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated a bond was issued by the City on behalf of Jude Candy Company in 1980, it is called an Industrial Revenue Bond. The property has been sold and the bank is asking that the terms be changed to extend the payment terms to the new borrowers. This has no effect on the City. This resolution extends the payment time to the new borrowers. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-91 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF RELATING TO THE $160,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE OF 1980 (VICTOR J, JUDE DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH PROPERTIES PROJECT) AND DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 PRESENTATION OF THE 1996 PROPOSED BUDGET City Manager Ed Shukle presented the 1996 Proposed Budget for the City of Mound with the Council. The Council needs to adopt the preliminary budget and proposed levy as it has to be certified to Hennepin County by September 15, 1995. Public hearings need to be scheduled between November 29th and December 20th, which will allow the Council and the public time to analyze the proposed budget. Council consensus on public hearing dates were Wednesday, December 6, 1995, reconvene, if needed, on Wednesday, December 13, 1995. Also Council agreed to move the December 26th regular meeting up to December 19, 1995. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution with the public hearing dates changed to December 6th and 13th: RESOLUTION #95-92 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1996 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,474,220; SE'ri'lNG THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $1,850,295 LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF $485,095, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,365,200; APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1996; AND SE'ri'lNG PUBLIC HEARING DATES. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Minutes - Mound City Council September 12, 1995 1.10 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATIONS, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1996. City Manager Ed Shukle informed the Council that Pinky Charon, Executive Director of the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority had resigned and the new Executive Director is Arlene Donahue. She will start in October, 1995. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-93 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATIONS, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1996. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 APPLICATION FOR A SIGN PERMIT - QUASI - PUBLIC FUNCTION PORTABLE SIGN - MWHS. HOCKEY BOOSTER MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to approve the application for a sign permit for a portable sign for the Mound Westonka Hockey Boosters. 1.12 APPROVAL OF REDUCTION OF LE'I-FER OF CREDIT - BOYER CONSTRUCTION - PELICAN POINT. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the city engineer had received a request from Boyer Construction to reduce the letter of credit for Pelican Point Subdivision. The recommended amount is $25,900. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously, to approve the reduction in the amount of the letter of credit for Pelican Point Subdivision from $108,214 to $25,900. 1.13 APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF PELICAN POINT TOWNHOMES, COMMON INTEREST COMMUNrFY NO. 738. 5 Minutes - Mound City Council September 12, 1995 City Attorney Curt Pearson stated the developers installed an underground irrigation system and an entrance sign on the public right-of-way without knowledge to the city engineer. This resolution allows the Pelican Point Homeowners Association the right to maintain the sprinkler system and to maintain the entrance monument which are on the public right-of-way. Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-94 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF PELICAN POINT TOWNHOMES ALLOWING THE ASSOCIATION THE RIGHT OF MAINTAINING AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND ENTRANCE MONUMENT ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $456,930.02, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 A. B. C. D. E. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR AUGUST, 1995. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR AUGUST, 1995. LMCD MAILINGS. COMMONS TASK FORCE MINUTES OF 8-15-95. INFORMATION FROM NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES (NLC) RE: VOTING AND ALTERNATE DELEGATES TO THE ANNUAL CONGRESS OF CITIES CONFERENCE IN PHOENIX LATER THIS YEAR. The two councilmembers attending decided Mark Hanus would be the voting delegate and Andrea Ahrens would be the alternate delegate. Fo LETTER DATED AUGUST 23, 1995 FROM JIM GRUBE, HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DIVISION ENGINEER RE: WARNING LIGHT REQUEST AT CSAH 15 CROSSWALK NEAR THE HOUSE OF MOY. Minutes - Mound City Council September 12, 1995 G. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 8-28-95. CORRESPONDENCE FROM VINCENT FORYSTEK RE: 3137 INVERNESS LANE AND PROPERTY VALUATION DETERMINED BY COUNTY ASSESSOR, LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW, COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW. I HAVE ALSO HAD PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. FORYSTEK. HE IS ANGRY WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY. I HAVE ASKED THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO ADDRESS HIS CONCERNS. MR. FORYSTEK WANTED ME TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH YOU. PLEASE NOTE THAT DR. BILL MORRIS, DECISION RESOURCES, LTD., WILL BE PRESENT TUESDAY EVENING TO PRESENT SURVEY RESULTS ON THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER. HE WILL ALSO BE MAKING A PRESENTATION AT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 AT 7:00 PM. YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1995, 7:30 PM. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 PM. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor pro tem Liz Jensen, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus and Phyllis Jessen. Absent and excused Mayor Bob Polston. Also present: Alan Willcutt, Executive Director of the LMCD; Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Commons Task Force; Karl Weisenhorn, 1733 Bluebird Lane and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Executive Director, LMCD Alan Willcutt, Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, (LMCD) introduced himself to the Council. He gave information regarding his background and experience and took questions from the Council regarding the activities of the LMCD and what his knowledge so far has been regarding LMCD issues. He offered to have the Council call him at any time regarding LMCD activities and issues. Commons Task Force Mark Goldberg, Chair of the Commons Task Force was present and reviewed a draft quantitative survey to be sent abutters, non-abutters and citizens at large to ascertain information with regard to the Commons Dock program. The survey was reviewed in detail, changes were suggested. Mr. Goldberg will make the changes and submit them to city staff for mailing. Domestic Abuse Shelters A discussion was held with regard to domestic abuse shelters and what the appropriate zoning for such shelters should be within the City of Mound. The Council suggested that this matter be given to the Planning Commission for their input and to come up with a recommendation on how domestic abuse shelters can be incorporated into the City of Mound's Zoning Ordinance. Pending Ordinances Pending Ordinances were reviewed. City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that these ordinances had been discussed at the last Committee of the Whole meeting and it was suggested that they be reviewed at this Committee of the Whole meeting. These ordinances include: Park Land Dedication, Truth in Housing, Truck Parking in Residential Areas, Driveways, Telecommunications Ordinance, Sale of Vehicles Ordinance, Domestic Abuse Shelter issue and Streamlining of Variances. It was noted that the Park Land Dedication ordinance was already changed to reflect the Planning Commission's earlier recommendation regarding fee structure. It was noted that the Truth in Housing Ordinance is still being discussed by the City Council at future COW meetings. It was also noted that Truck Parking in Residential Areas Driveways, Telecomr~unications, Sale of Vehicles, Domestic /~use Shelters, S .l~amlining of Variances is at the Planning Commission level for their review, consideration and recommendations. Minutes - Committee of the Whole September 19, 1995 Parks and Open Space Commission Attendance Record The Council reviewed a Park and Open Space Commission Attendance Record from 1994 and an up-to-date record in 1995. There is concern by the Council that the Parks and Open Space Commission has had to cancel two meetings in 1995 due to a lack of a quorum. They would like the Parks and Open Space Commission to evaluate this and come up with some solutions as to how they can prevent lack of attendance and the cancelling of meetings. Councilmember Ahrens is to discuss this matter with the Parks and Open Space Commission at the next meeting. It was also noted when commission reappointments are discussed, that each person up for reappointment be evaluated based on absences of three or more prior to any reappointment taking place. The city manager noted that this statement can be included in the notice to those persons who are up for reappointment. Recreational Fire Ordinance This matter was continued until the November meeting. Annual Christmas Party It was suggested that Friday, December 8th or Friday, December 15th be selected for the annual Christmas party. The city manager will follow up on this item. Other Business A request for a similar crosswalk signage at Auditor's Road and Commerce Blvd., as well as City jurisdiction over the location of real estate signs within the City was discussed. A staff report will be provided on this at the November COW meeting. It was noted that the next Committee of the Whole meeting will be October 17, 1995, 7:30 PM, at Mound City Hall. The only agenda item will be a discussion on the 1996 proposed budget. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. City Manager ES:Is MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1995 CASE ~95-38: ROBERT THOMPSONt 6200 RED OAK ROADt LOT 1, BLOCK 1~ MOUND TERRACE~ PID 14-117-24 32 0001. V~RIANCE FOR DECK. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming detached garage in order to reconstruct and slightly enlarge a conforming deck. The detached garage is located 1.4 feet to the side lot line, the required setback is 4 feet resulting in a variance request of 2.6 feet. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as proposed due to the fact that the nonconforming garage is in a poor condition, is in need of repair, and could reasonably be relocated in conjunctions with the needed repairs at this time. Hanus stated that he would have liked the opportunity to discuss the dilapidated condition of the garage with the Building Official. Koegler stated that he viewed the garage from the exterior only. Weiland suggested that the nonconforming portion of the garage could be removed. Mr. Thompson stated that the garage is solid with exception to some rotting of the boards on the bottom part of the garage. He explained that the wood had rotted because during heavy rains when the storm drain is plugged, water rushes down their property and they get water in the garage. The applicant complained about the cost to remove the garage and emphasized that he already spent a great deal of money on getting the survey done. They need a building to store gasoline. The applicant confirmed that the deck needs to be replaced because of its condition. Weiland commented that if only the nonconforming portion of the garage was removed, it may not cost as much as having the entire garage removed. Mueller confirmed that the slab portion could remain. Voss suggested that the Planning Commission table the issue to allow the applicant time to consider alternative solutions since cost cannot be a deciding factor. The applicant confirmed that time is not an issue. Koegler clarified that if the nonconforming portion of the garage is removed, there is no variance to approve, so you either allow the garage to remain in its present location and approve the variance, or you deny the variance and then in order to build the deck the nonconforming garage situation will need to be corrected. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to recommend denial as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Michael, Weiland, Glister, ross, and Surko. Hanus abstained. Hanus stated that he wanted the opportunity to review the issue with the Building Official. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 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 September 11, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Robert Thompson 95-38 6200 Red Oak Road, Lot 1, Block 1, Mound Terrace, PID #14-117-24 32 0001. R-iA Single Family Residential _BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the / ~onconforming detached garage in order to reconstruct and slightly enlarge an existing deck. The proposed deck is in a conforming location and all other aspects of this site are in conformance to the requirements of the ordinance. The detached garage is located 1.4 feet ~ to the side lot line, the required setback is 4 feet resulting in a ~variance request of 2.6 feet. COMMENTS: It is the long-term goal of the ordinance to remove nonconforming uses. From a staff perspective this is accomplished in part by evaluating each specific case and the condition of the nonconforming structures. If a structure is in poor condition a recommendation for removal is made. In this case the nonconforming garage is in a partially dilapidated condition and could be brought into conformance at this time. Staff met with the applicant and suggested that a portion of the garage could be removed, or the whole garage could be moved and a variance would then not be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as proposed due to the fact that the nonconforming garage is in a poor condition, is in need of repair, and could reasonably be relocated in conjunctions with the needed repairs at this time. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. qS-'~ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~ Z ~ 0 /~'Q27 Lot Addition ?~d) ffA/Z) Zoning District Block / c e Pm No. Use of Property: 5C',4~',~ 4/.,~ / Owner's Name ~ Day Phone ' Day Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (i 1/93) 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 (), No j~. ff no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. 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 (). 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 ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( )_.soil J~existing situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), Nof~. ff yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~X~. ff yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature~/~---t~-~~~~~/~~,_. Applicant's Signature Date Date August 13, 1995 Mound City Council Mound Planning and Zoning Regarding Variance for Bob and Jan Thompson on Red Oak Road To Whom It May Concern We have been informed by the Thompsons that they intend to replace the old deck on the lake side of their home. The new deck would be installed in conformance with all applicable codes. We were also informed that Thompson's existing garage is too near our property line. The Thompson's garage has been in its existing location for longer than the 18 years we have lived next to them. That is not objectionable to us. We expect that if a new garage were to be constructed, it would meet all applicable codes. However, we strongly recommend that the Thompsons be allowed to build a new deck without modifying the garage. It would be an unfair burden to require a garage replacement when they are upgrading their property. We support a variance to the Thompsons which allows construction of a new deck without bringing the existing garage into conformance. .7~lY~~/~ John and Melanie Ringstrom 6190 Red Oak Road Mound, MN 55364 phone 612-472-6685 CH'y. OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) iPROPERTY ADDRESS: ~¢)T//~?oCA' /,/t/~,~ 7'f'x'~'~r~' (~.C© ~-.~/ ~. ~.~ .11 OWNER'S NAME: ~08¢x~ ~~ ~ ~.~, ~ ~o~ LOTAREA /~7~ SQ.~. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. ]_ ~?// ] LOT AREA /~ ~7~ ' SQ; ~;"'X'40%--=""(fot'~dtS O'f'R~'Cdrd*) ...... I ~~ _]' LOTAREA /~7o SQ. ~. X 15%; = (for detached ~uildings only) .. ~, ~ I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined.in ZonMg Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Of(icial. "' .-;.. ' .... ' LENGTH WIDTH. SQ FT HOUSE Z ~. ~ X Z ~. ~ = ~ ~ X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE C',~cr ?.,o.3 X /2.,~ = 25'a X = DECKS Open deck. (114" min. opemng between board.) with a perviou, surface under are AREAS, SIDEWALKS, 0~/~+ xoz~ X = 2~ o ETC. ~¢~ ~ ....... =. ~R TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X ~,e~f~ff.~ ~Kcr_X not counted a. hardcover OTHER TOTAL DECK /~t~(tviou/ ~ ~(o~ X = /r X TOTAL OTHER" TOTAL HAROCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DER E e ~ ~y:... '" UN I OV R (indicate differ nce)..~..-.-,.. ~ .~.., .~ :. . ;...,..-,.,., . ,......,-, .... J RED OAK LANE CERTIFICATE OF 6UFIVEY FOR' ROBERT G. THOMPSON IN LOT i, BLOCK 1, MOUND TERRACE HENNEP~N COUNTY. MINNESOTA vi,lun, and thai I a~l a dLl[~' rvgi,lt'~'d Civil I~ngtneer and Land Su~'evor under Ex, s 'l','~ LEGAL DESCRIPT_?ON 0 Lnt 1, Block ~,, M o' denotes iron ~¢z~:. denotes exist~n Bearings shown are This survey !ntencis property,, the locat !ocation of ail vis to show any other ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE? Y~_..~/NO REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: ~1'0 / E×,ST,NG LOT W,Dm: / ZONE: EXIST. LOT AREA: j'5-70 sQFT REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDIN( 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: l~measured from O.H.W.} 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: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOt, SE. FRONT: N S E W ~ FRONT: N S(~ SIDE: N S ~ (~ ,'~/. SIDE: N S ~ ~,.7_' ~'f- REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: ~_~'~ · '4~ ~Ot'D~. ~_t' .~ TOP OF BLUFF: HARDCOVER CONFORMING? /<~E~ NO / ? BY:G~ra this I Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a port ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W )~,,0/, ' SIDE: N SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: '7~ TOP OF BLUFF: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES ~ 7 ~ ion of the requnements outlined in the City of Mound Zonint Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Plannin Department at 472-0600. 14-117-24 OAK (37) ;' (40) !;. 46 o o RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOUNDATION REPAIRS AND A DECK AT 2982 WESTEDGE BLVD., LOTS 1, 2 & 3, BLOCK 14, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 31 0061 P&Z CASE ~95-39 WHEREAS, the owner, Howard Richards, has applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 9.4 feet to allow footings to be replaced under the existing , porch and to allow after-the-fact approval for a conforming 14' x deck, 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, practical difficulty is applicable in this case since the porch has existed for the past 35 years and has become an integral part of the home, and; WHEREAS, even if the porch were removed from the house, the house still would not meet the required 30 foot front setback, and; WHEREAS, there is approximately a 30 foot wide boulevard which reduces the impact, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 9.4 feet resulting in a variance of 21 feet, to allow the installation of permanent footings for the existing front wall of the home and to allow after-the-fact construction of a conforming deck on the south side of the property. Findings of facts are that practical difficulty exists due to the long-standing use of the existing porch as an integral part of the home and due to the fact that a substantial boulevard area exists between the existing nonconforming home and the edge of the existing roadway. 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. Proposed Resolution 95-39, Richards Page 2 e Se e 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: Installation of permanent footings for the existing front wall of the home and a conforming 14' x 22' deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 14, 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. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1995 CASE ~95-39: HOWARD RICHARDSt 2982 WESTEDGE BLVD. t LOTS it 2, 3, BLOCK 14~ THE HIGHLANDS~ PID 23-117-24 31 0061. V~RI_~N_CE FOR DECK/PORCH. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking variance approval to place footings under an existing portion of the house that was originally used as a porch and enclosed as part of the home in the late 1950's. The request also includes an after-the-fact approval for a 14' x 22' deck which is conforming. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. The house/porch is located 9.4 feet from the front property line which results in a 21 foot variance request. Practical difficulty can be applied since the porch has become an integral part of the home over the past 35 years. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback variance to allow the installation of permanent footings for the existing front wall of the home and to allow after-the- fact construction of a conforming deck on the south side of the property. In approving the request, it is suggested that the Planning Commission find that practical difficulty exists due to the long- standing use of the existing porch as an integral part of the home and due to the fact that a substantial boulevard area exists between the existing nonconforming home and the edge of the existing roadway. The applicant noted that the house would be nonconforming even without the porch, and that there is approximately a 30 foot boulevard. Weiland confirmed with staff that a double fee will be applied for the deck permit. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval as a recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 6, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Howard D. Richards CASE NUMBER: 95-39 HKG FILE NUMBER: 95-5m LOCATION: 2982 Westedge Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family (R- 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variance approval to place footings under an existing portion of the house that was originally used as a porch and enclosed as part of the home in the late 1950's. Additionally, the variance request includes an "after the fact" approval for a 14' by 22' deck that was built in a conforming location this spring without the issuance of a building permit. Impervious cover on the property conforms to the ordinance. The front wall of the existing house (former porch) is located 9.4 feet from the property line which abuts County Road 44. Hennepin County has no plans at the present time to widen or upgrade the existing road. Since the lot is in the R-1 zone which requires a 30 foot setback, a 21 foot variance is being requested. Under the Mound Zoning Code, variances can be granted in cases where either hardship or practical difficulty exist. In this particular case, it is reasonable that a finding of practical difficulty can be applied since the porch area has become an integral part of the home over the past 35+ years. During that time the property has been continually remodeled and improved including a garage that was added in 1977 with the issuance of a variance. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Richards Variance Planning Report September 6, 1995 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback variance to allow the installation of permanent footings for the existing front wall of the home and to allow "after the fact" construction of a conforming deck on the south side of the property. In approving the request, it is suggested that the Planning Commission fred that practical difficulty exists due to the long standing use of the existing porch as an integral part of the home and due to the fact that a substantial boulevard area exists between the existing non-conforming home and the edge of the existing roadway. M:WIOUND\95-5\955M.RPT 08/21/95 15:02 FAX 612 472 0620 CITY OF MOUND VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN ~364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 OO9 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: City Planner '~-Zc/, Public Works City Engineer DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 case No. als - Please type or print *he following inforn~on: Address of Subject Property. ,~ a}'~°o~ &J E ~'r'd. ~ ~ ~ ~ l. ~',~ Lot I, ~, ~ Block Addition -f"/-hf' I.-[16~/_~./Jb~ PID No. a~ Zoning District ~'"' I Uae of Property: Pe.r,.-~o~/~ ~, ~s, Owner's Name t'-~v~rc~ ~. ~,c._ t-~vr~o ..~ Day Phone Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an app.lication ever bee~ ?ade for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? J~[ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copi~ of' resolutions. - Detailed descripton of proposed consu'uction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 411! UP ~UU)U ~UIU Variance Application (I 1/93) l~e 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with al~ ~ea, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, s~ each non-conforming use (describe re~son for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or exists) Front Yard: ( N S E(W~ 3 0 ff. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ff. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. : (NSEW) ff. Street Frontage: ft. Lot Size: ,sq ft I-Iardcover: sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft .sq ft sqft sqft Does the preset,, 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: e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage J~ existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: ? UO//..L/~i,I .LOoU,O _r,.~,~ UJ.~. ~1z UrJ/.U L~111 u_r'LII~,JIU£~L~ L~gU.L..L Vat. ce Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of any.one having proper~ interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No,~. ff yes, explain: W~ ~e hazdship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain: e Are the conditions of ¥~:dship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described irt 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. CITY 0P MOUND HARDGOVER GALG. LATI@N (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA IF/ ~4PO SQ. FT. X 30% -- (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA 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 350:1 225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks {l/a," min. opening between boards) with pe~ious surface under ara not counted as hardcover ...11~ · ii) X ~ X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE !, ~..~,.ND~ / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE =3 _ 3 3 L_.._._~ %, o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET. CERTIFICATE Of SURVEY FOR: GENE HOSTETLER 2982 W. EDGE BOULEVARD, MOUND, MINNESOTA. LEGAL: DESCRIPTION:. LOTS 1,2,813, BLOCK 14, THE HIGHLANDS. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN. I hereby certify that this plan, survey, or report was prepared by me or under "LY direct supervi:ion and that ] am a duly Registered Land Surveyor undel- the laws of the State of Mi nnesota ./~~ EGIL WEFALD & ASSOCIATES. CONSULTIN(~ ENGINEERS MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA --°' " ! J DRAWINO NO. SCALE I = 30 DR. eY D.B.H. O*~£ 9-13-7,7, c~:'~. ~ D.J.R ! 10713105- INC. REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: ~ / E×,ST,N~ LOT ~V, DT,: I '-70/ ,-f-/_ EX'ST,NG LOT? '-~TH: ldo ~ ~' REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDJ~glJ HOUSE FRONT:,~L,, FRONT.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.~S E W S~E: ~E W t~' SIDE: N~ E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: _~m;asured TOP OF BLUFF: from O.H.W.) ACCESSORY BUILDING(G,~RAG E/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: PRINCIPAL BUILDII~JHOUSE FRONT: ,.~ S I~___~ q ,4 FRONT:(I~ E W ~1'~ ! .4-/.... SIDE: "I~S(_.~E W '~J 5 ' +7- ~ ~--~ SIDE: NSE W ' REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N~E W SIDE: N E W '2..0_ / "t'-/- SIDE: N E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: ................ I ~~~ummarme~ a port,on o on,rig ~rdinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Depa~ment at 472-0600. g (2~) ..... (6 ~3 (90) · ....(~L 40) 13 (79u, 0 (~ o o ~ I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK AND ]~%RDCOVER VA/~IANCE TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 4?05 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 2, BLOCK ?, DEVON PID 30-117-23-22 0050, P&Z CASE ~95-40 WHEREAS, the owner, Gene Smith, has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback to the detached garage of i foot and to recognize the nonconforming impervious surface coverage of approximately 55%, and; WHEREAS, the proposed size of this accessory building meets the ordinance size limitation of 1,200 square feet, and; WHEREAS, if the commons property is added to the lot area for the purpose of determining impervious cover, the total drops to approximately 50%, and; WHEREAS, the garage will be displacing impervious cover that currently exists as part of the driveway, therefore, the proposed expansion does not further intensify the total amount of hardcover, and; WHEREAS, the existing garage is in sound condition, and; WHEREAS, the roof pitch on the garage will be changed so half the run-off will drain towards a grassy area, and; .WHEREAS, practical difficulty exists since no hardcover is eing increased, the new portion meets all required setbacks, and e garage meets size requirements, and; · WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA ~ingle Family Residential Zoning District which accordin~ to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet~ 20~foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15--f~ rea~ yard setback, 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: The City does hereby grant a three foot garage setback variance and the existing hardcover variance of 15% due to a finding of practical difficulty related to the use of the existing garage that is in sound condition, contingent upon the following conditions. 2 o3 Proposed Resolution 95-40, Smith Page 2 Se Se ae Be The property owner shall supply the City with a copy of the driveway easement that allows access over the neighboring property to the east. Ensuring that a driveway easement is in place is in the public's interest since access to the subject parcel after the garage addition is constructed will be more difficult without utilizing the curb cut on the adjacent property. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall contain existing and proposed spot elevations to allow the Building Official and City Engineer to assess drainage on the property. Ce The survey supplied with the building permit application shall show applicable silt fence locations. 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 24' x 26' addition to the existing 22' x 24' detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 2, Block 7, Devon. 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. MINUT OF A MF ETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 11~ 1995 CASE ~95-40: DON SCHERVEN FOR GENE SMITHt 4705 ISLAND VIEW DRIVEr LOT 2, BLOCK ?t DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0050. VARIANCE TO EXP~ND DETACN~D GARAGE. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking variance approval to recognize two existing nonconforming situations for impervious cover and a nonconforming side yard garage setback. Construction of a 624 square foot addition to the existing 535 square foot detached garage is being requested. The proposed size of this accessory building meets the ordinance size limitation of 1,200 square feet. The existing garage is located one foot from the western property line, a four foot setback is required, resulting in a three foot variance request. The impervious cover total for the subject property exceeds the 40 percent maximum allowed by ordinance. At the present ~time, 55% of the lot area is covered with impervious surfacing. If the commons property is added to the lot area for the purpose of determine impervious cover, the total drops to approximately 50%. Construction of the proposed garage will require a hardcover variance. The garage will be displacing impervious cover that currently exists as part of the driveway, therefore, the proposed expansion does not further intensify the total amount of hardcover. The existing garage is in sound cQndition. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the three foot garage setback variance and the existing hardcover variance of 15% be granted due to a finding of practical difficulty related to the use of the existing garage that is in sound condition. It is further recommended that the approval be contingent upon the following conditions. The property owner shall supply the City with a copy of the driveway easement that allows access over the neighboring property to the east. Ensuring that a driveway easement is in place is in the public's interest since access to the subject parcel after the garage addition is constructed will be more difficult without utilizing the curb cut on the adjacent property. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall contain existing and proposed spot elevations to allow the Building Official and City Engineer to assess drainage on the property. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall show applicable silt fence locations. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 Weiland questioned the status of the pump house located on the commons adjacent to his property. Mr. Smith stated that the pump house has always been assumed to be the neighbors, and that the pump house is painted to match the neighbors house. Hanus noted that the city has a process to address the issues of structures on the commons and suggested they let that vehicle be used. Weiland confirmed that the bus that is parked in his driveway with an expired license will be removed from the premises by October. Mueller questioned the structural condition of the existing garage and noted that he would like to see an effort made to reduce the amount of hardcover. The applicant noted that the roof pitch on the garage will be changed so half the run-off will drain towards a grassy area. Mueller commented that this property could be conforming if the nonconforming portion of the garage was removed and the hardcover was reduced. He feels this case is similar to the previous case (Thompson). The applicant noted that his garage helps support the neighbors concrete stairs. Surko stated that he sees this application differently from the previous case because this garage is structurally sound. Mueller questioned the findings for hardship. Koegler reiterated that practical difficulty exists since no hardcover is being increased, the new portion meets all required Setbacks, and the garage meets size requirements. MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Surko, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Michael, Glister and Voss. Mueller and Weiland were opposed. Mueller stated that he is opposed because he would like to see less hardcover and because of the fact that no hardship is present. Weiland agreed. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 6, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Gene Smith CASE NUMBER: 95-40 HKG FILE NUMBER: 95-5n LOCATION: 4705 Island View Drive EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-iA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to recognize two existing non- conforming situations: excessive impervious cover and a non-conforming side yard garage setback. The variance is being requested to allow the construction of an addition to the existing garage. The proposed addition will add 624 square feet to the 535 square foot existing garage resulting in an accessory building which totals 1,159 square feet. The City of Mound allows accessory buildings providing that they do not exceed 15% of the total lot area or 1,200 square feet whichever is less. In this case, with the proposed expansion, the building meets the ordinance size limitations. At the present time, the existing garage is located one foot from the western property line. The Zoning Code requires garages on lakeshore lots to observe a four foot side yard setback. Therefore, a three foot variance is being requested. The impervious cover total for the subject property exceeds the 40% maximum allowed by ordinance. At the present time, 55% of the lot area is covered with impervious surfacing. If the commons property is added to the lot area for the purpose of determining impervious cover, the total drops to approximately 50%. Construction of the proposed garage will require a hardcover variance. 7300 Metro Bouledeard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Smith Variance Planning Report September 6, 1995 Page 2 COMMENT: In cases such as this where the amount of hardcover exceeds the ordinance threshold, staff typically recommends denial. In this case, however, the garage will displace impervious cover that currently exists as part of the driveway, therefore, the proposed expansion does not further intensify the total amount of hardcover. Since the size of the proposed structure is consistent with the ordinance and the existing garage is in sound condition, it is reasonable that the Planning Commission can render a finding that the moving or removal of the garage is a practical difficulty and that the variance can be granted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recornn~nds that the Planning Commission recommend that the three foot garage setback variance and the existing hardcover variance of 15% be granted due to a finding of practical difficulty related to the use of the existing garage that is in a sound condition. It is further recommended that the approval be contingent upon the following conditions: The property owner shall supply the City with a copy of the driveway easement that allows access over the neighboring property to the east. Ensuring that a driveway easement is in place is in the public's interest since access to the subject parcel after the garage addition is constructed will be more difficult without utilizing the curb cut on the adjacent property. 2. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall contain existing and proposed spot elevations to allow the Building Official and City Engineer to assess drainage on the property. 3. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall show applicable silt fence locations. NOTE: The property that borders the subject site on the east has a concrete driveway that encroaches into the property. The encroachment which contributes a small amount of hardcover does not have any relationship to the proposed garage expansion. M :'cMOUN D\95 -5\-955 N.RPT 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 ¢-7~/ Public Works City Engineer "~ - 7...~ DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q5"'40 Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property. Lot '9__ Addition ~'"0 ~ ~ District Owner's Name Owner's Address Use of Property: Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address q~..~ ~.~ '~%6 ~0 Block 7 PID No. "z.~-/I7- 23-22.-d0g"O Day rhone Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,,~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 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 (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ((~)S E W ) .~. ~. ft. 2~/ ft. 0 ft. Side Yard: ( N S E (~) l~//' ft. 'l ft. ~ ' ft., Side Yard: ( N S_(~)W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N(~)E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N(~)E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. q [ / ft. ft. Lot Size: 6000 sq ft c~-~ sq ft sq ft Hardcover: '~")'~ '~ sq ft .~__Z~ sq ft ] Z} ~ I sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~}. If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) 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 (). 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: Are the conditions of h~ar~ship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yesj~ No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signatu~re ~..~,~~ ~. Applicant's Sign~:~ ~, Date ~_ ~C..~_ ~'"~ Date PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: q4-~3 CITY OF MOUND HARDC0VER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ: FT;";~/'~G~-'>""(fot'r 0tS 6'f'R~'c'o'rd*) ....... I I' LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined.in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back)· A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building off'icial. ' .......... HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X I\S'~-' <DETACHED BLDGS ~ ~l (GARAGE/SHED)h, ~ DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, '~P~t.. t. ~A, ¥ · ETC. ~/~ p~ TOTAL HOUSE ......... x = DECKS Open decks (1/4' min. opening between boards) with a<.;71F.4~ pervious surface under ara TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. ~z ...... X gz : o.~; ~'~ ~ ~ F X ~ i X = not counted as hardcover OTHER '~/P/~h~. TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER x ~./ : x ...... /.,f. : UNDER / OVER (indicate difference.)..= ..-. -,..~; .~.., .; .... ,.... ;-..,..-,-,'"~., .~ ~ -REPARED BY Cer%ificate of Survey for Don Scherven of Lot 2, Block 7, DEVON Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 2, Block 7, DEVON. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of al! existing visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not pur- port to show any other improvements or encroachments. o : iron marker set Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. Hennepin County, Minnesota · ~. t LEGAL DESCRIPl Lot 2, Block 7 This survey intends to s of the above described p the location of all exis "hardcover" thereon. It port to show any other i encroachments. ! o · iron marker set Bearings shown are based datum. ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA: 4905 lSlOJ REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE~IDTH: REOUIRED SETBACKS PRI N C I P,0,L,,,~B UILDIN G ! HOUSE/ fRONT(NJ S E W ,-.QO FRONT:"N' S E W SIDE: N ~).,,~ (,~ ' SIDE: N ~E~W~ ~ ~ REAR: N/S ~(~ LAKESHOR~ ~ {measured TOP OF BLUFF: ~ / from O.H.W.) ACCESSJ;~Y BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED r"O.T( 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 LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIP~ BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT(N~S E W ~._.~(") FRONT:~ S E W SIDE: N ~,,~ 14' REAR: N S E W ,~-~ LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: "~ HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES ~ ? ~ summarmzes_ a port ACCESSOJ3Y BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT:(N~s E W ~ / FRONT: "~ S..J=.. W SLOE: N ~ ~ ~ / '+,/- . SIDE: N S E(W) I' ~'/- '~ REAR: N S E'~ LAKESHORE: '-~ TOP OF BLUFF: ~ IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES / NO / ? on o-~ requirements out,ne m t e Ky o oun orang Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. / - /-.->. . x..~, ~13 mi 1,5 16 17~t8 Ig 20 ~1 26) i77 I91' :90] j, [4Q 49 40 49 40'; 40 40 . 40 ~' 0 ~ "1 I 0 ! o 0 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95-~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARI~CE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE WITHIN THE B-2 ZONE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED PORCH AT 1861 COI~ERCE BLVD. PART OF GOVERI~,~ENT LOT 1, SECTION 14 PID 14-117-24 14 0004, P&Z CASE #95-41 WHEREAS, the owners, Anthony and Eva VanderSteeg, have applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming use of a single family dwelling in the B-2 zone. The greenhouse is also nonconforming to the north side by 30 feet, a 50 foot setback is required to residential property, and; WHEREAS, the proposed construction consists of a new screened area under the existing front entry of the home, including a new strip footing to replace the old pier footings for the entry and deck above. The new foundation is what creates the variance request. There is no additional impact, or encroachment into the existing footprint, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the B-2 General Business Zoning District, 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 the variance request to recognize the existing nonconformities in order to allow construction of the screened porch as proposed. The request is a reasonable use of the property that will improve the use and function of the home without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. 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 new screened area under the existing front entry, including new strip footings for the entry and deck above. Proposed Resolution 95-41, VanderSteeg Page 2 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The North 435 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 14, Township 117, North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, EXCEPT that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said lot distant 606.02 feet West from the Northeast corner of said lot; thence East to the Northeast corner of said lot; thence South along the East line of said lot a distance of 165 feet; thence West parallel with said North line to an intersection with a line drawn South parallel with said East line from the point of beginning; thence North to the point of beginning, together with an easement for ingress and egress and driveway purposes over the South 50 feet of the West 246 feet of said excepted tract, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the city Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1995 CASE ~95-41: JERRY SHOLTS OF PATIO ENCLOSURES FOR ~NTHONY'S FLORAL~ 1861 COMMERCE BLVD.~ P~RT OF GOVT. LOT 1~ SECTION 14t PID 14-117-24 0004. V~RIANCE FOR PORCH. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming use of a single family dwelling in the B-2 zone. The greenhouse is also nonconforming to the north side by 30 feet, a 50 foot setback is required to residential property. The proposed construction consists of a new screened area under the existing front entry of the home, including a new strip footing to replace the old pier footings for the entry and deck above. The new foundation is what creates the variance request. There is no additional impact, or encroachment into the existing footprint. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to recognize the existing nonconformities in order to allow construction of the screened porch as proposed. The request is a reasonable use of the property that will improve the use and function of the home without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. Hanus questioned if "use variances" may be issued. Koegler clarified that this is an existing situation and the proposed construction is within the existing footprint. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of September 11, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Jerry Sholts of Patio Enclosures for Anthony's Floral 95-41 1861 Commerce Blvd., Part of Government Lot 1, Section 14, PID #14-117-24 14 0004. B-2 General Business District BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming use of a single family dwelling in the B-2 zone. In addition, the existing greenhouse is also nonconforming to the north side by 30 feet, a 50 foot setback is required to residential property in the B-2 Zone. The adjacent property located in the City of Minnetrista is zoned residential (R-A Agricultural/Residential). This dwelling was constructed in 1950. COMMENTS: The request consists of a new screened area under the existing front entry of the home. This work involves a new strip footing to replace the old pier footings for the existing entry and deck above. The new foundation is what creates the variance request. There is no additional impact, or encroachment into the existing footprint. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to recognize the existing nonconformities in order to allow construction of the screened porch as proposed. The request is a reasonable use of the property that will improve the use and function of the home without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. printed on recycled paper Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution; ~...- 7.-'~ City Planner ~-- 2-'g City Engineer Other VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Public Works DNR Application Fee: $50.00 No. qS-+l Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Block "---" PID No. 1'4-' t }"~ "~4- ~- Addition I '4- Zoning District Owner's Name Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone ~ k S.~ } (~ Day Phone ~ ~ S - 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. No 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 (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. $ Side Yard: ( N S E W ) "3 0 ft. ~,[O ft. ! ~ ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sqft sq ft .sq ft sq ft Street Frontage: ft. Lot Size: sq ft Hardcover: sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 5. Which unique physical characteristics uses permitted in that zoning district? of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the Please describe: ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. e Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance war adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No (). If yes, explain: Yes (), o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are 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. Owner's Signature ~ d(.,~ ~, ~ Date Applicant'sSignaturd l/. ~ ~n~ Date - ¥ . CITY Of MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA I \~(! 5'~)SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I_~~ LOT AREA 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 e pervious surface under are not counted es hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SB x SQ ~l' TOTAL HOUSE ......................... x - TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I~/_~1 PREPARED BY t'~_~'~ ~.~t~' ~-"[, ~L.~"~ C,~ il / / / I I I ~LI~ 07 '~5 04~OG~PM P~ ~ EI'tCLOSURES ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA: I --Z 2z ,ooO II q REQUIRED STRE~ FRONTAGE~IDTH: ~0 / EXISTING LOT WIDTH: ~O / + EXISTING LOT DE'H: ~OO ~ + REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SLOE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ~L'~ · 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: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: ,,~S E W SIDE: (N~S E W ~.~_ · '~ ~:::~~ SIDE: '3~ S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: ' r~ · HARDCOVER CONFORMING7 YES / NO / 7 FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 this I Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zonint" Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600, bc4 , par' ! · · '-I RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YArD SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 3225 GLADSTONE LANE, LOT 4?, WHIPPLE SHORES PID 25-117-24 21 0166v P&Z CASE ~95-42 WHEREAS, the owners, Florence and Neil Finnicum, have applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming side yard setbacks to the existing dwelling for the purpose of constructing a conforming detached garage. The dwelling has nonconforming side yard setbacks of 5.9 feet and 1.1 feet, 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, one 6 foot and one 10 foot side yard setback, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, impervious cover will be conforming at under 40%, existing / WHEREAS, ResolUtion #76-244 recognized the nonconforming side yard setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming side yard setbacks to the dwelling of 5.9 feet and 1.1 feet to allow construction of a conforming garage since it would impose a practical difficulty on the property owner if the project was not allowed to proceed because of a nonconforming setback to the principal structure when the principal structure was the subject of a variance previously approved by the City of Mound. In ~i~c~%l ~ ~i~ ~Approval is contingent upon the following conditions: /A. Disturbance of the property shall be limited to the area immediately surrounding the garage location. Be The survey supplied with the building permit application shall contain existing and proposed spot elevations to allow the Building Official and City Engineer to assess drainage on the property. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall show applicable silt fence locations. Proposed Resolution 95-42, Finnicum Page 2 o 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 26' x 24' detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 47, Whipple Shores. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MF.E G OF TI-W. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1995 CASE ~95-42: FLORENCE & NEIL FINNICUMt 3225 GLADSTONE LANEt LOT 47~ WHIPPLE SHORES~ PID 25-117-24 21 0116. VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE. The City Planner reviewed the report· The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to recognize existing nonconforming side yard setbacks to the existing dwelling for the purpose of constructing a conforming detached garage. The dwelling has nonconforming side yard setbacks of 5.9 feet and 1.1 feet. Impervious cover will be conforming at under 4O%. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to allow construction of a conforming garage since it would impose a practical difficulty on the property owner if the project was not allowed to proceed because of a nonconforming setback to the principal structure when the principal structure was the subject of a variance previously approved by the City of Mound. It is further recommended that the approval be contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Disturbance of the property shall be limited to the area immediately surrounding the garage location. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall contain existing and proposed spot elevations to allow the Building Official and City Engineer to assess drainage on the property. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall show applicable silt fence locations. Florence Finnicum confirmed that the metal shed will be removed from the property. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. I'fl lt'4H TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 6, 1995 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Florence and Nell Finnicum CASE NUMBER: 95-42 HKG FILE NUMBER: 95-5o LOCATION: 3225 Gladstone Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to recognize existing non- conforming setbacks for the purpose of constructing a conforming detached garage. In 1976, the City of Mound issued a variance to allow an addition to the existing home which currently has side yards totaling 5.9 feet and 1.1 feet requiring a 4.1 foot and a 4.9 foot variance respectively. The proposed garage complies with all setback provisions and the total impervious cover on the lot is under the ordinance threshold of 40%. Construction of the garage will not increase the amount of impervious cover since it will displace a portion of the existing driveway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to allow construction of a conforming garage since it would impose a practical difficulty on the property owner if the project was not allowed to proceed because of a non- conforming setback to the principal structure when the principal structure was the subject of a variance previously approved by the City of Mound. It is further recommended that the approval be contingent upon the following conditions: 7300 Metro Bofft~ard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Finnicum Variance Planning Report September 6, 1995 Page 2 Disturbance of the property shall be limited to the area immediately surrounding the garage location. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall contain existing and proposed spot elevations to allow the Building Official and City Engineer to assess drainage on the property. 3. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall show applicable silt fence locations. M:hMOUND~95-5\9550 08."24/95 1¢:2,I FAX 612 472 0620 CI~ OF YARIANCE APPLIC~ATION CITY OF MOUND Maywood Road, Mmlnd, MN ~ Phone: 472-060B, Fax: 472.0620 Plan-i.g Commission Date: City Couucil Date: Distribution[ city Planner %-7_% Pub~ Works CiUy Engiu~er DNR ~004 ~ '~ AU6 2 8 1995 ~ Appli_~_don F~:~ lqe~e type er prat tl~ foil~ri~ ~I Own~s Addr~$ PID No. AI~'s Nm Of ot~er t~n Address Has an app.hcation ever been~ ,for zoning, variance, condilional usc permit, or other zoning proc~u~ for this prope~.~( ) ~ ) no. If yes, list ~,(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and pruvid~ copies o-5~rcsolu~p.s. ' Detailed ch~:tipton of pro~ construction or alteration (size, number of S~, typC of usc,, e.~c.): ....... ,,, ¥ _ __ ,,.-2~' ~ oq4'. ~'" "-' 08,'24/95 1¢:25 Ym'.ian,r,~ Al,p{ir, aUou (I FAX 612 472 0620 CITY OF MOUND [~005 Case No. Do time existing structures comply with all area, height~ bulk, and setback district in which it is locat~i? Yes (), No ~. If no, Sl:~C~ each non.conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, SETBACKS: r~luired requested VARIANCE (or ~,.isung) Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lak~de: Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardoov~: W) t~ / ft. ' ft. ,,.ft. (NSEW) ~ f~ ft. (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) fL ft. fl:. ~, i~. _..~:p~__ rt. lO' ft. sqft gift sqft .sqft .~qft stilt Does the present use of ~he property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~{/,~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject propaly prevent Rs reasonable use for any of th~ uses permitted in that zoning district. ( ) u~o narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too sma. ( ) drainage ~ existing situation ( ) too shaltow ( ) shape '()- outer: specify Pkas~ dcso'ibe: 08/24/9.$ 11:25 FAX 612 472 0620 CITY OF MOUND Case No. Wss the hardsl~ described above creauxt by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was ~ (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship cr~au~d by any orlmer man-nm~de change, such ~s the relocation of a road? Yes ( ),' No (). If yes, explain: Are tile conditions of hardship fur which you request a varianc~ PeCuliar only to the ia~me/ty described in this petition? Yes (~, No (). ff no, list some oth~ propen~s which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above s~ts and thc statements contained in any required papers or plans ~o be mbmitted herewith an: truc nad accurate. I consent to thc crtt~ in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspuctin~, or of posting, maiu~ and ~movin~ su~h_._nolic~ as may b~ ~.z~jred by taw. Ai~:~zam's Signature CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: ,~~ G(~'~'0~.)~ LZI~__, OWNER'S NAME: ~'~O/'~,g~ -- fL,)~ I'[ ,[LT-[/~Ji Cu'(~ II LOT AREA {3,,~-~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOTAREA [~,...~'~--O SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA IlI j~._~C'~ 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 DETACH~u BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = X = TOTAL HOUSE x :,, X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE /OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY 2. ,'~-"~' ' - DATE I cl. o s~'q\\ durabilt 7343 ANN COURT · EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55346 · 9389350 Name Address City Phone: H Scale zip Code Date ~/ GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: / } ZONE: I REQ. LOT AREA: I EXIST. LOT AREA: I0, CrCrO SQ.TI )/4,000 EXISTING LOT WIDTH: ~0/ ~'-/... '~¢ EXISTING LOT DEPTH: ~:~ / "]"'-/.... REQUIRED SETBACKS FT PRINCIPAL BUIJ.~)ING! HOUSE FRONT: N S(E)W FRONT: ,~ S"E W SIDE: (,,N~/~E W SIDE: ~ E W REAR: N S E W 15' LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) ACCESSORY B,I~I, ILDI N G/G ARA,G E/S I-I,ED _ FRONT: N S~._~ W ¢"'~ ,/ ~ / FRONT:/N~S E W , SIDE: ( N./)/S~ E W ~'; ~rr~-7 SIDE: ""~,.,~ E W ~ ~ ~ REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: ~0 / EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: "f. no,q PRINCIPAL BU~L~ING/HOUSE FRONT: N S(E~W FRONT:,J~ S '1~ W SIDE: ( N,~;.S..,, E W .._~}, SIDE: '"I~(_~E W REAR: NS E W LAKESHORE: ~PO / -t/~ TOP OF BLUFF: CONFORMING7 YES / NO//i ') ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 YES (?!, This General Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. 5,5 -'~ (1~6) ~ PROPOS .D R -SO'.UT O 1 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AND GARAGE AT 4431 DORCHESTER ROADv LOTS Zl & Z2v BLOCK 17~ AVALON PID 19-117-23 31 0082, P&Z CASE #95-43 WHEREAS, the owner, Craig Forcier, has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming rear yard setback of 1.7 feet to allow construction of a conforming detached garage and a deck, 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, a 15 foot rear yard setback to a structure and a 10 foot rear yard setback to a deck, and; WHEREAS, the proposed hardcover on this site is conforming at under 30 percent, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming rear yard setback to the dwelling of 1.7 feet to allow construction of a deck with a conforming 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow construction of a conforming detached garage subject to the condition that a revised survey be submitted with the building permit application which shows proposed and existing elevations, erosion control and existing utility services. Findings of facts are that the deck will not negatively impact the neighboring property and the deck also utilizes the lakeview so it is a reasonable use of the property. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming deck and conforming detached garage. a Proposed Resolution #95-43, Forcier Page 2 Se Se This variance is granted for the following legally described property-. Lots 21 & 22, Block 17, 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. MINLrrES OF A MEETING OF TI-W, MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1995 CUE ~95-43: CRAIG FORCIER, 4431 DORCHESTER ROAD, LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCK 17t ]%VALON, PID 19-117-23 31 0082. VARIANCE FOR DET/%CHED GARAGE. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a detached garage and a deck. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the rear yard by 13.3 feet, a 15 foot setback is required. As noted on the survey, the deck is proposed to begin at the rear wall line of the house which is 8.8 feet from the lot line, and then diverges away from the property line. The proposed hardcover on this site is conforming at under 30 percent. The required rear yard setback for the deck is 10 feet. Hardship has not been identified with respect to the deck. The end result is a minimal encroachment that follows the existing line of the dwelling. The survey submitted shows the garage setback 4 feet from the side property line, however, a 6 foot setback is required and it appears that this setback could be easily attained. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing nonconforming rear yard setback to the dwelling of 1.7 feet to allow construction of a deck with a conforming 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow construction of a conforming detached garage subject to a revised survey must be submitted with the building permit application which shows proposed and existing elevations, erosion control and existing utility services. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval as recommended by staff, including the conditions that the garage be totally conforming and a revised survey be submitted as recommended. Findings of fact are that the deck is not impacting anybody with where it is located in relation to the neighboring property and it also utilizes the lakeview so it is a reasonable use of the property. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-06O0 FAX (612) 472-0620 REV~'SED STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of September 11, 1995 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Craig Forcier 95-43 4431 Dorchester Road, Lots 21 & 22, Block 17, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 31 0082. R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a detached garage and a deck. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the rear yard by 13.3 feet, a 15 foot setback is required. As noted on the survey, the deck is proposed to begin at the rear wall line of the house which is 8.8 feet from the lot line, and then diverges away from the property line. The proposed hardcover on this site is conforming at under 30 percent. COMMENTS: The required rear yard setback for the deck is 10 feet. Hardship has not been identified with respect to the deck. The end result is a minimal encroachment that follows the existing line of the dwelling. The survey submitted shows the garage setback 4 feet from the side property line, however, a 6 foot setback is required and it appears that this setback could be easily accomodated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing nonconforming rear yard setback to the dwelling of 1.7 feet to allow construction of a deck with a conforming 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by. the City Council on September 26, 1995.-_-~_ McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Engineers, Planners, Surveyors 15050 23rd Ave. N., Plymouth, MN 55447-4739 612J476-6010 Fax 612/476-8532 [] FedEx [] Mail WEARE SENDING YOU ~Attached [] Under separate cover via [] Messenger [] Shop Drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] [] UPS ~F~i'VED the following items: ~, :,.'~,~-~' ~.,. ,,,~, [] For review and comment COPY TO SIGNE[~:- ~F,,~ If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner ~.~ Public Works City Engineer DNR Other '*~ AU$ 2 8 1995 [ (~.,i'l t.., .J Application Fee: $50.00 So. qS-z4 Please type or print the following infoPmation: Address or Subject Property /.IVY! "-~~~ ~.~:=~,~.~2~ Lot '2-\ ,~,~t::, 2~2-- Block Addition /~ V~,~,~-C) ;'~ PID No. Zomg District ~'~ -_1 Use of Property:. Owner's Name Lq -T'~C)~-~--4~ Day Phone Own 's^ re s q 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,/t~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 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 ~x~ 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 application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removin~required by law. Signature / Applicant's Signature Date Date Variance Application (11/93) Page 2 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No/~ If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: (NSEW) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N ~) E ~)) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft- J o'~ ff. I ~ ,L'~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ff. ff. ff. ft. sq ff sq ff sq ft .sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it 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 ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: OWNER'S NAME: CITY Of MOUND HARDC0VER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = SQ. FT.(~ = (for all lots) .............. (for Lots of Record*) ....... I qS<~~] I 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, DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. LENGTH WIDTH SO FT X = TOTAL HOUSE x = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER (indicate difference) ............................... 'REPARED BY ~~ l~--~t-~~ ~' DATE SURVEY FOR: Hr. Craig Forcier 6431 Dorchester Road Hound~ Hinnesota. (612) d21-9126 ~ DESCRIPTION: Lots 21'& 22, Block 17, AVALON, City of Hound, Hennepin County, Hinnesota. · Denotes 1ton Honuments (found) o Denotes Iron Honuments (set) LA~E' ! hereby certify that thi.~ survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that~_.I am a duly Registered Professio~al [,and Surveyor under the laws of the State/~f ~innesota. ./Dated this 26th day of "',ly, 1995. SURVEY FOR: Mr. Craig Forcier 4431 Dorchester Road Mound, Minnesota. DESCRIPTION: Lots 21 & 22, Block 17, AVALON, I:RROF*~'$SION,a,,I. I_~,NO SURYE:¥OIRS ~ AND t.~ND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS ~ (Gt 2) 421-~t26 ~ VINEW~D ~NE DAYTON, MN 55~7 [' City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota. · Denotes Iron Monuments (found) o Denotes Iron Monuments (set) -- 80, O0 ,~ ~-"-¢ ~7'$ ~ ADDRESS: -- J ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA: REQUIRED STRE~ FRONTAGE~IDTH: ~ / REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W "~'~ FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N ~S_ .,~.,..~ REAR: 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: PRINCIPAL BUILDU~G/HOUSE FRONT:K E "1-' FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W .s w R~R: N S E W LAKESHORE: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W ~Y ~ FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W '~1 ' v'yt4,~ SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: '? TOP OF BLUFF: ~~um~ ~ port~l the ~ outme in t e ~ty o oun onlng Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. RD ~ CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMF~NT: CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Rd., at 7:30 P.M. on October 24, 1995, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any, to the proposed assessment. The general nature of the improvements to be assessed are as follows: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1995- Area within the following boundaries proposed to be assessed: Belmont Lane on the East Lynwood Boulevard to the North 700 feet West of Commerce Boulevard 700 feet South of Shoreline Drive Total Cost to be Assessed $13,251.53 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all property lying within the above described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing. The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193 to 435.195, a resolution (#89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your inspection. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager e~Publish in The Laker October 2, 1995. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS= UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS; TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 P.M. on October 24, 1995, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any, to the proposed assessment on the following parcels of land for: UNPAID WATER ANDSEWER BILLS: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER I YEAR PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION # AMOUNT 13-117-24-22-0012 221.17 13-117-24-24-0018 122.45 · 13-117-24-21-0020 161.71 13-117-24-21-0026 242.38 13-117-24-12-0123 57.34 13-117-24-12-0052~ 68.53 13-117-24-12-0220 23.54 13-117-24-24-0010 341.21 12-117-24-43-0019 187.12 12-117-24-43-0053 391.23 13-117-24-12-0219 197.45 13-117-24-12-0119 174.35 13-117-24-12-0189 470.70 13-117-24-12-0030 114.29 13-117-24-13-0040 35.62 13-117-24-12-0207 47.43 13-117-24-12-0009 81.34 13-117-24-13-0021 41.46 13-117-24-12-0238 24.63 13-117-24-11-0131 14.46 13-117-24-11-0056 89.28 13-117-24-14-0029 65.29 13-117-24-14-0030 93.63 13-117-24-11-0060 231.72 13-117-24-12-0083 214.67 13-117-24-11-0059 402.58 13-117-24-12-0093 305.32 13-117-24-12-0106 396.67 13-117-24-12-0096 213.85 13-117-24-11-0077 298.78 13-117-24-11-0076 508.26 13-117-24-14-0005 278.09 18-117-23-23-0004 408.26 18-117-23-23-0012 397.08 18-117-23-23-0039 146.49 13-117-24-11-0047 178.10 13-117-24-14-0004 116.11 13-117-24-14-0021 292.70 13-117-24-11-0010 166.12 13-117-24-11-0039 179.19 13-117-24-11-0053 184.85 13-117-24-12-0075 218.68 13-117-24-22-0250 453.50 13-117-24-22-0246 482.63 13-117-24-22-0273 357.23 13-117-24-22-0003 167.26 14-117-24-42-0082 362.91 14-117-24-14-0043 319.19 14-117-24-13-0004 211.48 14-117-24-42-0107 92.39 14-117-24-42-0110 202.69 14-117-24-41-0040 399.15 14-117-24-41-0042 67.58 14-117-24-42-0117 375.12 14-117-24-42-0066 85.95 14-117-24-31-0016 151.14 14-117-24-42-0016 539.36 14-117-24-42-0028 537.66 14-117-24-42-0035 56.15 14-117-24-42-0038 62.12 14-117-24-42-0042 404.84 14-117-24-42-0041 260.28 14-117-24-42-0044 175.23 14-117-24-31-0058 235.20 14-117-24-31-0032 221.33 14-117-24-31-0031 263.17 14-117-24-31-0042 142.95 14-117-24-32-0045 250.49 14-117-24-32-0035 103.08 14-117-24-44-0032 312.02 14-117-24-44-0031 446.29 14-117-24-41-0015 396.57 1 14-117-24-42-0002 14-117-24-42-0023 13-117-24-32-0164 13-117-24-32-0056 13-117-24-32-0057 13-117-24-32-0004 13-117-24-34-0005 13-117-24-31-0011 13-117-24-32-0016 13-117-24-32-0108 13-117-24-32-0107 13-117-24-32-0116 13-117-24-32-0155 13-117-24-32-0152 13-117-24-32-0153 13-117-24-31-0033 13-117-24-31-0052 13-117-24-31-0044 13-117-24-31-0040 13-117-24-34-0014 13-117-24-43-0072 13-117-24-43-0061 13-117-24-43-0078 13-117-24-43-0086 24-117-24-12-0055 13-117-24-43-0121 13-117-24-43-0052 13-117-24-43-0096 24-117-24-12-0050 13-117-24-41-0042 13-117-24-41-0011 13-117-24-41-0012 13-117-24-41-0022 13-117-24-42-0014 13-117-24-42-0019 13-117-24-43-0122 18-117-23-33-0027 18-117-23-33-0026 13-117-24-44-0061 13-117-24-43-0038 24-117-24-12-0046 24-117-24-24-0040 24-117-24-21-0030 23-117-24-13-0016 22-117-24-44-0030 23-117-24-41-0016 23-117-24-41-0018 23-117-24-42-0054 23-117-24-42-0073 23-117-24-41-0020 23-117-24-42-0085 23-117-24-42-0016 23-117-24-42-0018 23-117-24-42-0020 316.63 334.59 134.21 230.89 987.09 228.22 207.66 140.62 379.53 110.27 173.09 287.34 182.44 178.97 293.17 210.39 193.99 274.08 184.07 204.78 105.98 103.92 53.78 249.82 219.39 89.19 96.10 47.37 214.90 279.52 278.37 460.65 80.17 251.59 63.22 17.18 285.40 294.87 166.13 305.64 80.22 61.58 351.73 182.80 76.92 150.83 394.75 372.79 579.55 247.01 145.16 85.86 184.51 423.62 2 23-117-24-42-0045 23-117-24-42-0034 23-117-24-43-0039 23-117-24-43-0008 23-117-24-42-0037 23-117-24-34-0004 23-117-24-34-0086 23-117-24-34-0006 23-117-24-31-0037 23-117-24-34-0090 23-117-24-31-0095 23-117-24-31-0041 23-117-24-34-0072 23-117-24-34-0102 23-117-24-34-0101 23-117-24-24-0013 23-117-24-24-0062 23-117-24-24-0008 23-117-24-31-0092 23-117-24-31-0054 23-117-24-34-0066 23-117-24-34-0065 23-117-24-23-0001 23-117-24-32-0025 23-117-24-23-0095 23-117-24-23-0089 23-117-24-23-0054 23-117-24-23-0056 23-117-24-32-0043 23-117-24-32-0050 22-117-24-44-0014 23-117-24-32-0058 22-117-24-44-0002 22-117-24-44-0018 23-117-24-31-0066 23-117-24-32-0064 23-117-24-32-0063 23-117-24-23-0109 23-117-24-23-0108 23-117-24-13-0055 23-117-24-13-0034 23-117-24-24-0058 23-117-24-24-0020 23-117-24-13-0046 23-117-24-13-0069 23-117-24-13-0050 13-117-24-22-0251 24-117-24-22-0001 23-117-24-11-0006 23-117-24-11-0026 24-117-24-21-0040 24-117-24-22-0027 24-117-24-22-0022 24-117-24-21-0006 13-117-24-34-0034 153.93 65.69 57.45 392.84 55.24 132.57 95.74 89.14 195.39 299.44 108.67 318.00 111.07 293.30 351.03 116.69 256.36 59.50 326.44 355.05 402.30 516.67 111.26 100.51 571.58 87.99 109.26 295.78 209.85 136.86 85.64 232.82 309.20 242.89 281.46 147.24 265.93 92.05 207.55 157.33 301.57 382.10 394.40 242.69 140.67 51.33 126.99 61.95 83.59 208.75 99.82 344.87 224.43 265.00 199.47 1~-117-24-34-00~2 13-117-24-34-0084 13-117-24-34-0085 13-117-24-43-0022 13-117-24-43-oo25 13-117-24-44-0038 13-117-24-44-0037 24-117-24-12-0016 24-117-24-12-0019 24-117-24-13-0009 24-117-24-12-0020 13-117-24-43-0044 19-117-23-23-0093 19-117-23-23-0075 19-117-23-23-0135 19-117-23-23-0082 19-117-23-24-0037 19-117-23-23-0153 19-117-23-24-0049 19-117-23-21-0039 24-117-24-21-0003 24-117-24-13-0027 19-117-23-13-0149 19-117-23-31-0030 19-117-23-31-0026 19-117-23-32-0159 24-117-24-14-0013 24-117-24-41-0197 19-117-23-24-0024 19-117-23-32-0183 19-117-23-32-0033 24-117-24-41-0042 24-117-24-41-0176 24-117-24-41-0087 24-117-24-41-0148 19-117-23-31-0079 19-117-23-31-0093 19-117-23-31-0062 19-117-23-32-0076 19-117-23-32-0077 19-117-23-32-0082 19-117-23-32-0083 19-117-23-32-0086 19-117-23-32-0111 24-117-24-41-0162 19-117-23-32-0169 19-117-23-31-0128 19-117-23-34-0024 25-117-24-21-0050 19-117-23-33-0026 19-117-23-33-0051 25-117-24-11-0133 25-117-24-11-0068 24-117-24-44-0051 25-117-24-11-0125 246.52 108.29 330.27 422.40 276.63 97.70 64.48 59.20 220.63 147.54 305.21 74.21 293.88 63.09 276.81 321.90 211.60 441.23 428.11 93.40 240.07 315.70 151.53 271.42 273.52 78.70 118.80 84.08 291.96 177.94 308.56 374.71 114.45 159.72 281.63 118.03 437.00 170.27 372.24 382.19 332.61 183.21 359.95 565.44 311.89 74.36 270.35 56.38 136.05 60.13 174.18 301.34 249.37 57.26 192.47 24-117-24-43-002~ 24-117-24-43-0071 24-117-24-43-0079 24-117-24-34-0005 19-117-23-33-0208 19-117-23-33-0196 19-117-23-34-0122 19-117-23-34-0036 19-117-23-34-0043 19-117-23-34-0049 19-117-23-34-0127 19-117-23-34-0112 19-117-23-33-0010 19-117-23-33-0187 19-117-23-33-0235 19-117-23-33-0075 19-117-23-33-0100 19-117-23-33-0081 19-117-23-33-0184 19-117-23-33-0125 19-117-23-33-0232 19-117-23-33-0129 19-117-23-33-0179 19-117-23-33-0174 24-117-24-44-0041 24-117-24-44-0187 24-117-24-44-0050 24-117-24-44-0060 24-117-24-44-0061 24-117-24-44-0062 24-117-24-44-0231 24-117-24-44-0182 24-117-24-44-0188 24-117-24-44-0073 24-117-24-41-0159 19-117-23-32-0094 19-117-23-33-0231 24-117-24-41-0022 24-117-24-41-0110 24-117-24-41-0118 24-117-24-41-0097 24-117-24-41-0182 24-117-24-41-0068 24-117-24-41-0102 24-117-24-42-0016 24-117-24-42-0007 24-117-24-43-0019 24-117-24-43-0017 24-117-24-41-0175 25-117-24-12-0116 25-117-24-12-0125 25-117-24-12-0195 25-117-24-21-0039 25-117-24-11-0064 24-117-24-44-0079 149.66 97.19 363.73 102.98 110.34 82.27 410.03 187.49 527.49 66.37 146.87 92.64 397.78 106.29 402.06 884.40 362.02 226.01 350.95 240.24 53.96 415.87 99.99 373.72 223.30 203.19 59.22 80.42 277.57 216.82 73.15 276.26 160.77 291.84 93.28 63.60 53.96 260.92 85.40 78.07 258.37 100.82 308.69 90.85 76.78 270.38 145.76 53.96 210.50 376.98 138.04 99.45 68.48 136.24 532.65 25-117-24-12-0112 25-117-24-21-0025 25-117-24-21-0029 25-117-24-11-0072 25-117-24-11-0152 25-117-24-11-0083 25-117-24-12-0062 30-117-23-22-0034 30-117-23-22-0036 25-117-24-12-0219 25-117-24-11-0070 25-117-24-11-0074 25-117-24-11-0023 19-117-23-34-0092 19-117-23-34-0082 30-117-23-21-0007 30-117-23-22-0049 30-117-23-22-0045 30-117-23-22-0056 30-117-23-22-0078 551.48 25-117-24-11-0028 195.30 60.09 25-117-24-11-0035 218.39 395.89 25-117-24-11-0043 156.76 128.28 25-117-24-11-0116 135.48 62.15 25-117-24-11-0115 335.63 57.26 25-117-24-21-0012 394.32 380.13 25-117-24-21-0106 239.48 324.14 25-117-24-21-0114 337.25 206.69 25-117-24-21-0007 95.40 207.68 25-117-24-21-0080 185.90 191.52 13-117-24-44-0051 203.26 341.64 13-117-24-33-0073 187.94 92.01 14-117-24-44-0036 614.76 213.29 13-117-24-33-0016 289.21 79.86 13-117-24-33-0057 119.07 288.85 13-117-24-34-0044 271.79 440.03 13-117-24-44-0014 116.92 164.77 13-117-24-33-0024 227.65 305.26 13-117-24-33-0014 81.45 79.74 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all property lying within the above described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing. The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193 to 435.195, a resolution (#89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your inspection. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Publish in The Laker October 2, 1995. 4 PROCLAMATION g95- September 26, 1995 PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 1-7, 1995 AS MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, Minnesota cities are where people live, raise a family, go to work, and enjoy recreation; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota cities are a grass roots government system which represents a close relationship between elected officials and citizens; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota cities provide the basic services necessary to ensure the health, safety, and well being of the people -- services such as water, streets and police and fire protection; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota cities are essential to the protection and development of our lakes, rivers, land and air; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota city officials, city employees and volunteers should be lauded for their effort in providing for the economic growth, safety, and vitality of our communities. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mound proclaims the week of October 1-7, 1995 to be MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK in Mound and urges citizens to take this opportunity to learn more about city government and how they can become involved. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager RESOLUTION g95- RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS//6005 AT OUR LADY OF THE LAKE SCHOOL FOR NOVEMBER 18, 1995 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, approves the Exempting from Lawful Gambling License application for Our Lady of the Lake School, 2385 Commerce Blvd., Mound, MN 55364, for Turkey Bingo on November 18, 1995. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14~ RANKIN~ OF CANDIDATES The Commission discussed the attributes of each candidate. Ahrens commented that it would be good to gain experience from people who have resided in other communities. Byrnes noted that she would like to see more representation from residents who abut the commons. Schmidt expressed a need to focus on Park issues. The votes were tallied, as follows: Rodney Beystrom Carl Palmquist Rita Pederson 2,3,3,3,2 = 13 3,1,2,2,1 = 9 1,2,1,1,3 = 8 The vote indicates that Rita Pederson is recommended for appointment to the Park Commission to fill the term vacated by David Steinbring, due to expire 12/97. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 INTERVIEWS FOR NEW PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MEMBER: Chair Schmidt welcomed each applicant prior to their interview, and informed each at the end of their interview that the they will be notified of the Council's decision after September 26, 1995. A. RODNEY BEYSTROM, 4466 DENBIGH ROAD Rodney Beystrom explained that he lives on property which abuts the commons and is known as Stratford Lane. He is on the Commons Task Force. He has applied for this position because he feels he can help. His occupation is a housing inspector and he manages his own franchise. When he originally applied he thought there were no other applicant's and a lack of interest, however, since then he sees more people have shown an interest and he spoke favorably of the other candidates. Rodney has been a resident of Mound since 1987. His interest in joining the Commission is not to change things, but to contribute what he can because of his background. He does not foresee a problem with attendance. When asked what goals he has for the Park Commission he commented that he has no agenda and will maintain a fair a open mind on issues. He does not have any related experience of being on a public commission, other than the Commons Task Force. He sees the priorities for the parks as continuing basic up-keep. B. MARK KJOLHAUG, 4767 RICHMOND ROAD Not present. C. CARL PALMQUIST, 4520 DENBIGH ROAD Carl Palmquist explained that he recently moved here from Northfield, Minnesota, and currently works for Hennepin County, Child Support Group. He is a graduate of St. Olaf and has worked in banking. Carl worked with the Jaycees in helping organize Jesse James Days. He is not familiar with the various parks in Mound, he has lived in here for only 1-1/2 years. His property abuts the commons, Stratford Lane, and he has a dock and a boat. He does not foresee a problem with meeting attendance. When asked what is objectives or goals are he stated that he thinks he can provide some leadership and would like to share his experience to help the Commission make good decisions. He explained that in Northfield they have 98 parks that are of adequate size, and he does not think small parks are good. He believes parks should be kept clean and that parks are for the enjoyment of the public. D. RITA PEDERSON, 2865 HALSTEAD LANE Rita Pederson explained that when she was ten years old she lived in Mound, then lived in Indiana for ten years, and she moved back three years ago. Her long term goal for the parks is to develop the best possible use of the park land, but also be frugal, and keep the nature. She would like to see the Depot painted white with green trim. She lives on Halstead Lane, which is not on commons, and her back yard is Lake Saunders. She suggested that a good use of a nature area is to have a walking/jogging path that has exercise stations. She is a member on the Commons Task Force, she is their one citizen at large. Sh, would like to help with deciding how to get the best use out of :',,und park land and at the same time spend dollars wisely. Discussion The Commission determined to vote ~ the :~ 'icants after agenda item #4, Land Alteration Permit appJ~catio rom the Stevenson's. Denbigh Rd. Mound, Mlnne so~& 55364 612/ 2-6567 EDUCATION I980 Metropolitan State University Bachelor of Arts Degree Communications Also attended University of Minnesota and Minneapolis Community College I975 St. Paul Technical-Vocational Institute Two Year A.A. Degree Carpentry 1965 Roosevelt Senior High School Virginia, Minnesota H.S. Diploma 1/91 to Present Home Inspector/Technical Reviewer,~riter,£stimator Real Estate Support Services, Inc. Blmgtn., Minn. My duties include inspecting homes in regards to nationally recognized codes and standards: reviewing home inspections from all over the nation and figuming out estimates for needed repair work; rewriting reports and approving home inspection reports as they are sen% to the client; performing customer relations between the client, the homeowner and the company. 9/S8 to I2/90 Home Planning Consultant/~stimator HYF/Martin Homes Blmg~n., Minn. My duties included acting as the. company representative to clients interested in building a new home; I would handle preliminary planning, rough drafts or sketches and estimates for any given homebuilding project; I performed sales negotiations and contract writing and procurment; also I gave home building seminars to the general public through-out the greater metropolitan area on behalf of the company; I performed customer relation duties with the client from start to finish of a home building project; in 1989 I was awarded the Sales Representative of the Year Award. /s8 to 9/88 Asst. Project Manager/Estimator/Sales Agape Construction Co. Mpls., Minn. My duties included project management of remodeling jobs; estimating, sales negotiations and customer relations; due to mismanagement of company funds by the president/owner of the company, the company went out of business shortly after I resigned. 1986 to ~/88 198~ to 1986 1981 to 1984 I975-1981 1972-1975 (Rodney Beystrom cont'd) Sales Representative/Estinmtor Miles Homes/Division of Insilco Corp., Plymouth, Minn. Journeyman Carpenter University of Minnesota Mpls., Minn. Ss.les Representative New Automobiles and Trucks and Leasing Ckrysler Corp./Freeway Dodge, Inc. Blmg~n., Minn. Journeyman Construction Carpenter Carpenter's I~cal Union # 606, Virginia, Minn. Carpenter's I~cal Union ~ 1644, Mpls., Minn. I~w Enforcement Inspector State of Minnesota/Dept. of Motor Vehicles St. Paul, ~innesota P~SONAL DATA Marital Status: Ma~ried Health: Excellent Height~ 6' 1" Weig~nt: 185 lbs. Homeowner: Hennepin County M~B~SHIPSt ACTIVITIF. St HOBBIES & AkAP~DS: Candidate Member of the American Society of Homes Inspectors (A.S.H.I.). Have attended numerous and various workshops and classes regarding home ins~ctions, building codes, electrical codes, masonry institute classes and code enforcement. On Founding Board of Directors of L~ve Lines Inc./ A 24 hr. Hot-Line ~nergency Counsel- ing Center in Mpls./St.Paul. Currently work as a volunteer on varous projects. Toastmasters Interna%ional past member/participant. Photographer Volunteer Communications Worker. Have worked as a writer, director and na~ator of nationally syndicated radio shows such as the Solid Rock Show as well as local radio and cable television programming. I have participated in local community outreach dinner theater ~oups. Carpentx-y m%thusiast and Hobbyist; Have attended numerous workshops and shows and classes on remodeling, building and construction and landscaping; continually keeping updated on latest building techniques and products available. S~rts and Hunting Enthusiast and Participant. Awards, 1989 HYF/Maztin Homes Sa.les Representative of the Yea~; 2 Miles Homes/Insilco Corp. Awards during a 2 year period for Highest coml~ny sales achievments; 3 C~rysler Corp/Freeway Dodge, Inc. Awards during a three year period for highest sa.les; 1993 Jubilee Men's Golf C~ampion. REFF~NCES: Available upon request. ;R .MOORE ASSOCIATES RODNEY L. BEYSTROM VICE PRESIDENT MINNESOTA OFFICE & FAX 4466 Denbigh Rd. (612) 472-3385 Mound, MN 55364 PROFESSIONAL HOME INSPECTIONS CARL L PALMQUIST 4520 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 AUGUST 25, 1995 CITY OF MOUND ATTN: CITY MANAGER 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 I .r.,EIVED 2 5 RE: OPENING ON THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES COMMITTEE DEAR MR. SHULKE, I WAS RECENTLY INFORMED THAT THERE IS AN OPENING ON THE ABOVE REFERENCED COMMITTEE AND WOULD LIKE TO ADVISE YOU OF MY INTEREST IN BEING A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE. I RECENTLY MOVED TO MOUND FROM NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA. WHILE LIVING IN NORTHFIELD, I WAS AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE JESSE JAMES CELEBRATION COMMITTEE. I HAVE SERVED THE JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN MANY CAPACITIES, INCLUDING PRESIDENT OF THE NORTHFIELD CHAPTER, A GROUP OF APPROXIMATELY 100 MEMBERS WITH AN ANhTUAL INCOME APPROACHING $50,000.00. AS A MEMBER OF THE JESSE JAMES CELEBRATION COMMITTEE, THE LARGEST CELEBRATION ORGANIZED BY AN ALL VOLUNTEER STAFF IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, I HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING THE CARNIVAL, ENTERTAINMENT CENTER AND FOOD VENDORS DURING THE CELEBRATION. THE EXPERIENCES, AND SKILLS, THAT I HAVE ACQUIRED WORKING ON THESE VOLUNTEER COMMITTEES MAKE ME WORTH CONSIDERATION FOR THIS OPENING. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU REGARDING THIS OPPORTUNITY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN BE REACHED AT WORK AT 348- 4857(7:15AM - 3:30PM), OR AT HOME AT 472-6476(AFTER 5PM). SINCERELY, CARL L PALMQUIS~.~ Rita Pederson 2865 Halstead Lane Mound, MN 55364 EDUCATION 1/89 to 6/93 ACTIVITIES EXPERIENCE 11/86 to 1/89 10/85 to 11/86 10/82 to 6/85 INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Marketing/Logistics Major 3.65 GPA Major Subjects: Operations MgL Transportation Carrier Mgt. Financial Mgt. Physical Distffoufion MgL Marketing MgL Industrial Marketing Administrative Policy Marketing Research Sales Mgt · Earned and saved 100 % of college expenses. · Recipient of an Indiona University Merit Scholarship Award. · Recipient of the Indianapolis Traffic Club Scholarship. · · Recipient of the American Society of Transpo~tion and Logistics, INC., Scholarship. · Honor Graduate. Self-employed, Indianapolis, IN · Evaluated investment opportunities in residential real estate. Indiana National Bank, Indianapolis, IN Teller · Strong interpersonal communication skills. · Ability to work independently ~nd within a group. · Excelled in maintenance of customer relations. · Made product and service referrals to customers. · Promoted within 3 months to handle funds, operations and commllnications of Antorn.~¢ Money Mover. · Performed detailed Wansactions under pressure. Merrill Lynch Realt~ Burnet, Spring Park, MN Sales Associate · Aggressive orientation to detail resulted in all Uansactions closing. · Achieved extensive customer contact via serf-motivation. · Cultivated excellent work relations with all transaction participants. · Accurately qualified customer*s financial profile. · Developed thorough gomm~lnication skills and follow-up skills. · Anticipated problems before they became critical problems. REFERENCES · Phnned, directed and wofi~d with city offidals to ~de a large residential lot. · Coordinated ali n~rketing efforts regarding each property listing. · A-:~ined the ability to see a project through init_i~fion to completio~ · Recipient of high productivity awards. Av~ihhle upon request. PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW TRIMMING OF TREES/VEGETATION ON PEBBLE BEACH COMMONS ABUTTING 1580 HERON LANE DOCK SITE #02605 WHEREAS, Brian and Patti Stevenson have applied for a Land Alteration Permit to allow trimming of trees/vegetation on Pebble Beach Commons, abutting their property at 1580 Heron Lane, and; WHEREAS, the request is to trim trees as permitted by the Shoreland Management Ordinance to allow for a lake view from the home while retaining some screening of their house, and; WHEREAS, there is no history of previous trimming at this site so a selective trimming would be beneficial to the health of the trees and will provide the view the applicant is seeking, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval, by a four-fifths vote, for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval, with conditions and supervision by the Parks Director. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a Special Land Alteration Permit to allow tree trimming as requested on Pebble Beach Common, abutting 1580 Heron Lane, Dock Site #02605, subject to the following: The permit is a "one-time" permit. If work has not been completed with in one year of Council approval, the permit will expire and the applicant must reapply. Staff must be notified 48 hours (weekdays only) prior to trimming. The owner or contractor (whoever is going to perform the work) must meet with staff on- site prior to trimming to clarify what trimming will be permitted. 3. All trimmings must be removed from the site. All costs incurred for trimming and brush removal is the responsibility of the applicant. If a company is hired to perform the tree trimming, they must be licensed to operate in the City of Mound. lVlINUTF OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 LAND ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR TRI_K3~ING TREES ON PUBLIC Y.~sl~D: BRIAN & PATTI STEVENSON, 1580 HERON LANEt PEBBLE BEACa COMMONS, DOCK SITE ~02605 The applicant is seeking a permit to trim trees on Pebble Beach Common as permitted by the Shoreland Management Ordinance to allow for a lake view from the home while retaining some screening of the structure. Staff has no knowledge of any previous trimming at this site so a selective trimming would be beneficial to the health of the trees and will provide the view the applicant is seeking. Staff recommended the Park and Open Space Commission recommend approval of a one time permit to allow the tree trimming as proposed with the following requirements: Staff must be notified 48 hours (weekdays only) prior to trimming. The owner or contractor (whoever is going to perform the work) must meet with staff on-site prior to trimming to clarify what trimming will be permitted. 2. Ail trimmings must be removed from the site. Ail costs incurred for trimming and brush removal is the responsibility of the applicant. If a company is hired to perform the tree trimming, they must be licensed to operate in the City of Mound. If work has not been completed with in one year of Council approval, the permit will expire and the applicant must reapply. The applicant confirmed that he will not remove any of the three large oak trees, he will only be trimming or removing poison ivy and scrub brush. Fackler stated that any trimming on the oak trees should be done during the winter. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of the land alteration permit to allow trimming on Pebble Beach Common. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 26, 1995. CITY OF MOUND Memorandum 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: September 14, 1995 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park & Open Space Commission, Applicants, and Staff FROM: Jim Fackler, Parks Director Jon Sutherland, Building Official SUBJECT: LAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR TRIMMING TREES APPLICANT: Brian & Patti Stevenson LOCATION: 1580 Heron Lane, Pebble Beach Common, Dock Site #02605 SHORELINE: TYPE D Applicant's Request The applicant is seeking a permit to trim trees on Pebble Beach Common as detailed on the information provided. The proposal is to trim trees under the guidelines in the Shoreland Management Ordinance to allow for a lakeview from the home while retaining some screening of the structure. Backqround & Comments I have no knowledge of any previous trimming at this site so a selective trimming would be beneficial to the health of the trees and will provide the view the applicant is seeking. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Park and Open Space Commission recommend approval of a one time permit to allow the tree trimming as proposed with the following requirements: Staff must be notified 48 hours (weekdays only) prior to trimming. The owner or contractor (whoever is going to perform the work) must meet with staff on-site prior to trimming to clarify what trimming will be permitted. 2. Ail trimmings must be removed from the site. Ail costs incurred for trimming and brush removal is the responsibility of the applicant. printed on recycled paper Stevenson September 14, 1995 Page 2 Se If a company is hired to perform the tree trimming, they must be licensed to operate in the City of Mound. If work has not been completed with in one year of Council approval, the permit will expire and the applicant must reapply. JF:pj The abutting dock site holders have been notified. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 26, 1995. August I, 1995 City of Mour:d 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attn: Public Land Permit Dept. To Whom It May Concern: Last July we sent in an application in order to trim back some of the trees on the Pebble Beach which ajoins our property line. It was sent back requiring photographs and a more detailed description of what we intended to do. All that we want to do is trim a few branches. Please see photograph enclosed. We do not want to alter any of the property except to trim a few branches to open the view from out deck. We are not hiring a firm to do this, but want to do it ourselves. We realize that in the past some commons area owners have gone too far with what they have wanted to do, I can assure you we only want to open the view. When we looked at the home to purchase we spoke with one of the city workers, and he seemed to think it would not be a problem. If it would be of any help, the city could trim a few branches, and then there would be no question as to what is allowed. We appreciate your help in this matter. Sincerely, Brian and Patti Stevenson 1580 Heron Lane Mound 55364 End. Revised 4/19/93 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, .5341 Maywood Road, Mound. MN Phone. 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: Building Official MCWD DNR LMCD TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one) 55364 JUll 1 ? ~ Date Received Park Meeting Date City Council Date__~_~_~_T_~ I I CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT S~h%LL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC I2%ND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I I PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow re~,airs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ,' ,' CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). I...~, LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). like boathouses, patio shads, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance ~hich means that those structures ~£11 at soae time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. &ll permits 9ranted ara for a limited time, are non-transferable, and the structure must meet State Bu£1din9 Code. ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER' S DAY PHONE SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION LOT ( S ) ~ BLOCK ADDITION -~$l~. ~JOO~- Pd~O~L Pin ~ DOCK SITE ~ ~ APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) CONT CrOR P 'O ',INa CONTRACTOR' S ~D~SS CONT~OR' S LICENSE ~ PHONE ~ V~LU~xo./~o~os~o cos~ OF ~O~C~ (X~OLUOX~S ~.O~ ~ ~T~X~LS): DESCRIBE REQUEST & P~POSE: T~ ~~ ~~ ~~S ~4gnature of Applicant 2O _J 20 934 -'"---- ~ 936 '----- -- 938 ~ 940 942 ~ ------. PEBBLE ~EA~CH COMMON I I N70o52'44"W ~' I .~ "l' F TOP OF IRON PIP~ _J TOP OF IRON PIP~ lands, and; Feb~"ua~"y 22, 1994 RESOLUTION ~4-28 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND ACCORDING TO "BATCH #2" WHEREAS, the City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed these permits and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve Public Land Permits for "Batch #2" as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: The permits will expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval, unless otherwise noted in the 'Comments' column on "Batch ~Y2' (EXHIBIT "A" attached). b. The permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. Repairs to stairways, and the related erosion control measures be made as required by the Building Official and Parks Director. dj If compliance to these conditions has not been achieved within one year of the date of approval of the Permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until compliance has been achieved. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk Councilmember Jensen was absent and excused. 49 February 22, 1994 Resolution ~4-28 EXHIBIT "A" Batch #2 Public Land Permits DOCK ABLI'R'ING ADDRESS PRIVATE ADDITIONAL SITE STRUCTURE CONDITIONS 02605 1580 HERON LANE STAIRWAY 02635 1580 HERON LANE STAIRWAY 02665 1580 HERON LANE STAIRWAY 02695 1601 PARADISE LANE STAIRWAY 02720 1601 PARADISE LANE STAIRWAY 02750 1601 PARADISE LANE STAIRWAY 02780 1601 PARADISE LANE STAIRWAY 02870 END OF THREE PTS. STAIRWAY BLVD. 02900 END OF THREE PTS. STAIRWAY BLVD. 02930 END OF THREE PTS. STAIRWAY BLVD. 10310 1779 WILDHURST LANE BIRD HOUSE 3 YEAR NON-RENEWABLE PERMIT. 10520 1745 WILDHURST LANE STAIRWAY 12490 1733 GULL LANE RETAINING WALLS 12580 1724 FINCH LANE STAIRWAY 13090 1729 DOVE LANE STAIRWAY, TIMBER 13300 1737 CANARY LANE STAIRWAY 13390 1736 BLUEBIRD LANE STAIRWAY, AND THE GARDEN AREA IS NOT RETAINING WALL INCLUDED IN THIS APPROVAL. 50 0 0 ) oO°1 ~ BILLS --September 26, 1995 BATCH 5092 $161,579.20 TOTAL BILLS $161,579.20 *,% ,% -I --I oo C O0 L L Z CrTY OF MOUND BUBGET REVENUE REPORT August 1995 66.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments August 1995 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,254,200 0 618,256 (635,944) 49.29% 9,800 200 3,519 (6,281) 35.91% 66,000 16,982 67,646 1,646 102.49% 888,590 63,445 502,753 (385,837) 56.58% 47,850 562 5,370 (42,480) 11.22% 60,000 4,521 42,597 (17,403) 71.00% 81,900 1,364 17,926 (63,974) 21.89% 0 841 7,382 7,382 N/A TOTAL REVENUE 2~408~340 87~915 1 ~265~449 ~ 52.54% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 325,785 88,320 1,400,000 4O0,O0O 730,000 5,650 7O,8O0 12,475 220,666 (105,119) 67.73% 6,068 72,857 (15,463) 82.49% 132,521 925,430 (474,570) 66.10% 38,621 264,902 (135,098) 66.23% 67,988 473,236 (256,764) 64.83% 30 1,595 (4,055) 28.23% 123 70,695 (105) 99.85% 09/13/95 rev95 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT August 1995 66.67% GENERAL FUND Council Pro motions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Sum met Recreation Contingencies Transfers August 1995 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 69.330 4 000 I 380 184 000 2 670 51 700 155 920 24,800 103,520 833,350 4,610 162,280 400,860 101,160 133,530 28,960 15,000 140~960 3,056 0 374 14,336 16 1 15,587 661 5,043 88,508 149 14,792 30,171 3,191 16,955 10,521 3,653 10,586 47,523 4,000 598 107,300 1,921 52,630 105,753 12,611 65,308 518 386 I 784 94 438 246 956 63 792 84 969 21 554 16 322 84 693 38 314 2 67 1 53 37 21,807 0 782 76,700 749 (930) 50,1 67 12189 212 964 826 842 ,904 368 48 561 7,406 (1,322) 56~267 68.55% 100.00% 43.33% 58.32% 71.95% 101.80% 67.83% 50.85% 63.09% 62.21% 38.7O% 58.19% 61.61% 63.06% 63.63% 74.43% 108.81% 60.08% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2~418~030 217~600 1 ~530~538 8877492 63.30% Area Fire Service Fund 285,330 23,156 216,194 69,136 75.77% Recycling Fund 118,590 16,366 93,411 25,179 78.77% Liquor Fund 197,410 17,597 132,147 65,263 66.94% Water Fund 371,690 37,460 251,41 8 120,272 67.64% Sewer Fund 1,01 9,480 200,039 795,775 223,705 78.06% Cemetery Fund 5,840 972 2,784 3,056 47.67% Docks Fund 78,700 3,214 38,587 40,113 49.03% exp95 09/13/95 G.B. BOARD MEMBERS William A. Johnstone Chair, Minnetonka Douglas E. Babcock Vice Chair, Spring Park Joseph Zwak Secretary, Greenwood Robert Rascop Treasurer, Shorewood Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N, Grathwol Excelsior Duane Markus Wayzata Ross McGlasson Tonka Bay Craig Mollet Victoria Eugene Partyka Minnetrista Tom Reese Mound Herb J. Suerth Woodland Orono LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 ° TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECEIVED SEP 2 O 1g§5 Scptcmbcr 19, 1995 To: I. MCD Cities LMCD Board of Directors Interested Parties From: Alan Wincutt, Executive Dircctor SUBJECT: Special Mayors Meeting It is indccd a plcasurc to invite you to attend a Spccial Mayors mccting on Monday, September 25, 1995 at 7:00 A.M. in Room 135 at thc Norwcst Bank Building in Wayzata. Thc purposc of this meeting is to discuss revised allocations to thc cities of thc approved 1996 LMCD Budget. Thc original allocations submitted to thc cities for thc 1996 LMCD Budget were calculated incorrectly by using percentage of taxable market value rather that net tax capacity. Also, allocations were not calculated prop~ly in 1994 and 1995. Corrected allocations are outlined in thc enclosed spreadsheets for 1994 through 1996. We encourage you to attend this meeting so wc can include your feedback in resolving this situation. Plcasc R.S.V.P. by Noon on Friday, Scptembcr, 22, 1995. See you on Mondayl 60% RecycleO Conten! 30% Post'Consumex Waste LAKE MINNETONKA .CONSERVATIO. N DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 September 7, 1995 BOARD MEMBERS William A. Johnstone Chair, Mmnetonka Douglas E. Babcock Vice Chair, Spring Park Joseph Zwak Secretary. Greenwood Robert Rascop Treasurer, Shorewood Mike Bloom Minne~onka Beach Albert (Bertl Foster Deephaven James I',1 Grathwol Excelsior Ouane Markus Wayz,ua Ross McGlasson Tonka Bay Craig Molter V~ctor~a Eugene Partyka Minnetnsla Tom Reese Mound Herb J Saerlh Woodland Orono TO: FROM: LMCD Board of Directors , ~ .' Greg Nybeck, Administrative TechWician SUBJECT: 1996 Budget Allocations It has recently come to our attention that the formula used to calculate allocation of levies for the 1996 LMCD Budget was not correct. Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.635, Subd. 2 (a) describes "the governing body or board of supervisors of each municipality in the district must provide the funds necessary to meet its proportion of the total cost determined by the board, provided the total funding from all municipalities in the district for the costs shall not exceed an amount equal to .00242 percent of the total taxable market value within the district, unless three-fourths of the municipalities in the district pass a resolution concurring to the additional costs". Staff review of the approved levy indicates it is well Within what is allowed by state law at .00224 percent of taxable market value in the district. However, Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.631, Subd. 2 states "the expenses of the district shall be borne by the municipalities. The portion of the expenses of the district borne by each municipality must be in proportion to its net tax capacity provided that the portion of any one municipality may not be more than 20 percent of the total expense or less than $200". The allocations previously forwarded to the cities were calculated in proportion to taxable market value, not the net tax capacity of each municipality. Enclosed is a revised schedule of levies using net tax capacity for the 1996 LMCD Budget and a copy of the enabling legislation described above. We apologize for any inconveniences for which our error may have caused you. Feel free to call me if you have questions or additional concerns. ~~~~~oooo oo D 0000000000 m MINNETON~ CONSERVATION DISTRTCT 1996 BUDGETED CITY ~,EV'rE8 CITY I~.~RKET ~ET T~ TOT~ff~ DEEP~VEN 11,233.35 10,738.80 (494.55) 494.55 EXCELSIOR 3,532.50 4,380.30 847.80 847.80 GREE~OOD 2,387.97 2,402.10 14.13 14.13 MI~ETO~ 28,260.00 28,260.00 0.00 0.00 MINNETO~ 2,642.31 2,684.70 42.39 42.39 B~CH MI~ETRISTA 10~3S7.29 ~8~1.00 (466.2~) 466.2~ MO~D 12~51~.18 12~151.80 (367.38) 367.38 ORONO 24~557.~4 24~727.~0 16~.56 lt~.56 SHOR~OOD lt~207.11 1S~684.30 (522.81) S22.81 SPRING P~ 1~949.94 2~826.00 876.06 876.06 TO~ BAY 4~775.94 4~804.20 28.26 28.26 VICTORIA 6~838.92 5~369.40 (1~469.52) 1~469.52 NAYZATA 12~914.82 14~130.00 1~215.18 1~215.18 NOOD~D 3~122.73 3~249.90 127.17 127.17 · OT~8 141~300.00 141~300.00 6~641.10 00000000000000 ~ooobbbbbbbbbbb 0000000000000~ Z ooooog ggg ooo °°0 ~ooooo ~ ooooog ggg ooo ~oooooO~oooooo ~ ggg °~o ~.ooooo~ oooooo ~§ ~ g~ ~PPPoo~z ~bbbbbbbbbbbb 000000000000 0000000 Ibl~bbbbb~bbbbbbbb! l~oooooooooooooi From: Stove F~rnes To: CITY COUNCIL Date: 9/21/96 Time: 12:50:57 P~ge 2 ol 3 OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCILS REPRESENTED ON THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT The LMCD is composed of representatives of all communities that border on the lake. The original intent was that a designated ELECTED councilperson from each community sit on the LMCD board. Currently, a significant number are non-elected. Prior to this year, the representatives were appointed to an iron-clad three year term. Thanks to the efforts of State Representative Todd Van Dalen, and especially State Senator Gen Olsen, that has been changed. Now, any LMCD representative can be removed at any time by majority vote of the appointing city council. This can be a double-edged sword, but this should make the LMCD more accountable to the wishes of the people. That is, IF the different city councils KNOW what LMCD is doing. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District recently voted against the establishment of a quiet water zone in the southern part of West Arm bay. This is the second year in a row that the issue has been brought up and voted down. I am concerned that the LMCD representatives have not reported back to, or received direction from, their respective city councils concerning this matter. If the facts were known, I suspect it would have widespread support. The area in question measures roughly 300 by 900 yards. It is flanked to the east and west by two other quiet water zones- channels involving the Seton and Arcola bridges. Deering Island, in Orono, defines the northern boundary, along with Shadywood Point, in Mound. The southern shore of West Arm bay lies in Spring Park. On a holiday weekend, the number of boats that pass by can easily exceed 150 per hour. No other part of the lake sees this much boat traffic. I suspect that one would be hard-pressed to find another freshwater lake in the country with this high a rate of minimally regulated boat traffic. While the commercial cruise vessels have a speed limit of 5 miles per hour (theoretically), large private craft can power through at 40 miles per hour- the maximum allowable speed- generating large waves in the process. Small fishing boats, sailboats, and canoes get chased off early during prime boating hours. Examples of severe shoreline erosion caused by these boat waves are numerous. The water in the southern West Arm bay area is very shallow, with depths rarely exceeding 12-15 feet. Much of the land, after the retreat of the glaciers, was formed over five thousand years through the process of eutrophication- the gradual build-up of soil through deposition of decayed organic material. In this protected area, waves generated by winds likely never exceeded 6 inches. Today, waves from passing boats can easily exceed four times this height. Data from early twentieth century surveys and later from Hennepin County aerial photographs demonstrate the damage that power boat traffic has done to the area Deering Island, for example, has lost over three acres of land on the west and south sides since 1913- well over 50% of its total area. On the southern side of the island, over 120 feet of shoreline have been eaten away since 1913- 30 feet of that since 1960 On Shadywood point the west peninsula has lost 30% of its width - some 30 feet of land- since 1960. The owners placed rock reinforcement -according to Department of Natural Resources guidelines- on the shoreline in 1987. Last year, this np-rap had to be re-done at considerable expense. Why? Rock protection can only be placed to the height of the land that it is supposed to protect. The waves generated by boats are HIGHER than the land- some years 16 to 20 inches higher! The water washes over the rock, destroying the vegetation beyond the rock and eventually washing the soil away. If anyone doubts the power of boat waves to erode shorelines (and, incidentally, greatly decrease water quality), there is an excellent study sponsored by the DNR that has been recently published. It is entitled "Recreational Boating Impact Investigation", written by Scot Johnson, published in February 1994. Copies can be obtained by calling the DNR at 345-5601. Why does the LMCD not want a quiet water zone established in the area? Are commercial interests having a stronger influence than they should? Slowing the boats down would mean an From: Steve F','no$ To: CITY COUNOL Dado: 6/21/96 ~mo: 12:62:26 pego 3 ol 8 extra 6-8 minutes to traverse the area going east-west. Is this a significant inconvenience? Will this delay make people late for work?. Late for dinner at Lord Fletcher's? Is speed REALLY that important to enjoying the lake? I would like to think that it will not take a boating tragedy to make the LMCD establish a quiet water zone in the southern West Arm bay area. However, whatever the ultimate outcome of this specific issue, I hope that the various city councils around the lake will make sure that the actions of their LMCD representative accurately reflects the wishes and desires of their community, and that representative reports back regularly and accurately on the issues before the LMCD. Steve Farnes OronoU CABLEVISION 1504 2nd St. S.E., P.O. Box 110, Waseca, MN 56093 507/835-5975 FAX 507-835-4567 RECEIVED SEP 1 3 lgg5 September 12, 1995 City Ad m inistrator City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear City Administrator: This is to notify you of the revised per subscriber fee the Federal Communications Commission is assessing cable operators to defray the cost of regulating the cable industry. This fee appears to the customer as a line item described as "Regulatory Fee". The annual regulatory fee is being assessed by the FCC for the fiscal year of 1995 at the rate of $.49 per subscriber. Regulatory fees for 1995 will be assessed over a twelve month period at the rate of $.04 for eleven months and $.05 for one month. Subscribers will receive notification of this regulatory fee line item on their October cable bills. Regional Manager- MN OF A MI .ETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 1995 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Ed Surko, and Becky Glister, City Council Representative Mark Hanus, City Planner Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Crum was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Robert Thompson, Howard Richards, Don Sherven, Gene Smith, Jerry Sholts, Florence Finnicum, and Craig Forcier. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 1995 were presented for approval. ~. MOTION made by Mueller, seoonded by Glister to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 2S, 1995 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~95-38: ROBERT THOMPSON, 6200 RED OAK ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MOUND TERRACEt PID 14-117-24 32 0001. VARIANCE FOR DECK. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming detached garage in order to reconstruct and slightly enlarge a conforming deck. The detached garage is located 1.4 feet to the side lot line, the required setback is 4 feet resulting in a variance request of 2.6 feet. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as proposed due to the fact that the nonconforming garage is in a poor condition, is in need of repair, and could reasonably be relocated in conjunctions with the needed repairs at this time. Hanus stated that he would have liked the opportunity to discuss the dilapidated condition of the garage with the Building Official. Koegler stated that he viewed the garage from the exterior only. Weiland suggested that the nonconforming portion of the garage could be removed. Mr. Thompson stated that the garage is solid with exception to some rotting of the boards on the bottom part of the garage. He explained that the wood had rotted because during heavy rains when the storm drain is plugged, water rushes down their property and they get water in the garage. The applicant complained about the cost to remove the garage and emphasized that he already spent a great deal of money on getting the survey done. They need a building to store gasoline. The applicant confirmed that the deck needs to be replaced because of its condition. Weiland commented that if only the nonconforming portion of the garage was removed, it may not cost as much as having the entire garage removed. Mueller confirmed that the slab p~rtion could remain. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 VOSS suggested that the Planning Commission table the issue to allow the applicant time to consider alternative solutions since cost cannot be a deciding factor. The applicant confirmed that time is not an issue. Koegler clarified that if the nonconforming portion of the garage is removed, there is no variance to approve, so you either allow the garage to remain in its present location and approve the variance, or you deny the variance and then in order to build the deck the nonconforming garage situation will need to be corrected. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to recommend denial as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Michael, Weiland, Glister, Voss, and Surko. Hanus abstained. Hanus stated that he wanted the opportunity to review the issue with the Building official. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. CASE ~95-39: HOWARD RICHARDS, 2982 WESTEDGE BLVD., LOTS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 14, TW~ HIGW?.~/qDSt PID 23-117-24 31 0061. VARIANCE FOR DECK/PORCH. The city Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking variance approval to place footings under an existing portion of the house that was originally used as a porch and enclosed as part of the home in the late 1950's. The request also includes an after-the-fact approval for a 14' x 22' deck which is conforming. Impervious surface coverage is conforming. The house/porch is located 9.4 feet from the front property line which results in a 21 foot variance request. Practical difficulty can be applied since the porch has become an integral part of the home over the past 35 years. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback variance to allow the installation of permanent footings for the existing front wall of the home and to allow after-the- fact construction of a conforming deck on the south side of the property. In approving the request, it is suggested that the Planning Commission find that practical difficulty exists due to the long- standing use of the existing porch as an integral part of the home and due to the fact that a substantial boulevard area exists between the existing nonconforming home and the edge of the existing roadway. The applicant noted that the house would be nonconforming even without the porch, and that there is approximately a 30 foot boulevard. Weiland confirmed with staff that a double fee will be applied for the deck permit. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval as a recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995· CASE ~95-40: DON SCHERVEN FOR GENE SMITH, 4705 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 2, BLOCK 7, DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0050. VARIANCE TO EXPAND DETACWRD GARAGE. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking variance approval to recognize two existing nonconforming situations for impervious cover and a nonconforming side yard garage setback. Construction of a 624 square foot addition to the existing 535 square foot detached garage is being requested. The proposed size of this accessory building meets the ordinance size limitation of 1,200 square feet. The existing garage is located one foot from the western property line, a four foot setback is required, resulting in a three foot variance request. The impervious cover total for the subject property exceeds the 40 percent maximum allowed by ordinance. At the present time, 55% of the lot area is covered with impervious surfacing. If the commons property is added to the lot area for the purpose of determine impervious cover, the total drops to approximately 50%. Construction of the proposed garage will require a hardcover variance. The garage will be displacing impervious cover that currently exists as part of the driveway, therefore, the proposed expansion does not further intensify the total amount of hardcover. The existing garage is in sound condition. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the three foot garage setback variance and the existing hardcover variance of 15% be granted due to a finding of practical difficulty related to the use of the existing garage that is in sound condition. It is further recommended that the approval be contingent upon the following conditions. The property owner shall supply the City with a copy of the driveway easement that allows access over the neighboring property to the east. Ensuring that a driveway easement is in place is in the public's interest since access to the subject parcel after the garage addition is constructed will be more difficult without utilizing the curb cut on the adjacent property. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall contain existing and proposed spot elevations to allow the Building Official and city Engineer to assess drainage on the property. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall show applicable silt fence locations. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 Weiland questioned the status of the pump house located on the commons adjacent to his property. Mr. Smith stated that the pump house has always been assumed to be the neighbors, and that the pump house is painted to match the neighbors house. Hanus noted that the City has a process to address the issues of structures on the commons and suggested they let that vehicle be used. Weiland confirmed that the bus that is parked in his driveway with an expired license will be removed from the premises by October. Mueller questioned the structural condition of the existing garage and noted that he would like to see an effort made to reduce the amount of hardcover. The applicant noted that the roof pitch on the garage will be changed so half the run-off will drain towards a grassy area. Mueller commented that this property could be conforming if the nonconforming portion of the garage was removed and the hardcover was reduced. He feels this case is similar to the previous case (Thompson). The applicant noted that his garage helps support the neighbors concrete stairs. Surko stated that he sees this application differently from the previous case because this garage is structurally sound. Mueller questioned the findings for hardship. Koegler reiterated that practical difficulty exists since no hardcover is being increased, the new portion meets all required setbacks, and the garage meets size requirements. MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Surko, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Michael, Glister and Voss. Mueller and Weiland were opposed. Mueller stated that he is opposed because he would like to see less hardcover and because of the fact that no hardship is present. Weiland agreed. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. CASE ~95-41: JERRY SHOLTS OF PATIO ENCLOSURES FOR ANTHONY'S FLORALt 1861 COMMERCE BLVD. t PART OF GOVT. LOT It SECTION 14, PID 14-117-24 14 0004. VARIANCE FOR PORCH. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming use of a single family dwelling in the B-2 zone. The greenhouse is also nonconforming to the north side by 30 feet, a 50 foot setback is required to residential property. The proposed construction consists of a new screened area under the existing front entry of the home, including a new strip footing to replace the old pier footings for the entry and deck above. The new foundation is what creates the variance request. There is no additional impact, or encroachment into the existing footprint. 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to recognize the existing nonconformities in order to allow construction of the screened porch as proposed. The request is a reasonable use of the property that will improve the use and function of the home without any further encroachment or increase in the nonconforming status. Hanus questioned if "use variances" may be issued. Koegler clarified that this is an existing situation and the proposed construction is within the existing footprint. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. CASE ~95-42: FLORENCE & NEIL FINNICUM, 3225 GLADSTONE LANE, LOT 47, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID 25-117-24 21 0116. V~UIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to recognize existing nonconforming side yard setbacks to the existing dwelling for the purpose of constructing a conforming detached garage. The dwelling has nonconforming side yard setbacks of 5.9 feet and 1.1 feet. Impervious cover will be conforming at under 4O%. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to allow construction of a conforming garage since it would impose a practical difficulty on the property owner if the project was not allowed to proceed because of a nonconforming setback to the principal structure when the principal structure was the subject of a variance previously approved by the City of Mound. It is further recommended that the approval be contingent upon the following conditions: Disturbance of the property shall be limited to the area immediately surrounding the garage location. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall contain existing and proposed spot elevations to allow the Building Official and city Engineer to assess drainage on the property. The survey supplied with the building permit application shall show applicable silt fence locations. Florence Finnicum confirmed that the metal shed will be removed from the property. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. 5 Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 CASE ~95-43: CRAIG FORCIER, 4431 DORCHESTER ROAD, LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCK 17, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 31 0082. VARIANCE FOR DETACHED G~GE. The City Planner reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a detached garage and a deck. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the rear yard by 13.3 feet, a 15 foot setback is required. As noted on the survey, the deck is proposed to begin at the rear wall line of the house which is 8.8 feet from the lot line, and then diverges away from the property line. The proposed hardcover on this site is conforming at under 30 percent. The required rear yard setback for the deck is 10 feet. Hardship has not been identified with respect to the deck. The end result is a minimal encroachment that follows the existing line of the dwelling. The survey submitted shows the garage setback 4 feet from the side property line, however, a 6 foot setback is required and it appears that this setback could be easily attained. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to recognize the existing nonconforming rear yard setback to the dwelling of 1.7 feet to allow construction of a deck with a conforming 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow construction of a conforming detached garage subject to a revised survey must be submitted with the building permit application which shows proposed and existing elevations, erosion control and existing utility services. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval as recommended by staff, including the conditions that the garage be totally conforming and a revised survey be submitted as recommended. Findings of fact are that the deck is not impacting anybody with where it is located in relation to the neighboring property and it also utilizes the lakeview so it is a reasonable use of the property. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 26, 1995. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT No questions or comments. ADD-ON Mueller stated that he has a rhetorical question fOr the Council. There has been only one variance denied since the new City Council and this case was the Heidi Hoy case, and every other variance has been approved with exceptionally minor conditions. Mueller referred to the recent Figenskau case wherein the Council recommended approval with the removal of only one structure when the Planning Commission recommended the removal of two structures. He questioned if there is a need for the Planning Commission to do variances, other than use variances, and if they should just allow everything to be built. Mueller requested that this question be brought to the Council. He understands that the Council is the Board of Appeals and that the Planning Commission is a recommending body, but it appears as though the Planning Commission is 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1995 exercising futility with respect to variances, and he is concerned. Mueller summarized his question, "Are there going to be any denial of variances requests other than use?" Hanus commented that neither he or the Council can answer that question. Mueller stated that it is rhetorical. Michael summarized that Mueller's question implies that the Council is getting real lenient and it seems that if the citizens want something, they are going to get it. Weiland noted that his concerns relating to the condition of the exterior electrical devices at the Figenskau residence were never addressed by the Council. Weiland also emphasized that painting the lakeside shed earth-tone colors will not fix the situation. Hanus commented that the Council felt that some sort of storage building should be allowed on the lakeside of this house due to the topography of the lot. Hanus stated that he would have a tough time approving the construction of a new shed in this area, however, and existing shed, which the Building official did not report it was in a dilapidated condition, and is very well screened, should be able to remain. Mueller questioned Hanus why he changed his vote on the Figenskau case. Hanus stated that he had not visited the site before the Planning Commission meeting, but he did visit the site before the Council meeting. Weiland questioned Hanus if he believes all the shed needed was a coat of paint. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: 7 MINLrFES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Vice Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, Janis Geffre, Mary Goode, and Bill Darling, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Casey absent and excused, and Commissioners Darling and Goode were absent. The following persons were also in attendance: Rodney Beystrom, Carl Palmquist, Rita Pederson, Councilmember Mark Hanus, Patty Palmquist, Brian Stevenson, and Patti Stevenson. INTERVIEWS FOR NEW PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMNISSION M~MBER: Chair Schmidt welcomed each applicant prior to their interview, and informed each at the end of their interview that the they will be notified of the Council's decision after September 26, 1995. A. RODNEY BEYSTROM, 4466 DENBIGH ROAD Rodney Beystrom explained that he lives on property which abuts the commons and is known as Stratford Lane. He is on the Commons Task Force. He has applied for this position because he feels he can help. His occupation is a housing inspector and he manages his own franchise. When he originally applied he thought there were no other applicant's and a lack of interest, however, since then he sees more people have shown an interest and he spoke favorably of the other candidates. Rodney has been a resident of Mound since 1987. His interest in joining the Commission is not to change things, but to contribute what he can because of his background. He does not foresee a problem with attendance. When asked what goals he has for the Park Commission he commented that he has no agenda and will maintain a fair a open mind on issues. He does not have any related experience of being on a public commission, other than the Commons Task Force. He sees the priorities for the parks as continuing basic up-keep. B. MARK KJOLHAUG, 4767 RICHMOND ROAD Not present. C. CARL PALMQUIST, 4520 DENBIGH ROAD Carl Palmquist explained that he recently moved here from Northfield, Minnesota, and currently works for Hennepin County, Child Support Group. He is a graduate of St. Olaf and has worked in banking. Park and Open Space Commission September 14, 1995 Carl worked with the Jaycees in helping organize Jesse James Days. He is not familiar with the various parks in Mound, he has livedin here for only 1-1/2 years. His property abuts the commons, Stratford Lane, and he has a dock and a boat. He does not foresee a problem with meeting attendance. When asked what is objectives or goals are he stated that he thinks he can provide some leadership and would like to share his experience to help the Commission make good decisions. He explained that in Northfield they have 98 parks that are of adequate size, and he does not think small parks are good. He believes parks should be kept clean and that parks are for the enjoyment of the public. D. RITA PEDERSON, 2865 HALSTEAD LANE Rita Pederson explained that when she was ten years old she lived in Mound, then lived in Indiana for ten years, and she moved back three years ago. Her long term goal for the parks is to develop the best possible use of the park land, but also be frugal, and keep the nature. She would like to see the Depot painted white with green trim. She lives on Halstead Lane, which is not on commons, and her back yard is Lake Saunders. She suggested that a good use of a nature area is to have a walking/jogging path that has exercise stations. She is a member on the Commons Task Force, she is their one citizen at large. She would like to help with deciding how to get the best use out of Mound park land and at the same time spend dollars wisely. Discussion The Commission determined to vote on the applicants after agenda item #4, Land Alteration Permit application from the Stevenson's. MINUTES MOTION by Meyer, seconded by Byrnes, to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of July 13, 1995, as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES No changes, other than the voting on the applicants as item 4.A. LAND ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR TRIMMING TREES ON PUBLIC LAND: BRIAN & PATTI STEVENSON, 1580 HERON LANE, PEBBLE BEACH COMMONS, DOCK SITE ~02605 The applicant is seeking a permit to trim trees on Pebble Beach Common as permitted by the Shoreland Management Ordinance to allow for a lake view from the home while retaining some screening of the structure. Park and Open Space Commission September 14, 1995 Staff has no knowledge of any previous trimming at this site so a selective trimming would be beneficial to the health of the trees and will provide the view the applicant is seeking. Staff recommended the Park and Open Space Commission recommend approval of a one time permit to allow the tree trimming as proposed with the following requirements: Staff must be notified 48 hours (weekdays only) prior to trimming. The owner or contractor (whoever is going to perform the work) must meet with staff on-site prior to trimming to clarify what trimming will be permitted. 2. Ail trimmings must be removed from the site. Ail costs incurred for trimming and brush removal is the responsibility of the applicant. If a company is hired to perform the tree trimming, they must be licensed to operate in the City of Mound. If work has not been completed with in one year of Council approval, the permit will expire and the applicant must reapply. The applicant confirmed that he will not remove any of the three large oak trees, he will only be trimming or removing poison ivy and scrub brush. Fackler stated that any trimming on the oak trees should be done during the winter. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of the land alteration permit to allow trimming on Pebble Beach Common. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on September 26, 1995. RANKING OF CANDIDATES The Commission discussed the attributes of each candidate. Ahrens commented that it would be good to gain experience from people who have resided in other communities. Byrnes noted that she would like to see more representation from residents who abut the commons. Schmidt expressed a need to focus on Park issues. The votes were tallied, as follows: Rodney Beystrom Carl Palmquist Rita Pederson 2,3,3,3,2 = 13 3,1,2,2,1 = 9 1,2,1,1,3 = 8 The vote indicates that Rita Pederson is recommended for appointment to the Park Commission to fill the term vacated by David Steinbring, due to expire 12/97. Park and Open Space Commission September 14, 1995 DISCUSSION: STAIRWAYS ON COMe, ONS (Should they Be required to be constructed to code?) Parks Director, Jim Fackler, referred to page 33 of the packet which is Exhibit J of the Public Land Permits Procedure Manual. This section states that "All new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform Building Code standards for residential stairways." Byrnes noted that stairs that are built to meet code are not pleasant to the eye, they are too bulky and zig zag down the hill because of landing requirements. Fackler noted that less obtrusive stairs could be constructed and still meet code, such as if they are built into the ground. The type of stairway depends on personal taste and cost. Ahrens commented that stairs on private property don't have to meet code, and suggested that the building code not be the standard required for stairs on commons, but that they just be safe. Geffre questioned if the City Attorney has ever given an opinion on liability issues on stairs. Ahrens commented that there has never been a lawsuit relating to an injury on the commons. Councilmember Hanus suggested that as long as a stairway is structurally sound it should be okay. Fackler questioned how the city can determine if a structure is "safe" without standards to follow. Hanus agreed that the city cannot declare a structure as "safe" without standards. Geffre questioned if the DNR has standards. Fackler suggested that the City of Orono may have standards for stairs. MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Geffre, to table discussion relating to building standards for stairways on the commons, pending further information. This item should be placed on the October agenda for discussion. Motion carried unanimously. REVIEW STATE ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTIONS The Parks Director referred to the memorandum from the Building Official relating to electrical work on the commons. Councilmember Hanus noted that he agrees with the statements made by the Building Official that when you cross your property line with electrical services, a licensed electrician and a permit are required by the State. Ahrens commented that the problem is with existing electrical work and asked why these people should bother getting the work certified. A letter from the State of Minnesota Board of Electricity regarding the Riebe residence at 1749 Avocet Lane was reviewed by the Commission. It was determined that the existing process for electrical devices on the commons is consistent with the State requirements, and the city must comply with the State requirements. Park and Open Space Commission September 14, 1995 UPDATE ON COMMONS TASK FORCE Fackler handed out copies of the proposed surveys to the Commission. Fackler and Byrnes reviewed that the Commons Task Force is putting the finishing touches on a survey which will soon be sent out to all dock site holders and randomly selected citizens at large. Other methods of surveying was discussed. Geffre related her experience in doing telephone surveys for the school district. DISCUSSION: WINTERFEST Discussion on this item was put on hold until Darling is present. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: MEMORANDUM FROM PARKS DIRECTOR RE: PARK DEDICATION FUND INTEREST MONIES Fackler explained that he does not have any new information relating to this item. The Commission feels it is important to have the interest monies remain in the fund. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON PARK DEDICATION FEES Ahrens briefly reviewed this issue. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Ahrens reviewed the Klein/Aune request for release of the city parcel on Three Points. Ahrens excused herself from the meeting. PARKS DIRECTOR'S REPORT Fackler reviewed the recent activities of the Park Department employees and informed the Commission that they are preparing to riprap Mound Bay Park with field stone. Geffre asked if they are going to get a sign at Edgewater Park. The Parks Director will check into this. The Parks Director noted that there were a number of trees on city property damaged during the recent storm totalling $5,000. The Commission requested a breakdown on what funds paid for the removal of the damaged trees. Fackler stated that he has been meeting with Community Services and the Hockey Association regarding the establishment of an outdoor skating rink this winter. He explained that they are looking for support from the city and the school. 5 Park and Open Space Commission September 14, 1995 DOCK INSPECTOR'S REPORT Tom McCaffrey related the following statistics relating to the number of dock sites in 1995: 410 dock sites used (38) dock sites not used: 14 16 18 spaces eliminated dedicated areas abutting sites, not paid 70 shared 442 TOTAL DOCK SITE USERS The Park and Open Space Commission Meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meiropollian Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Fature Septenzber 15, 1995 RECEIVED SEP 1§ 1g{15 Dear City Manager, Here is the latest information on a possible work stoppage and interruption in transit service provided by the Metropolitan Council to communities throughout the region. Members of the Amalgamated Transit Union, representing bus drivers and mechanics, voted on Saturday, Sept. 9 to authorize a strike for Oct. 9 or earlier if union leaders deem it necesary. Because of a required 10-day cooling off period, the earliest that a strike could take place is Sept. 22. I have instructed our negotiating team to clear their calendars and work toward settlement within the financial limitations and service parameters facing the Council. We hope that state-mediated talks will result in a settlement. A strike will benefit no one. Should there be a strike, no transit service for about 97 percent of the region would be available. This is a substantial impact on customers who ride Transit Operations buses 220,000 times each business day. Many of these bus customers live in your community, and depend on transit to get to work, school and appointments. Also, there would be a dramatic impact on general traffic congestion and overall air quality, affecting your community. For our employees who work in the Council's Transit Operations area, and those of us who are colleagues and co-workers, the threat of a strike is also damaging to productivity and morale. The main issues in this impasse are the ability to change work rules, so that we can be more flexible and competitive in providing service, and the hiring of more part-time drivers to match the peaks in service. As you are well aware, during this time of shrinking public dollars, we need to live within our means. A shortfall of $10 million.to adequately maintain the current transit system adds to this difficult situation. We are committed to resolving these issues quickly to retain the public's trust and expectations for reliable and efficient regional transit service. Your interest is appreciated and I ask that you share this update with colleages and elected officials. ~or 230 East Fifth Street Metro lnfo Line 229-3780 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF MOUND SPECIAL ECY UFiiI DAY SA TURDA Y OCTOBER 14. 1995- 8 AM to 5 PM NO BRUSH WILL BE ACCEPTED ON THIS DAY!! AT THE LOST LAKE AREA ON COUNTY ROAD 15 BETWEEN SUPERAMERICA AND THE POST OFFICE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE ACCEPTED: GOODWILL: CLOTHING, SMALL WORKING APPLIANCES, GAMES, DOMESTIC ITEMS (PANS, DISHES, ETC.), HARDWARE TOOLS, LAMPS...** THERE IS NO CHARGE ** MATTRESS: THERE IS A CHARGE BY SIZE FOR EACH MATTRESS & BOX SPRING: CRIB 93, SINGLE 95, DOUBLE $6, QUEEN $7, KING ~8 FURNITURE: CARPET: TIRES: CHAIRS 93, RECLINERS $5, LOVESEAT COUCH $6, SOFA $10, HIDE-A-BED SOFA $15 50 CENTS PER SQUARE YARD (Jute back only, no foam padding) $1 EACH, $1.50 WITH RIM, TRACTOR AND LARGE TRUCK TIRES 95 APPLIANCES: $7 EACH this includes washers, dryers, stoves, furnaces, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, water softeners, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, trash compactors, garbage disposals, water heaters, microwaves ..... $15 for AIR CONDITIONERS SCRAP METAL: SWING SETS, LAWN FURNITURE, GRILLS, BICYCLES (with tires $1 ), AUTO PARTS, SPRINGS, PIPE, METAL WINDOW FRAMES (no glass), AUTO BATTERIES, ETC. ** NO CHARGE ** ELECTRONICS: $4 EACH TELEVISIONS, STEREOS, VCRS, VACUUM CLEANERS, COMPUTERS; No charge for: Telephones, Radios, Camcorders, Tape Players, This includes rechargeable and cordless appliances PHONE BOOKS: A CONTAINER WILL BE PROVIDED AT NO CHARGE BATTERIES: HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES ** FREE ** NEW BINS: IF YOU BRING IN YOUR BROKEN RECYCLING BIN, WE WILL REPLACE IT OR YOU MAY PURCHASE A NEW ONE FOR $6 FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS: The City will be accepting these at: $.25 for 4', $.50 for S' CONCRETE: 50 cents per construction size block THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED: Household plastics, plastic toys, styrofoam, insulation, window glass, rope, hazardous waste (paint, oil, thinners, etc.) cans, glass, newspaper, cardboard, garbage, leaves, foam rubber, construction waste, carpet padding. ANY QUESTIONS, CALL CITY HALL AT 472-0603 ABSOLUTELY NO WOOD OR BRUSH OR LUMBER OR LEAVES WILL BE ACCEPTED ON TI-US ~DATE!, CITY OF MOUND LEA VES - BRUSH -SCRAP WO OD DROP OFF SITE THE CITY OF MOUND HAS OPENED A LEA VES AND BRUSH DROP OFF SITE AT THE CITY PROPERTY LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD 15 NEXT TO SUPERAMER1CA i~ l~Ot~S. SATURDAYS and SUNDAYS ONLY STARTING OCT 21 THRU NOV 12 10 AM TO 4 PM * * LEA VES MUST BE DEBA GGED * * - FREE TO MOUND RES/DENTS- · 50 PER LEAF BAG FOR NON-RESIDENTS BRUSH ITEMS ACCEPTED' BRUSH, TREE LIMBS UP TO 12" IN DIAMETER, DISCARDED LUMBER AND PALLETS THE COST: $3 PER CUBIC YARD $1 MINIMUM CHARGE THIS MATERIAL WILL BE CHIPPED UP AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FREE OF CHARGE AT A LATER TIME THIS SITE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND IS SUPERVISED - NO DUMPING ALLOWED QUESTIONS - CALL 472-0603 zo z ~"' I--- LAKE MINNETONKA C0NSERFATION DISTRICT BO/%~tD OF DIRECTORB AG~qDA 7:00 pm, Wednesday, September 27, 1995 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL C~LL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock RF2~DING OF MINUTES- 9/13/95 Regular Board Meeting P~BLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. 1. EURASIAN NATERMILFOIL TASKFORCE *A. B. Approval of 9/8/95 minutes and meeting report; Zebra Mussel Program, Update and discussion on establishing prevention program for 1996; C. 1995 Final Milfoil Harvest Report; D. Additional Business; LAKE USE ~ RECREATION Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC), Staff Memo outlining adopted 10 step safety policy by WYC; Bo Steve F&rnes letter discussing the need to establish a "no- wake" zone in the southern part of West Arm Bay; *C. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report (Handout); D. Additional Business; ~. ~ATER STRUCTURES Ordinance 138, Report from subcommittee to present alternatives on the interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting Lake Minnetonka, the planning process, and the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and restricting the licensing, construction and maintenance of new commercial and multiple docks; B. Additional Business; ADMINISTRATIVE A. City of Spring Perk, Report on 9/18 letter that requested legal basis for their objection of payments into the milfoil program from 1990-1993 and the dollar amounts involved; B. Additional Business; FINANCIAL A. Update on Re-investments and Financial Depositories; B. Report on 9/25/95 Special Mayors meeting regarding 1996 LMCD Budget allocations; August financial summary and balance sheet; D. Audit of vouchers for payment (handout); E. Additional Business; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Willcutt NEN BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT