Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1992-06-23
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. DISCUSSION: 1993 PROPOSED LMCD BUDGET. PG. 1993-1997 DISCUSSION: CITY NEWSLETTER. APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH (INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL), 4 OR 5 LOCATIONS AND OVERHEAD BANNER. PG. 1998-1999 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 2000-2010 INFORMATIONJMISCELLANEOUS Financial Report for May 1992, as prepared by Finance Director John Norman. 1992. Pg. 2011-2012 B. Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 1992. Pg. 2013-2025 C. REMINDER: 1992. Mound City Days - June 19-21, D. Letter from Ted Fox to Councilmembers. Pg. 2026-2027 We will be having an informal reception at Mound City Hall, Monday, June 22, 1992, at 3:00 P.M. for Sgt. Brad Roy who is retiring after nearly 30 years of employment with the City of Mound. Please come and wish Brad and his wife Sandy well as they leave for the Oregon coast. Pg. 2028 1820 JLh~e9, 1992 HINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 9, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 9, 1992, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Water & Sewer Superintendent Greg Skinner and the following interested citizens: Rick Perry, Debbie Perry, Stacy Perry, Rickie Perry, Richard Indritz, John Gabos, Mrs. Howard Simar, Dirk Young The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to approve the Minutes of the May 26, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION FOR RICK PERRY, GREG SKINNER (SEWER & WATER SUPT.) ~ND JOHN EWALD (PATROL OFFICER) ASSISTING IN THE SAVING OF A LIFE (HOWARD SIMAR) The Mayor read and presented Certificates of Recognition to Rick Perry, Greg Skinner and John Ewald for their assistance in saving the life of Howard Simar on April 25, 1992. 1.2 CASE t92-018: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL AT 3015 HIGHVIEW LANE, RE: VARIANCE FOR DECK & SCREEN PORCH, LOT 13, BLOCK 4, THE BLUFFS, PID t22-117-24 44 0035 FOR MARK & LIZABETH BUSSEY The City Manager explained that the city Attorney has prepared a resolution of denial as was requested by the Council at the last meeting. Jensen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-65 RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF MARK G. BUSSEY FOR A SIDE YARD VARIANCE AT 3015 HIGHVIEW LANE, P & Z CASE %92-018 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 CASE ~92-025= DIRK & MEG YOUNG, 4738 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE 88 June9, 1992 The Building Official explained that this request was heard at the Planning Commission on June 8, 1992. They recommended approval of the variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 11.2 feet from Hanover Road to the existing deck resulting in an 8.8 foot variance. The Planning Commission found that there were other options for construction of a conforming garage. The applicant agreed. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-66 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4738 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 9 AND 10 AND 1/2 OF VACATED OXFORD LANE, BLOCK 6, DEVON, PID %30-117-23 22 0048, P & Z CASE %92-025 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE: CONDITION OF BOATHOUSE AND MINIMUM REPAIRS NEEDED FOR SAFETY PURPOSES AT 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. FOR CAROLE MUNSON Richard Indritz, attorney for Carole Munson, was present and asked that this item be tabled until the next meeting. Ms. Munson had difficulty finding a structural engineer to look at the boathouse. She now has one coming out June 10, 1992, to look at the boathouse. They will submit the structural engineer's report to the Building Official when it is received. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to table this item until the June 23, 1992, City COuncil Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: CANCELLATION POLICY FOR MOUND BAY DEPOT RENTAT, The City Manager explained that there needs to be a cancellation policy adopted for the rental of the Mound Bay Depot. The Park Commission recommended that a $25.00 deposit be forfeited if the cancellation occurs 60 days or less before the date of use and the Depot cannot be rented out to someone else. The Park Commission also suggested that #3 be added under "In Use Supervision", as follows: "An adult (age i) supervisor must be on the premises at all times". The Commission questioned what age constitutes an 89 Ju~e9, 1992 "adult", 18 or 217 The City Attorney stated that age 18 is considered an adult by law, except in drinking alcoholic beverages. He then suggested language to address this in the application. CouncilmemberAhrens stated that she feels the Park Commission was under the impression that everyone paid a $25.00 deposit, in addition to the fee that is charged. After discussion about the deposit fee and number of days for cancellation the following action was taken: MOTION made by Smith, seconded by &hrens that everyone pays a $25.00 holding/deposit fee in addition to the fee charged as well as a damage deposit when renting the Depot and if they cancel 30 days or more before their event, their damage deposit and holding deposit is returned. If they cancel less than 30 days, they do not receive the $25.00 deposit, only their damage deposit. %3 under ,,In Use Supervision" is added to the application as follows: ,,An adult, age 18 years of age or older, supervisor must be on the premises at all times." The motion also asked that the language suggested by the City Attorney with regard to age and alcoholic beverages be added to the application: ,,The Depot cannot be rented to anyone unless the person is 18 years of age or older and llquor and nonintoxicating liquor may not be in the possession or consumed by persons under 21 years of age." The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR ,,DAKOTA RAIL 1ST ADDITION", AT 2290 COMMERCE BLVD. (NORWEST BANK} MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to set July 14, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider a preliminary and final plat request for ,,Dakota Rail 1st Addition", at 2290 Commerce Blvd. (Norwest Bank). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 SET PUBLIC WRARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADVANTAGE PRODUCTS TO OPERATE AN ASSEMBLY OPERATION AT 2343 COMMERCE BLVD MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set July 14, 1992, at ?:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for Advantage Products to operate an assembly operation at 2343 Commerce Blvd. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A 10' WIDE 90 1.9 June 9, 1992 PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 13 & 14, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD (4908 AND 4916 EDGEWATER DRIVE) MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to set July 14, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a 10' wide platted right-of-way located between Lots 13 & 14, Skarp & Lindquist,s Ravenswood (4908 and 4916 Edgewater Drive). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 610:60 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE RELATING TO DELINQUENT UTILITY SILLS AND CHANGING THE POLICY ON DEALING WITH DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS The City Manager explained that about 6 months elapses on a delinquent utility bill before it comes to the Council at a public hearing for water shut-off. This amendment is to save the many hours of administrative time and Water Department time. He further explained that the city is only shutting off about 8 months of the year. The remainder of the year is winter and stand pipes are hard to find in the snow. The suggestion is to only hold one public hearing a year in the Fall and then assess any delinquent utility bills to the property, thus eliminating the shut-off procedure. A number of other Cities are using this procedure. The City Attorney has prepared the proposed ordinance amendment. The Council discussed their concern about an owner/renter situation where the renter receives the bill and the owner may not be aware there is a delinquent bill until it is assessed to the property. The Council asked that the method of notification of the owner of rental property be talked about at the Committee of the Whole Meeting. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following: ORDINANCE #57-1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 610:60 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO TERMINATING WATER SERVICE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 PAYMENT REQUEST ~6 - 1991 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - LA TOUR CONSTRUCTION - $12,777.56 The City Engineer has recommended approval. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve Payment 91 June 9, 1992 Request #6, for the 1991 Lift Station Improvement Project, by LaTour Construction in the amount of $12,777.56. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 PAY~_~NT REQUEST ~1 - 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION - $16,146.09 The City Engineer has recommended approval. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve Payment Request %1, for the 1992 Lift Station Improvement Project, by Gridor Construction in the amount of $16,146.09. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 CHANGE ORDER ~1 - $2t461.80 - 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION The City Engineer has recommended approval. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-67 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #1, 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT- $2,461.80 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 APPROVAL OF LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL ~320tMAINTENANCE PERSONS ANDUNIT SUPERVISORS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1~ 1991 - DECEMBER 31~ 1993 The City Manager explained that a tentative agreement has been reached with the above union. He recommended approval. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-68 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320, MAINTENANCE PERSONS AND UNIT SUPERVISORS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1991 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1993 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 APPROVAL OF LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL ~320, POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1~ 1991 - DECEMBER 31, 1993 The City Manager explained that a tentative agreement has been reached with the above union. He recommended approval. 92 June9, 1992 Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-69 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320~ POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1991 THROUGH DECEMBER 31~ 1993 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A OUIT CLAIM DEED FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY The City Clerk explained the background of this item. This is the last step in a process that started back in January. The City will be selling this property (part of Lot 27, Block 26, Wychwood, PID #24-117-24 41 0079) for what it paid for it from Hennepin County resulting in the person purchasing it having a more conforming lot. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-70 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYORAND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.16 LICENSE RENEWALS (7-1-92 - 6-30-93) OFF-SALE BEER, ON-SALE BEER, CLUB LICENSE, SUNDAY ON-SALE LIQUOR~ SET-UP PERMIT, ON- SALE WINE The following licenses are up for renewal: OFF-SALE BEER: A1 & Alma's Supper Club Brickley's Market PDQ Store #0292 SuperAmerica #4194 ON-SALE BEER: A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy Mound Lanes CLUB LICENSE: American Legion Post #398 VFW #5113 SUNDAY ON-SALE LIQUOR: VFW #5113 SET-UP PERMIT: A1 & Alma's Supper Club 93 June 9, 1992 ON-SALE WINE: A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve the licenses and permits as submitted above contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being provided. Licenses and permits expire 6-30-93. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN FOR MOUND MOHAWK GOLF CLASSIC FOR MOUND WESTONKA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION, BLVD. 2121 COMMERCE MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve an request for a portable sign to be displayed June 4 through Jun 15, 1992, for the Mound Mohawk Golf Classic to benefit the Mound Westonka Hockey Association, 2121, Commerce Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $310,244.89, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for May, 1992. B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for May, 1992. C. LMCD mailings. De Notice from MTC RE: 1-394 Service Improvements Proposal for Fall 1992 - Public Hearings. E. REMINDER: Around Mound Run/Walk, Saturday, June 13, 1992. REMINDER: Annual Volunteer Fire Dept. Fish Fry/Dance, Saturday, June 13, 1992. Ge REMINDER: COW Meeting - 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, June 16, 1992, City Hall. H. REMINDER: Mound City Days - June 19-21, 1992. 94 Jo K® J~ne9, 1992 We will be having an informal reception at Mound City Hall, Monday, June 22, 1992, at 3:00 P.M. for Sgt. Brad Roy who is retiring after nearly 30 years of employment with the City of Mound. Please come and wish Brad and his wife Sandy well as they leave for the Oregon coast. Notice from the HRA that Eld. Schmidt has resigned after 19 years of service on the Commission. Proposed 1993 LMCD Budget. We have been asked to review this preliminary discussion draft and offer comments prior to the LMCD's Board adoption at their June 24th Meeting. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to go into Executive Session at 8:45 P.M. to discuss pending litigation on Dakota Rail. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council returned from Executive Session at 9:15 P.M. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 95 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - JUNE 16, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmember Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Andrea Ahrens. Absent and excused: Councilmember Ken Smith. Also present: Jon Sutherland, Building Official; Jim Fackler, Parks Director; Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector; Peggy James, Secretary; John Norman, Finance Director; Ed Shukle, City Manager; Parker Hodges, Sailor Newspapers; Mound Fire Department Pension Relief Board: David Carlson, Jeff Andersen, Gene Garvais, Barry Palm, Don Bryce, Brad Landsman and Steve Erickson. Other interested persons were present: Carole Munson, Mark Hanus, Mark Goldberg and Greg Knutson. A discussion was held on the level of contribution to the Mound Volunteer Fire Relief Association Pension Program. City Manager Ed Shukle outlined the history of the pension program and focused on the level of contribution the City has been providing over the past several years. He indicated that back in the early 1980's, the City of Mound and other cities within the fire service area annually provided a 10% increase beyond the 2% state aid payment for the pension program. About 2 years ago, the City staff analyzed this contribution and determined that it was not realistic in terms of providing what was needed for pension benefits in relationship to what was happening within the economy. City staff indicated that with the cutbacks in local government aid from the state of Minnesota to cities, that all departments were analyzed to see where adjustments could be made. City staff in its analysis determined that an increase of 4% could be provided to keep the pension benefits at their current level. The last two budget years contained a 4% budget increase each year. City staff indicated to the pension board in meetings held prior to adoption of these budgets, that the level of contribution would be looked at annually. In an effort to try to bring some definition to where the pension benefits were heading, the City staff and City Council began a dialogue with the Fire Relief Board. It was determined that we would try to further define the benefit increases over the next several years. The pension relief board indicated that they would like to see a $25 per year pension benefit increase. After some discussion, it was suggested that the Fire Department contact their actuary who could possibly do a projection over the next five years to determine what the cost would be to fund a $25 per year increase for the next five years. Dave Carlson indicated that he would be in touch with the City staff. John Norman, Finance Director, was present to discuss the water shutoff policy proposal. John clarified the intent of the policy. He indicated that most of the administrative time as well as public works labor, was involved in shutting water off after delinquencies occurred. He indicated that we would be going to a once a year assessment program where delinquent utility bills would be assessed on the owners property taxes for the upcoming year with an interest charge. City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed this proposed policy with the Council at the June 9th regular Council meeting. There was concern at that time by the Council that proper notification needed to be given to owner/renter situations. Mr. Norman explained that it would be easier if we were able to bill the owners of the property rather than the renters and MINUTES - COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 2 would suggest that owners should be encouraged to accept the billing and bill the cost of the water into the renters rent payment. He indicated that some owners had already contacted the City following a delinquent situation and asked that they be sent the bill. Council agreed that we go forward with this policy and that owners of rental property be notified regarding our change and the opportunity for them to make a change on how they charge their renters for utilities. Mr. Norman will prepare a press release and it will be published in the local papers and city newsletter concerning the new policy. Mr. Norman also explained the $5.21 charge for lead testing that is being mandated by the federal government and administered by the Minnesota Department of Health. Each household is to be charged $5.21 per year to pay for this testing. He indicated that we would be placing this on the billing for the July, August and September quarter. Jim Fackler, Jon Sutherland, Tom McCaffrey and Peggy James were present to present the Commons Dock/Public Land Inventory Document. They reviewed this with the Council. The Council suggested that they take it under advisement and discuss it again at the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Commons markings was briefly discussed. The two basic questions are: #1 - Should we install markings? #2 - If so, how do we pay for it? This matter was moved to the June 23rd regular meeting. "After the Fact" permits were discussed. The city manager indicated that we have had a number of problems with people not obtaining permits for building as well as for public lands. The Council had indicated earlier that somehow they wanted to get the message across that permits are required. City Manager Ed Shukle and Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the documentation that was included in the Committee of the Whole packet, from existing ordinances, uniform building code, DNR policies and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District policies. It was suggested to bring this back for discussion at the first regular meeting in July, which is July 14th. At approximately 10:30 PM Andrea Ahrens left the meeting. Advisory commission appointment and reappointment was briefly discussed. This was continued until the next Committee of the Whole meeting. A brief discussion was held on the proposed 1993 LMCD budget. Council suggested that this be discussed on the June 23rd agenda. The city newsletter was briefly discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that Ann Henson has announced that she is resigning as the city newsletter editor due to her full time job requiring more hours. The City Manager brought this to the attention of the Council to find out if they want to continue with the newsletter due to cost. After some discussion, it was suggested that this matter be brought to the June 23rd meeting. MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 3 City Manager Ed Shukle presented some information with regard to complaints on geese at Dutch Lake. He also indicated that there is a problem in another area of the city, including Mound Bay Park. He presented a letter from the DNR on two ways in handling this problem. After some discussion, Mayor Johnson indicated that he knew someone who works for the city of Duluth who has had experience in working with this problem and will contact that individual for that information. Artwork for the city council chambers was continued until the next COW meeting. Under other business Mayor Johnson indicated that the Westonka Community Action Network subcommittee on housing will be holding a meeting on July 7th, at Mound city hall from 6:30 PM to 7:45 PM. He invited the Council to attend. There will be a Committee of the Whole meeting in July and it is scheduled for Tuesday, July 21, 1992, 7:30 PM, at Mound city hall. Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 PM. Resp_ectfully submitted, City Manager ES:Is June 18, 1992 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL ED SHUKLS, CITY MANAGER < RE: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE At the April 28, 1992 city Council meeting a public hearing was held on the proposed rental housing ordinance and licensing ordinances recommended to you by the Planning Commission. As you recall, there were questions raised with regard to the implementation of the ordinance. It was suggested that the hearing be continued until the June 23, 1992 meeting, at which time information would be presented about how to implement these ordinances. A great deal of analysis has been done to determine what would be the appropriate fees to cover the costs of housing inspection and related costs associated with implementing the ordinances. We both have looked at various approaches in which to enforce the ordinances. Based upon the uncertainty that is involved with inspections, associated costs and the basic thesis of trying to make these ordinances self sustaining, i.e., pay for themselves, etc., we felt it be appropriate that we solicit proposals from housing inspectors who would provide housing inspection on a consultant basis. We advertised for consultant housing inspectors in a number of publications. We used the Minneapolis Star Tribune and other professional organizations who would have members that would have an interest in this subject. We received many telephone calls asking about the consultant inspector. Eighty plus individuals or firms requested that we send the RFP to them. We received, by the deadline date, six proposals in response to our RFP. We explained in the RFP that we are "testing the waters" to try to determine the costs of implementing and enforcing the ordinances. Prior to us sending out the RFP, we discussed some estimated fees that should be charged for each type of rental unit. We also looked at the estimated expenses involved with the inspector, clerical support and administration. The following is a listing of printed on recycled paper the revenue/suggested fees and estimated expenses/rates: Revenue/Sugqested Fees: SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX TRIPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY PER BUILDING MULTIPLE FAMILY PER UNIT 83 @ $ 75 25 @ $ 100 8 @ $ 125 34 @ $ 150 652 @ $ 25 $ 6,225 2,500 1,000 5,100 $16,300 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $31,125 Estimated Expenses/Rates: SECRETARY: 388 HOURS @ A RATE OF $15/HR. ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES CONSULTANT INSPECTOR @ 50% OF REVENUE TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $ 5,820 7,500 15,562 $28,882 Revenue Less Expenses @ 50% Ratio $ 2,243 The fees suggested above are reasonable fees based upon discussions with other communities who have similar ordinances. As you can see, based upon those fees, the total estimated revenue is $31,125. The estimated expenses/rates are based upon a consultant housing inspector being paid as a percentage of the total revenue collected. Our estimate prior to issuing the RFP was 50%. The administrative expenses involved, forms and other costs related to administration is $7,500. Clerical support was based upon a $15 an hour rate. As you can see, based upon this estimate of revenue/suggested fees and estimated expenses/rates the program will pay for itself. As we indicated above, we received six responses to the RFP. The percentage of revenues varies from one candidate proposing that 49% of revenue generated by fees collected (initial and follow up inspections) $20 per hour (for additional inspections) and $12 an hour for clerical support, to 100% of revenues generated by fees collected (initial and follow up inspections) $25 per hour (additional inspections) and $10 per hour for clerical support. In an effort to compare the minimum costs of inspection based upon the lowest proposal to the maximum cost of inspection based upon the highest proposal, you have the following: LOWEST PROPOSAL Revenue/Suqqested Fees: SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX TRIPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY PER BUILDING MULTIPLE FAMILY PER UNIT 83 @ $ 75 25 @ $ 100 8 @ $ 125 34 @ $ 150 652 @ $ 25 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE Estimated Expenses/Rates SECRETARY 388 HOURS AT A RATE OF $12/HR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CONSULTANT INSPECTOR 49% OF REVENUE TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $ 6,225 2,500 1,000 5,100 $16,300 $31,125 $ 4,656 7,500 15,251 $27,407 Revenue Less Expenses at 49% Ratio $ 3,718 HIGHEST PROPOSAL Revenue/Sugqested Fees: SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX TRIPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY PER BUILDING MULTIPLE FAMILY PER UNIT 83 @ $ 75 25 @ $ 100 8 @ $ 125 34 @ $ 150 652 @ $ 25 $ 6,225 2,500 1,000 5,100 $16,300 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $31,125 Estimated Expenses/Rates SECRETARY 388 HOURS AT A RATE OF $10/HR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CONSULTANT INSPECTOR 100% OF REVENUE $ 3,880 7,500 31,125 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $42,505 Revenue Less Expenses at 100% Ratio (Loss) ($11,380) In addition, we did not figure the additional inspection fee into the above costs. However, as indicated earlier, each candidate submitted a price on additional inspections which range from $11 per hour to $35 per hour. We are recommending that within the fee structure proposed earlier that we would include a $30 per hour additional inspections fee. Depending upon what proposal we accepted, the City should cover its costs for that particular inspection. We have no idea as to the number of additional inspections that may be required. With regard to the proposed rental housing ordinance, Chapter 319, we are attaching to this memo a provision that should be included within Section 319:25, dealing with built in deficiencies. We can discuss this provision at the hearing Tuesday evening. We hope that we have provided you with some background and information that will assist you in making a decision to whether the City of Mound goes forward in adopting and implementing the proposed rental housing maintenance ordinance and licensing ordinance. It is our recommendation that the City Council adopt Chapters 319 & 495 and direct the city staff to proceed and negotiate a contract with a consultant housing inspector based upon several factors which would include qualifications, work experience and costs. It is the Staff's and the City Council's position that the program be self-sustaining. ES, JS:ls Section ]$-3]3. Butlt-lnOe'ftctenctes Exempt. The following are built- In deftc'tencle's ahd shall be exempt from Co,~llance with the Ordinance Code; provided, that such built-tn deficiencies were tn co,pllance with a butldlng code at the time of construction and/or.do not pose hazard. (Z) Cetlln9 Height: k.~ existing habitable room wt~h less than a 7.5 foot ceiltn9 height shall be considered built-tn deflctencj, whtch Is beyond reasonable correction. (Z) Superficial Floor Areas: .l~ss than 90 square feet shall be considered a butlt-ln deficiency and beyond reasonable correction. (3) Hatur41 Light and Ventilation.: kn~ existing habitable rOOm Wtth window area less than 10 percent of the floor area shall be considered a built-tn deficiency beyond reasonable correction but tn no case shall the required natural light and ventllatto~ be less than the floorarea. M'r~VTE8 - MOUI~D CITY COUNCIL - APRIl, 28~ 1992 1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY ]%TTORNEY'S SUMMARYt PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 495 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING ;% LICENSE TO RENT HOUSINg, PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSIN~ MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 319) The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has been working on this for a number of years. Section 495 relates to Licensing of Rental Housing and Section 319 relates to Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Housing. The Building Official reviewed the Executive Summary of the two proposed sections. The purpose of the ordinances is to maintain the housing stock in the community and have people live in a habitable home. The Mayor opened the public hearing. JIM BEDELL, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. stated he feels that rental homes and owner occupied homes will be treated differently if these ordinances are adopted. He thought landlords input should have been incorporated in these ordinances. He did not agree with all items in these ordinances, i.e. paved driveways and snow removal. Councilmember Jensen stated that the City does not want to intrude upon the accepted contractual relationship between tenant and landlord. She further stated that the Planning Commission did discuss items that were brought up by landlords at the June 25, 1991, public hearing. There was impasse on some of those items. The city Attorney stated he feels there are-some things that need to be addressed before these ordinances are adopted, i.e. how the inspection process will be implemented (providing the time and people to carry out these ordinances), and a fee structure. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to adjourn the public hearing until the June 23, 1992, Council Meeting, to provide Staff the time to prepare a fee structure and a plan for how the inspection process will be implemented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 495 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE REQUIREHENT OF OBTAINING A LICENSE TO RENT HOUSING AND AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 319 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HOUSING MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at ?:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1992 to consider the adoption of two ordinances. The first is an ordinance adding Section 495 to the Mound City Code relating to the requirement of obtaining a license to rent housing. The Intent of the licensing is that a permanent mode of protecting and regulating the living conditions of citizens of the City be established; and that uniform standards be established and applicable for all rental dwellings in the City. The second is an ordinance adding Section 319 to the Mound City Code relating to housing maintenance regulations for rental housing. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and the general welfare of the people of the City. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker" April 13, 1992. / 37 LAW OF'rICES WURST, PE:.ARSON) I. ARSON, UNDE:RWOOD & ME:RTZ IIOO FIRST BANI< PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA $$402 Ma[ch 4, 1992 T{LE I~HON I: R£C'O MAR 5 Mr. Edward J. Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: City of Mound - Rental Bousing Ordinance - Executive Summary Dear Ed: This v111 acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 12, 1992, wherein you have asked me to submit an executive summary of the proposed rental housing ordinance. You indicate this will be discussed at the City Council's Committee of the Whole meeting, and it is the Council's intention to review this prior to a public hearing. ! have prepared an executive summary, but it is very short and simple and basically outlines what the ordinance is trying to accomplish. ! have not gone into the details that are in the ordinance, which at times is extremely complex and may have meaning to building officials and contractors but is difficult for lay people to understand. You will recall that after I initially drafted Chapter 319, ameeting was held between the City Planner and the then Building Official and the size of the ordinance was expanded extensively. It was Jan Bertrand's position that much of what she was going to be asked to administer should be placed in the ordinance so she would be able to point to something and tell the landowner why he had to do these things. I believe that much of what she has inserted in this ordinance relates to materials that are in the Uniform Building Code and could be adopted by reference to that Code or to other codes. This is a decision that I believe was discussed in great detail with you and with the other City officials. I am not sure how this was presented to the Planning Commission, but I presume that since this is the final draft that they are submitting to the Council for consideration, that they have basically reviewed and approved this. Ed, I want to point out it is difficult to summarize something which has a good deal of detail. Take the purpose section in Section 319 where we set out 6 specific reasons for enacting the ordinance. It seems to me that it is just as easy for the people to read those so they understand the findings that are being made to justify proceeding with this type of WURST, PEARSON, I. ARSON, UNDIrRWOOO & M£RTZ control. I will be happy to expand this or go into any particular section raised by the Council, but I don't know how much of a summary you expected or just what it is the City Council wants. It may be that the Planner and/or the Building Official can expand on my outline to cover points that they believe are of special significance to the City Council and to the public who will be subject to the regulations of the proposed ordinance. CAP: lh Enclosure rtis A.~ea~rson c--- City Attorney SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHAPTER 319 This proposed ordinance works together with proposed Section 495 which is the rental housing licensing ordinance. Under that proposed ordinance, any rental housing must get a license and must maintain the standards set forth in Chapter 319 (495:45). The purpose and intent is to protect and regulate the health and safety conditions for our residents. Summary of Section 319 319:00 Purpose of Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Properties. 319:05 319:10 6 reasons are set forth establishing the purpose for enacting the ordinance. These are set forth to indicate purpose and to justify adoption of the ordinance. The ordinance makes it clear it is not intended to intrude on the contractual obligation of the landlord and the tenant. States the ordinance intends to provide standards to protect the character and stability of residential areas in the City. This is the definition section and sets out explanations of 39 terms used in the ordinance. 319:15 Responsibilities of Owners and Occupants. This prohibits an owner from renting premises unless they are fit for human occupancy and meet all applicable legal requirements of the State or the City. Subd. 1 and 2 define responsibility of the parties for different areas of the structure. The tenant is required to take care of their rubbish and garbage; in multiple units the owner has responsibility to furnish facilities where the tenants can store their garbage. 319:20 There are 15 specific subdivisions setting out responsibilities for the varioius areas and covering health and safety issues. It covers plumbing, heating, lighting, etc. Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities. This section requires a kitchen, cabinets, and shelves to store food, and requires a stove and refrigerator, a minimum amount of storage space, toilet facilities, a lavatory sink, and a bathtub or shower. 319:25 Establishes general standards for the structure i.e., the foundation, exterior walls, roof, windows, doors, screens, floors, interior walls, and ceilings. This section also requires the building to be rodent resistant and covers maintenance of fences and accessory structures. 319:30, 319:65, 319:75 319:80, 319:105 319:110, Subd. 7 of this section goes into great detail on required safety elements for stairways, balconies, porches, etc. Subdivislor 8 through 12 set out standards for chimneys, grading anu drainage, yard cover, minimum ceiling heights, and access to bedrooms and bathrooms. 319:35, 319:40, 319:45, 319:50, 319:55, and 319:60 are all very technical building code standards which generally follow the Uniform Building Code. Jan Bertrand was with the City when the ordinance was first drafted and she wanted all these items listed in the ordinance. This goes into much more detail than most ordinances of this nature. These sections cover requirements for door and window locks, standards for light and ventilation, electric services, thermal standards, winterizing of the premises, and very detailed requirements relating to fire protection. 319:70. These sections appoint the City Manager as the Compliance Officer and state that inspections shall be during reasonable hours. They also relate to access and lay out the process if inspection is refused (city application for court order). Unfit for Buman Babitation. Sets the standards for declaring a unit unfit for human habitation, and makes it illegal for people to occupy the unit after such a declaration until the defective conditions are corrected. 319:85, 319:90, 319:95, 319:100. Secure Unfit and Vacated Dwellings. Requires owner to make the building safe and secure so it is not hazardous to the public health, safety, and welfare. If the building defects are not corrected it can be declared a hazardous building and a compliance order will be issued outlining the process~ the owner has a right to appeal and the Board of Appeals will review the decision. Restriction on Transfer of Ownership. The owner is restricted from transferring ownership while a compliance order ts pending. 319:115. These sections indicate that failure to comply is a misdemeanor and allow the City to execute certain compliance orders. ORDIN~CE ~N ORDINANCE ~DDING SECTION495 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE REQUIREI~NT OF OBT~ININ~ ~ LICENSE TO RENT HOUSIN~ The city of Mound Does Ordain: Section 495 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 495 - Rental Housinq Licenses and Requlations Section 495:00. Purpose. It is the purpose of this ordinance to protect the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of the City who have as their place of abode a living unit furnished to them for the payment of a rental charge to another. Section 459~05. Intent. It is the intent of this ordinance that a permanent mode of protecting and regulating the living conditions of citizens of the City be established; and that uniform standards be established and applicable for all rental dwellings in the city. Section 495:10. Definitions. Subd. 1. For the purposes of Section 495:00 et seq., the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings given them in the subdivisions which follow: Subd. 2. Rental Dwellinq. As used in this ordinance the term "rental dwelling" shall mean any rental dwelling with one or more living units. "Rental dwelling" does not include hotels, motels, hospitals and homes for aged. Subd. 3. Operate. As used in this ordinance, the term "operate" m~ans to charge a rental fee for the use of a unit in a rental dwelling. Section 495~15. License Required. No person, firm, or corporation shall operate a rental dwelling in the city without first having obtained a license as hereinafter provided from the City Manager. Each such licensee shall register annually on the first day of with the City Manager. Section 495~20. ~pplication for Licenses. Applications for licenses shall be made in writing to the city Manager. Such application shall specify the following: Subd. 1. Name and address of the owner of the rental dwelling. In cases where the owner of a rental dwelling lives outside of Hennepin County limits, the registration shall be made by an operator who shall be legally responsible for compliance with this and other ordinances and such operator shall live in the seven county metropolitan area. Sub4. 2. Names and address of any operator or agent actively managing said rental dwelling. Subd. 3. Name and address of all partners if the registrant is a partnership. Subd. 4. Name and address of all officers of the corporation if the registrant is a corporation. Subd. 5. Name and address of the vendee if the rental dwelling is owned or being sold on a contract for deed. Su~d. 6. Legal address of the rental dwelling. Subd. 7. Number and kind of units within the rental dwelling classified as dwelling units, multiple dwelling units, or rooming units or other. Subd. 8. Height of the rental dwelling in stories. Subd. 9. Construction of exterior of building classified as wood or other. Subd. L0. Such other information as the City Manager deems necessary and relevant to administer the City Code of Ordinances. Section 495125. &Dvlication, Execution. The application shall be subscribed and sworn to by the applicant before an officer duly qualified to take oaths and shall be made by the owner if such owner is a natural person; if the owner is a corporation by an officer thereof; of a partnership by one of the partners; and if an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer thereof. Section 495:30. License Renewal. Notwithstanding the application signature requirements of Section 495:25, renewal of the license as required annually by this code may be made by filling out the required renewal form furnished by the City Manager to the owner, operator or agent of a rental dwelling and mailing said form together with the required registration fee to the City Manager. Such renewal of registration may only be made where there has not been a change in the ownership, operator, agent or type of occupancy as originally licensed. Section 495135. License Fees. Such license fee shall be in the amount set by the Council from time to time. Section 495140. Posting. Every registrant of a rental dwelling shall post the annual license issued by the City Manager. In any multiple dwelling, the annual license shall be conspicuously posted (in a frame with a transparent covering) by the registrant in a public corridor, hallway or lobby of the rental dwelling for which they are issued. Section 495:45. Maintenance Standards. Every rental dwelling shall maintain the standards in Chapter 319, Housing Maintenance Code, for Rental Dwellings, in addition to any other regulations of the ordinances of the City or special permits issued by the City, or the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 495:70. Landscape Condition. Each rental dwelling shall be maintained by its owner, occupant, operator or agent so that the yards, open spaces and parking facilities are kept in a safe and attractive condition. Where a conditional use permit has been granted, the landscaping shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be considered as minimal and shall be maintained accordingly. Any deviation to species or material shall be equal to or better than originally approved. In addition, adequate lighting facilities shall be provided and operated between the hours of sunset and sunrise; and snow plowing or snow shoveling shall be regularly accomplished to maintain all sidewalks and parking areas in a safe and passable condition. Section 495:75. Safety From Fire. An owner, operator or agent of a rental dwelling shall be responsible to comply with the applicable provisions of the Fire Prevention Code of the City in keeping open all fire lanes established by the City. Section 495:80. Inspections and Investiqations. Subd. 1. The City Manager and the duly appointed compliance official are hereby authorized to make inspections reasonably necessary to the enforcement of this ordinance. Subd. 2. Ail persons authorized herein to inspect shall have the authority to enter, at all reasonable times, any rental dwelling which has a license pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 3. Persons inspecting any rental dwelling as provided herein shall notify the license holder of all violations, if any, by written notice. Said notice shall direct that compliance be made in not more than 15 days, unless extended by the compliance official based on good cause. Section 495:85. Revocation or Suspension. Subd. 1. Every license or permit issued under this ordinance subject to the right, which is hereby expressly reserved, to suspend or revoke the same should the license holder or their agents, employees, representatives or lessees directly or indirectly operate or maintain rental dwellings contrary to the provisions of this ordinance or any other ordinance of the City or any special permit issued by the City or the laws of the State of Minnesota. Subd. 2. The license may be suspended or revoked by the Council after a written notice is sent to the license holder specifying the ordinance or law violations with which they are charged. This notice shall also specify the date for hearing before the Council, which shall not be less than 10 days from the date of the notice. Subd. 3. At such hearing before the Council, the license holder or their attorney's may submit and present witnesses in their defense. Subd. 4. After a hearing, the Council may suspend or revoke the license if they deem it necessary to protect the public health, safety or general welfare. The Council determination to suspend or revoke shall provide the tenants a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days, to vacate the premises if the Council determines that repairs can be made; or if the Council establishes a different solution to the problem, the suspension or revocation resolution shall set forth the requirements established by the City Council to reinstate the license. Section 495:90. SummarT Action. Subd. 1. When the conduct of any license holder or their agent, representative, employee or lessee or the condition of their rental dwelling is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as to constitute a nuisance, fire hazard or other unsafe or dangerous condition and thus give rise to an emergency, the compliance official shall have the authority to summarily condemn or close off such area of the rental dwelling. Subd. Z. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the compliance official to cease business or revoke or suspend the license or permit shall be entitled to appeal to the Council immediately, by filing a Notice of Appeal. The Manager shall schedule a date for hearing before the Council and notify the aggrieved person of the date. Su~d. 3. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as if the aggrieved person had not received summary action. Subd. 4. The decision of the compliance official shall not be voided by the filing of such appeal. Only after the Council has held its hearing will the decision of the compliance official be affected. Section 495:94. Applicable Laws. Licenses shall be subject to all of the ordinances of the City and the State of Minnesota relating to rental dwellings; and this ordinance shall not be construed or interpreted to supersede or limit any other such applicable ordinance or law. Attest: Mayor city Clerk Adopted by City Council Published Official Newspaper ORDIN~CE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 319 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HOUSING I~,INTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENT&L HOUSING The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 319 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 319 - Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Properties Section 319:00. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and the general welfare of the people of the City. These general objectives include, among others, the following: Subd. 1. To protect the character and stability of residential areas within the City. Subd. 2. To correct and prevent housing conditions that adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the life, safety, general welfare and health. Subd. 3. To provide minimum standards for cooking, heating and sanitary equipment and for light and ventilation necessary to protect the health and safety or occupants or buildings. Subd. 4. To prevent the overcrowding of dwellings. Subd. 5. To provide minimum standards for the maintenance of existing residential buildings and to thus prevent substandard housing and blight. Subd. 6. To preserve the value of land and buildings throughout the City. With respect to disputes between tenants and landlord, and except as otherwise specifically provided by the terms of this ordinance, it is not the intention of the City Council to intrude upon the accepted contractual relationship between tenant and landlord. The City Council does not intend to intervene as an advocate of either party, nor to act as an arbiter, nor to be receptive to complaints from tenant or landlord which are not specifically and clearly relevant to the provisions of this ordinance. In the absence of such relevancy with regard to rental disputes, it is intended that the contracting parties exercise such legal sanctions as are available to them without the intervention of City government. In enacting this ordinance it is not the intention of the City Council to interfere or permit interference with legal rights to personal property. Section 319:05. Applicability of Ordinance. This ordinance establishes minimum standards for maintaining rental dwelling units, accessory structures and related premises. This ordinance is intended to provide standards for rental housing and to provide standards to protect the character and stability of residential areas in the City. These regulations shall apply to rental housing as defined and licensed by Section 495 of the City Code. Section 319:10. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this ordinance. Subd. 1. Accessory Use or Structures. A nonresidential use or structure subordinate to, and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. Subd. Z. Approved. As to materials and types of construction, refers to approved by the Compliance Official as the result of investigation and tests conducted by him/her, or by reason of accepted principals or tests by recognized authorities, technical or scientific organizations. Subd. 3. Building. Any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure for persons, animals, or chattel, and when said structure is divided by party walls without openings, each portion of such building so separated shall be deemed a separate building. Subd. 4. Compliance Official. The city Manager and his/her designated agents authorized to administer and enforce this ordinance. Subd. 5. Dwelling. A building or one or more portions thereof occupied or intended to be occupied for residential purposes; but not including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boarding houses, trailers, tents, cabins or trailer coaches. Subd. 6. Dwelling, One-Family. A building designed exclusively for and occupied exclusively by one (1) family. Subd. 7. Dwelling, Two-Family. A building designed exclusively for or occupied by no more than two (2) families living independently of each other. Subd. S. Dwelllnq, Two-Family Twln Home. A building designed exclusively for or occupied exclusively by no more than two (2) families living independently of each other with each unit located on a separate, single parcel of record, with the party wall separating the units acting as a dividing lot line. Subd. 9. Dwelling Unit. A single family dwelling or unit designed to accommodate one family. Subd. 10. Family. An individual, or two or more persons each related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster children, living together as a single housekeeping unit; or a group of not more than four (4) persons not so related, maintaining a common household and using common cooking and kitchen facilities. Subd. 11. Flush Water Closet. A toilet with a bowl and trap made in one piece, which is connected to the City water and sewer system or other approved water supply and sewer system. Subd. 12. Garbage. of the City Code. As defined and regulated by Section 490 Subd. 13. Habitable Buildinq. Any building or part thereof that meets minimum standards for use as a home or place of abode by one or more persons. Sited. 14. Habitable Space (Room). Space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space. Subd. 15. Heated Water. Water heated to a temperature of not less than 110 degrees Fahrenheit, or such temperature required by government authority, measured at faucet outlet. Subd. 16. Kitchen. A space which contains a sink with counter working space, space for installing cooking and refrigeration equipment, and space for the storage of cooking utensils. Subd. 17. Maintenance. Upkeep of property and equipment in a safe working condition for which .it was installed and/or constructed. Subd. 18. Multiple Family Dwellings. A dwelling or portion thereof containing three or more dwelling units. A building designed exclusively for or occupied exclusively by three (3) or more families living independently of each other, but sharing hallways, main entrances and exits. Subd. 19. Occupant. Any person (including owner or operator) living, sleeping, cooking and eating in a dwelling unit or living and sleeping in a rooming unit. Subd. 20. Operate. As used in this ordinance, the term "operate" means to charge a rental fee for the use of a unit in a rental dwelling. Subd. 21. Operator. The owner or the owner's agent who has charge, care, control, or management of a building, or part thereof, in which dwelling units or rooming units are let. Subd. 22. Owner. Any person, firm or corporation who, alone, jointly, or severally with others, shall be in actual possession of, or have charge, care or control of, any dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit within the City as owner, employee or agent of the owner, or as trustee or guardian of the estate or person of the title holder. Any person representing the actual owner shall be bound to comply with the provisions of this ordinance to the same extent as the owner. Subd. 23. Permisslble Occupancy. The maximum number of persons permitted to reside in a dwelling unit or rooming unit. Subd. 24. Person. An individual, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind. firm, partnership, joint venture or Subd. 25. PlumBing. Ail of the following supplied facilities and equipment in a dwelling: gas pipes, gas burning equipment, water pipes, steam pipes, garbage disposal units, waste pipes, water closets, sinks, installed dishwashers, lavatories, bathtubs, shower baths, installed clothes washing machines, catch basins, drains, vents, and any other similar fixtures and the installation thereof, together with all connections to water, sewer and gas lines. Subd. 26. Premises. A platted lot or part thereof or unplatted parcel of land, and adjacent right-of-way either occupied or unoccupied by any dwelling or non-dwelling structure, including such building or accessory structures. Subd. 27. Public Hall. A hall, corridor or passageway for providing egress from a dwelling unit to a public way and not within the exclusive control of one family. Subd. 28. Refuse. As defined and regulated by Section 490 of the city Code. Subd. 29. Rental Dwelling. As used in this ordinance the term "rental dwelling" shall mean any dwelling rented or leased to a person or persons other than the owner with one or more dwelling units. "Rental dwelling" does not include hotels, motels, hospitals and homes for aged. Subd. 30. Repair. The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building or its utilities, facilities or equipment for the purpose of its maintenance. Subd. 31. Rodent Harboraq~. A place where rodents commonly live, nest, or establish their habitat. Subd. 32. Rooming Unit. Any room or group of rooms forming a single habitable unit used or intended to be used for living and sleeping, but not for cooking and eating purposes. Subd. 33. Rubbish. of the City Code. As defined and regulated in Section 490 Subd. 34. Safety. The condition of being unreasonably free from danger and hazards which may cause accidents or disease. Subd. 35. Story. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under- floor space is more than 6 feet above grade as defined herein for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. 8ubd. 36. Story, First. The lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or not more than 8 feet below grade, as defined herein, at any point. Subd. 37. Substandard Dwelling. Any dwelling which does not conform to the minimum standards established by City ordinance. Subd. 38. Supplied. Paid for, furnished by, provided by or under the control of the owner, operator, or agent of a dwelling. Subd. 39. Meaning of Certain Words. Whenever the words "dwelling", "dwelling unit", "premises", or "structure" are used in this ordinance, they shall be construed as though they were followed by the words "or any part thereof". Section 319:15. Responsibilities of Owners and Occupants. No owner or other person shall let to another person any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit unless it and the premises are fit for human occupancy and comply with all applicable legal requirements of the State of Minnesota and the City of Mound, and as set forth specifically in the following sections. Subd. 1. Maintenance of Shared or Public Areas. Every owner of a dwelling containing two or more dwelling units shall maintain or shall provide for maintenance of the units shared or public areas of the dwelling and premises thereof. Subd. Z. Maintenance of Occupied Areas. Every occupant of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit shall maintain that part of the dwelling, dwelling unit and premises thereof that he or she occupies and controls. Subd. 3. Storage and Disposal of Rubbish. Every occupant of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit shall store and dispose of all his or her rubbish and garbage and any other organic waste which might provide food for insects and/or rodents in a manner as prescribed by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 4. Responsibility for Storage and Disposal of Garbage and Rubbish. Every owner of a dwelling, two family, ~ ~-~, two family town homes or a multiple family dwelling shall supply facilities for the storage and/or disposal of rubbish and garbage. In the case of single or two-family dwellings, it shall be the responsibility of the occupant to furnish such facilities as prescribed by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 5. Responsibility for Storm and Screen Doors and Windows. The owner of a rental dwelling unit shall be responsible for providing, maintaining and hanging all screens and storm doors and storm windows whenever the same are required under the provisions or this ordinance. Subd. 6. Responsibility for Pest Extermination. Every occupant of a dwelling containing a single dwelling unit shall be responsible for the extermination of vermin infestations and/or rodents on the premises. Every occupant of a dwelling unit in a dwelling containing more than one dwelling unit shall be responsible for such extermination whenever his/her dwelling unit is the only one infested. Notwithstanding, however, whenever infestation is caused by the failure of the owner to maintain a dwelling in a reasonably rodent-proof condition, extermination shall be the responsibility of the owner. Whenever infestation exists in two or more of the dwelling units in any dwelling or in the shared or public parts of any dwelling containing two or more dwelling units, extermination thereof shall be the responsibility of the owner. Subd. ?. Rodent Harborages Prohibited in Occupied Areas. No occupant of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall accumulate boxes, firewood, lumber, scrap metal or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide a rodent harborage in or about any dwelling or dwelling unit. Outside stored materials shall be stacked neatly in piles at least 4 inches off bare soil or ground. Subd. S. Rodent Harborages Prohibited in Public Areas. No owner of a dwelling containing two or more dwelling units shall accumulate or permit the accumulation of boxes, lumber, scrap metal or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide a rodent harborage in or about shared or public areas of a dwelling or its premises. Materials stored outside by the owner or permitted to be stored by the owner shall be stacked neatly in piles at least 4 inches off bare soil or ground. Subd. 9. Prevention of Food for Rodents. No owner or occupant of a dwelling unit shall store, place or allow to accumulate any materials that may serve as food for rodents in a site accessible to rodents. Subd. 10. Maintenance of Plumbing Fixtures and Facilities. The owner or occupant of a dwelling unit shall maintain all supplied plumbing fixtures and facilities therein. Subd. 11. Minimum Heating Capability and Maintenance. In every dwelling unit or rooming unit when the control of the supplied heat is the responsibility of a person other than the occupant, a temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit or such lesser temperature required by government authority shall be maintained at a distance of three feet above the floor and three feet from exterior walls in all habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments from September 15 to May 1. Subd. 12. Removal of Snow and Ice. The owner of any rental dwelling shall be responsible for the removal of snow and ice from parking lots and/or driveways, steps and walkways on the premises. Individual snowfalls of three inches or more or successive snowfalls accumulating to a depth of three inches shall be removed from walkways and steps within 48 hours after cessation of the snowfall. Subd. 13. Minimum Exterior Lighting. The owner of a rental dwelling or dwellings shall be responsible for providing and maintaining effective illumination in all exterior parking areas and walkwayso. _____~~ Subd. 14. enance of Drivinq and Parkmng Areas. The o~er of ~~ ~.. ~ lv ...... ~ ~ a multiple family dwelling or dwellings shall be responsible for providing and maintaining in good condition paved and delineated parking areas and driveways for tenants. Subd. 15. Owner/Occupant Responsibilities Defined. Every owner remains liable for violations of duties imposed upon them by this Code even though an obligation is also imposed on the occupants of their building, and even though the owner has, by agreement, imposed on the occupant the duty of furnishing required equipment or of complying with this Code. Every owner, or their agent, in addition to being responsible for maintaining their building in a sound structural condition, shall be responsible for keeping that part of the building or premises which they occupy or control in a clean, sanitary and safe condition. Every occupant of a dwelling unit, in addition to being responsible for keeping the dwelling or dwelling unit or premises which they occupy and control, in a clean, sanitary and safe condition, shall dispose of all rubbish, garbage and other organic waste in a manner required bylaw. All occupants shall keep their premises in a safe and sanitary condition. Section 319~20. Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities. No person shall rent or let to another for occupancy, any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purposes of living, sleeping, cooking and eating therein which does not comply with the following requirements: Subd. 1. Provide a kitchen sink in good working condition and properly connected to an approved water supply system and which provides at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure and which is connected to an approved sewer system per Section 600 and/or 300 or 305 of the City Code. Subd. 2. Provide cabinets and/or shelves for the storage of eating, drinking and cooking equipment and utensils and of food that does not require refrigeration for safekeeping; and a counter or table for food preparation. Said cabinets and/or shelves and counter or table shall be of sound construction furnished with surfaces that are easily cleanable and that will not impart any toxic or deleterious effect to food. Subd. 3. Provide a stove or similar devise for cooking food and refrigeration or similar device for the safe storage of food which are properly installed with all necessary connections for safe, sanitary and efficient operation. Provided that such stove, refrigerator or similar devices need not be installed when a dwelling unit is not occupied and when the occupant is expected to provide same on occupancy, in which case sufficient space and adequate connections for the installation and operation of said stove, refrigerator or similar device must be provided. Subd. 4. Every dwelling unit shall have at least four (4) square feet of floor area to ceiling closet space for personal effects of each permissible occupant. If it is lacking in whole or in part, an amount of space equal in square footage to the deficiency shall be subtracted from the area of habitable room space used to determine permissible occupancy. Subd. 5. Toilet Facilities. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non-habitable room which is equipped with a flush water closet in compliance with Minnesota State Plumbing Code. Such room shall have an entrance door which affords privacy. Said flush water closet shall be equipped with easily cleanable surfaces, shall be connected to an approved water system that at all times provides an adequate amount of running water under pressure to cause the water closet to be operated property, and shall be connected to a sewer system in compliance with Section 300, 305, and 600 of the City Code. Subd. $. Lavator~ Sink. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a lavatory sink. Said lavatory sink may be in the same room as the flush water closet, or if located in another room, the lavatory sink shall be located in close proximity to the door leading directly into the room in which said water closet is located. The lavatory sink shall be in good working condition and shall be properly connected to an approved water system and shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure and shall be connected to an approved sewer system. Subd. 7. Bathtub or Shower. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non-habitable room which is equipped with a bathtub or shower in good working condition. Said bathtub or shower may be in the same room as the flush water closet, or in another room, and shall be properly connected to an approved water supply system and shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated water under pressure and shall be connected to an approved sewer system. Section 319:25. General Requirements. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the .following requirements: Subd. 1. Foundations, Exterior Walls and Roofs. The foundation, exterior walls and exterior roof shall be substantially water tight and protected against vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and repair. The foundation element shall adequately support the building at all points. Every exterior wall shall be free of structural deterioration or any other condition which might admit rain or dampness to the interior portion of the walls or to the interior spaces of the dwelling. The roof shall be tight and have no defects which admit rain and roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent rain water from causing dampness in the walls. Ail exterior surfaces, other than decay resistant materials, shall be protected from the elements and decay resistant materials, shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or other protective covering or treatment. If approximately 10% or more of the total exterior surface is unpainted or lacks a protective coating or is determined by the Compliance Official to be deteriorated, the surface shall have a protective covering applied. If approximately 10% or more of the total exterior surface of the pointing of any brick, block or stone wall is loose or has fallen out, the surface shall be repaired. Bubd. 2. Windows, Doors and Screen~. Every window, exterior door and hatchway shall be substantially tight and shall be kept in repair. Every window other that a fixed window or storm window shall be capable of being easily opened. Every window, door and frame shall be constructed and maintained in such relation to the adjacent wall construction as to completely exclude rain, vermin and rodents from entering the building. Every window which can be opened shall be supplied with sixteen (16) mesh screens during the months of May through September to keep out insects. Subd. 3. Floors, Interior Walls and Ceiling~. Every floor, interior wall and ceilings shall be protected against the passage and harborage of vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and good repair. Every floor shall be free of loose, warped, protruding or rotted flooring materials. Every interior wall and ceiling shall be maintained in a tight weatherproof condition. Toxic paint and materials with a lasting toxic effect shall not be used. Every toilet room and bathroom floor surface shall be capable of being easily maintained. Subd. 4. Rodent Resistant. Buildings found to be rodent infested shall be made rodent resistant. Ail openings in the exterior walls, foundations, basements, ground or first floors and roofs which have a 1/2" diameter or larger opening shall be made rodent-resistant in an approved manner. Interior floors or basements, cellars, and other areas in contact with the soil shall have a paved with concrete or other rodent impervious material. Subd. 5. Fence Maintenance. Ail fences shall consist of chain link, wood, masonry or other decay resistant material. Fences shall be maintained in good condition by the Owner. Materials, other than decay resistant varieties, shall be protected against decay by use of paint or other preservatives. Subd. 6. Accessory Structure Maintenance. A c c e s s o r y structures shall be structurally sound and be maintained in good repair. The exterior of such structures shall be made weather resistant through the use of decay-resistant materials such as paint or other preservatives. If approximately 10% or more of the total exterior surface is unpainted or lacks a protective coating or is determined by the Compliance official to be deteriorated, the surface shall have a protective covering applied. Subd. 7. Safe Buildinq Element~. a® Every foundation, floor, roof, exterior and interior wall, ceilings, and every appurtenance thereto of a rental dwellings shall be safe to use and capable of supporting loads that normal use may cause to be placed thereon. Every stairway, inside or outside, of a rental dwelling and every porch or balcony shall be kept in safe condition and sound repair. Every flight of stairs and every porch and balcony floor shall be free of deterioration. Every stairwell and every flight of stairs which is more that two (2) risers high shall have handrails approximately thirty (30) to thirty-Eight (38) inches high, measured vertically from the nose of the stair tread to the top of the handrail. Ail unenclosed floor and roof openings, open and glazed sides of landings and ramps, balconies or porches which are more than thirty (30) inches above grade or floor level, and roofs used for other than service of the building, shall be protected by a guard rail not less than forty-two (42) inches in height. Open guard rail and stair railings shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere six (6) inches in diameter cannot pass through. Exceptions to guard rail requirements shall be accommodated as provided for in the Minnesota State Codes. Every handrail and balustrade shall be firmly fastened and maintained in good condition. 0 No flight of stairs shall have settled out of its intended position or have pulled away from the supporting or adjacent structures enough to cause a hazard. o No flight of stairs shall have rotting, loose, or deteriorating supports. Excepting spiral and winding stairways, the treads and risers of every flight of stairs shall be uniform in width and height. Stairways shall be capable of supporting a live load of two hundred (200) pounds per square foot of horizontal projection. Every sleeping room below the fourth story shall have at least one (1) operable window or exterior door approved for emergency escape or rescue. The units shall be operable from the inside to provide a full clear opening without the use of separate tools. Ail egress or rescue windows from sleeping rooms shall have a total glazed area of at least five (5) square feet. The smallest net clear opening for each such window shall be twenty (20) inches in width by twenty-four (24) inches in height. Where windows are provided as a means of escape or rescue, they shall have a finished sill height not more than forty-eight (48) inches above the floor. Any such window replaced or newly installed shall be done so in accordance with Section 300 of the Mound Ordinance Code and the Codes adopted by reference therein. Ail dwellings shall have incorporated into their design approved systems which serve to reduce the possibility of a dwelling fire and also effectively contain the fire in the event it does occur. Subd. 8. Facilities to Function. Ail equipment or utilities required under City ordinances and every chimney and flue shall function effectively in a safe working condition. Subd. 9. Gradinq and Drainaqe. Every yard, court, or passageway on the premises on which a dwelling stands shall be graded and drained so as to be free of standing water that constitutes a detriment to health and safety. Subd. 10. Yard Cover. Every yard to a premise on which a dwelling stands shall be maintained to prevent dust and erosion. Subd. 11. Minimum Ceiling Height. In order to qualify as habitable rooms of rental dwellings and rental dwelling units, rooms shall have a clear ceiling height of not less than seven (7) feet, except that in attics or tophalf-stories used for sleeping, study or similar activities, the ceiling height shall be not less than seven (7) feet, over at least one half (1/2) of the floor area. In calculating the floor area of such rooms in attics or tophalf-stories, only those portions of the floor area of the room having a clear ceiling height of five (5) feet or more may be included. Subd. 12. Access Throuqh Sleepinq Rooms and Bathrooms. No rental dwelling unit shall have a room arrangement such that access to the unit itself or to a bathroom or water closet compartment intended for use by occupants of more than one dwelling unit can be gained only by going through another dwelling, nor shall the room arrangement be such that access to a sleeping room can be gained only by going through another sleeping room. A bathroom or water closet compartment shall not be used as the only passageway to any habitable room, hall, basement, or cellar or to the exterior of any dwelling unit. Section 319:30. Door and Window Locks. No owner, shall rent or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit unless all exterior doors of the dwelling or dwelling unit are equipped with safe, functioning locking devices. Rental dwellings shall be furnished with door locks as follows: Subd. L. For the purpose of providing a reasonable amount of safety and general welfare for persons occupying multiple family dwellings, an approved security system shall be maintained for each multiple family building to control access. The security system shall consist of locked building entrances or foyer doors, and locked doors leading from hallways into individual dwelling units. Dead-latch type door locks shall be provided with releasable lever knobs (or doorknobs) on the inside of the building entrance doors and with key cylinder devices on the outside of building entrance doors. Building entrance door latches shall be of a type that are permanently locked from the outside and permanently unlocked from the inside. Subd. 2. Every door that provides ingress and egress for a dwelling unit within a multiple family building shall be equipped with an approved lock that has a deadlocking bolt that cannot be retracted by end pressure, provided, however, that such door shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. Subd. 3. Every window opening within eight (8) feet of finished yard grade shall be equipped with locking devices to secure the window in a closed position. Section 319~35. Minimum Standards for Light and Ventilation. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: All habitable rooms within a dwelling unit shall be provided with natural lights by means of exterior glazed openings with an area not less than 1/12 (8 1/3%) of the floor area of such rooms with a minimum of eight (8) square feet. All habitable rooms within a dwelling unit shall be provided with natural ventilation by means of openable exterior openings with a area of not less than 1/25 (4%) of the floor area of such rooms with a minimum of four (4) square feet. Every bathroom and water closet compartment, and every laundry and utility room, shall contain at least 50% of the light and ventilation requirement for habitable rooms, except that no windows shall be required if such rooms are equipped with a ventilation system which is approved by the Compliance Official. Section 319:40. Electrlo Service, Outlets and Fixtures. Every dwelling unit and all public and common areas shall be supplied with electric service, functioning overcurrent protection devices, electric outlets, and electric fixtures which are properly installed, which shall be maintained in a safe working condition, and shall be connected to a source of electric power in a manner prescribed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Mound and by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The minimum capacity of such electric service and the minimum number of electric outlets and fixtures shall be as follows: Subd. 1. A dwelling containing one or two dwelling units shall have at least the equivalent of 60 ampere, three-wire electric service per dwelling unit. Subd. 2. Each dwelling unit shall have at least one branch electric circuit for each 600 square feet of dwelling unit floor area. Subd. 3. Every habitable room shall have at least one floor or wall-type electric convenience outlet for each 60 square feet or fraction thereof of total floor area, and in no case less than two such electric outlets; provided, however, that one ceiling or wall-type light fixture may be supplied in lieu of one required electric outlet. Subd. 4. Every water closet compartment, bathroom, kitchen, laundry room, and furnace room shall contain at least one supplied ceiling or wall-type electric light fixture and every bathroom, kitchen an laundry room shall contain at least one electric convenience outlet. Subd. S; Every public hall and stairway in every rental dwelling shall be adequately lighted by natural or electric light at all times, so as to provide effective illumination. Every public hall and stair in structures containing not more than two dwelling units may be supplied with conveniently located light switches controlling an adequate lighting system which may be turned on when needed, instead of full-time light. Subd. 6. A convenient switch or equivalent device for turning on a light in each dwelling shall be located near the point of entrance to such unit. Section 319=45. Minimum Thermal Standards. Subd. 1. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purpose of living therein, which does not have heating facilities which are properly installed and maintained in safe and working condition and which are capable of safely heating all habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments in every dwelling unit located therein to a temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit at a distance of three feet above floor level and three feet from exterior walls at normal weather condition. Subd. Z. Gas or electric appliances designed primarily for cooking or water heating purposes shall not be considered as heating facilities within the meaning of this section. Subd. 3. Portable heating equipment employing flame and the use of liquid fuel does not meet the requirement of this section and is prohibited. Subd. 4. No owner or occupant shall install, operate or use a space heater employing a flame that is not vented outside the structure in an approved manner. Section 319:50. Winterizinq. Owners of residential rental properties built before 1976 that are occupied from November 1 through April 1 are required to comply with energy-efficiency standards in compliance with Minnesota State Rules 4170.4100 and this ordinance. These standards are established to require minimum winterizing as follows: Subd. 1. Install storm windows on all single glazed exterior window units enclosing heated spaces. Subd. 2. Install storm doors, unless the existing door, vestibule or enclosed porch provides an R-value of two or more. Subd. 3. Install positive shut offs on all fireplaces and fireplace stoves. Subd. 4. Install insulation in accessible attics or ceilings to achieve a minimum total "R" value of the insulation of R- 19. If there is insufficient space for the installation of the recommended "R" value, then the standard must be based on installing insulation to fill the available space while providing for appropriate ventilation. Subd. 5. Install insulation in all accessible rim joists to achieve a minimum total R-value of the insulation of R-ii. Subd. 6. Install insulation in or on accessible walls and floors enclosing conditioned spaces to achieve a minimum total "R" value of the insulation of R-ii. If there is insufficient space for the installation of the recommended "R" value, then the standard must be based on installing insulation to fill the available space. Subd. 7. Install weather-stripping between exterior operable window sash and frames and between exterior doors and frames. Weather-stripping is not required on storm doors or storm windows. 8~. S. Caulk, gasket or otherwise seal all accessible exterior joints including: at foundation and rim joist, around window and door frames, between wall and roof, at utility penetrations, between wall panels, and all other openings in the exterior envelope. These standards apply to all rental housing units, including apartment buildings and one and two-family homes. Additional options are available under Minnesota State Rules 4170.4100 provisions. Section 3~9:55. Fire Protection. Effective date: within 18 months after the effective date of this City Code Section adoption. Plans for compliance shall be submitted and approved, and within 18 months thereafter the work shall be completed or the building shall be vacated until made to conform. The building shall conform to the code under which it was constructed after the adoption of the 1972 State Building Code. S~b4. X. Number of Exits. Every occupied floor above the first story shall have access to at least two separate exits, one of which may be an exterior fire escape complying with Subd. 2 of this Section. Subject to the approval of the Compliance official, an approved ladder device may be used in lieu of a fire escape when the construction feature or location of the building on the property make the installation of a fire escape impracticable. EXCEPTION: In all occupancies, second stories with an occupant load of 10 or less may have one exit. An exit ladder device when used in lieu of the fire escape shall conform with Appendix A, and the following: Serves an occupant load of 10 or less or a single dwelling unit or guest room. b. The building does not exceed three stories in height. C® The access is adjacent to an opening as specified for emergency egress or rescue or from a balcony. de Shall not pass in front of any building opening below the unit being served. The availability of activating the device for the ladder is accessible only from the opening or balcony served. So installed that it will not cause a person using it to be within 6 feet of exposed electrical wiring. S~b4. 2. Stair Construction. Ail required stairs shall have a minimum run of 9 inches and a maximum rise of 8 inches and shall have a minimum width of 30 inches exclusive of handrails. Every stairway shall have at least one handrail. A landing having a minimum 30-inch run in the direction of travel shall be provided at each point of access to the stairway. Exterior stairs shall be of non-combustible construction. EXCE~ION: On buildings of Types III, IV, and V as defined in the Uniform Building Code, provided the exterior stairs are constructed of wood not less than 2-inch nominal thickness. 8ubd. 3. Corridors. In multiple dwelling occupancies serving as a exit for an occupant load of 30 or more as determined by the Uniform Fire Code, walls and ceilings shall be of not less than one-hour fire resistive construction, existing walls surfaced with wood lath and plaster in good condition or 1/2 inch gypsum wallboard or opening with fixed wire glass set in steel frames are permitted for corridor wall and ceiling and occupancy separations when approved by administrative authority. a® Openings. Corridor walls, shall be protected by a tight- fitting smoke and draft-control assembly having a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested in accordance with their listing. The door and frame shall bear an approved label or other identification showing the rating thereof, the name of the manufacturer and the identification of the service conducting the inspection of materials and workmanship at the factory during fabrication and assembly. Doors shall be maintained self-closing or shall be automatic closing by actuation of a smoke detector in accordance with their listing. In lieu of a 20 minute fire assembly, a solid wood 1-3/4 inch thick door may be used at door openings if the building predated the Minnesota State. Building Code of 1972. Where the existing frame will not accommodate the 1-3/4 inch thick door, a 1-3/8 inch thick solid bonded wood core door or equivalent insulated door shall be permitted. Smoke and draft-control door assemblies shall be provided with a gasket so installed as to provide a seal where the door meets the stop on both sides and across the top. EXCEPTIONS. 1) Viewports may be installed if they require a hole not larger than i inch in diameter through the door, have at least a 1/4 inch thick glass disc and the holder is of metal which will not melt out when subject to temperatures of 1700 degrees F. 2) Protection of openings in the interior walls of exterior exit balconies is not required. bo openings Other Than Doors. Interior openings for other than doors or ducts shall be protected by fixed, approved 1/4 inch thick wired glass installed in steel frames. The total area of all openings, other than doors, in any portion of an interior corridor shall not exceed 25 percent of the area of the corridor wall of the room which it is separating from the corridor or shall be covered with a minimum of 3/4 inch plywood or 1/2 inch gypsum wallboard of equivalent material on the room side. Su~d. 4. Fire Escapes. Existing fire escapes which in the opinion of the building official comply with the intent of this section may be used as one of the required exits. The location and anchorage of fire escapes shall be of approved design and construction. Fire escapes shall comply with the following: a. Access from a corridor shall not be through an intervening room. Ail openings within 10 feet shall be protected by three- fourths-hour fire assemblies. When located within a recess or vestibule, adjacent enclosure walls shall be of not less than one-hour fire-resistive construction. Egress from the building shall be by a clear opening having a minimum dimension of not less than 29 inches. Such openings shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. The sill of an opening giving access shall be not more than 30 inches above the floor of the building or balcony. Fire escape stairways and balconies shall support the dead load plus a live load of not less than 100 pounds per square foot and shall be provided with a top and intermediate handrail on each side. The pitch of the stairway shall not exceed 60 degrees with a minimum width of 18 inches. Treads shall be not less than 4 inches in width and rise between treads shall not exceed 10 inches. All stair and balcony railings shall support a horizontal force of not less that 50 pounds per lineal foot of railing. Balconies shall be not less than 44 inches in width with no floor opening other than the stairway opening greater than 5/8 inch in width. Stairway openings in such balconies shall be not less than 22 inches by 44 inches. The balustrade of each balcony shall be not less than 36 inches high with not more than 9 inches between balusters. Fire escapes shall extend to the roof or provide an approved gooseneck ladder between the top floor landing and the roof when serving buildings four or more stories in height having roofs with less than 4:12 slope. Fire escape ladders shall be designed and connected to the building to withstand a horizontal force of 100 pounds per lineal foot; each rung shall support a concentrated load of 500 pounds placed anywhere on the rung. Ail ladders shall be at least 15 inches wide, located within 12 inches of the building and shall be placed flatwise relative to the face of the building. Ladder rungs shall be 3/4 inch in diameter and shall be located 12 inches on center. Openings for roof access ladders through cornices and similar projections shall have minimum dimensions of 30 inches by 33 inches. ge The lowest balcony shall be not more than 18 feet from the ground. Fire escapes shall extend to the ground or be provided with counterbalanced stairs reaching to the ground. h. Fire escapes shall not take the place of stairways required by the codes under which the building was constructed. Fire escapes shall be kept clear and unobstructed at all times and maintained in good working order. Subd. 5. Exit and Fire Escape Signs. Exit signs shall be provided as required by this Code. EXCEPTION: The use of existing exit signs may be continued when approved by the building official. Ail doors or windows providing access to a fire escape shall be provided with fire escape signs. Subd. $. Maintenance of fire alarm systems, exit signs, emergency lighting, fire extinguishers and all fire related equipment and installations shall be installed and maintained as provided in City Code Section 235. Subd. 7. Fire Alarms. A manual and automatic approved fire alarm system shall be installed in apartment houses that are three or more stories in height or contain more than 15 dwelling units. EXCEPTIONS: A fire alarm system need not be installed in buildings not over two stories in height when all individual dwelling units and contiguous attic and crawl spaces are separated from each other and from public or common areas by at least one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separations and each individual dwelling unit or guest room has an exit direct to a public way, exit court or yard, exterior stairway or exterior exit balcony. A separate fire alarm system need not be installed in buildings which are protected throughout by an approved supervised fire sprinkler system installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard No. 36-1 and having a local alarm to notify all occupants. For the purposes of this section, area separation walls as defined in the 1988 Building Code shall not define separate buildings. Subd. 8. Smoke Detectors. General. Dwelling units that are used for sleeping purposes shall be provided with smoke detectors. Detectors shall be installed in accordance with the approved manufacturer's instructions. Location Within Dwelling Units. Detectors shall be mounted on the ceiling or wall at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. When the dwelling unit has more than one story and in dwellings with basements, a detector shall be installed on each story and in the basement. In dwelling units where a story or basement is split into two levels, the smoke detector shall be installed on the upper level, except that when the lower level contains a sleeping area, a detector shall be installed on each level. When sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector shall be placed at the ceiling of the upper level in close proximity to the stairway. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the dwelling unit in which they are located. Co Power Source. In every multiple dwelling, required smoke detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring. Wiring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than those required for over-current protection. Smoke detectors may be battery operated when installed in two rental units or less unless additions, alterations or repairs are made which would be regulated by the Minnesota State Building Code. Section 319:60. Maximum Density, Minimum Space, For Rental Units. No person shall permit or let to be occupied any rental dwelling for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: Subd. 1. Permissible Occupancy of Dwelllnq Unit. The Maximum permissible occupancy of any rental dwelling unit shall be determined as follows: ae For the first occupant, 150 square feet of habitable room floor space and for every additional occupant thereof, at least 100 square feet of habitable room floor space. be In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed two times the number of habitable rooms, less kitchen, in the dwelling unit. Subd. Z. One Family Per Dwellinq Unit. Not more than one family except for temporary guests, shall occupy a dwelling unit. Section 319:65. Enforcement and Inspection Authority. The City Manager and his/her designated agents shall be the Compliance Official who shall administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance when reason exists to believe that a violation of this ordinance has been or is being committed. Inspections shall be conducted during reasonable hours and the Compliance Official shall present evidence of his/her official capacity to the owner or occupant in charge of a dwelling unit. Section 319:70. Inspection Access. The Compliance Official shall make a reasonable attempt to contact the Occupant and the Owner to arrange inspections. If any owner, occupant, or other person in charge of the dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or of a multiple dwelling fails or refuses to permit free access and entry to the structure or premises under his/her control, or any part thereof, with respect to which an inspection authorized by this ordinance is sought to be made, the Compliance Official may, upon a showing that probable cause exists for the inspection and for the issuance of an order directing compliance with the inspection requirements of this section with respect to such dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or multiple dwelling, petition and obtain such order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 319:75. Unfit for Human Habitation. Sub4. 1. Any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof which is damaged, decayed, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin or rodent infested or which lacks provision for basic illumination, ventilation or sanitary facilities to the extent that the defects create a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or of the public may be declared unfit for human habitation. Whenever any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit has been declared unfit for human habitation, the Compliance Official shall order same vacated within a reasonable time and shall post a placard on same indicating that it is unfit for human habitation, and any operating license previously issued for such dwelling shall be revoked pursuant to law. Subd. 2. It shall be unlawful for such dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof to be used for human habitation until the defective conditions have been corrected and written approval has been issued by the Compliance official. It shall be unlawful for any person to deface or remove the declaration placard from any such dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit. Section 319:80. Secure Unfit and Vacated Dwellinqs. The owner of any dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit which has been declared unfit for human habitation or which is otherwise vacant for a period of 60 days or more shall make the same safe and secure so that it is not hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of the public. The materials used to secure the building shall be painted a color which is consistent with the exterior color of the structure and does not constitute a public nuisance. Any vacant dwelling open at doors, windows, or wall opening, if unguarded, shall be deemed to be a hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public and a public nuisance within the meaning of this ordinance. Section 319:85. Hazardous Buildinq Declaration. In the event that dwelling has been declared unfit for human habitation and the owner has not remedied the defects within a prescribed reasonable time, the dwelling may be declared a hazardous building and may be removed, razed or corrected pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 to 463.261. Section 319=90. Compliance Order. Whenever the Compliance official determines that any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof is in violation of this or any other ordinance, he/she may issue a Compliance Order setting forth the violations of the ordinance and ordering the owner, occupant, operator or agent to correct such violations. This Compliance Order shall: Subd. 1. Be in writing. Subd. Z. Describe the location and nature of the violations of this ordinance. Subd. 3. Establish a reasonable time for the correction of such violation and notify the owner of his/her appeal recourse. Subd. 4. Be served upon the owner or his/her agent or the occupant, as the case may require. Such notice shall be deemed to be properly served upon such owner or agent, or upon any such occupant, if a copy thereof is: a. Served upon him/her personally; or be Sent by certified mail to his/her last known address; or Upon failure to effect notice through (1) or (2) as set out in this section, service may be made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 463.17, Subd. 2, which reads as follows: "Service. The order shall be served upon the owner of record, or the owner's agent if an agent is in charge of the building or property, and upon the occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien holders of record, in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot be found, the order shall be served upon the owner by posting it at the main entrance to the building or, if there is no building, in a conspicuous place on the property and by four weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the municipality." Subd. 5. Every compliance order shall be posted on the structure and noted on the structure. Section 319:95. Riqht of Appeal. When it is alleged by any person to whom a Compliance Order is directed that such Compliance Order is based upon erroneous interpretation of this ordinance, or upon a misstatement or mistake of fact, such person may appeal the Compliance Order to a Board of Appeals and Adjustments as established by Section 23.502 of the City Code. The Planning Commission as an advisory body shall forward their recommendation to the City Council as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments in the manner set forth in Section 23.502. Such appeals must be in writing, must specify the grounds for the appeal, must be accompanied by a filing fee as designated by the City Council in cash or cashier's check, and must be filed with the Compliance Official within five (5) business days after service of the Compliance Order. The filing of an appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless such a stay would cause imminent peril to life, health or property. Section 319:100. Board of Appeal,s Decision. Upon at least five (5) business days' notice to the appellant of the time and place for hearing the appeal and within 30 days after said appeal is filed, the Board of Appeals shall hold a hearing thereon. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council as the Board of Appeals that the order be reversed, modified or affirmed in whole or in part. Section 319:105. Restrictions on Transfer of Ownership. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit upon whom a pending compliance order has been served to sell, transfer, mortgage or lease or otherwise dispose thereof to another person until the provisions of the compliance order have been complied with, unless such owner shall furnish to the grantee, lessee or mortgagee a true copy of any notice of violation or compliance order and shall obtain and possess a receipt of acknowledgement. Anyone securing an interest in the dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit who has received notice of the existence of a Compliance Order shall be bound by same without further service of notice upon him/her and shall be liable to all penalties and procedures provided by this ordinance. Section 319~110. Penalties. Any person who fails to comply with a Compliance Order after a right of appeal has expired, and any person who fails to comply with a modified Compliance Order within the time set therein, upon conviction therefor, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day of such failure to comply shall constitute a separate punishable offense. Section 319:115. Execution of Compliance Orders by Public ~. Upon failure to comply with a compliance order withi,, the time set therein, and no appeal having been taken, or upon failure to comply with a modified Compliance Order within the time set therein, the criminal penalty established hereunder notwithstanding, the City Council after due notice to the owner may by resolution cause the cited deficiency to be remedied as set forth in the Compliance Order. The cost of such remedy shall be a lien against the subject real estate and may be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 and Section 370 of the City Code, for any of the reasons set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101, Subd. 1, and specifically for the removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, but the assessment shall be payable in a single installment. It is the intent of this section to authorize the City to utilize all the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101 and Section 370 of the City Code to promote the public's health, safety and general welfare. Section 319:120. Severabilit¥ Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO A "SCENIC EASEMENT" TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF "CLIFF CLIMBER" AT LOT 5, BLOCK 1, COBBLESTONE COVE (2950 HIGHLAND COURT) PID #23-117-24 41 0031 PaS CASE NUMBER 92-029 WHEREAS, the applicant, Access Mobility Systems, has requested approval to install a mechanical lift known as a "Cliff Climber" within a designated Scenic Easement at 2950 Highland Court; and WHEREAS, the subject Scenic Easement was approved for the Cobblestone Cove subdivision by Resolution 86-156 and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute said easement. The Scenic Easement was granted and accepted subject to the following terms and conditions: ae The easement area shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be planted upon the easement area, and no trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be removed from the easement area without the prior written consent of City. Be No building, road, sign, billboard, utility or other man- made structure shall be placed in the easement area without the prior written consent of City. Ce Grantor assumes the obligation of maintaining the easement area, subject to the provisions hereof. De No trash, waste or other offensive material, soil or landfill shall be placed upon or within the easement area without the prior written consent of the City. Ee No change in the general topography of the easement area landscape, including but not limited to excavation, dredging, movement or removal of soil, shall be made without the prior written consent of the City, except that construction of stairs, 48" in width maximum will be permitted. F. The duration of the Scenic Easement is perpetual. WHEREAS, a 48" wide stairway currently exists within the Scenic Easement on this property, the Cliff Climber is proposed to be in addition to the existing stairway; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with 6 in favor and 3 opposed. /e?/ PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-029 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a variance to the Scenic Easement approved by Resolution #86-156 for Cobblestone Cove ~ allow the construction of a "Cliff climber.~-~-J MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June S, 1992 CASE #92-029: ~ILLIAMMACLACHLANFOR ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMSm 295. HIGHLAND COURT, REOUEST TO INSTALL A "CLIFF CLIMBER" WITHIN ~ SCENIC EASEMENT. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request to install a "Cliff Climber" within a designated Scenic Easement. The Scenic Easement was approved with Resolution #86-156-for the Cobblestone Cove subdivision and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute said easement. The Scenic Easement allows stairways up to a maximum of 48 inches in width, it does not specifically restrict mechanical stairways. There is an existing stairway on this property, the subject lift would be in addition to the existing stairway. Staff recommended that if the request is approved, the structure be properly engineered and that all required permits be obtained, including a state electrical permit and a building permit to ensure compliance with any conditions of Council approval. A special inspection would be required by the Building Official to be completed by the responsible engineer who would report to the Building Official. The applicant, Mr. MacLachlan illustrated the Cliff Climber system and stated that the car is only 3 feet wide and it will be located 12 inches from the existing stairway. He has discussed this issue with the neighbors in the Cobblestone Cove subdivision and none of them objected to the installation. Very little clearing of vegetation will be required. The color scheme for the unit has been approved by the DNR. The system can be used year-round, and ] in 95% of the cases a standard stairway is also on site. The intent of the Scenic Easement was discussed by the Commission. NOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the request for a Cliff Climber as recommended by staff. Voss commented that he feels the lift is still in compliance with the intent of the Scenic Easement. The lift is not destructive to nature and has a low impact on the shoreline. Weiland commented that the lift will not allow tree growth, only low vegetation. Notion carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were: Meyer, Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson and Voss. Those opposed were Jensen, Weiland, and Mueller. Weiland commented that he feels the lift is not in compliance with items 2.a. and e. of the Scenic Easement. Mueller commented that it creates a double wide width from the original width allowed, he would prefer to have the lift over the stairway, but not both. Weiland agreed with Mueller. Jensen commented that if this lift is allowed, there will be five more to follow. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-029 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby approve a variance to the Scenic Easement approved by Resolution #86-156 for Cobblestone Cove to allow the construction of a "Cliff climber." MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June S, 1992 ~ASE ~92-029: WILLIAMMACLACHLANFOR ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMSa 295,] ~IGHLAND COURT, REOUEST TO INSTALL A "CLIFF CLIMBER" WITHIN SCENIC EASEMENT. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request to install a "Cliff Climber,, within a designated Scenic Easement. The Scenic Easement.was approved with Resolution #86-156 for the Cobblestone Cove subdivision and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute said easement. The Scenic Easement allows stairways up to a maximum of 48 inches in width, it does not specifically restrict mechanical stairways. There is an existing stairway on this property, the subject lift would be in addition to the existing stairway. Staff recommended that if the request is approved, the structure be properly engineered and that all required permits be obtained, including a state electrical permit and a building permit to ensure compliance with any conditions of Council approval. A special inspection would be required by the Building Official to be completed by the responsible engineer who would report to the Building Official. The applicant, Mr. MacLachlan illustrated the Cliff Climber system and stated that the car is only 3 feet wide and it will be located 12 inches from the existing stairway. He has discussed this issue with the neighbors in the Cobblestone Cove subdivision and none of them objected to the installation. Very little clearing of vegetation will be required. The color scheme for the unit has been approved by the DNR. The system can be used year-round, and ] in 95% of the cases a standard stairway is also on site. The intent of the Scenic Easement was discussed by the Commission. MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the request for a Cliff Climber as recommended by staff. Voss commented that he feels the lift is still in compliance with the intent of the Scenic Easement. The lift is not destructive to nature and has a low impact on the shoreline. Weiland commented that the lift will not allow tree growth, only low vegetation. Motion carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were= Meyer, Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson and ross. Those opposed were Jensen, Weiland, and Mueller. Weiland commented that he feels the lift is not in compliance with items 2.a. and e. of the Scenic Easement. Mueller commented that it creates a double wide width from the original width allowed, he would prefer to have the lift over the stairway, but not both. Weiland agreed with Mueller. Jensen commented that if this lift is allowed, there will be five more to follow. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMS (612) 445-6822 1240 E. Third Ave. Suite 7 FAX (612) 445-0837 ~akopee, MN 55379 MN (800) 282-2015 June 5, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am the home owner at 29~0 Highland Court, Mound, MN. and I give my approval as a neighbor to Larry Paste 2950 Highland Court, Mound, MN. to install a lake shore lift system adjacent to his stairs. Sincerely, Res!den% 2~(~ Highland Court Mound, MN. 55364 ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMS 1240 E. Third Ave. Suite 7 Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445-6822 FAX (612) 445-0837 MN (800) 282-2015 June 5, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am the home owner at 2910 Highland Court, Mound, MN. and I give my approval as a neighbor to Larry Paste 2950 Highland Court, Mound, MN. to install a lake shore lift system adjacent to his stairs. Sincerely, Resident ~ Highland Court Mound, MN. 55364 ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMS 1240 E. Third Ave. Suite 7 ~hakopee, MN 55379 HOME OF THE "CLIFF CLIMBER" (612) 445-6822 FAX (612) 445-0837 MN (800) 282-2015 June 5, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am the home owner at 240 Highland Court, Mound, MN. and I give my approval as a neighbor to Larry Paste 2950 Highland Court, Mound, MN. to install a lake shore lift system adjacent to his stairs. Sincerely, Resident 2960 Highland Court Mound, MN. 55364 CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD M©~ND. MINNESOTA 55364 {612~472-1!55 FAX ~612:472-0620 DATE: June 4, 1992 TO: FROM; Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~~ SUBJECT: Request to install a "Cliff Climber" within a designated Scenic Easement APPLICANT: William N. MacLachlan, Access Mobility Systems CASE NO. 92-029 LOCATION: 2950 Highland Court Lot 5, Block 1, Cobblestone Cove ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking approval from the City to install a lakeshore lift as detailed in the attached information. The subject area is governed by a Scenic Easement for conservation and preservation of the terrain and vegetation is to be kept in a natural state. Other restrictions are noted in the attached Scenic Easement (Exhibit A to Resolution #86-156). Item #E in the Scenic Easement allows stairways up to a maximum of 48 inches in width, it does not specifically restrict mechanical stairways. The subject lift would be in addition to the existing stairways as the applicant does not propose to remove it. RECOMMENDATION Staff's major concern, if the Council were to approve the request, is that the structure be properly engineered and that all required permits are obtained, including a State Electrical Permit and a Building Permit to ensure compliance with any conditions of City Council approval. A special inspection would be required by the Building Official to be completed by the engineer responsible who would report to the Building Official. JS:pj printed on recycled paper ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMS HOME OF THE "CLIFF CLIMBER',~ 1240 E. Third Ave. Suite 7 Shakopee, MN 55379 Note a fax was sent 5/19/92 this is confirmation only May 19, 1992 (612) 445-6822 FAX (612) 445-0837 MN (800) 282-2015 RECEIVED HAY ? O [992 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 To whom it may concern: Larry Paste, home owner, living at 2950 Highland Court, Mound, MN. and Access Mobility Systems, Inc. wish to be included on the agenda for your ~ meeting on Monday, June 8, 1992. The subject will be scenic easement requirements to install a lakeshore access lift at the above address. Thank you. Sincerely, ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMS, INC. William N. MacLachlan WNM/jak 0 J ! / oo / ' f you love the setting of your home or cabin, elevated above the shoreline, but dread the · steep and dangerous path to and from the water, our CLIFF CLIMBER lift system is the answer. Comfort, .safety, reliability, and value make it the perfect addition to your property. All members of the family benefit from this people-friendly, electrically powered, all-rail system. Guests appreciate your thoughtfulness in providing easy access to the lake, river, or stream. Comfortable hardwood seating, hand and additional capacity for personal make it the smart way to "climb". And, it is the perfect answer for grandparents, small children or those who require handicap access to get to and from the dock to enjoy o boot ride, fishing, or swimming. CLIFF CLIMBER is the right choice. Designed and manufactured in Minnesota, "Home of 10,000 Lakes," your new investment will assure years ol~ restful fun at the lake, while adding to the value of your property. For more information, including a free estimate, simply complete and return the coupon provided on the bock page. For even quicker service, call us Toll-Free at 1-800-282-2015. Access Mobility Systems, Inc. Features CLIFF CLIMBER Includes complete installation by trained staff Seven separate braking systems* Custom models for 2 or 4 people Track system cemented in ground Direction controls at car Coil/Send controls at both top and bottom Optional storage basket or wheelchair platform 18 month limited warranty including three FREE mointonce checks - "Maintenance Agreement" required thereafter Up to 300 feet long depending on grade Capacity of up to 1000 lbs. Specifications Frame: 4" x 3" double channel steel Track system: 2' wide by 10' long track sections, welded at joints with 1" x 1" square tube rungs every 10'. 2" x 2" 16-gauge square tube anchor posts cemented in ground. Motor: 1-1/2 HP, 220V, 60 Hz Reducer: 50:1 Winch and 5/16" galvanized aircraft cable and drive systems · Car: 36" wide with treated redwood lumber Manufactured and Installed by Access Mobility Systems, Inc. 1240 East Third Avenue, Suite 7 Shokopee, MN 55379 Toll-Free in Minnesota: 800-282-2015 Out of state or locoh 612-445-6822 * Patent Pending Financing Available PRICING BASED ON: · Distance to shoreline · Type of seating · Type of soil & Terrain · Angle of incline · Shipping distance Please Call or Write For A Free Estimate YES, I need an estimate. Please call me at ~- home Name Address work City State ,Zip Telephone: Home ( ) Work ( ) Mail To: Access Mobility Systems, Inc. 1240 East Third Avenue, Suite 7 Shakopee, MN 55379 Toll-Free in Minnesota: 800-282-2015 Out of state or local: 612-445.6822 W.T. (Mac) McCalla, =E 6600 75' :-Avenue North, Brooklyn Park. MN (6f21560-7446 October 24, 1989 Mr. Larry Warden Access Mobility Systems 112 Lewis Street Shakopee, MN 55379 "C1 re: Footings, iff Climber" WTM Project No. 149 Dear Mr. Warden Per your request, I have reviewed the sheet dated 5/4/89 for the "Cliff Climber", for footing adequacy. For ease of construction, I recommend a round footing rather that rectangular so that a post hole digger or auger may be used. Use an eight(8) inch diameter by twelve (12) inch deep footing, reinforced with a cylinder formed from 6x6-10/10 welded wire fabric (mesh). This will reinforce the concrete against any lateral loads that may occur. The post should be embedded 6 inches in the concrete. The required strength of the concrete should be at least 3,500 psi at 28 days. The load of 1,100 pounds used gives a soil loading of 1,571. psf allowable required. This low requirement will allow the use of all but the poorest soil. At any rate, you must dig below the local frost level and until firm soil is reached. I have not checked any of the steel framing members for adequacy. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, W. T. McCalla, P. E. Struc',ural Consultant ?" ':': ~F · '"...::.' ! ;,;'~C'.':.. · :.:'," ' . 2000 & &O00 p.~- Cp.&~T) --~ntrm~nment o~ a£r on the order oX 2-6% vol. by the u.e oX an ~reeze-~hav cyc~ee. (p.&20! ~ (4 %%eel grei~lr) (p'.&2~) Thorn~on/Co~mnge~o. (L~3) Structure vet Xrequent~y · expoeed to Xreez%ng and th&v~ng (.ho~$d be lir-entrl%ned). -- ~, 248 October 2~, 19~6 RESOLDTION ~86-156 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SCENIC EASEMENT FOR COBBLESTONE COVE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ClT~ MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID EASEMENT BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the Scenic Easement (Exhibit A) as presented for Cobblestone Cove and hereby authorizes the Mayor and the City Manager to execute said easement· The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: no~e. Attest: City Clerk SCENIC EASEMENT RESOLUTION 86-156 EXHIBIT A THIS INDENTURE made this 28r_h day of October ------- , 1986 by and betweenDunkley Investments, a Minnesota Partnership comp- osed of William M. Dunkley and Byron J. Dunkley, owners, and ASHco Partners, a Minnesota Partnership composed of Hans G. Wald- enstrom and Orv£n B. Askeland, contract purchaser, and .Park Nat- ional Bank, a federally chartered Savings Bank, a United States of America Corporation, mortgagee of the following described pro- perty, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor,', and the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City." WHEREAS, Grantor is the fee owner of the real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as That part of Block 1 lying North of a iine 22.00 feet North and parallel with the North line of Block 2, and extending from the West line of Block 1 to the shore of Lake Minnetonka,"Minne_ sota Baptist Summer Assembly". WHEREAS, Grantor has platted said property into a subdivis- ion entitled COBBLESTONE COVE; and WHEREAS, Grantor and City wish to enter into an agreement which will grant to City a scenic easement for conservation and preservation of the terrain and vegetation, and to prohibit cer- tain acts destructive thereof, over a portion of the plat legally described as: That part of Lots 1-6, Block l, Cobblestone Cove, lying East- erIy of a::line.t~5~OO;feet.::eas, t_~.o~, .me.a. suced,,~a..t, sa.lr~ght.angle to and parallel with the westerly line of said Cobblestone Cove. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises contained herein, it is agreed by the parties as follows: RESOLUTION 86-156 EXHIBIT A 1. Grantor hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys to City and its successors and assigns an easement in, under on and over the easement area, hereinafter referred to as the "Scenic Easement,." and City hereby.accepts the Scenic Easement. 2. The Scenic Easement is granted and accepted subject to the following terms and conditions: A. The easement area shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be planted upon the easement area, and no trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be removed from the easement area without the prior written consent of City. B. No building, road, sign, billboard, utility or other man-made structure shall be placed in the easement area without the prior written consent of City. C. Grantor assumes the obligation of maintaining the easement area, subject to the provisions hereof. D. No trash, waste or other offensive material, soil or landfill shall be placed upon or within the easement area without the prior written consent of the City. E. No change in the general topo.graphy of the easement area landscape, including but not limited to excavation, dredging, movement or -2- RESOLUTION 86-156 EXHIBIT A me remova! of soil, shall be made without the prior written consent of the City, except that construction of stairs, 48" in width maximum wil! be permitted. The duration of the Scenic Easement is perpetoal. 3. This agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the-parties, their successors and assigns. 4. Nothing contained herein shall impair any right of City now held or hereafter acquired to construct or maintain public utilities in or on the ease- ment area. Its City Manager PARK N~ONAL BANK By _q- RESOLUTION 86-156 EXHIBIT A STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ~ The foregoing.in~'trument was acknowled~led before me this L(~ day .of /~//~ / , 198~~', by ~bli-O~l [~}Kl~/~l and I~]; ~1 i~tl~ T'~J~q~-~'rcl , respectiv~ly-lthe Z/~O~Y~Jr~qb-~-- and-~r-~rl~t~-- ' ' Jof Dunkley Investments~ ..."'] , a part- nership, on behalf of the partnership. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~'i~ cl. ay of ~-~-~Yx~ , 196~, by ~/,~_~ and ~/ ~.4~4.~%b, (\ , respectively the and ?£~%x~C~ of-ASHco Partners, a partnership, on behalf of the partnership. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) this and and The for~egoi ng,, ~lay of . Not ry. Publi~, '""".. "Z:.-~a.~"~. I,.~..~,: ~. ..-'~ .: .~, :,..i_ i n strumei~.t_~[9.ZT~s~l~z!.oj~[e~Lg.e(kJ~efore me , respective~l¥ the~. //-P. of Park National Bank,a corporation, on behalf of the corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing this . 2.8t, hday of October and Edward Shukle '0 t~/r y P instrument was ackn~~ , ]986, by Robert Polston , respectively the Mayor and City Manager of City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. -4- CONSENT The undersigned hereby consent to the Scenic Easen~nt to which this Consent is attached, and hereby join in and agree that their interest in the land covered by said Scenic Easement is subject to the easenmnts, restrictions, covenants and conditions set forth therein. New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. Its Chief Executive Off~' Michael G. Roy __- J~ Dianne R. Roy ~ John 'J. Shackleford Paula S. Messer GOrdon A. Jensen, Jr. foregoing instrument was acknowledged before mm this/~ day of ~_~.~.~. , 1988, by William L. Dtmkley, the Chief Executive Officer of New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. , a/~/tion ~,/der the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of t~ratio~/," _ ~e fore/oing instrument was acknowledged b~e~ me this '~ day erilyn Turner, husband and wffe. COUNTY OF HSX~EP~ The foregoing instrummnt was acknowledged before nm this ~ day of ~..~ ~.A~ , 1988, by Michael G. Roy and Dianne R. Roy, husband STATE OF ~ COUNTY OF HEblNEPIN The foregoing instrtmmnt was acknowledged before mm this of , and wife. day 1988, by John J. Shackleford and Paula S. Mmsser, husband STATE OF MINNESOS~ COUNTY OF HENNEPLN The foregoing instrummnt was acknowledged before mm this of , 1988, by Gordon A. Jensen, Jr., single. day The foregoing instrument was drafted by: Thomas F. Underwood 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, ~q 55402 CONSENT The undersigned, being the fee owner of the real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Cobblestone Cove, hereby joins in the Scenic Easement to which this Consent is attached and agrees that, effective 'this . ?%ay of February, 1989, the above described property shall be subject to the easements, restrictions, covenants and conditions as set forth in said Scenic Easement. G~ don A. Jensen State of Minnesota) ) ss County of Hennepin) he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of February, 1989, by Gordon A. Jensen, Jr. a single person. t ~, EVER~T JU~'- ~ I~ HENNEPIN COb~ ,'Y ~ ~ My ~ml~lon ~p June ~ 1~ C.~) ', (6) (:Z) (ge) (to3) $ (3~) RI) (8)" :,-~, 4 !,,.7 ('-~0) ,,., (~) ? ~ (I'- '. RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (~701 BAYWOOD LANE) PID #~3-~7-24 2~ 0087 P&Z CASE ~ER 92-0Z9 WHEREAS, the applicants, George and Cheryl Fougeron, have applied for a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an expansion to the existing non-conforming deck; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to Baywood Lane, a 20 foot front yard setback to Three Points Blvd., and a 50 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water elevation; and WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the requested variance and recommended approval with 6 in favor and 3 opposed. Approval was recommended based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an extension to an existing nonconforming deck at 1701 Baywood Lane, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to building permit issuance. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-019 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 6' x 24' deck extension onto an existing 6' x 47'8" deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. PID #13-117- 24 21 0087. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (i). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A HEETING OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLAI~NING COMMISSION June 8, 1992 CASE ~92-019: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES~ PID ~13-117-24 21 0087, VARIANCE - deck extension~ Building Official., Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 6 foot lake side setback variance for a deck. Staff recommended approval of the variance request based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. The Commission confirmed that the existing deck is nonconforming. Jensen commented that she feels there could be hardship due to the shape of the lot. Mueller remarked that their is room towards the north property, line towards Three Points Blvd. to expand the deck and have it conform to setback requirements. The applicant expressed a need for the deck in the location proposed. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Michael to recommend denial the request for a variance to extend the existing deck. Motion failed 3 to 6. Those in favor were: Mueller, Weiland and Michael. Those opposed were~ Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Meyer, Voss and Jensen. Mueller commented that the home was built in 1983 and unfortunately the builder did not plan for a deck, he does not feel this creates a hardship. Clapsaddle remarked that tighter control is needed on site plans, and now the homeowner is stuck because of poor planning by the builder, it is only fair to allow the deck. Jensen questioned if there is any interest in updating the survey, she is concerned because the survey reflects a "proposed" house rather than an "existing" house, and it would be nice to know exactly where things are located. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance to allow the deck extension as recommended by staff, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Motion carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Meyer, Voss and Jensen. Those opposed were Mueller, Weiland and Michael. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534~ MAYWO:2 ROAD MOUND MINNESO-z 55364.'687 ~6!2~4-2 FAX,612 ~-£ ?E2C DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: June 4, 1992 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official Variance Request APPLICANT: George & Cheryl Fougeron CASE NO. 92-019 LOCATION: ZONING: 1701 Baywood Lane Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGR___~OUND The applicants are seeking a variance of 6 feet to the required 50 foot lakeshore setback. The property and all other setbacks are currently conforming. The applicant has stated that the existing deck is not practical as there is not enough room for a table and' chairs. Alternate locations for a conforming deck expansion do not appear desirable or reasonable due to the location on the lot. RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of the variances request based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 23, 1992. JS:pj printed on recycled paper revised 4/2/92 .,VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OP MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 5S364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: _ '~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~. Z--0 1fl Address of Subject Property. /70 ~ ~/%~z~J Owner,s Name ~¢om~ , C~{~ / ~-~ z/~ Day Phone Owner,s Address /70~ ~Av~oo~ ~A~ Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) ~ ~ Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot~_~ Block V use If and Zoning District_~- Use of Property: ~' Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application ~e 2 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: Rear Yard: .~q~4Lake Front: -Side Yard: Side Yard: Lot Size: s .40 ft. S ft. o ft. (~S E~) ~ ~ ft. ~ ft. O ft. ( N ~ E~) ~O ft. , ,-, , ft. ~ ft. ( ~ E W ) ;O ft. ~ ft. O ft. (~S E W ) ~ ft. ~0 ~ ft. O ft. sq ft ~O .JO~ sq ft O sq ft ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~(~-), No (~If ,o, specify each non-conforming use: To ~e~r o Oo~ ~o ~ Be Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: ~ ~l~] ~'~ ~k J~,_r ~ ~ ~/u~o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain · rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case e 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 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. &PPlicant's Signature · - RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND LEVEL FOUR SEASON PORCH AND A FIRST LEVEL BASEMENT ON PART OF LOTS 75, 76 AND LOT B, THE FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK - 1ST DIVISION AND ALL OF LOT 4 AND PART OF LOT 3 AND THE PRIVATE STREET IN PHELPS ISLAND PARK - 1ST DIVISION, PID #19-117-23 13 0007 (4345 WILSHIRE BLVD) P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-020 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to replace an existing screened porch with a second story four season porch and a first story basement; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2, Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code requires a 40 foot lot width and a 6 foot side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the subject property has a 20 foot lot width and a side yard setback of 5.9 feet resulting in a 20 foot lot width variance and a .1 foot side yard setback variance; and WHEREAS, it was originally the applicant's intent to also construct a deck on the north side of the proposed porch which would have required an additional 4' lakeshore variance, however, at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant withdrew the request for the deck variance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has unanimously recommended approval of the lot width and side yard setback variances. In rendering its opinion, the Planning Commission adopted the following Finding of Fact: In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from the shape of the existing lot over which the present owner of the property has no control. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the 20 foot lot width variance and .1 foot side yard setback variance to allow construction of a conforming two level o o addition housing a four season porch and basement at 4345 Wilshire Boulevard. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 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 two level addition including a four season porch and basement. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lots 75, 76 and Lot B in "The First Rearrangement of Phelps Island Park - 1st Div." and all of Lot 4 and that part of Lot 3 and the private street in "Phelps Island Park First Division" ... PID #19-117-23 13 0007. 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 PL~dTNXNG COI~.IXSSION June 8,, 1992 CASE ~92-020: DAVID JOHNSON, 4345 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 3, 4, P/75, 76 & B~ PHELPS ISLAND PARK, PID #19-117-23 13 0007. VARIANC~ - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to replace an existing screened porch with a new second level four season porch with a basement underneath. The new porch conforms to all setback requirements. A proposed 4 foot wide deck results in 4 foot lake side setback variance request. Two existing nonconforming setbacks are also being requested to be recognized to allow the addition, they include a street frontage/lot width variance of 20 feet and a side yard setback variance of .1 feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the street frontage/lot width and side yard variances to permit construction of a conforming four season porch. It is further recommended that the four foot variance for the proposed deck be denied based on lack of hardship or practical difficulty. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be included pertaining to the street frontage/lot area and side yard variances: In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from the shape of the existing lot over which the resent owner of the property had no control. The applicant commented that he does not have a problem with eliminating the 4 foot deck addition from his request. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: David L. Johnson CASE NUMBER: 92-020 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-30a LOCATION: 4345 Wilshire Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to replace an existing screened porch with a new, second level four season porch with a basement underneath. The new porch conforms to all setback requirements since it observes a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water line of Lake Minnetonka. The plan also calls for a four foot wide deck to be attached to the porch. The deck will encroach into the required setback area resulting in the requested variance. Additionally, the existing property has two nonconforming setbacks unrelated to the proposed improvements. 7401 Metro Blvd..Suite 340. Minneapolis, MN 55439. (612)835-9960 Johnson Variance June 1, 1992 Page 2 The variances involved in this case include the following: Proposed/ Existing Required Variance Street Frontage/ Lot Width 2 0' 4 0' 2 0' Side Yard (SW) 5.9' 6' Lakeshore 46' 50' 4' COMMENT: In general, variances are reviewed in Mound on the basis of hardship and practical difficulty. Where feasible, these findings are used to allow reasonable use of property typically including items such as detached garages, decks and porches. In all variance cases, the Zoning Code specifically permits only the minimum encroachment necessary to facilitate reasonable use. It is difficult to find "hardship" or practical difficulty in this case pertaining to the proposed deck. The applicant presently has a deck which can be expanded within the normal building envelope. The conforming expanded deck will allow placement of a door along the southwest side of the porch and windows along the lake side. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the street frontage/lot width and side yard variances to permit construction of a conforming four season porch. It is further recommended that the four foot variance for the proposed deck be denied based on lack of hardship or practical difficulty. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be included pertaining to the street frontage/lot area and side yard variances: In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from the shape of the existing lot over which the present owner of the property had no control. rev£sed 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CZTY OF HOUND 5341 Hay~oo5 Road, NounS, )tN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:~_~. City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. Site visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please t~pe or print the following information: Address of Subject Property F-~h ~//'/T~' ~- ~/~d. Own e r' s N am e O~//J ~. J~ ~_~s ~ A/ D a y P h o n e ~ ~u -- ~y6~ ~ Owner's Address pplicant's ddress Name (if other than owner) Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: - / - j Zoning District? ~ Use of Property: /~ , Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):~ n ~-~Lu w~ .~_~.//~ ~.'~ ~ rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. 9~--O2-O ® Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: ~Street Frontage ® required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. - ft. ft. ~A ft. ~ -- ft. ft. ' ft. - ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. - ~7~..~_ ft. / 7-6~_ 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: · e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (w~ too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small () too shallow I Idrainage shape Please describe:~~ ~ /O /~. ( ) soil ( ) existing ( ) other: specify Se Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in ~he land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain rev£8ed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any ot~er man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No(&~. If yes, explain such as the 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~. If 11o, 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 by law. / CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DAVID L. JOHNSON IN PHELPS ISLAND PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA X, RECEIVED ~,P~ 2 3 UOUN0 PU~N~ & A.gp~florJ .Z~5 ~.F~ Ir, F..AC,, ELE'VATIOI',I ~cAt..c y,~':F-o" RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ON PART OF LOT 6, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S GLEN ARBOR, PID # 13-117-24 42 0013 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-023 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to reconstruct a home that was totally destroyed by fire; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2, Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code requires a lot width of 40 feet and a front yard setback of 20 feet; and WHEREAS, the existing lot has a width of 38 feet and the property contains a detached garage with a 2 foot front yard setback resulting in a lot width variance of 2 feet and a front yard setback variance of 18 feet; and WHEREAS, the applicant originally requested a 1.9 foot side yard variance for construction of the home but subsequently withdrew the request electing to position the new home with conforming side yard setbacks; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the lot width variance and further recommended that the garage be removed from the site or moved to a conforming location within two years of the City Council's adoption of this resolution. The Planning Commission also adopted the following Finding of Fact: In approving the lot width variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance results from the shape and width of the lot over which the property owner had no control. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: o The City does hereby approve the 2 foot lot width variance to allow reconstruction of the home subject to the removal or relocation to a conforming location, of the existing nonconforming detached garage within two years of the adoption of this resolution by the Mound City Council. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express J?/? o understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 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: Reconstruction of the principal residential structure. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Part of Lot 6, Skarp and Lindquist's Glen Arbor. PID #13-117-24 42 0013. 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 ~ MEETING OF THE MOUND ~DV~SORY PL~INING COHHISSION June 8~ ~992 ~ VI~20 EDGEWATER DRIVE LOTS $ & 7 S&L GLEN ARBOR PID 13-117-24 42 0013. VARIANCE - reconstruct City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request to rebuild a home that was totally destroyed by fire. Koegler explained that since the application was submitted, the applicant has agreed to reconstruct the dwelling with conforming setbacks. However, two variances are still involved: an 18 foot front yard setback variance for the existing detached garage and a 2 foot lot width variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the lot width variance be approved in order to construct a new conforming home on the property. It is further recommended that the garage either be removed from the site or moved to a conforming location within two years of approval of the variance by the City Council. If the Planning Commission concurs with staff's recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: "In approving the lot width variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance results from the shape and width of the lot over which the property owner, had no control. The applicant commented that to construct an attached garage with a precast panel garage floor and suggested by the City Planner would be extremely expensive. Clapsaddle commented that this is the time to develop a plan for the site, he feels there are other alternatives available. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Michael, Hanus, Johnson, Mueller, ross, Weiland, and Jensen. Clapsaddle was opposed. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 3, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Virginia Miller CASE NUMBER: 92-023 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-30d LOCATION: 5020 Edgewater Drive EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances to rebuild a home that was totally destroyed by 'a fire. When the application was submitted, the request included a side yard variance to construct the new home in the same location as the fire damaged structure. Subsequent conversations with the owner have resulted in a modification of the request to place the new structure so that it has conforming side yard setbacks. In order to build the new home, however, two variances are still involved, one pertaining to lot width and the other pertaining to an existing nonconforming detached garage. The variances include the following: Lot Width Front Yard (Garage) Proposed/ Existing Required Variance 38' 40' 2' 2'+ 2 0' 18'+ 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 Miller Variance June 3, 1992 Page 2 COMMENT: The lot width variance is beyond the control of the owner of the property. The proposed house will comply with all required setbacks. The existing detached garage off of Edgewater Drive is approximately 2 feet from the property line. Due to the location of the garage, vehicles exiting the structure are unable to see approaching traffic. The situation is unsafe and needs to be addressed. Due to the width of the lot and the existing topography, it is difficult to place a detached garage on the site. The only realistic option for a garage involves building a two story structure with a precast panel garage floor that could be either attached to the home or remain detached. Such a proposal is not part of the applicant's plans at this time. In previous variance cases involving nonconforming accessory buildings, a two year amortization of the structure has been required. This approach would seem warranted in this case in order to alleviate the existing safety problem at the garage entrance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the lot width variance be approved in order to construct a new conforming home on the property. It is further recommended that the garage either be removed from the site or moved to a conforming location within two years of approval of the variance by the City Council. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: In approving the lot width variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance results from the shape and width of the lot over which the property owner had no control. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 4?2-0600, Fax: 4?2-0620 Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: il Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.q~"~__ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property 5020 Edqewater Drive, Mound, MN Owner's Name Virginia Miller Day Phone 540-5941 Owner's Address 1238 North Landmark Trail, Hopkins, MN Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Same LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6 & 7 Addition~¢L~l~ /3rfb¢K Day Phone Block -- PID No. 1311724420013 Zoning District R-2 Use of Property: Single Family Residential Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (X) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1991 by previous owner to remodel. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Rebuild house after fire. The structure two-story home, approx. 1,695 sq. ft. Ail of the original structure must be removed and rebuilt. revised 4/2/92 Variance Application 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.) The existinq structure will be taken down. SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N~E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: (~S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E~) Side Yard: ( N S~W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage e required requested VARIANCE (or existing) 20 ft. 58 ft. - ft. _15 ft. 15 ft. ft. ft. 84 ft. ft. 6 ft. 8,2 ft. ft. ·6 ft. 4.1 ft. 1.9 ft. 6~000 sq ft ..7,030 sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (X), No ( ). If no specifyeachnon-conforminguse: ' e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (X) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: The southeast corner of the house is set at 4.1 fe~t from the lot line. 5. 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 (9- If yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No 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 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? 8. Comments: SEE ATTACHED. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date HISTORY & INTENT FOR THE HOUSE AT 5020 EDGEWATER DRivE, MOUND, In late winter of 1991 I began to look for a small house on the lake. By spring, I had made an offer on the house at 5020 Edgewater Drive in Mound. I was taken by its charm and the view of the lake. The house was under renovations, which would allow me to have a part in deciding how the inside would look. This appealed to me as a designer. I was told by my realtor that the house was out of variance, but "all houses on the lake are" and not to worry about it. I then proceeded to work with the owner to complete the renovation in October of 1991. During that time, under our agreement, I selected and purchased many of the components of the renovation. The closing of the house took place on October 28, 1991. On the morning of November 14, 1991, about 1:00 a.m., I was called by the previous owner to tell me that m_ff house was burning. I was about 12 days away from moving in. Thus began a very stressful situation. Due to my inexperience in circumstances such as these, and an uncooperative insurance company, I have spent 6-1/2 months trying to find a financial way to rebuild my house. The purchase of the house and all entailing renovations used up all my available money. Besides having a large mortgage on the 5020 Edgewater Drive property, I also have a mortgage on my townhouse, on which I am still paying. I am presently living in the townhouse but cannot sell it due to the recent bad publicity of the waste dump adjacent to my property. I had planned to rent out my townhouse in order to make the mortgage payments for it. On Monday, June 18, 1991, my insurance company informed me that they had decided to settle and that they would be cutting off my living expenses by the end of June. In hopes that I could rebuild, I did have a set of plans drawn up that use the exact footprint of the original house. The only changes I made to the shape of the house are on the second floor. Due to the expense of dormer windows, the roofline is now straight and runs north and south, and the second floor now covers the whole house. To my knowledge, the plans I have submitted meet all interior codes. I ask you to allow me to begin the reconstruction on my house as soon as possible because, as of June 30, 1992, I will have to pay on two mortgages until the completion of the house. My physical health has suffered (I developed an ulcer) as well as my mental health. I need to get settled in a home and stop living out of boxes. Any help you can give me to expedite this matter would be greatly appreciated. S".-::'o and L". r:::, ·-'7 :: ~" C!~:n ..%thor Ecr:ne.~i,~ County, : ~r,,esot~ ~'~'-, ....-. o/~' ,~ -'~. ~ ~,,~:m, n~ +~ ~onndsries of ~ ~ w~eh :~:~n~, ~ ~' 10 feet }efnt' In t¢,e Southerh' line cf said lot ..... q ~+ "esterS" ~rc~ the South- z. +o ~r x ......... ,, . _ .' ~ ~1 "~ t~=~ce ~;orthwesterly ~!cr:r the ,,esteriy ,.~ ~ ' lq~e cf safd lot te the Northwesterly cur- nar c" r~fd lot; *hon-e Northeasterly along of beginnin[, At':) ALSC tha't ~art of L~t 7, ... er of said L~*. ?: thence Southeasterly tca ocin+ 5~ the Southerly line of sa~d ~t 7 distc, rt 2 feet Southwesterly from the South- ~ east corner of;said ~t 7; thence '"°rtheast- t~ ~, erly te said Southeast corner of ~t 7; thence 7 ' ' '~ }:orth~,esterly ,~lcnff the F~st line of said ~t tc tho mci~t oF beyJnninK, and cf the location of at1 bufldfnFs thereon and all ~lsjble en- erly line of ssid ~t 6 dis~nt 187.C feet Forth- er!y fram ~he Scutheast eorner of said [~t 6: and the ?northeasterly corner of ~t 7 has be.n assmmed tc '~ .~ ~cfnt on the Fmsterl~,' line of said ~t 7 ~!s~n~ i82.~ feet Northerly from the Southea~ zo erlv corner oe s.~d ~t 7. ~e ~sterly line of saih D~erty has been ass~ed to ~ss through a ~tnt 9.97 feet Westerly from ~e ~sterly line of said ~t 6, ~.sured along ~ line dra~ ~m a ~int on said ~s~rly line of ~t 6 dis~nt 17A feet North- ~rly of the Southeast corner of said ~t 6'~to a ~int cn the Westerly line of said ~t 6 dis~nt 170.~8 feet " .Northerly of the Southwesterly co,er ~ said ~t 6. ...- --' .... ~.6~4 1" = 20' ~rdon R. ~ffin ~g. ~te : 9-10-71 ~d ~eyor ~d ~er : xY o : I~n ~rker ~ng ~e, l I R R I. 12. -AA ~/~(J 0 RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT ~tF~VAI~IANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE F~flLY DWELLING ~T LOT 7 ~ THE NORT~ESTERLY ~F OF LOT 8, BLOCK S~OOD POI~ (~734 WILDH~ST L~E) PZD ~13-117-24 11 0043 P&Z CASE ~ER 92-024 WHEREAS, the applicant, Fine Line Homes, has applied for a 625 square foot lot area variance to allow construction of a new single family dwelling; and WHERE~S, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum 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, all proposed setbacks for the new dwelling are conforming; and WHEREAS, subdivision of this property was approved by Resolution #73-364 at which time a lot size variance was granted; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the requested variance and unanimously recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does' hereby approve a 625 square foot lot area variance to allow construction of a conforming single family dwelling at 1734 Wildhurst Lane, upon the following conditions: The lot size variance be granted provided no other variances are requested. be It is determined that the foregoing variance will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. /?$3 PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-024 PAGE 2 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 conforming single family dwelling as denoted on the Surveyors Certificate dated May 19, 1992. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 7 and the Northwesterly half of Lot 8, Block 14, Shad~wood Point. PID #13-117-24 11 0043. 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 June 8~ 1992 ~__ FINE LINE HOMES 1734 WILDHURST LANE LOT 7 & I 2 8 ~~POINT PID 13-117-24 11 0043. VARIANCE- new Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a lot size variance of 625 square feet to the required 10,000 square foot requirement to allow construction of a new single family dwelling. This p~operty was approved for subdivision in 1973 and a lot size variance was granted. Staff recommended approval of the variance upon the following conditions: The lot size variance be granted provided no other variances are requested. It is determined that the foregoing variance will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534~ MAYWOOD ROAD MO~!,D MINNESOTA 55364-1687 ~612) -~72 ~155 FAX~612 aT2 0620 DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: June 4, 1992 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official ~~ Variance Request - Lot Size Fine Line Homes, Inc. (Jim Rooney) CASE NO. 92-024 LOCATION: 1734 Wildhurst Lane Lot 7 & W 1/2 of Lot 8, Block 14, Shadywood Point ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants are requesting a variance in lot size of 625 square feet to the required 10,000 square feet for the R-1 Zone to allow for construction of a new single family dwelling. This property was issued a waiver from the subdivision requirements in 1973 by city Council resolution #73-364 attached where Lot 8 was split between Lots 7 and 9. This resolution granted variances in lot size provided no other variances were requested. The proposed dwelling will be conforming to all required setbacks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended approval based on the following: 1. The lot size variance be granted provided no other variances are requested. 2. It is determined that the foregoing variance will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. printed on recycled paper revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CZTY OF HOUND 5341 Ha],vood Roadv Hound, HN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:. City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Application Fee: $50.00 Case NO o q2-..'~..~L_~ Please type or print the following information: 1734 Wildhurst Lane Address of Subject Property. Owner's Name J. Scott Carlson Owner's Address /~ Day Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Fine Line Homes, Inc. Address 7240 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Ctr.Day Phone 493-2739 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7 and west ½ of Lot 8 Addition shadywood Point Zoning District A-! Block 14 Use of Property: ReSidential Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, 'conditional use permit, or other zon.ing procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~ no. Xf 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.): Minimum lot area needs to be 10,000.00 sqft are lot is only 9,375.00 sqft would like to Get variance for the difference in lot size revised 4/2/92 Variance Application )'e 2 Case No. Do the' existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setbac~ 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 ) Rear Yard: ( N S'E-W) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage ft. ft. ft. ft. ; " ' "~"' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft ~,~9~.00 sq ft ~5~7. D0 sq ft ft. ft. 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: 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 ~<9 too small ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: ~_~ '%~ ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) other: specify ® 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 · rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. q2__...- oRz- - 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 hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only ~o the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. 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 fbr the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, mainta~ini~g and removing s~h notices as may be required by law. ~.~~~/.~~~ . ~ ~.~..~ .... ~ :. .. . · . . . , .... .~....¥, ,.~'.;...~ .. ; .,.~ . .. . . . ,"~; · .~:'~}',,'~j}~[..~.~S,:}.said request for a waiver has been revieoed by the Pla~i~ Co~ission' .:.. '~.'"'."~,,~ ~,'.i',- ' ' ' · . . . ~ "" " ...~' :..'.:.' ?.i, ; ~ . ~,.-, ~.,,.:.,~..'... ,. ; ',.:,. ~ntal to the public welfare or ~njurious to other property ~ners. ' .. ',:(,,~,':,~':%~..~:.~'i~[;~0~, BE IT ~OL~D BY T~ V~GE CO~CIL OF ~ VIL~GE OF MO~I': '::...:.',' :. ~ -: '%' .J': .: ., . . ;- ....,,~ .. ., .. ,.~:,'::~.:.:~.~,'~'?'~;~).",.?f;:. '.'for.a waive~from the ~ovisions of Seotion 22.'~ of the V~lla~e '".""'. .... )'?~'.':',~',"-/.h'.'~:'~.."[.: ~""71'" .. Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five ac~s .." ' . - :,..:/,,..:., ~.,.....:~,..., ?.. i~ hereby ~anted %o pe~it d~v~sion of the folkwang property ~ .'..' f'.~.'..:..". ..." '.the followi~ manner~ Lots 7,8 and 9, ~look 14, ~d~ood ~t ~t,o....: · '.~'. '.~el B ~t 9 and~ ~t 8~[ 9,~7~ sq. ft. . ~t'lot size ~noes be ~nted provided no other .- ~ -~ ~ . · ([ 2. [t is determined t~t the fore~oins division will constitute :.:.~.j. -desirable and s~ble Co~'ity develop~snt' and is in ~mo~ with .,: ,~: ~?.f.'..::~;:.~;~, The Villas. Clerk is ~uthorized.to. deliver a certified copy ,of thi~ ~-.'..:'. · : .": .... .r~o~ution to t~ applicant for filin~ in the office of the Resieter ' ~' ~[~.~. .,. :.. ( ' ; . . .. ,. ....... .. . ' j ,'~ . . ~ -~ ~. ..., 'j... '7-_ · ~ ....,.~:,~..'. ,. ~ .. :... ~l~: . ..'.: ,,... ;~:.,.,: ,,. :, ,. .' · . /~', . . · . ,~...: ...... > ....,.. ,.~. .. · , . ....' ..... :.. ,... ,..,.: .... . . . · . .~ .... ,~ ;,.... . L Esloblished in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC, LAND SURVEYORS REGIBT~RAO UNDER LAWS OF 8TATK OF M~qA'*EBOTA ~601. ~r3rd Av~u~ Noflh 860.3093 xO00. O INVOICE 31733 F. B. NO. SCALE I" o D~oto8 Iron Monument o Oenofes 'Wood Hub Set Far Exc~at~ ~fel Propo~d El~vof~ ~nof~ Surfoce ~ ~sed T~ of Block . ~d ~rogl FI~ _ ~sed Lowest Floor Ty~ of Bulldi~ Area - 9375 Sq. Ft.. ~ot 7 and t~e Northwesterly Half of Lot 8, Block 14, "/gtADD/iEO POZb'T, ~EP~ CCTWTY MI~.' Rayq~nd A. Prasch Minn. Re~ No. 6743 RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION INCLUDING AN ENTRYWAY AND KITCHEN EXPANSION AT LOT 2, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0061 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-026 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to construct an addition including an entryway and kitchen expansion; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I, Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code requires a side yard setback for the prindpal structure of 6 feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet for detached garages and a 4 foot side yard setback for storage sheds (accessory buildings); and WHEREAS, the property currently has a storage shed that encroaches 1.2 feet into the neighboring property, a detached garage which encroaches 18.5 feet into the required front yard setback and the proposed entryway will encroach 2.5 feet into the required side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the side yard variance for the entryway addition, recognition of the garage front setback variance for the purpose of constructing the entryway addition, and further requiring that the storage building be removed or relocated to a conforming position on the lot within one year of the adoption of this resolution by the City Council. The Planning Commission also adopted the following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing 18.5 foot variance for the garage and the variance of 2.5 feet for the entryway are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Locating the entryway addition other than as proposed would create a practical difficulty on the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the 2.5 foot side yard setback variance and recognizes the 18.5 foot front yard setback variance for the detached garage and further finds that the existing nonconforming storage building shall be removed or moved to a conforming position on the ln~ ---~ ........... 7ca-- t~he ,~,, of the '":'-- '~ .....-.~ -a-..,~i,~,~ ,~f ~k:o r~zclr:.'ic:-.. Recognition of the /??7 Certificate of Survey for Bradley 31azevic of Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood Point Hennepin County, Minnesota ,4o &o · ' (q];.s] Legal Description Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood Point. This survey shows the location of an existing house and a proposed addition in relation to the boundaries of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. m : Iron marker found o : Iron marker set (~.~) : Existing elevation Dat. um : City of Mound 3earings shown are to an assumed datum. RECEIVED MAY22 lgg2 UOUND PId~NING & INSP. RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION INCLUDING AN ENTRYWAY AND KITCHEN EXPANSION AT LOT 2, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0061 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-026 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to construct an addition including an entryway and kitchen expansion; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I, Single Family Residential Zoning District Which according to code requires a side yard setback for the principal structure of 6 feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet for detached garages and a 4 foot side yard setback for storage sheds (accessory buildings); and WHEREAS, the property currently has a storage shed that encroaches 1.2 feet into the neighboring property, a detached garage which encroaches 18.5 feet into the required front yard setback and the proposed entryway will encroach 2.5 feet into the required side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the side yard variance for the entryway addition, recognition of the garage front setback variance for the purpose of constructing the entryway addition, and further requiring that the storage building be removed or relocated to a conforming position on the lot within one year of the adoption of this resolution by the City Council. The Planning Commission also adopted the following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing 18.5 foot variance for the garage and the variance of 2.5 feet for the entryway are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Locating the entryway addition other than as proposed would create a practical difficulty on the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Coundl of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the 2.5 foot side yard setback variance and recognizes the 18.5 foot front yard setback variance for the detached garage and further finds that the existing nonconforming storage building shall be removed or moved to a co.n_forming position on the lot~wi.t~n ..... ,,~,- -,~ the '~atc ..e ts..~ r-~ c',~ .... il ~ adOr,~,,~ ,~f thl ..... , .... _- ~ .... ~ .... ge variance for the detached garage shall not confer upon the owner, the right to improve the existing structure. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of an entryway and kitchen expansion addition. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood Point. PID #18-117-23 23 0061 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 June 8, 1992 ~ BRADLEY BLAZEVIC 1871 SHOREWOOD LANE LOT 2 BLOCK 12 BHADYWOOD POINT PID 18-117-23 23 0061. VARIANCE - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow an entryway and kitchen expansion on the northeast side of the existing home. The corner of the addition will have a 3.5 foot setback to the side yard. Additionally, the property has an existing nonconforming garage requiring an 18.5 foot front yard setback variance, and an existing nonconforming shed which encroaches 1.2 feet onto the adjoining property. Staff recommended approval of the variance for the proposed improvement as it is consistent with practical difficulty as referenced in the Zoning Code. Staff further recommended recognition of the 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage for the purpose of constructing the proposed entryway addition. Variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage is recognized only to facilitate construction of the entryway improvement. This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing nonconforming detached garage. Such improvements shall require additional variance approval in the future. The existing storage shed shall be removed or relocated to a conforming setback prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed entryway improvement. If the Planning Commission concurs with staff's recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: "The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing 18.5 foot variance for the garage and the variance of 2.5 feet for the entryway are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Locating the entryway addition other than as proposed would create a practical difficulty on the property. The applicant, Brad Blazevic, handed out to the Commission a proposal for the adopt a green space program for the city owned. property adjacent to his property. His shed currently encroaches 1.2 feet onto this public land. Mr. Blazevic explained that he intends on applying to vacate this public way. The status of "Poplar Landing" was discussed, and it was noted that this land was originally part of Orono township. Options for removal or relocation of the nonconforming shed was discussed. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, with the exception that condition #2 be emended to require that the shed be removed or relocated to a conforming setback within one (1) year of Council approval. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CITY OF MOUND PROPOSAL FOR ADOPT A GREEN SPACE PROGRAM MR, JIM FACKLER This proposal is relative to my application to adopt the property adjoining my home at 1871Shorewood Lane. Background: As Far as I've been able to determine at one time a small lot called Poplar Landing existed one lot Further to the southeast From the lot we are discussing. Poplar Landing was traded to a Mr. Steve Anderson who at that time owned the existing vacated lot For same. This transaction moved Poplar Landing to adjoin my property. This property is low with regard to topography, it typically will have mud and or standing water on it up to one third oF its length From Lake Minnetonka. There are many trees on this lot, many oF which are leaning and or dead. This lot has served as a dumping area and pseudo compost disposal area For residents up and down the street For as long as I've lived here and For much longer according to neighbors that have lived near by For up to 35 years. Plan: 1) My proposal includes cutting all dead trees and any other trees that are unstable or under 6 inches in diameter. Further cleaning oF debris and dead wood until the lot would be suitable For planting.oF a low maintenance grass such as rye. Opening up the area should make it a much less attractive area For dumping, etc. I would provide labor For cutting and moving material to the street. I request the city pickup the discarded material and provide equipment as needed For cutting, etc. Chain saws, axes and shovels. 2) Upon completion oF cleanup, I would request we are allowed to move Fill From trenches, I will be digging on my property in July For a Foundation For an addition I'm adding to my home. I would provide a bobcat and worker to move the Fill, spread and grade same. This Filling would not be to the lake edge, only to the area previously reviewed with Mr. Jim Fackler. Upon completion, seed would be planted and Further maintenance would be mine. Prepared by: Bradley T. Blazevic 1871Shorewood Lane Mound, MN 55364 Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Bradley T. Blazevic CASE NUMBER: 92-026 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-30g LOCATION: 1871 Shorewood Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to house an entryway and kitchen expansion on the northeast side of the existing home. The proposed addition will continue the line of a nonconforming side wall along the northwest side of the property. The corner of the addition will have a 3.5 foot setback. Additionally, the property has a nonconforming garage and storage shed. Variances involve the following: Side Yard (NW) Front Yard (Garage) Storage Shed (Side) Proposed/ Existing 3.5~ 1.5' -1.2' Required Variance 6' 2.5' 20' 18.5' 4' NA 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 Blazevie Variance June 1, 1992 Page 2 COMMENT: The proposed addition will add space to the existing kitchen and create a new entryway into the home. Due to the existing floor plan of the home, it is the only location for an expanded entryway without completely modifying the interior of the structure. Therefore, an entryway improvement other than at the proposed location would be unreasonable and would qualify as a practical difficulty as referenced in the zoning code. In addition to the variance for the proposed entryway, the property has two nonconforming accessory structures. The garage has a 1.5 foot setback off of the right-of-way for Silverwood Lane. The distance from the garage door to the curb line is approximately 18 feet allowing adequate room for vehicle parking. The condition of the garage, however, is deteriorating. The foundation is cracking and the northwest wall is not plumb. The building while not in eminent need of replacement has a relatively short life. The Building Official will not issue permits in the future for major repairs on the structure without issuance of a variance. It is unlikely that staff would recommend approval of a future variance request to reconstruct the garage at its present location. The other nonconforming structure is a storage shed which encroaches 1.2 feet into the neighboring property. The shed measures 10.3 by 10.3 feet. Such sheds are required to meet the minimum floor elevation of 933.5 and be at least 4 feet from the side property line. RECOMMENDATION: The variance for the proposed improvement is warranted since it is consistent with practical difficulty as referenced in the Zoning Code. Therefore, approval is recommended by staff. Staff further recommends recognition of the 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage for the purpose of constructing the proposed entryway addition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: The 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage is recognized only to facilitate construction of the entryway improvement. This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing nonconforming detached garage. Such improvements shall require additional variance approval in the future. Blazevic Variance June 1, 1992 Page 3 The existing storage shed shall be removed or relocated to a conforming setback prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed entryway improvement. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing 18.5 foot variance for the garage and the variance of 2.5 feet for the entryway are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Locating the entryway addition other than as proposed would create a practical difficulty on the property. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CZTY OF MOUND 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:~ City Council Date: ~-~~L Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. qZ~C')~(~57 Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Address' of Subject Property /~?[ ~'h~-~¥~oo.~ Owner's Name ~-~~ -~ *~L~CW-{*~ Day Owner's Address / ~7~ '~'~10~'O~ -~ ~c~¢- A pplicant's Name (if other than owner) ddress Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot -~i~ Addition ~ ~ t/ Zoning District Block Use of Property: ~C~'~¢ ~ 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 prqvide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): /~.~o~ t"lC~o..-,. "t"O rJt'<:;?~---r-~,- ~::5~~'c~,~-'''' qt~{.. 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. i~Z"'Oz~ me SETBACKS: required 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.) ~-oo ~o3 <- requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: Rear Yard: Lake Front: Side Yard: Side Yard: Lot Size: Street Frontage ( . s ~. w ) ' %~.) ft. t,~- ft. ft. ft. ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ~ s ~ w ) ~'6',_~. ~,~ ~t. sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft 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, specifyeachnon-conforminguse: 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 Please describe:-~V ~ ~ ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ~ existing ( ) shape ( ) other: specify -bo ~-ec~e. ~ ~.~ ~ 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 rev£~ed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No.~~~~_~ 6. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes p, No (). If yes, explain ~ql ~ 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a v. ar~nce pe~culiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes~, No~7~ 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 :equired by law. //~. ~//~. Applicant's signatur,/~.~A~~~ BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION c'rTy OF HOUND, 5341 Hay~ood Road, Hound, HN 55364 (472-] 155) 8 Class ot work: 1-1 NEW I~DDITION I'-i ALTERATION l~ REPAIR !'"1 MOVE !-I REMOVE I0 Change of use from Change of use to I Valuation of work: CONOITION$: ~'EPTED IY PLANS CHECKED 8¥ · ~'ROvE O ~OR iSSUANCE NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REOUIRED FOR ELECTRICAl_, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULl.. AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHO. i~Z E D IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 OAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF tBO DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE KNOW THE SAME TO READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL. BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT ODES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY O..~-IER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PER- -- TyPe of O~'~-'~uccugancy ~ Const. Group DiviSion ~ Size of Bldg. No. of Max. , (Total) SCl. FI. Stories Otc. Ute Fire SPrinklers Zone Required I"'JYi$ NO. of OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: -- Dwelling Units Covered Received Not Required _ZONING HEAl_TH DEPT. FIRE DEPT. SOIL REPORT -- -- OTHER (Specify) Plat of Su:woy for Charles in Blocks 11 and 12, S~ ad.x~'ood Point Hennepin C~mty, lttnnesota -- that l~rt of Lot 1, ?lock 12, Sh~d~,'x:ood }'cint, 1)'!nj' ~sterl~ of the '.4es~rl3' 60 feet %ho~cf, u~ t~t part of Pcpl:~r ~n~inc, no~' vamited, lying .,o. ~r,w..~t~r . of the North~.es~rly tin~ of ~t i~, ~lock 11, 3ha8;-~ond. Pc:iht, ,...~,..ded~,--' ~ Ncrth- easterly, and 1.'.'~np 'dnsterly o£ a l~nn described as fol4o~:c: ~ino~n,~ ut u point on the Nortbensi~'ly line o* oa~d ~t l& dt:,iant 40 feet ~7ortherly ~ro= the ~t ~%sterly corner thereof; thel ne Ncrther!y on a stm~i~ht !~n~ to its ~int ;~en~ ~itb the F~sterly l~ne of ss~d Lot 1, an8 there ending. ~cr ~orporcs ~is z~e)'~ sa~d last-a~ve-descri~d line has )~on acoumed to ?e %he te~$nus oO Poplar b,nd~ng, now vacuted. · ' 1" = 40' Date : 5-1-74 o. : ~ren marker Land SurveTcr and Pl.,va;er l~ng lzke, YJnnescta 329 November 29, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88-180 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT; P.I.D. NO. 18-117-23-23 0061 (1871 SHOREWOOD L~NE)~ P & Z CASE NO. 88-737 WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a 26' x 30' addition to the southeast portion of his existing dwelling for Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood Point; P.I.D. No. 18-117-23-23 0061; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family zoning district, which according to the City Code requires a 50' setback to lakeshore ordinary high water eleva- tion, 10' side yard setback, and a 30' front yard setback, 'acces- sory building setback of 20' to the front property line and 4' to the side property line; and ~ , WHEREAS, Section 23.404, SubdivisionS(8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful noncon- forming residential unit when the alteration will improve th~ -'livability thereof,, but the alteration may not increase the num- ber of units; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: That the City does hereby authorize the existing non- conforming 'principal structure setback and accessory building setback at 1871 Shorewood Lane; P.I.D. No. 18- 117-23-23 0061 with a 3.3' side yard setback of the principal building and a 6.1' front yard setback to the accessory building. The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation and authorizes the alteration set forth below, pursuant .'to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8).with a clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential unit will be approved by authorizing the following al- terations to a nonconforming use property to afford the owner reasonable use of the parcel: 33O November 29, 1988 The addition of a 26' x 30' to the southeast por- tion of the existing dwelling will be ap- proximately 14' to the side property line, at or above the minimum flood plain elevation of 933.5 n.g.v.d., and exceed the 50' minimum lakeshore setback above 929.5 N.G.V.D. Upon the further following condition that the ex- isting survey be updated prior to building permit issuance to indicate the proposed addition and setbacks to the lot lines after a portion of the street was vacated as well as assurance no drainage problems have been in existence at the northwest property line along the 3.3' existing principal, structure setback. This variance is granted for the following legally -.described property: Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood Point P.I.D. No. 18-117-23-23 0061 This'variance shall be recorded..with the County Re- corder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462 3595 Subdivision (4). ' , This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs 'for such recording. The ~uilding permit will not be issued until proof of recording has been filed'with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by CoUncilmember Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: .. Abel, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmember~ voted i~; the negative: none· Attest: City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT LOT 4, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 7, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, (5115 BARTLETT BLVD.) PID #24-117-24 12 0011 P&Z CASE NUI4BER 92-028 WHEREAS, the applicant, Diane Rosencrantz, has applied for a 9 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of a garage addition onto an existing nonconforming structure; and WHEREAS, the corner of the existing attached garage is setback approximately 26 feet from the front property line to Channel Road; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both Bartlett Blvd. and Channel Road and 10 foot side yard setbacks. ' WHEREAS, all other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the requested variance and unanimously recommended approval as recommended by staff. The Planning Commission incorporated the following finding of fact in its motion: "The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance results from the shape of the lot and the abutting rights-of-way over which the applicant had no control." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 9 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of a garage addition at 5115 Bartlett Blvd. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-028 Se It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 8' x 20' garage addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Rearrangement of Block 7, Shirley Hills Unit B. PID $24-117-24 12 0011. 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 HEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 1992 CASE ~92-028= DIANE ROSENCRANTZ, 5115 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 4, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 7, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID ~24-117-24 12 0011. VARIANCE - garaqe addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct an 8 foot wide garage addition to an existing single car attached garage. A 9 foot front yard setback variance is being requested as the proposed addition will have a setback of approximately 21 feet off of Channel Road. The corner of the existing garage is also nonconforming since it has a setback of approximately 26 feet. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 9 foot variance to allow construction of an addition to the existing single car garage It is further suggested that the Commission incorporate the following finding of fact in its motion: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance results from the shape of the lot and the abutting rights-of-way over which the applicant had no control. Mr. Osdoba, an adjoining neighbor, expressed a concern about access to his property being blocked off because another adjoining neighbor parks his vehicles in the platted right-of-way. It was determined that the applicant's request will not affect Mr. Osdoba's concerns. It was noted that one of the applicant's property markers set by the surveyor is located in the middle of the paved portion of the right-of-way, their may be a problem with the location of pavement on the right-of-way. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Staff is to investigate the situation relating to Mr. Osdoba's concerns. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Diane Rosencrantz CASE NUMBER: 92-028 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-30i LOCATION: 5115 Bartlett Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-I) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10 foot wide addition to an existing one car attached garage. The proposed addition 'will have a setback of approximately 21 feet off of Channel Road requiring a 9 foot variance. The lot is a through lot since it abuts Channel Road on the south and Bartlett Boulevard on the north. COMMENT: The proposed addition meets the required side yard setback. It is nonconforming due to the proximity of Channel Road. The comer of the existing garage is also nonconforming since it has a setback of approximately 26 feet. Channel Road has an irregular shape which complicates the placement of structures on the subject lot. There is no other feasible location for an addition to the existing one car garage. 7401 Metro Blvd.,Suite 340. Minneapolis, MN 55439, (612)835-9960 Rosencrantz Variance June 1, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 9 foot variance to allow construction of an addition to the existing one car garage. It is further suggested that the Commission incorporate the following finding of fact in its motion: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance results from the shape of the lot and the abutting rights-of-way over which the applicant had no control. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND 534L H&ywood Road, Hound, HN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, ~ax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:~ City Council Date: ~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~~' ~Z~- Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject.Pro~rty ~,lr ~+ llt'~ ~;:~119~ .~gF%_J O ner's Day Phone Owner's Address pplicant's Name (if other than owner) ddress Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot !_~_~ q Block ! 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 propos.ed co~n~truction, or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.) . ~C~9 ;5~ (~_~c~e_ ~ ~ ~ revised 4/2/92 Variance Application 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 (X). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N~E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ft. +,- ft. q ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~-) existing ( ) too shallow (~) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 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 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application 'age 3 Case No Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain e 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? 8. 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 equired by law. Applicant's Signatur Certificate of survey for Diane Rosenkranz of Lot 4, Rearrangement of Block 7, Shirley Hills Unit B Hennepln County, ~innesota Legal Description Lot 4, Rearrangement of Block 7, Shirley Hills Unit B. This survey shows the location of an existing house in relation to the boundaries of the above described prop- erty. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. o : Iron Marker Certificate of survey for Diane Rosenkranz of Lot 4, Rearrangement of Block 7, Shirley HIlls Unit B ilennepin County, Hinnesota ~s~fs i 0 0 O-~ = O ~ 0 · ~ 00 ~00 P..fl0[r~l ('llq'l"lCll{ 40 'LT, TD ~-<-~- T,4TT,<Tq'TD.~ MfIHD<V ZClfl.q eL~, 7. I.cl Y¥.4 0~:gT ZO0[~I (l~]Oli .4(1 I,T,T~ +~*- T,4T,T,~qTD.q MC)~1DN¥ Z(]o.q ~L~ Zig Y¥,4 8z:.qI MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND /~DVISORY PLatOONING COMMISSION JUNE 22~ 1992 DRAFT CASE #92-030: DR. DON~LB ~ND JEaN SWEEN, 2028 ~RBOR L~tNE, LOT 6~. SUBD. LOTS i & 32 S&i RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035. V~I]~NCE - additions. city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to expand an existing nonconforming structure. The proposed improvements include the following: 1. A 5' x 15' covered deck addition at the entry on the front of the home. An addition/extension at the front of the garage measuring 8' x 17'. A first floor addition (marked "proposed addition" on survey) measuring 16.3' x 18.9' A second floor addition measuring approximately 178' x 34' over the proposed addition referenced above and the existing portion of the home north of the proposed addition. The addition of a 12' x 14' screened porch on the east side of the home. Variances requested include: 1) a 14.5' front yard setback variance to the deck, 2) a 3.5' front yard setback variance to the garage, 3) a 1.4' side yard setback variance to the garage, and 4) a 10'+/- lakeshore setback variance. Koegler noted that if all the proposed variances are granted, the amount of hardcover will rise to approximately 35.5% (this figure includes the existing driveway). In examining each of the requested variance items, all but the screened porch appear to represent practical difficulty issuances and are consistent with reasonable use of the property Staff recommended that the Planning commission recommend approval of the variances necessary to construct the covered entry deck, garage addition, and the first floor and second floor living space additions. Dues to overall concerns for the amount of hardcover on the lot, staff in unable to offer a positive recommendation for the variances for the screened porch. If the Planning Commission feels that the screened porch is consistent with the practical difficulty aspect of the Zoning Code, it should add the variances for the porch to any motion for approval. It is further recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances subject to the preparation of an updated survey identifying all of the proposed improvements and all of the resulting setbacks. The updated survey should be completed by a Registered Land Surveyor. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the variances are in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from practical difficulties on the property over which the applicant has no direct control. Mueller questioned staff if the dwelling is in the floodplain. Staff commented that it is questionable and the lowest floor elevation will need to be determined by a Registered Land Surveyor. The lowest floor elevation allowed by City Code is 933.5 for lands abutting Lake Minnetonka. The applicant, Jean Sween, commented that a new foundation was placed under the house and it was lifted. Ms. Sween referred to photographs which were distributed to the Planning Commission.for review, and she commented on the number of garages that are very close to the street on Arbor Lane. She stated that only one house on Arbor Lane is conforming. She emphasized the need for a screened porch to afford privacy due to the adjacent commons property. She added that yesterday there were 12 trucks parked on the commons property and they have to put up with the garbage and loud, drunk people. Clapsaddle commented that he does not feel the proposed porch significantly impacts the property as the existing deck is already encroaching into the setback. The applicant stressed the need to have the case heard by the Council tomorrow evening and asked that the request not be delayed. She has already retained a contractor, and that contractor is depending on her for this work. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the request until the lowest floor elevations of the dwelling have been established. Motion to table failed 8 to 1 with Mueller voting in the negative. The applicant stated that she will get the surveyor to verify the elevations by the Council meeting. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Approval of the porch is not included in this motion. Approval is contingent upon the applicant providing verification of the lowest floor elevations to the City Council. The applicant emphasized the need for the screened porch and suggested different plans such as flipping the porch and deck and decreasing the size. The Commission was not in favor of approving an altered request without seeing the modifications to the survey and plans to verify the setback to the shoreline. Meyer informed the applicant that the request could be tabled to allow time to revise the plans, or the variance can be recommended for approval without the porch so that she can get started with construction. He also informed her that she could come back and submit another request for the porch at a later date. Ms. Sween opted to get started on the construction now in due respect to her builder. Ms. Sween asked the Commissioner's to each state their opinion prior to voting. Michael (opposed) - He would prefer the application be done right and not rushed through. Mueller (opposed) - Due to incomplete information. Voss (in favor) - Maker of the motion. Hanus (in favor) - There are time problems, and would like to get the project going. Weiland (in favor) - Does not like doing business like this, but is in favor of the motion to get the project going. Johnson (in favor) - Seconded the motion. Clapsaddle (in favor) - Does not like doing business like this, and feels it would be in the applicant's best interest to have the request tabled, but does not see why the motion cannot be supported. Meyer (opposed) - did not comment. MOTION carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Voss, Hanus, weiland, Johnson and Clapsaddle. Mueller, Michael and Meyer were opposed. This case will be heard by the city Council on June 23, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 1313 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~ DATE: June 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Dr. Donald Sween CASE NUMBER: 92-030 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30k LOCATION: 2028 Arbor Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to expand an existing nonconforming structure. The proposed improvements include the following: 1. The addition of a 5' x 15' covered deck at the entry on the front of the home. 2. An addition/extension at the front of the garage measuring 8' x 17'. 3. A first floor addition (marked "proposed addition" on survey) measuring 16.Yx 18.9'. 4. A second floor addition measuring approximately 18' x 34' over the proposed addition referenced above and the existing portion of the home north of the proposed addition. 5. The addition of a 12' x 14' screened porch on the east side of the home. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Sween Variance June 17,1992 Page 2 The applicant has stated in writing and verbally that the reasons for the proposed additions pertain to lifestyle issues and the need within the garage to construct a utility room to house the water heater, furnace, water softener etc. The home does not have a basement. As proposed, the additiOns will involve the following variances: Proposed/ Existing Required Variance Front Yard (deck) Front Yard (garage) Side Yard (garage) Lakeshore 5.5'+ 20' 14.5'+ 16.5'+ 20' 3.5'+ 4.6'+ 6' 1.4'+ 40.0'+ 50' 10.0'+ COMMENT: The issuance of variances involves a finding of either hardship or practical difficulty. In this case, it seems as though the requested variance items align themselves more closely with practical difficulty than with hardship. Typical hardship factors such as extreme topography, mature tree retention or unique lot shape are not present in this case. Therefore, it is suggested that the Planning Commission focus on practical difficulty in analyzing this request. The City of Mound is in the process of formulating a shoreland management ordinance that will likely include a 30% hardcover restriction. State shoreland rules limit hardcover to no more than 25%. At the present time, approximately 27% of the Sween property contains hardcover. If all of the proposed variances are granted, the amount of hardcover will rise to approximately 35.5%. In looking at each of the proposed variances, the entryway addition appears to provide a reasonable front entry for the home. Given the current location of the front door, there are no other alternate locations for the entry deck. The garage addition is intended to accommodate the construction of a small utility room while retaining space to park two vehicles. Since the home does not have a basement, there are no other alternate locations for the utility room. Therefore, both of these items would appear to qualify as practical difficulty. The proposed addition in and of itself will have a nonconforming side yard setback and a conforming lakeshore setback. Correspondingly, the second floor addition which lies above this space will have the same required variance. Other than adding to the total amount of hardcover, neither of these items significantly impacts the existing nonconforming aspects of the property. Sween Variance June 17,1992 Page 3 The other requested variance item involves the screened porch. The proposed porch adds additional hardcover and encroaches 10 feet into the required 50 foot lakeshore setback. It lies adjacent to an existing nonconforming deck which encroaches 6 feet into the lakeshore setback. In examining each of the requested variance items, all but the screened porch appear to represent practical difficulty issues and are consistent with reasonable use of the property. The screened porch, however, is questionable. It is without a doubt, a desired improvement for the property owner. However, from a zoning perspective, it appears to be questionable. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances necessary to construct the covered entry deck, garage addition, and the first floor and second floor living space additions. Due to overall concerns for the amount of hardcover on the lot, staff is unable to offer a positive recommendation for the variances for the screened porch. If the Planning Commission feels that the screened porch is consistent with the practical difficulty aspect of the Zoning Code, it should add the variances for the porch to any motion for approval. It is further recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances subject to the preparation of an updated survey identifying all of the proposed improvements and all of the resulting setbacks. The updated survey should be completed by a Registered Land Surveyor. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the variances are in conformance with Section 23,506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from practical difficulties on the property over which the applicant has no direct control. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 JUN I - Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q~-- 050 Zoning Sheet Completed: ~--I-~'~ Copy to City Planner: ~_~l--cl~ ~'~' Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: / · Address of Subject Property Owner's Name . i . ~ ./.~'5 ~ ;/~.,c'Day Owner' s Address. Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~ Addit ion ~L~. ~ Zoning District Block -- No. I -iI? Z4 41 0055 Use of Property: '):"-~i.~/_.,~/~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, varian~d~$ional permit,, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~A~ yes,/-.~'no. yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, res~u~e~(s) provide copies of resolutions. use If and 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~/X/~ ! ~6~ ~ _~L~~__ ~ev£eed 4/2/92 Variance Application >age 2 Case No.~ 2. 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 va~'iance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Lake Front: I N~ WI _~ ft. ~?~o, Side Yard: N W - - ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Street Frontage ft. ft. required requested VARIANCE (or exist ing~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. / d ft. ft. /. / ft. ft. ft. sq ft ft. Does the present use of the property conform to al.1 regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~' ), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape soil existing other: specify Please describe: 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 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case Was the hardship created by any q~her man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No(~)- If yes, explain 7. 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? 8. 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. ,- plicant's Signature "~'~-"~ ' Date ~ J~,'~ ~ /' ~ ,/ of Certificate of Survey for Donald L. Sween "SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 32 SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD" Hennepin County, Minnesota This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an e~istina house and deck thereon, and the proDosed location of a proposed addition. It does not DurDort to show any other ~m- provements or encroachments. Iron marker ExistinG spot elevation Bearinqs shown ara based upon an assumed datum. * : Denotes distance shown on record plat. ',, //', .> RESOLUTION NO. 71-135 RESOLUTION GRA~\"2ING FRONT YARD SETBACK (Lot 6, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquists Ravenswood) WHEREAS, the owner of Lot 6, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquists Eavenswood has made application for a front yard setback variance and WEEREAS, the Plarming Commission has recommended the variance because it feels that there are special circumstances due to topography and that the improvement of the property as proposed will be in harmor~with the adjacent area, and the contour of the land makes location of a house a ha=dship, NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA~ That a variance be granted in the front yard setback requirement so the front yard setback will not be less than l2 feet. from the Wly line of Lot 6 fronting Arbor Lane to the NWly corner of the proposed improvement. The variance granted is 12} feet on the · south and 7~ feet on the north. Adopted by the Council this llth day of May, 1971. C co 0 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~ DATE: June 16, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: John and Christine Gabos CASE NUMBER: 92-031 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-301 LOCATION: 4687 Island View Drive EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances to improve an existing residence. Proposed improvements include construction of a new entry with a four foot overhang, the addition of second story living space above the existing dwelling and the addition of a second story study over the existing garage. At the present time, the property has two nonconforming side yards and contains a nonconforming boathouse (accessory building). The variances involved in this case include the following: Proposed/ Existing Required Variance Side Yard (East) Side Yard (West) Side Yard (Accessory) Rear Yard (Accessory) 3.6' 6' 2.4' 4.0'± 6' 2.0'± 0.0' 4' 4.0' 1.3' 4' 2.7' Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22~ 1992 CASE ~92-031: JOHN & CHRISTINE GABOS, 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVEr LOT 18 & P/19t BLOCK 1~ DEVON, PID ~30-117-23 22 0009. VARIANCE - expansion/remodel. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to improve an existing residence. Proposed improvements include construction of anew entry with a four foot overhand, the addition of second story living space above the existing dwelling and the addition of a second story study over the existing garage. Presently, the property has two nonconforming side yards and contains a nonconforming boat house. The principal dwelling requires a 2.4' side yard setback variance to the east and a 2' side yard setback variance to the west. The boat house requires a 4 foot side yard setback variance and a 2.7 foot rear yard setback variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the side yard variances and recognition of the accessory building variances for the purpose of adding the entryway and second story improvements at 4687 Island View Drive subject to the following condition: The side yard and rear yard variances for the existing boat house (accessory structures) are recognized only to facilities construction f the entryway improvement and second story additions. This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing nonconforming boat house. Such improvements shall require additional variance approval in the future. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the approval of the variances for the entryway and second story addition is in MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variances as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 23, 1992. Gabos Variance. June 16,1992 Page 2 COMMENT: The remodeling of the existing residence will not change the existing building footprint with the exception of the proposed entryway at the northwest corner of the house. Approval of a variance to construct the entryway will result in an increased encroachment of approximately 1.7 feet since the construction will continue the alignment of the existing nonconforming side wall. The west side of the property which contains the proposed entry improvement abuts Roanoke Access which provides public access to Devon Common. The nonconforming setbacks including the side yard on the east and the existing boathouse will not be directly affected by the proposed construction. In all variance requests, it is necessary to include a finding of either hardship or practical difficulty. The addition of a four foot covered entry could be considered as a reasonable use of the property. The entrance to the home is presently on the northwest comer and relocation to a conforming location could be considered to be a practical difficulty. Construction of the proposed four foot wall adjacent to the existing entry would also add privacy since the property directly abuts a public access rather than another residential lot. The site also contains a nonconforming boathouse which appears to be in good condition. Since the boathouse does not encroach on either public or private property, removal of the structure as a part of the variance request seems unreasonable. It is unlikely in the future, however, that the City would grant a variance for the reconstruction of the boathouse since it will probably not be in compliance with Mound's shoreland management ordinance which is scheduled to be adopted within the next six months. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the side yard variances and recognition of the accessory building variances for the purpose of adding the entryway and second story improvements at 4687 Island View Drive subject to the following condition: · The side yard and rear yard variances for the existing boathouse (accessory structure) are recognized only to facilitate construction of the entryway improvement and second story additions. This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing nonconforming boathouse. Such improvements shall require additional variance approval in the future. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the approval of the variances for the entryway and second story addition is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The entryway improvement falls under the practical difficulty provisions of the Code since the existing entrance to the home is on the northwest corner of the structure and since the property abuts a public access rather than a neighboring residential lot. revised 4/2/92 .,VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50 00 Case No. Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~&%~ /_sl m Lv e o Owner' s Name. _~D~ ~ ~ ~;~ ~O~ Day Phone Owner's Address Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Day Phone Addition~j~.~ ~ PID 117-Z% Zoning District Use of Property: Has .a.n application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional _~ioS~l~ls~r d.°atthf~s_)T~ ga ~T~'ro~,f~%t~ho~S tPark°ff,r rY~ l(~t oYf m( e) ~f; use z n t s If P so i ~u b r and p copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, of stories, type of use, etc.) :~ number revised 4/2/92 Variance Application ~age 2 Case No. ~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No O~_). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i,e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required Front Yard: (~S E W ) to ft. Rear Yard: ( N ~ E W ) If- ft. Lake Front: ( N S E~) ft. Side Yard: ( N S E~ ) ~ ~O ft. Side Yard: ( N S~W ) 6 ft. Lot Size: ~oC~ sq ft Street Frontage q(~ ft. requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to al~regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~, No ( ). If specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (X) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests iN/he land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If ~es, explain ~ev£$ed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No.~ e Was the hardship created by any ~.er man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peggliar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ()0- 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 submitt.ed 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. ~.~0 ~ Mr. Edward J. Shukle Jr. City Manager 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55564 Dear Ed, June 1, 1992 RECEIVED JUN 1 1992 NIOUND PLANNING & INSP. I respectfully request your assistance in arranging for my variance application to be discussed on June 8th at the Planning Commission meeting. It was not until May 29th when my General Contractor went to apply for a building permit that I had any idea a variance would be required. When we received a building permit for work done in 1989 there was no mention of a variance. The primary reason for our home remodel is to finish, off the second level of our house to allow for the bedroom which will be used for our 2nd child, due August 1st. 'This is also the primary reason for the urgency in having the variance heard before the Planning Commission. All requested items for the variance application are being turned in with this letter with the e×ception of the survey which will be bur'ned in Tuesday June 2, ~9'2 in the A.M. I will certainly volunteer to deliver direc[ly to the Planning Commission Members any packages of information as. you determine necessary prior to their June 8th, meeting. I can be reached at home 472-4424 or work 942-5787 if you have any questions or requests. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, J Oertificate of Survey for John Gabos bn Lots 18 & 19, Block I, DEVON Hennepin County, Minnesota % / LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: ./ Lot 19 and Lot 18 except the southeasterly 25 feet front and rear, Block l, DEVON, including the adjacent 1 foot of Roanoke access. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location oF an existing house, decks and boathouse thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or en- croachments. · : Iron marker found o : Iron marker set Bearlngs shown are based upon an assumed datum. ~)_~._~] : Spot elevation, mean sea 1eve! datum RECEIVED JUN 3 1992 MCUI9 PLANNtNG& jN&o. DATE 6 - 200 July 13, 1982 Councilmember Ulrick moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 82- 178 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHH.ISSION RECOHHENDATION TO VACATE THE EASTERLY 1 FOOT OF THE ROANOKE ACCESS ABUTTING LOT 19, BLOCK 1, OEVON FRO~ THE COHHONS TO ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Hinnesota Statutes, Section 412.851 provides that the City Council may by resolutlon vacate any street, alley, public grounds or public way, or any part thereof, when it appears In the best interest of the public to do so, and the o~ners of property described as Lot 19, Block 1, Devon, have requested that easterly 1 foot of the Roanoka Access that abuts Lot 19 from the Commons to Island View Drive be vacated, and WHEREAS, .this vacation would be part of a settlement in a disputed lawsuit for alleged damage to the boathouse that is encroaching on the Roanoke Access .10 foot, and ~H~REAS, .....the ;Co.uncll recognizes that even with. the 1 foot vacation~ the property is still nonconforming, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July.13, 1982, as required by law, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended vacation of the 1 foot of Roanoke Access, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND~ MN.: ~ 1'., Hereby vacates the Easterly I foot of the Roanoke Access abutting Lot 19, Block 1, Oevon, from the Commons to Island View Drive. 2"" It is not In the'public interest to vacate the util'ity portion ','i.:_:- of:the easement over.this area and it shall be retained by the 3, A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedlngs and shall be recorded in the offlce of the County Recorder and/ or the Registrar of Titles as set for. th in M.$..A.~:.412,851. A...motlon for..the,adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember..Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon.; the following voted In favor thereof: Polston, Swenson, UIrlck and Lindlan; the following voted against the same: none; with Councilmember Charon being absent; whereupon said resolutlon was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Attest: City Clerk 167 May 25, 1982 Councilmember Charon moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 82-151 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INITIATION, WITH THE BOHNHOFFS, FOR THE VACATION OF THE EASTERLY i FOOT OF THE PUBLIC LANE FROM ISLAND VIEW DRIVE TO THE COMMONS AND ASSUMING THAT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE 1 FOOT IS VACATED; THE COUNCIL WOULD THEN AGREE TO PAY THE $2,000 AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY $2,OOO TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED LAWSUIT WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the Bohnhoff's, owners of Lot 18 Except the southeasterly 25 feet, front and rear, thereof, and Lot 19, Block 1, Devon are suing the City of Mound for damage to a boathouse which they alleged was damaged as a result of a leakage from a broken storm sewer, and after negotiations, the Bohnhoff's are willing to settle for $4,000 of which the insurance company has agreed to pay $2,000 if the City will pay $2,000, and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, there is a still a problem because the existing damaged boathouse encroaches on a public lane by approximately 1/10th of a foot, and the City Manager is recommending that the Council vacate the easterly 1 foot of the public lane which will get the boathouse of of public property, and this vacation will not have an adverse affect on t~e public interest, and WHEREAS, the City Attorney recommended that the Council and the Bohnhoffs initiate the vacation of the easterly 1 foot of the public'lane that abuts Lot 19, Block 1, Devon, from Island View Drive to the Commons, and WHEREAS, if after the public hearing, the 1 foot is vacated, the Council would then agree to pay the $2,000 and the insurance company $2,000 to resolve the disputed lawsuit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council hereby authorizes initiation, with the Bohnhoffs, for the vacation of the easterlyt foot of the public lane that abuts Lot 19, Block 1, Devon, from Island View Drive to the Commons and assuming that after the public hearing, the 1 foot is vacated, the Council would then agree to pay the $2,000 and the insurance company $2,000 to resolve the disputed lawsuit. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Ulrick and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swanson, Ulrick and Lindlan; with Polston &Swenson qualifying their yes votes stating that they voted yes because in 1979 the Council authorized a variance and the boathouse encroach- ment was overlooked at that time; the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed 168 May 2S, 1~82 by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Attest: City Clerk Councilmember Poiston moved the following resolution, RESOLUT.ION HO. 79 - RESOLUTION GRANTING THE EXPANDING OF A NON-CON- FORRING USE ALLOWING A THREE FOOT SIDE YARD VAR- IANCE AND STIPULATING THAT A HAINTENANCE PERMIT BE APPLIED FOR FROM THE PARK COMMISSION WHEREAS, o~ner of property, described as L~ts 18 & 19, Block 1, Devon, has re- quested a 5 ft. side yard variance for the construction of a garage, and iWHEREAS, existing non-conforming use ls a f ft side yard on the existing home and a boat house too close to the Commons and extending onto the access, and WHEREAS, It Is recommended the garage be detached from structure and reduces In size. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUND~ HOUND, ~INNESOTA: That Council does hereby authorize and direct the granting of expansion on a non,conforming'use by al lo~ing a three foot side yard variance and stipulating that a maintenance permit be applied for from the Park Com- mission. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councllmember Withhart and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Lovaasen, Pol.~ton, Swenson and ~/ithhart, the following voted against the same; none, with Ulrick being absent, 'whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopt.ed, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the Cit.y Clerk. Att~st~/ City Clerk~ s/Tim Lovaasen Mayor I LIVE AT 4686 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. I HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE AND I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS. · HAROLD)~. IVERSON -~'-- RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO ~PPROVE ~ PUBLIC L~NDS PERMIT FOR TO ]~.LOH ~ BOULDER RETAINING HALL, FILLING ]%ND LEVELING OF THE GlO. DE, ]~D PI.I~TING OF GI~SS ~ HILD FLOHERS ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4909 ISLi~I:) VIEH DRIVE, BLOCK 14, LOTS 12 & 13, DEVON, DOCK SITE #43770 WHEREAS, Mike and Martha Mason residents of 4909 Island View Drive, Mound, MN have applied for a Public Lands Permit for Land Alterations to allow a boulder retaining wall, filling and leveling of the grade, and planting of grass and wild flowers on Devon Commons abutting 4909 Island View Drive, Block 14, Lots 12 & 13, Devon, Dock Site #43770; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, Subd. 4. requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for a Land Alteration Special Permit; and WHEREAS, there is an existing electric light pole with an outlet on this subject area of Devon Commons; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval as recommended by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The city of Mound does hereby approve a Public Lands Permit for Land Alterations to allow a boulder retaining wall less than 4 feet in height, minor filling and grading, and planting of wild flowers on the hillside on Devon Commons abutting 4909 Island View Drive, Block 14, Lots 12 & 13, Devon, Dock Site #43770 for Mike and Martha Mason, subject to the following ae The existing electric light pole and outlet may remain, but the installation shall be reviewed by a qualified licensed master electrician, and the work be properly inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector and that a copy of that approval be filed with the city. Ce Permit expires 5 years from date of city Council approval upon which time renewal is required. de Application for renewal must be made with change in home ownership. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY P~RK AND OPEN SPACE COI~fISSION June 11, 1992 ~UBLIC'LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR LAND ALTERATION= REQUEST T£ REPLACE RETAINING WALL BY MIKE & MARTHA MASON, 4909 ISLAND VIew Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to replace an existing dilapidated retaining wall with a new boulder wall. Also requested is slight filling and leveling, establishing a grass lawn area from the base of the proposed retaining wall to the top of the existing riprap at the lakeshore, and planting wild flowers on the hillside behind the wall. Staff recommended approval of the permit request for a boulder retaining wall less than 4 feet in height and minor filling and grading and the planting of wild flowers on the commons hillside upon the condition that the existing electric light pole and outlet may remain, but he installation shall be reviewed by a qualified licensed master electrician, and the work be properly inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector and that a copy of that approval be filed with the City of Mound. casey questioned the need to keep the light pole. Byrnes commented that terrain in this area is very steep and the light is needed for safety. The applicant commented that the light does not project all the way up the stairs, and he will shield the lights so it does not project past the end of the dock. It was noted that there has been a history of boat thefts in this area. The applicant added that they would like to install a sensor on the light so it will go on only when something triggers it. Mr. Mason commented on the excessive amount of debris which he removed from the hillside. He stated that he attended the Commons informational meeting on Saturday, June 23rd, and he agreed with the proposal to develop standards for trimming on the commons. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson to recommend approval of the request as recommended by staff. Casey asked the applicant if he would be willing to commit to plant some trees. The applicant agreed that he is in favor of more trees and vegetation. Casey moved to amend the motion to require that the applicant plant some trees. There being no second, the motion to amend failed. MOTION carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Andersen, Asleson, Byrnes, Eischeid, Mueller, Schmidt Ahrens and Skoglund. Casey opposed. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-!68:- ~612, 472-; ~ 55 FAX 16!2 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: May 14, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official0J Jim Fackler, Parks Director Mike & Martha Mason 4909 Island View Drive, Lots 12 & 13, Block 14, Devon Devon 43770 C Public Lands Permit Application - Land Alteration BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a permit to replace an existing dilapidated retaining wall with a new boulder wall. Both the existing and proposed walls will be less than 4 feet in height. The applicant's plans also include slight filling and leveling, and establishing a grass lawn area from the base of the proposed retaining wall to the top of the existing riprap at the lakeshore. Plans also include planting wild flowers on the commons hillside behind the wall. Future plans include replacement of the existing wood stairway. COMMENTS: The current status of the commons is listed on the attached status sheet. Noted is an electric light pole and outlet. This electric work must be approved by the City and the State Electrical Inspector. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the permit request for a boulder retaining wall less than 4 feet in height and minor filling and grading and the planting of wild flowers on the commons hillside upon the condition that the existing electric light pole and outlet may remain, but the installation shall be reviewed by a qualified licensed master electrician, and the work be properly inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector and that a copy of that approval be filed with the City. JS:pj ~printedonrecy¢ledpaper ,1~7~ CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-~ !55 FAX (612) 4-2-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: June 4, 1992 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Peggy James, Secretary.~ Request to Vacate Public Right-of-way (Fire Lane) Stephen and Claudia Baxter 92-021 Between 4908 and 4916 Edgewater Drive Lots 13 and 14, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to vacate the 10 foot wide unimproved public right-of-way abutting their property at 4908 Edgewater Drive. Vacation of this fire lane will create a conforming status for their property. The applicant also stated they will clean-up the property as it is currently not maintained. A Memorandum was sent to pertinent parties asking for their recommendation relating to the vacation of the subject fire lane (see attached copy). Minnegasco, NSP, GTE, Mound Fire Department, Mound Police Department, Mound Public Works Department and the City Engineer responded and had no objections to the vacation. There are no utilities located on the fire lane. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, expressed a concern about setting a precedent for vacating shoreline property. This request will be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission at their meeting on June 11, 1992. Notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. This case will be heard by the City Council at a Public Hearing on July 13, 1992. printed on recycled paper Revised 2/18/92 (Publ£c.hp) RECEIVED NAY 2 8 1992 Application for PI,,rBLI(~ LANDS PERMIT CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: Building Official Watershed DNR Date Received ,_~-~-~ Park Meeting Date City Council Date LMCD MOUNO PLA~!NflgG & INSP. 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERM1F - new construction or improvement, NOTE: NO PE~IT $~L BE ZSSOED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 8OATHOOSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND. PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIF - to ma£nta£n or repair an exi,t£ng structure ,' ,' LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline,, drainage, slope, trees, fill, etc. · · e e e e e · e eeee ele e®eeeelleeleeeeeee® eeeeeeeee®e.eeeeeeeeeeeeeee e e e eee ee.eeeeee DESCRIPTION OF ~UTTING PROPERTY: ~T(S) / Z ~ / ~ ~DITION ~ ~ ~ o ~ N~EOFPUBLIC~D ~o~ DOCK SITE ~ BLOCK PID $ SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION APPLICANT'S NAME & 'ADDRESS (if different) CON~OR P~FO~ING WO~ d¢~ ~ Z~ ~ f ~L~ CONTRACTOR' S ~D~SS ~ Z A % ~ ~, W ~o~ CONT~CTOR' S LICENSE ~ / PHONE VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING ~BOR & Applicant~~~J~~-~~~ Dated j--_.~ .~ ~ignature of Phk'66~~6~ ....................... '~ '~¥r~i;d .... ~¥~ ...................... Approved CITY COUNCIL Approved -- Denied DATE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR PROPOSED CHANGE The purpose of the proposed changes to the abutting commons of 4909 Island View chive, is several, I list them below. 1. Repair/upgrade of existing wall The current wall exists primarily to the west of the stairway. This wall is made out of concrete blocks and is in a great state of disrepair. The wall has fallen over in some areas and has allowed erosion to cover other pans of this wall. This wall is approximately 18 inches high and is not very estheticly pleasing. 2. Improve stability of the hill side. The former owner of the property removed much of the vegetation that was on the hill prior to us purchasing the property last October (1991) this has caused further erosion and exposure of some tree roots. The construction of a new retaining wall constructed by a professional land Landscaping company and constructed of natural materials (Boulders) would stabilize the hill side. 3. Improve the general appearance and safety of the commons. At this point in time I have done a considerable amount of cleaning up the' existing area. When I begin to clean up the area this spring (1992) I found large volumes of trash and debris on the entire commons area abutting 4909 Islandview. i collected at least 6 large yard bags of trash, which ranged from broken bottles to wire, tin cans, old pipe, concrete,many aluminum cans, much plastic. It generally looked like a dump. At this time it is much cleaner but I am still finding broken glass and old nails wire and other materials. By building a boulder retaining wall I will be able to stabilize the bank and move some clean earth over the area that had the junk on it (after further raking and cleaning) this area then would be seeded with grass and I plan on planting the commons hill side in native wildflowers .This plan would allow more use of the commons area, make the commons area safer by further cleaning it up, stabilize the hillside from erosion and prevent sedimentation of the lake and return the area to a more natural looking environment. Lawn& Landscaping 5232 Sea':..', ~ ,/ E"..:~..'~ Mound, ;-; ..... -:. ( 6 '., 2 ) -I '," 2 - a 6 ~: '? May 18, 1992 Mike and Martha Mason 49~,9 Island View Drive Mound MN 55364 II. Dear Mike and Martha Mason, This letter is in response to the observations and recommendations received by you from the City of Mound regarding construction of the boulder wall at 490~ Island View Drive: I. Construction of the Boulder Wall- ae Bottom Row- 1. Boulders will be 1½ to 2 feet in. size. 2. Boulders will be buried six to eight inches. Be Subsequent Rows- 1. Boulders will be stacked w/ an estimated 75° lean- back. 2. Fabric will be installed behind boulders to prevent wash-out. 3. Boulder wall will be back-filled w/ sand for proper drainage. All grading and escavating of back-filled area will be preformed upon completion of the boulder wall. Acer Lawn and Lan scaping Ave. (Brook!yn Park), P. O. Osseo, Minn'." CASWELL EbIGINEERING . '"~-...~egistered Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors CERTIFICATE oF SURVEY For, Scale - ~,'0 Phone HA. 5-2181 CO. We hereby certify thai this ;s a true ~nd correct representot,on of 0 $.~rvey oK the boundaries of the lond de,-crihe~ above and of the location of all buildings thereon, ond all visible encroq¢?nent~, if on,/. from or or~ sogd Iond. As survevea by me th,s ..... ~__~. ..... day of.__ ...... .,~ ~.~ '~-~ %: ..... A , Rev£sed PUBLIC LANBS STATUS SHEET 43770 OWNER' S NAME Freidhmd, Edwin 4909 Island View Dr Mound MN 55364 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: u:~ (s) 12 % ADDITION NAME OF PUBLIC LAND DOCK SITE $ ~37W S~VEY ON FILE? ~ES~/ NO PHOTOG~PHS ON FILE?~ NO BLOCK SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION C AUTHORI ZED ENCROACHMENTS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE EXPIRATION DATE UNAUTHORI ZED ENCROACHMENTS COMPLETED BY: DATE: ~o), Richard E. Eckroad, Inc. Consultin9 Structural Engineers. 10130 36th Place North · plymouth, Minnesota 55441 · (612) 544-8599 3 UN 2 3 1992 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. June 15, 1992 Comm. No. 155-92 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Dr. Mound, MN 55364 Re: Boat house on your property at 4729 Island View Dr., Mound, MN Dear Ms. Munson, On June 12, 1992 I visited your property at the above referenced address at your request. The purpose of the visit was to examine the boat house and comment on its structural integrity. The boat house is in a state of disrepair. The block walls are bowed inward, are out of plumb and contain several large cracks and the roof structure has become partially disconnected from the walls. If neglected, the boat house will become unusable and/or unsafe. The usefull life of this structure may be extended by bracing the walls with 6x6 treated wood timbers. The timbers would be placed vertically nearly full height against the inside face of both block side walls at some spacing - perhaps 48"o.c. (48" apart) from front to rear with a horizontal timber on top spanning acrossed the boat house from side wall to side wall. The rear wall could be similarly braced with vertical and horizontal timbers with the possible addition of horizontal timber braces at 45° oyer to the side walls. It might be necessary to utilize steel angles on the rear wall. The block cores at the large cracks could be grouted full height with concrete. The short wood stud walls which support the roof rafters would have to be plumbed and reattached to the top of the block walls or new stud walls added. You should be aware that because of the present poor condi- tion of the walls, the repairs mentioned above are only a temporary solution and the structure will continue to deteriorate. It is impossible to predict the longivity of the structure. I was not concerned for my safety during the time of my examination. However, you should be observant for any changes in the building such as misaligned door, widening cracks or new cracks which would be cause for concern. Richard E. EckroadP.E. Structural Engineer de i~ichard E. Eckroad, Inc.. Corlsullin~ ,Structural Engineers June 15, 1992 · 10130 36th Place North · Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 · (612) 544-8599 RECEIVED J U N 2 3 1992 MOUND PLANNING & iNSP. Comm. No. 155-92 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Dr. Mound, MN 55364 Re: Patio deck on your property at 4729 Island View Dr., Mound, MN Dear Ms. Munson, our roperty at the above referenced address. The On June 12, 1992 I visited y ~ ...... Jo deck for proposed revisions purpose of the visit was to examine u~= F=~~ ' As I understand, most of the patio deck has to be removed to comply with the wishes of the city of Mound. A narrow portion of the deck could remain to act · between the two flights of stairs which lead down to the dock as a landing ..... =:-~ 4o ~n emain will be very lightly and boat house. The portion or oecK wu~u~ ~ ~- r loaded and may be supported on almost any type of foundation such as small concrete footings, concrete piers cast in augered holes, treated posts emb- edded in the ground, or simply supported on treated wood blocking laid on top of the existing soil. You also stated that you would like to reuse the existing deck railing to prevent people from falling off the old block retaining wall which will be exposed when the wood patio deck is removed. The treated 2x6 "rim ~oist" and attached railing could be removed intact from the edge of the deck. The deck would then be removed. 4x4 treated wood posts could be embedded in the ground either in front of or behind the old block retaining wall and the railing could then be bolted to the 4x4 posts. ~ncerly, Structural Engineer MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 9, 1992 1.4 CONTINUED DISCUSSION REs CONDITION OF BOATHOUSE AND MINIMUM REPAIRS NEEDED FOR SAFETY PURPOSES AT 4729 ISL~/qD VIEW DRIVE FOR CAROLE MUNSON Richard Indritz, attorney for Carole Munson, was present and asked that this item be tabled until the next meeting. Ms. Munson had difficulty finding a structural engineer to look at the boathouse. She now has one coming out June 10, 1992, to look at the boathouse. They will submit the structural engineer's report to the Building Official when it is received. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to table this item until the June 23, 1992, City Councll Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MtNNESOTA 55364-!687 ,6~2i472 1155 FAX 612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 3, 1992 Ed Shukle, City Manager Jon Sutherland, Building Official Update on Carol Munson, 4729 Island View Drive Please note my attached letter to Ms. Munson dated May 18, 1992 to remind her of the action taken by the City Council at the April 2$th meeting. The City Council tabled any action to give Ms. Munson time to have the dilapidated boat house evaluated for minimum repairs to make the building safe and review the proposed repairs with staff. I did not receive a response from Ms. Munson prior to my letter. Then on June 2, 1992 I received a phone call from Mr. Richard Indritz, Ms. Munson's attorney (note the attached conversation record). Mr. Indritz noted that Ms. Munson had not yet obtained the services of an engineer to review the condition and repairs needed to the boat house and requested names of engineers he could contact. Please note the condition of the boat house is still questionable and action to allow repairs, or require removal of the hazard should not be delayed. JS:pj Enclosures printed on recycled paper ,f. ¢1T¥ (O~klf_lg AC-~]c~ o~: A-'PRIg.. CITY of ,X IOUND May 18, 1992 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN DECEMBER 10, 1991, RESOLUTION $92- 48, AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN APRIL 28, 1992 REGARDING MINIMAL REPAIRS TO THE BOAT HOUSE Dear Ms. Munson: On December 10, 1991 the City Council approved a 3 Year Maintenance Permit for the playhouse, boat house, stairway and retaining wall, but required the deck constructed without a permit be removed by June 10, 1992. This action did not designate or allow any repairs to the boat house or play house, but allowed after-the-fact repairs/construction to the stairway and retaining wall. On April 13, 1992 during a scheduled inventory of Devon Commons adjacent to your property at 4729 Island View Drive, staff noted the sagging roof and dilapidated condition of the existing boat house. On April 28, 1992 the Council addressed the boat house and the deck removal by tabling any action on the boat house until June 9th to give you time to have a building contractor look at the building and meet with me to do the minimum to make the building safe. The City Council also passed resolution #92-48 to allow construction of a walkway to connect the two stairways on the commons (in the area of where the deck is which must be removed). ! would like to remind you we will need to review these matters and work out a solution prior to the June 9th City Council meeting I would be happy to meet with you at the site to discuss the issues and answer any questions you or your contractor may have. Please note that deck is to he removed no later than June 10th 1992. printed on recycled paper Ms. Carole Munson Hay 18, 1992 Page 2 Available hours are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and I wi1! need at least 24 hours notice. Building Official JS=pj Enclosures P.S. I have included a handout for stairways and handrails. The stairway you have installed is required to have a handrail. You have approval to construct the handrail. A final inspection is required, it is your responsibility to schedule the inspection. CC,' Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director ELL""!] JU ;- 5-' LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT May 29, 1992 ) TO: LMCD Member Municipalities FROM: Treasurer Scott Carlson SUBJECT: Preliminary Discussion Draft 1993 Proposed LMCD Budget The LMCD Board reviewed the preliminary discussion draft of the 1993 LMCD proposed budget. In keeping with the practice initiated in 1991, the 14 LMCD member municipalities are invited to review this preliminary discussion draft and offer their comments prior to the LMCD Board's adoption at its June 24 meeting. It should be further pointed out that cities may also comment on the budget after its June adoption and certification to the member municipalities as provided in LMCD's enabling legislation, excerpt attached. A few points concerning the proposed budget are important in your review: Revenue projections -- as a result of increases in new revenue generated from user fee schedules, the 1993 budget reflects a 44% decrease in administrative levy requirements, with the milfoil revenue staying the same. Individual line items are called to your attention: ae Line 4, revenue from license and permit fees is increased as a result of the new fee schedule. This reflects the Management Plan policy to provide greater revenues from benefiting lake users. be Line 2, reserve fund allocation from uncommitted reserves supplements a portion of revenue needs. Ce Line 8b, milfoil contributions, presently reflects no other public agency support. The board is pressing it's concern for lack of funds from the DNR and Hennepin County. Explorations are taking place with county officials to redevelop needed support. 2. Disbursements reflecting new obligations are: Line 2, Personnel Services, Management Plan Implementation, Part Time Technician, proposes staff assistance in implementing Management Plan objectives. An attached outline details the responsibilities anticipated for this position. ' ()f N I()L,ND MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 4, 1992 Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director PRIORITIZED MONUMENT INSTALLATION AND COSTS On the attached map I have noted 37 high priority sites and 16 low priority sites for monument installation. I determined the high priority sites by those areas where a commons property line is shared between the city and the private owner running parallel to the shoreline. The monuments would be placed at the corner so as to provide a visual object denoting a public access site while showing the corner location of public and private lands. The cost for these monuments, I feel, should come from the docks program because all of the sites are areas where the city has dock locations. Currently, there is $1,000 in the docks budget under maintenance supplies that could be used, and the additional $300 - $500 to complete all the recommended monuments could come from the dock fund balance. I would prefer to do all of the installation this year. Ail of the monuments could be made during the spring when mowing and beaches are not a factor in our time schedule. Then through the spring, summer and fall the installation of the monuments could be filler projects for the parks crew. JF:pj printed on recycled paper MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 29, 1992 Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director Public Land Monuments - Information for COW Meeting -'~j'I have marked 50 sites on the attached map where I would recommend ¥ ~placing monuments denoting public lands. Most of the monuments are at access points, very few are placed at corner irons on the lake side of shared City and private boundary lines. The monument itself would be constructed out of a smooth 6" x 6" treated timber, colored to look like Cedar. The City logo would be ~ttached to the slanted portion on top and a number routed on the front for identification. I feel that the use of a logo will feel less intrusive to the adjoining property owner, and that it will become easily distinguishable as City property. The number on the front will allow us to direct someone to a specific location. The cost of the monuments, excluding labor, would be as follows: 6"x6"x8' Cedar Wood $14.00 Sack-crete 6.25 12" Nails 2.00 Logo Tag 1.00 TOTAL PER MONUMENT $23.25 The 50 sites would take 56 monuments at a cost of $1,302.00. If the approval to go ahead with the installation is given and funds secured, this project would be done throughout the spring, summer and fall. JF:pj printed on recycled paper CeA C.i ~z' Los<:) ~cccss ~ FROM LMCD Lake Ninnetonka 1~3 PROP~ .... CONPARTSON 06.Z3. l~J~J2 10;16 Poet. It~ brSnd I~x I~pl. T /Pho~ / : / I'"',/4.:,. 1 1~-1~9.3 TAX Share of $170,230 1992 Budget Admia Deephaven $ 8,3q3 ~ 4,901 Excelsior 3.356 1.9/Z Croenvood 1,&S1 g70 Minnetonka 21,446 12,600 Mlnnetonka ueach 2,284 1,34Z Mlnnetrieta 7,099 Shorewood 10,669 6,268 Sprin& ~a~k 2,531 1,487 Tonka ~aY 3,8~0 Z,Z6~ Victoria 3,120 1,833 Wayzata 11,656 6,848 Woodland 2,766 1,625 ~o:al ~107,i30 $ 63,000 Sh~re of $123,000 1993Prp~osed Budget Xa~ ..... :'~" _Chan~o &?~7~ 0 4,801 $(3,871) 1;902 1,997 (1,~29) '876 920 (825) : 12~000 12,600 (9,466) 1~206 1,266 (1,154) 3,~4 4,~z (3,1641 $~355 5,626 (~,031) lO,~lZ 11,038 (8,615) 6,276 6,58g (4,07Z) lI~S2 1,524 (1,0&2) 2;110 2,22& (1,770) 11956 2,034 (943) 6f326 6,6&0 (5,540) 1i494 1,569 (1,328) ~60~000 863,000 $(~7,230) 6-22-9Z Transmittal Letter, 1993 LMCD Preliminary Budget Draft, P. 2 be Line 30~ Management Plan Implementation Studies, proposes consulting assistance on a range of Manage- ment plan implementation objectives. An attached outline details anticipated objective tasks. Line 31, School District Boater Education Program, calls for establishing boating education in each of the lake school districts for youth and adults by the fall of 1993. Line 33, Contingency/Miscellaneous~ is removed to reflect the District's intention to draw upon its reserve fund for any contingency needs. Lines 35-42 outline the 1993 Milfoil weed harvest program which is reduced from the 1992 budget. It should be pointed out that the 1992 budget has also been revised downward for this year from $250,000 to $131~000 as a result of the decision to eliminate the more costly barge service. The barge elimination also reflects lighter weed volume experienced in the 1991 due to higher water levels, this same lighter volume projected for 1992. Corresponding reductions in 1992 revenue of $131,000 have also been projected. Comments on the Preliminary Discussion Draft of the 1993 proposed budget are requested prior to the Board's regular June 24 meeting. Thank you for your consideration and response prior to the June adoption and certification to the cities. LAKE Preliminary MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Discussion Draft, 1993 Proposed Budget. May 28, 1992 1991 1991 1992 1993 REVENUE Budget Actual Budget Budget 1 LMCD Communities Admn Levy .103,825 103,825 107,230 2 Reserve Fund Allocation -0- -0- -0- 3 Court Fines 35,000 54,851 38,000 4 Licenses & Permits 65,000 101,515 85,000 5 Interest, public funds 8,000 13,930 8,000 6 Shoreland Rules, DNR Agreement 45,000 20,000 20,000 7 Shoreland Rules, DNR Admn/Cons. 15,000 10,000 10,000.. Sub-Total, Administration 271,825 304,121 268,230 8 EW Mllfoil Program: a City Contributions 63,000 b Other Public Agencies 102,000 c Private Solicitation 85,000 d Reserve Fund Allocation -0- e Interest, public funds -0- Sub-Total, Milfoil 250,000 9 TOTAL REVENUE 521,825 63, 30, 36, 129, 433, 60,000 15,732 45,000 145,000 7,000 --0-- --0-- 272,732 000 63,000 63,000 000 170,000 -0- 331 17,000 37,000 -0- -0- 35,000 -0- -0- 5,700. 331 250,000 140,700 452 518, 230 413, 432 DISBURSEMENTS ADMINISTRATION: Personnel Services: 1 Salaries 100,500 2 Mgt Plan Imp!./Pt. Time Tec. -0- 3 Employer Benefit Contr. 14,800 4 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES 102,183 104,500 105,700 -0- -0- 15,000 17,485. 17.000 18,00~. 115,300 119,669 121,500 138,700 (1) Technical service assistant for management plan implementation. Contractual Services: 5 Office Lease 9,600 10,026 10,130 10,482 6 Utilities, Janitorial 1,500 -0- -0- -0- 7 Recorder, Temp Secy, Audit 6.575 5.110 5,550. 5,550 8 TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES 17, 675 15, 136 15, 680 16, 032 Office & Administrative: 9 Office, General Supplies 3,075 4,051 3, 500 4,000 10 Telephone 1,475 1,579 2, 350 1,600 11 Postage 2,280 3,622 4,000 4,000 12 Printing, Publ., Legal Notice 2,000 2,387 4,500 3,000 13 Maintenance, Office Equip 3,400 2,242 1,700 2,000 14 Subscriptions, Memberships 210 75 200 200 15 Insurance, Bonds 5,050 5, 579~ 5, 200 6,000 16 Mileage, Expenses, Training 2. 360 2. 029 2. 300 2,500 TOTAL OFFICE & ADMN. 19, 850 21,564 23,750 23, 300, {1) OPROPOSED 1993 LMCD BUDGET, P. 2 Capital Outlay: 18 Furniture, Equip. 19 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 1991 1991 1992 1993 Budget Actual Budget Budget 3,000 3,789 2,000 5,000 3,000 3,789 2,000 5,000 LEGAL: 20 Legal Services 20,000 28,453 18,000 25,000 21 Prosecution 20,000 24,944 25,000 27,000 22 Process Service 500 120 300 200 23 TOTAL LEGAL 40,500 53,517 43,300 52,200 (2) Reduction from "1991 Actual" recognizes suit resolution. SERVICES/STUDIES: Shoreland Rules Consultant 12,500 1,755 10,000 -0- Shoreland Rules, City Grants 45,000 18,750 20,000 -0- Lake Use Density Study -0- -0- 12,000 -0- Wetland Inventory Mapping -0- -0- 1,500 -0- Public Information 5,000 -0- 3,000 3,000 Public Access Studies 4,000 -0- 4,000 2,000 Mgt Plan Implementation Studies -0- -0- -0- 27,500 School District Boater Ed. Prgm. -0- -0- -0- 5,000 CONSULTING 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 TOTAL CONSULTING/STUDIES 33 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION CONTINGENCY/MISCELLANEOUS 34 At approx. 5% of Adm Budget TOTAL ADMN., CONTINGENCY Milfotl {EWM} Eurasian Water Weed Harvesting Program 66, 500 20, 505 50, 500 37, 500 262, 825 234, 180 256, 730 272, 732 9,000 1,285 11,500 -0- 271,825 235,465 268,230 272,732 35 Barge Service 114, 000 42, 941 114,000 -0- 36 Trucking 31,875 7, 493 32,000 34,000 37 Personnel 42,520 16, 502 45,000 40,000 38 Admn, Ins, UC/WC Ins, FICA, Eq 42, 770 20, 023 31,000 30, 000 39 Opn, Supplies, Fund Raising 15, 650 7,859 16,000 15,000 40 Contract Services 4, 000 -0- -0- 15, 000 41 Contingency (at approx. 5%) 12,500 -0- !2,000 6,700 42 TOTAL EWM DISBURSEMENTS 263,315 94,818 250,000 140,700 (2) 43 TOTAL ADMN., EWM DISBURSEMENT 535,140 330,283 518,230 413,432 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT I03B.631 WATER PLANNING AND PROJECF IMPLEMENTATION 2492 Subd. 2. Expenses. Thc cxpcnscs of thc district shall bc bornc by the municipali- ties. Thc portion of thc expenses of the district borne by each municipality must bc 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. ltistory: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 53 103B.635 FUNDING OF DISTRICT. Subdivision I. Budget. The board must, on or before July I each year, prepare and submit a detailed budget ofthe district's needs for the next calendar year to tile govern- ing body of each municipality in the district with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality~ The governing body of each municipality in the district shall review the budget and the board, upon notice from a municipality, must hear objections to the budget. After the hearing, tile board may modify or amend the budget. Notice must be given to tile nnmicipalities of modifications or amend- ments. Subd. 2. l¥1unicipal funding of district. (a) The governing body or board of supervi- sors of each municipality in lhe district must provide. Ibc funds necessary to meet its proportion of tile tolal cost determined by Ihe board. (b) A municipality may raise the funds by any means that the municipality has to raise funds. The municipalities may each levy a tax not Io exceed .00242 percent able market value on lhe iaxable properly Iocaled in the distri¢l for funding the district. The lew must be within all olher limitations provided by law. (c) The funds must be deposiled in the treasury of the dislrict in amounls and at times as the treasurer of the district requires. llistory: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 54 103B.641 REGULATIONS OF DISTRICT. Subdivision I. Authority and effect. (a) The district may adopt rules and regulations to effectuate the purpose of its establishment and the powers granted to tile district. (b) The rules and regulations have tile effect of an ordinance if declared by tile board of directors of tile district and stated in the rule or regulation. (c) The rules and regulations of the district may be .enforced by the district by injun~:tion in addition to penalties under this section. · Subd. 2. Adoptiou procedure. (a) A rule or regulation must be suitably titled. (b) A rule or regulation must be adopted by a majority vote of all of the members of the board of directors. The adopted rule or regulation must be signed by the chair, attested by the secretary of the board, and published once in an ollicial newspaper. (c) Proof of publication must be attached to and filed with the rule or regulation. Each rule and regulation must be recorded in the rule and regulation book by 20 days after its publication. Subd. 3. Penalty. A person who violates a rule or regulation that has the force and effect oran ordinance is guilty ora misdemeanor and subject to a sentence of not more than 90 days plus costs or a fine of not more than $100 plus costs. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s .55 103B.645 PROSECUTION OF VIOLATIONS. Subdivision I. Complaint for violation. A prosecution for a violation of a rule or regulation shall be brough! in the name of the district upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. Ifthe accused is arrested without a warrant, a written complaint shall be made, lo which thc accused shall be required to plead, and a warrant shall issue on the complaint. The warrant and all other process in such cases shall be directed for service to a police officer, court officer, marshal, constable, or sheriff of any of the municipalities in tile district. Subd. 2. Complaint. It is a sufficient pleading of the rules and rcgt,lations of tile CITY OF MOUND I deund I 472-1155 QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION _I~ORTABLE SIGN APPLiCATIOI'~ Portable signs used For the purpose oF directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public Function. The period oF use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval oF the City Council. Stgns shall be placed on the premises oF the advertised event. A permit is required however is exempt From all Fees. , AOORESS OF SIGN LOCAT'ON BUILDING OWNER ~ ~,&l~y O~ ~-~£ ~ ~/~ PHONE NAME OF APPLICANT ~0~ (iF other than owner) PHONE PLEASE INDICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: _ DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (materials, ts It illuminated, etc.): SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ~ high x ~ wide : ~ ~ _ _sq. Ft. LENGTH OF TIME TO BE ERECTED: ~ME~ ~0 ~ ~ ~X~ ~ 2Z ~ DESCRIBE REASON FOR REQUEST: /-~0 AbOE~T~ H~W~ /~'~2~/~L~ ~Ppl i cant s S t gn~Jre 6e~t~ / - IIIIII/I/I/IIIIlY~JlI////I/I//IIIIIIIIIIIii/iiii~,iiiIiiiiiiiiiiiIiiiiii Recommendat t on: APPR~3VED BY Cll~{ COUNCIL ON: 2 I'W7 BILLS .... JUNE 23, 1992 BATCH 2062 TOTAL BILLS $ 200,501.39 $ 200,501.39 z 0i Z 0 Z Z --, 0 ~r Z Z Z 0 Z 0 ! 12> ..~ Z Z Z · 2 I ...J ~Z 3:-3 0 I.-, Z 0 oO :Z '0 GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND DOCKS FUND RECYCLING FUND CEMETERY FUND BUDGET 1188250 880900 3260 69500 41250 75000 10000 51250 2259410 CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT MAY 1992 MAY YTD REVENUE 41.7~ PER CENT REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 0 1859 1186391 0.16~ 16&l 28028 792878 3.41~ 480 1779 1481 54.57~ 10479 33541 35959 48.26~ 1568 6596 34654 15.99~ 7236 22410 52590 29.88~ 1388 7397 2603 73.97~ 28 2326 48924 4.54Z 88840 103936 2155474 4.60~ 821600 11219 124028 97572 55.97~ 1180000 111720 429586 750414 36.41Z 350000 27120 128696 221304 36.77~ 650000 50833 261376 388684 40.21~ 71000 2279 70011 989 98.61~ 118730 4048 17812 100918 15.00~ 3200 600 3150 50 98.44~ CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES MAY 1992 41.7% GENERAL FUND Council Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets Shop & Stores City Property Parks SLimmer Recreation Contingencies Transfers GENERAL FUND TOTAL Area Fire Service Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund lng Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund BUDGET MAY YTD EXPENSE EXPENSE 67280 10360 34753 1380 68 848 166790 14260 69953 1480c) 41 3530 46260 7 203 147090 12381 55376 31000 3292 15647 83950 3030 18725 ?44890 57121 308712 3350 59 63? 187000 15290 56809 402900 33610 155664 20180 994 4919 90150 .22089 42102 132990 8957 39214 31610 0 0 20000 2840 5842 119730 9398 46988 2251350 193797 859322 VARIANCE 3252? 532 9683? 11270 4605? 91714 15353 65885 436178 2713 70191 847836 15261 48048 93776 31610 14758 72742 1392028 PER CENT EXPENDED 51.65% 61.45% 41.94% 83.85% 0.44% 37.65% 50.47% '88.30% 41.44% 19.01% 44.73% 38.64% 24.38% 46.70% 29.49% 0.00% 86.81% 39.24% 38.17% 221600 18431 76596 145004 34.56% 178980 14674 ?969? 99283 44.54% 353060 28327 139373 813687 39.48% 971190 49058 877818 693978 88.54% 100900 14803 38876 62024 38.53% 4230 604 1552 8678 36.69% 46850 3167 19793 87057 48.85% MINUTES OF ~ MEETING OF THE MOUND ~DVISORY PLP~'NING COMMISSION ~une $, 1992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Jerry Clapsaddle, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, city Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. The following were also in attendance: Claudia Baxter, Monique Yannotti, David Osdoba, Diane Rosencrantz, Bob Commerford, Dirk Young, Darlene Pool, Brad Blazevic, Cheryl Fougeron, Virginia Miller, David Johnson, Barry Harpestad, and Lenny Buehl. MINUTES The May 11, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes were presented for changes and/or additions. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the May 11, 1992 Planning commission Minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE #92-029: WiLLIAM M~CLACHLANFOR ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMS, 2950 HIGHLAND COORT, REOUEST TO INST~LL A "CLIFF CLIMBER" wiThiN A SCENIC EASEMENT. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request to install a "Cliff climber" within a designated Scenic Easement. The Scenic Easement was approved with Resolution #86-156 for the Cobblestone Cove subdivision and authorized the Mayor and city Manager to execute said easement. The Scenic Easement allows stairways up to a maximum of 48 inches in width, it does not specifically restrict mechanical stairways. There is an existing stairway on this property, the subject lift would be in addition to the existing stairway. Staff recommended that if the request is approved, the structure be properly engineered and that all required permits be obtained, including a state electrical permit and a building permit to ensure compliance with any conditions of Council approval. A special inspection would be required by the Building official to be completed by the responsible engineer who would report to the Building official. The applicant, Mr. MacLachlan illustrated the Cliff Climber system and stated that the car is only 3 feet wide and it will be located 12 inches from the existing stairway. He has discussed this issue with the neighbors in the Cobblestone Cove subdivision and none of them objected to the installation. Very little clearing of vegetation will be required. The color scheme for the unit has been approved by the DNR. The system can be used year-round, and Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 in 95% of the cases a standard stairway is also on site. The intent of the Scenic Easement was discussed by the Commission. MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Voss approval of the request for a Cliff recommended by staff. to recommend Climber as Voss commented that he feels the lift is still in compliance with the intent of the Scenic Easement. The lift is not destructive to nature and has a low impact on the shoreline. Weiland commented that the lift will not allow tree growth, only low vegetation. Motion carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were: Michael, Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson and ross. opposed were Jensen, Weiland, and Mueller. Meyer, Those Weiland commented that he feels the lift is not in compliance with items 2.a. and e. of the Scenic Easement. Mueller commented that it creates a double wide width from the original width allowed, he would prefer to have the lift over the stairway, but not both. Weiland agreed with Mueller. Jensen commented that if this lift is allowed, there will be five more to follow. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CASE ~92-012: DAKOTA RAIL, INC., 2290 COMMERCE BLVD., PID ~13-117 24 33 0066. PRELIMINARY PLAT "DAKOTA RAIL 1ST ADDITION" - PUBLIC HEARING. This case was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 11, 1992, at which time it was tabled pending receipt of more information. City Planner, Mark Koegler, informed the Commission that the applicant has supplied the information as requested by staff and approval of both the preliminary and final plat is being requested. Both the City Planner and the City Engineer recommended approval of the request. The City Planner addressed a previous concern of the Planning Commission,s relating to the width requirement for future light rail use. Koegler stated that the remaining Dakota Rail property will meet the 8 foot clearance requirement. Mueller questioned if the bank should be included in the CDB parking. Staff will look into this issue. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. There being no comments from citizens present, Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 Koegler commented that this building does not conflict with the long range downtown plan. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat as requested, provided the property owner be made aware they do not meet the number of parking spaces required for the use, and they become a member of the Central Business District parking program. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on July 14, 1992. CASE ~92-019: ~EORGE & Cw~RYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANEt LOT 4, BLOCK 4t REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-24 21 0087. VAR!__aNCE - deck extension. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 6 foot lake side setback variance for a deck. Staff recommended approval of the variance request based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. The Commission confirmed that the existing deck is nonconforming. Jensen commented that she feels there could be hardship due to the shape of the lot. Mueller remarked that their is room towards the north property line towards Three Points Blvd. to expand the deck and have it conform to setback requirements. The applicant expressed a need for the deck in the location proposed. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Michael to recommend denial the request for a variance to extend the existing deck. Motion failed 3 to 6. Those in favor were: Mueller, Weiland and Michael. Those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Meyer, Voss and Jensen. Mueller commented that the home was built in 1983 and unfortunately the builder did not plan for a deck, he does not feel this creates a hardship. Clapsaddle remarked that tighter control is needed on site plans, and now the homeowner is stuck because of poor planning by the builder, it is only fair to allow the deck. Jensen questioned if there is any interest in updating the survey, she is concerned because the survey reflects a "proposed" house rather than an "existing" house, and it would be nice to know exactly where things are located. 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance to allow the deck extension as recommended by staff, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Motion carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Meyer, ross and Jensen. Those opposed were Mueller, Weiland and Michael. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CASE ~92-020: DAVID JOHNSON, 4345 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 3, 4, ~ P/75, 76 & B, PHELPS ISLAND PARK, PID #19-117-23 13 0007. VArIANCe: - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to replace an existing screened porch with a new second level four season porch with a basement underneath. The new porch conforms to all setback requirements. A proposed 4 foot wide deck results in 4 foot lake side setback variance request. Two existing nonconforming setbacks are also being requested to be recognized to allow the addition, they include a street frontage/lot width variance of 20 feet and a side yard setback variance of .1 feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the street frontage/lot width and side yard variances to permit construction of a conforming four season porch. It is further recommended that the four foot variance for the proposed deck be denied based on lack of hardship or practical difficulty. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be included pertaining to the street frontage/lot area and side yard variances: In approving the variances, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from the shape of the existing lot over which the resent owner of the property had no control. The applicant commented that he does not have a problem with eliminating the 4 foot deck addition from his request. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 CASE ~92-021:, STEPHEN & CLAUDIA BAXTER, 4908 EDGEWATER DRIVE. REOUEST TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY (FIRE LANE) - PUBLIC HEARING. The city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed with the Commission that the City Engineer reviewed this request and did not see any reason for the City to retain the right-of-way for public utility or street purposes. No objections were received from other City departments or utility companies either. The Park and Open Space Commission will be reviewing this request at their meeting on June 11, 1992. Michael stated that he is not in favor of giving lakeshore property away, but there is no reason not to vacate. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. The applicant, Claudia Baxter, expressed reasons for the vacation. The vacation of the fire lane would make the side yard setback to her garage conforming, the property is not being maintained and she would like to clean it up, the access is not used by the public as it is difficult to traverse due to the steep slope, there are two other accesses close by that are flat and the public can use, and there are two other "fire lanes" which were approved for vacation in the area. Abutting neighbor to the north of the "fire lane" commented that she has witnessed neighbors using the access, however, due to the steep slope they get to a certain point and then encroach on her property to get to the shoreline, and they use her dock. Barry Harpestad of 4925 Edgewater Drive stated that he lives across the street from the "fire lane" and he has used it on occasion to access the lake, he has friends pick him up and drop them off at this location. Barry commented that he will help clean it and he feels it is an important asset for those who don't live on the lake. Lenny Buehl of 4915 Island View Drive stated that in the past he used the access for fishing, at one time he did have a dock there and he installed cement block steps which have since deteriorated. Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by ross, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the request to vacate the 10 foot wide unimproved public right-of-way. Voss commented that if the property is not functional it should be 5 o17 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 put back on the tax role. It was suggested that the property could be improved for use. Mueller suggested that if the property is vacated a walkway easement could be established. Johnson commented that if the City cannot take care of the property, then it should · be vacated. Weiland stressed that we don't want to loose these properties, they are valuable to have, and he suggested that the neighborhood get together to clean the property, it could be adopted through the adopt a green space program. Motion failed 3 to 6. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, ross and Hanus. Those opposed were: Johnson, Weiland, Meyer, Mueller, Michael and Jensen. Meyer polled the Commissioners on the reasons for their decision: Clapsaddle (in favor): The right-of-way is not being used as it was intended to be used when it was platted, and it is currently not safely useable. Johnson (opposed): The property is public land, and a request could be submitted to the Park Commission to improve the property. Hanus (in favor): There is not sufficient space for a dock site, and why hang onto it for an unknown use in the future? Weiland (opposed): It is easy to give it away, but then it is gone forever. Meyer (opposed): If the Park Commission can develop it for the benefit of the neighborhood, then keep it. It should not be given away, but sold, and the profits could go to improve other accesses in the neighborhood. Voss (in favor): He is not in favor of vacating commons property, however, he does not believe there is an overwhelming need for a 10 foot wide strip of land, and it would be a greater benefit to get it back on the tax roles. Mueller (opposed): He is in favor of granting the vacation in lieu of a walkway easement as access to the lake is a benefit. Jensen (opposed): Once the property is gone, we cannot get it back. The neighborhood could utilize the Adopt a Green Space Program and get together to clean and fix up the area. She does not believe the property can be sold, and the tax benefit would only be approximately $17 per year from each property. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 This request will be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission on June 11, 1992, and by the city Council at a public hearing on July 14, 1992. CASE ~92-022:. JERRY WINTER, 2343 COMMERCE BLVD., P~RT OF LOTS 3 a 4, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION ~167, PID #14-117-24 44 0004. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASSEMBLY OPERATION - PUBLIC HEARING. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to operate a light assembly business in the lower level of 2343 Commerce Blvd. The business, known as Advantage Products, will assemble small pest control tools and will initially employ 2 people. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Advantage Products subject to the following conditions: 1. The use shall comply with all building, fire and ventilation codes. 2. The use shall be limited to the lower level of 2343 Commerce Blvd. Any future physical expansion of the business shall require modification of this conditional use permit. 3. Ail receiving and shipments shall be handled via UPS or other small truck carrier. 4. Ail signage shall comply with the Mound Sign Code. 5. Outside storage of any raw materials, finished products or other items shall be expressly prohibited. Mueller questioned if any hazardous materials will be used in the process of the proposed assembly. Staff did not have an answer, the issue was briefly discussed. MOTION made by weiland, seconded ~y.Mueller to rec~.mmend approval of the requested cond~t~ona~ us~ permit as recommended by staff. Staff shall verify ~f hazardous materials are proposed to be used on-site. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 14, 1992. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 CASE #92-028: DIANE ROSENCRANTZ, 5115 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 4, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 7, SHIRLEY N!LLS UNIT B, PID $24-117-24 l~ 0011. VARIANCE - garage addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct an 8 foot wide garage addition to an existing single car attached garage. A 9 foot front yard setback variance is being requested as the proposed addition will have a setback of approximately 21 feet off of Channel Road. The corner of the existing garage is also nonconforming since it has a setback of approximately 26 feet. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 9 foot variance to allow construction of an addition to the existing single car garage It is further suggested that the Commission incorporate the following finding of fact in its motion: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance results from the shape of the lot and the abutting rights-of-way over which the applicant had no control. Mr. Osdoba, an adjoining neighbor, expressed a concern about access to his property being blocked off because another adjoining neighbor parks his vehicles in the platted right-of-way. It was determined that the applicant's request will not affect Mr. Osdoba's concerns. It was noted that one of the applicant,s property markers set by the surveyor is located in the middle of the paved portion of the right-of-way, their may be a problem with the location of pavement on the right-of-way. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Staff is to investigate the situation relating to Mr. Osdoba,s concerns. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CASE ~92-023: VIRGINIA MILLER, 5020 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOTS 6 & 7, S&L GLEN ARBOR, PID ~13-117-24 42 0013. VARIANCE - reconstruct. dwelling. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request to rebuild a home that was totally destroyed by fire. Koegler explained that since the application was submitted, the applicant has agreed to reconstruct the dwelling with conforming setbacks. However, two variances are still involved: an 18 foot front yard setback variance for the existing detached garage and a 2 foot lot width variance. ROlo Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the lot width variance be approved in order to construct a new conforming home on the property. It is further recommended that the garage either be removed from the site or moved to a conforming location within two years of approval of the variance by the City Council. If the Planning Commission concurs with staff's recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: "In approving the lot width variance, the Planning Commission finds that the request is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variance results from the shape and width of the lot over which the property owner had no control. The applicant commented that to construct an attached garage with a precast panel garage floor and suggested by the City Planner would be extremely expensive. Clapsaddle commented that this is the time to develop a plan for the site, he feels there are other alternatives available. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Michael, Hanus, Johnson, Mueller, ross, Weiland, and Jensen. Clapsaddle was opposed. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. C~SE ~92-024: FINE LINE HOMESt 1734 WILDHURST LANEt LOT 7 & 1/2 8, BLOCK 14, SHADYWOOD POINTm PID ~13-117-24 11 0043. VARIANCE - new sinqle family dwelling. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a lot size variance of 625 square feet to the required 10,000 square foot requirement to allow construction of a new single family dwelling. This property was approved for subdivision in 1973 and a lot size variance was granted. Staff recommended approval of the variance upon the following conditions: 1. The lot size variance be granted provided no other variances are requested. 2. It is determined that the foregoing variance will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. · This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992· CASE ~92-025: DIRK & MEG YOUNG, 4738 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 9 & 10 & 1/2 VAC. ST., BLOCK 6, DEVON, PID ~30-117-23 22 0048. VARIANCE - detached garage. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for two variances in order to construct a new detached garage. The first variance is to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 11.2 feet from Hanover Road to the existing deck resulting in a 8.8 foot variance request. The second variance requested is to allow a new detached garage to be constructed 18 feet from the front property line abutting Island View Drive resulting in a 2 foot variance. It appears as though several options are available for the location or construction of the proposed detached garage, including: Construct the proposed garage on another portion of the lot with a conforming setback. Lot 9 does not contain adequate area for a future subdivision. Since the property is a through lot, a conforming garage could be constructed with doors facing either east or west with an 8 foot setback off of Island View Drive. 3. Move the proposed garage two feet closer to the house. Shorten the proposed garage two feet and add additional width if needed to accommodate storage. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the variance for the existing deck setback off of Hanover Road for the purpose of constructing a new conforming garage on the property. It is further recommended that the 2 foot variance for the proposed garage be denied since other locations for a conforming structure are available on the property. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: "The Planning Commission finds that the 8.8 foot variance for the existing deck off of Hanover Road is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances since the variance results from the location of existing facilities. The 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 requested two foot variance for a proposed detached garage off of Island View Drive is inconsistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances since other options exist on the property for construction of a conforming structure." The applicant explained that the reason he positioned the garage as he did was because of an existing concrete slab, but he is open to other alternatives, option 4 is a possibility. HOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 9, 1992. CASE ~92-026~. BRADLEY BLa2EVIC, 1871 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 2, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~18-117-23 23 0061. V~RIANCE - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow an entryway and kitchen expansion on the northeast side of the existing home. The corner of the addition will have a 3.5 foot setback to the side yard. Additionally, the property has an existing nonconforming garage requiring an 18.5 foot front yard setback variance, and an existing nonconforming shed which encroaches 1.2 feet onto the adjoining property. Staff recommended approval of the variance for the proposed improvement as it is consistent with practical difficulty as referenced in the Zoning Code. Staff further recommended recognition of the 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage for the purpose of constructing the proposed entryway addition. Variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The 18.5 foot variance for the existing garage is recognized only to facilitate construction of the entryway improvement. This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing nonconforming detached garage. Such improvements shall require additional variance approval in the future. 2. The existing storage shed shall be removed or relocated to a conforming setback prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed entryway improvement. If the Planning Commission concurs with staff's recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: "The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing 18.5 foot variance for the garage and 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 the variance of 2.5 feet for the entryway are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Locating the entryway addition other than as proposed would create a practical difficulty on the property. The applicant, Brad Blazevic, handed out to the Commission a proposal for the adopt a green space program for the city owned property adjacent to his property. His shed currently encroaches 1.2 feet onto this public land. Mr. Blazevic explained that he intends on applying to vacate this public way. The status of "Poplar Landing', was discussed, and it was noted that this land was originally part of Orono township. Options for removal or relocation of the nonconforming shed was discussed. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, with the exception that condition #Z be amended to require that the shed be removed or relocated to a conforming setback within one (1) year of Council approval. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. EASE #92-027: ROBERT COMMERFORD, 1580 HERON LANE, LOT 3 & PART OF 4, BLOCK 22, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~13-117-24 11 0130. VARIANCE = new single family dwelling. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a new home on a vacant lot. The lot was created in a subdivision approved by the City of Mound in 1981. Placement of the new home, as proposed results in the following variance requests: ' Front Yard (Heron) Rear Yard Lot Depth Street Frontage Proposed Variance 15' 20' 5' 9.67' 15' 5.33' 53~ 80' 27' 40' 13' 27' The footprint of the proposed structure, combined with the driveway and walkway to the front door results in a lot coverage of approximately 49%. Mound is currently considering a somewhat more lenient cover restriction of 30% which could be in place by December of 1992. In addition, construction of the proposed home will result in the virtual clear cutting of a number of mature 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 trees. Regardless of the house plan, the City of Mound will need to grant variances to allow construction of a home on this lot. If the Commission feels that the proposed plan is .consistent with the intent of shoreland rules and municipal ordinances, the requested variances should be approved. If the Commission finds that the proposed structure is inconsistent with the intent of shoreland rules and municipal ordinances, the request could be tabled to allow the applicant time to investigate other housing plans or the variances could be denied. If the Planning Commission approves the requested variances, the following conditions should be included in the motion. 1. Tree removal including trimming on commons property is expressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the City of Mound. 2. Construction of any physical improvements on commons property is expressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the city of Mound. Hanus and Voss both commented on the large footprint of the proposed dwelling and the amount of excessive hardcover proposed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus to table the request to allow time for the applicant to discuss an alternate plan which would require less hardcover. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPOR? Liz Jensen reviewed the May 26, 1992 Council minutes and the agenda for the June 9th Council meeting. A Commission member commented on the considerable amount of exterior storage and temporary sign violations at the corner of County Roads 15 and 110. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 13 BRAD ROY IS RE TIRING! CITY STAFF AND COUNCIL IS IN VI TED FOR CA KE A ND COFFEE TO CELEBRATE BRA D 'S RETIREMENT MONDAY. JUNE 22. 1992 3 PM. CO UNCIL CHAMBERS SEE YOU THERE] June 22, 1992 TO: MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT, D ~ BRYCE FROM= ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER · CIT5' ,%,IOUND SUBJECT: LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF JUNE 17, 1992, SUN SAILOR AND JUNE 22ND, THE LAKER I read with interest the letter to the Editor written by Don Bryce, Mound Fire Chief regarding the fish fry and other issues relating to the fire department in the recently published newspapers. The fish fry was again wonderful. To serve over 2400 persons certainly was a lot of hard work and effort put on by the fire department and auxiliary. Just by having that many people attend to me indicates that the community is very much supportive of the fire department. The tone of the letter to a certain extent, made it sound like the community does not understand or does not realize the efforts that are put into being fire fighters and protecting our City and other cities within the fire service area. The fire department does a lot for our community. It is unfortunate that you feel that you don't get enough praise. The City Council and myself at every opportunity have communicated to you individually or to Don Bryce during individual contacts or public meetings, how much we appreciate the fire department and what they do. We recognize your efforts and feel very fortunate to have persons of your caliber serving our needs in the fire service area. I am sorry that Dan Grady and Scott Bryce felt offended by not being given credit in the recent rescue call on the life of Howard Simar. The City Council recognized John Ewald, Greg Skinner and Rick Perry at a recent council meeting for their CPR efforts at the scene of the rescue. I was not aware of all of the circumstances surrounding this call, i.e., I don't know who arrived first or who did what when. I don't think that was the important thing at the time. What was important was saving Mr. Simar's life. Mr. Ewald, Mr. Skinner and Mr. Perry's involvement certainly kept this man alive as well as your efforts with the heart start device. I apologize if the fire department was offended by the awards given out and for not mentioning the fire department as part of the presentation of these awards. Please remember that the community does appreciate you. Although they may not personally tell you, thank you or give you specific praise, they are behind you and support you. printed on recycled paper L~er o ~a~ You A big thank you tO fish-fry chairman Tim Williams. cou~ we have to ~ank God for beautiful, sunny, hot day. We had our biggest year, 2,411 served, plus seconds on the f'~h. The dinn~ was very good, if I do say mo myself. The iqrcflghicrm and auxiliary worked ha~d for one of W~ couldn't have done it without the suppor~ from the citizens we cover .. lVlound, lVllnne~onka Beach, Minneuista, Orono, Shorewond and Spring Park, plum many great friends and supports who have moved away and come back.j.ust for ou~ lqsh f~y. To the many bus,nesses, police and police reserves, a big thank you ton. This is ~e only fundraiser ~e Mound Fire Department has. We are not involved with the Minnesota Professional Fire- fighl~=rs, who call solicit~g ov~ the telephone for donations or concert ticket~ (even though they say all dej~'unents benefit from them). Through ~e proHt~ we rec~ve, we pay for our uniforms, Little League, Babe Ruth, women's softball teams, our relief association, retirement galas, funeral lunches, equipment, etc. and had given to the Pond Arena. so a lot of the money goes right back to the community. Our firefightets don't get half the praise they deserve. They painted and put on the new front to t~ £~e statlo~. They are h~c day, night and we~ends, all season long to protect you. As long ~s wc w~e called for a "rescue catl'~ we dldn't get ct~t for the life-~vmg on Howard $irna?. Dan Omdy and Scott Bryce went right m the scene and did CPR, but bruised/cracked a couple of his ribs, in doing CPR (Sorry, Howard). Our new l-te~rtstart anived with o~ rescue ~luad and tho f'~st time we had used the Heartstart (only ha,d, it a few months) saved Howard s life. The Simar family realized what our Mound Fire Rescue did with a beaulJful thank you card, along wlth God's Messing. And every rime we re~pond to any call, you a~¢ b{c{scd fo{' ~e spc~id{y ~{ned F~reiqghi~s, Hrst- re. spondee-s, EMTs ~nd o~ce~s. Thank you, Don Bryce Mound Fire Chief ;W LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD 0P DIRECTORS AGENDA ?:00 FM- ublic Hearing JUN22'i99Z 7:30 PM - Regular meeting Wednesday, June 24, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901Manitou Road (County Rd 19) 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARING Big Island, Inc., Mahplyata Island, Orono, Lower Lake North New Multiple Dock License for 14 watercraft 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS READING OP MINUTES - 4/25/92 Board Workshop, continuation of 4/22/92 Board meeting (minutes distributed 5/27/92) and 5/27/92 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMBNTS - Prom persons in attendance not on agenda CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member, citizen or the petitioner requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda and considered as a specific item. COMMITTEE REPORTS: 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 6/15/92; B. Special Events: 1) New Applications, recommending approval with stipulations: a. Westonka MDA Bass Tournament, Sunday, 8/16/92, ease off at Excelsior Park Tavern, Excelsior Bay b. Aqua Celebrity Rally Parade, Saturday, 7/18/92, headquartered at Excelsior Park Tavern to benefit Save the Lake fund, attract public participation up to 1,500 boats; 2) Deposit Refunds of $100, recommending approval for: * a. AJA Fishing Tournament, 5/26/92 * b. Minnetonka Bass Club, Minnetonka Bass Classic, 6/6/92 * c. MN BASS Federation, Telemetry Tournament, 5/16/92 C. New on-sale wine and on-sale beer license applications for the Excelsior Park charter boat, recommending public hearing report acceptance and license approval; LMCD Board of D/rectors, Agenda, 6/24/92, p. 2 D. Boat & Water Safety Education Subcommittee recommendation to petition the courts to include a boater education program in lieu of part of fine for serious and repeat offenders, including a specific education provision for persons convicted of BHI, per Hanagement Plan objective; E. Hennepin County Sheriff's Hater Patrol report; 1) Board participation in Hater Patrol evening/weekend enforcement patrols, per guidelines provided; 2) Activities report F. Additional business Ce ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurt A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 6/9/92; B. Committee Report 1) Lakewatch Network for long-term monitoring of water quality recommending joint effort with LMLOA at $1,000 for service, data development by Freshwater Foundation; 2) Committee progress per minutes of 6/9/92 meeting; EWM Task Force Report, Chair Penn 1) Operations progress 2) Funding outcome to date Additional business 3. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock (no June meeting) A. Lake Inspection Tour review B. Additional business recommended by the committee 4. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol A. Data Gathering Committee progress report B. Standards Committee progress report FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. May Statement of Cash Transactions B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment C. 1993 LMCD Budget for certification to Lake cities EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 27, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER: at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran ROLL CALL: Members Present: David cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Wm. A. Johnstone, Minneton- ka; Jan Boswinkel, Treasurer, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Vice Chair, Mound; JoEllen Hurr, Orono, (arrived as noted); Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay; George C. Owen, Victoria; Duane Mar- kus, Wayzata; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Member Absent: Robert Rascop, Shorewood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS Resignation: Cochran announced receipt of the resignation of Jan Boswinkel, Minnetonka Beach, as Treasurer and as a member of the Board. The resignation was accepted with regret, the Board recog- nizing Boswinkel's long service to the LMCD and Minnetonka Beach. Appointment: Robert Abdo, Mayor, Minnetonka Beach, ex- pressed the heart-felt gratitude of the City of Minnetonka Beach to Jan Boswinkel for his representation on the LMCD Board of Directors. Abdo then announced that the Minnetonka Beach City Council has appointed Mike Bloom to represent the City on the LMCD Board of Directors. Mr. Bloom was introduced to the Board, noting he is a long time resident on the Lake. Abdo noted there were several applicants for the position. This indicates an interest on the part of the City of Minnetonka Beach to continue support of the LMCD. Oath of office: LeFevere administered the Oath of Office to Mike Bloom. He was welcomed and seated to represent Minneton- ka Beach. Election: Cochran nominated Scott Carlson, Minnetrista, to the office of Treasurer. The nomination was seconded by Foster. There were no other nominations. MOTION: Cochran moved, Foster seconded, to approve the election of Scott Carlson as Treasurer. Motion carried unanimously. READING OF MINUTES Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 4/22/92 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 1 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS PUBLIC COMMENTS: May 27, 1992 There were no comments from persons in attendance not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENT: NOTION~ Foster moved, Babcock seconded, to approve the follow- ing: 1. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, Chair Babcock A. Deicing License Deposit Refunds ~ $100 each: I) Approval of deposit refunds for 27 licensees per the 5/9/82 minutes of the Water Structures Committee, with the addi- tion of the City of Wayzata. 2) No refund to be to made to two licensees for non- compliance: * Eric Bodine, Harrisons Bay * Shoreline Marina & Yacht Club, Smith's Bay 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster A. Acceptance of the public hearing report and approval of new On-Sale Wine and On-Sale Beer Licenses for Al & Alma's I charter boat. B. Special Events: 1) Approval of new applications with stipulations for: a. Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, Fourth of July Fireworks, Sat., 7/4/92 subject to receipt of insurance certificate. b. IN Bass Tournaments of MN, Bass Tournament Sunday 9/20/92. ' 2. Deposit Refund of $100, Northwest Tonka Lions Club, Winter Sports Fest, 2/1/92 & 2/2/92 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurr Discussion was delayed until later in the meeting when Hurr could be present. '2. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of Minutes: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 5/9/92 Water Structures Committee meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 2 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 27, 1992 B. Multiple Dock License Renewals 1) Bean's Greenwood Marina, St. Alban's Bay, Greenwood The Board received a new site plan dated 5/8/92, identified as 2B1). MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to deny the application of Bean's Greenwood Marina for 1) a variance for any changes beyond the 100' zone; 2) approve the 5/8/92 site plan as a renew- al, with a minor change, with slip #84 as a tie-on or relocated, provided there is no further encroachment beyond the 100' zone with any dock structure. It is noted there are dock structures on the northeast side of the marina which are grandfathered outside of the 100' line. DISCUSSION: Babcock explained that a boat on #84 could be out- side the 100' line but the dock structure would have to be within 100' of the shore. Tom Judd, attorney representing Bean's Oreenwood Marina, said the 5/8/92 diagram as presented is not acceptable to James Bean, 'owner. Judd stated a meeting was held on 5/8/92 between Bean, Babcock and Cochran. At that time it was agreed by Babcock and Cochran that slip #84 could be a slip with a canopy. At the 5/9/92 Water Structures Committee meeting this was changed to a tie-on with no construction beyond 100'. If Bean cannot use #84 as a full dock with a canopy he would like to return to the licensed configuration used for the last 7 years. . Babcock explained that the 1984 site plan, the last dimen- sioned site plan on file, appeared to be inaccurate as compared to a 1983 aerial photo. The 5/8/92 survey, identified as 2B1) conforms close to the 1983 aerial photo. Judd said the 1984 site plan showed all of the docks within 100' (The site plan was not a certified survey.) Bean acknowledged that it was a hand-drawn plan and if the 100' line is not accurate it was inadvertent. Markus asked about the economic impact of a canopied slip vs. a tie on. Bean responded there is a difference of $500 to $800 additional value. Bean added that it is important to have a full dock structure at the #84 location because that is the roughest part of the lake in the marina area. Babcock also stated the committee based part of its recommendation on the fact that #84 was moved outside of the 100' zone when the slips along the gas dock side were reconfigured. Judd continued by stating the proposed action would be taking a slip away from Bean's. They cannot see any difference between a tie-on with a boat extending beyond 100' and a dock with a walkway and a canopy at the same location. Thibault commented that the 5/8/92 plan is not totally accurate because it includes the proposed changes in slips 81, 82, 83 and 84, which differ from those existing when the 1990 certified survey was made. Penn said he would have difficulty voting on the proposal without an accurate site plan. He asked if there were any complaints from the public. Thibault responded there were comments protesting continued use of the temporary low water docks extending into the bay and about slip #83 which had been increased to 44' Bean explained #83 was increased during LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 27, 1992 his absence by an outside contractor when a canopy was installed. As it was mid-season he did not change it. MOTION: Foster moved, Slocum seconded, to amend the motion to permit slip #84 on 2BI) as a full slip with canopy with the dotted line shown on the site plan to be the slip walkway. DISCUSSION: Upon question by Markus, the executive director stated there was no certified survey until 1990. Previous draw- ings were hand drawn representations. This now seems to be the time to use a certified survey to make corrections rather than amend to approve errors based on hand drawn site plans. LeFevere said it is his understanding a number of plans have been submitted over the years, none of which show the docks in question beyond 100' Those plans that have been approved over the years are not representative of what exists. It is his understanding slip #84 is not the only discrepancy. Apparently there was agreement between two Board members and the owner which was not confirmed by the Water Structures Committee. If the applicant is not satisfied with the committee recommendation and proposed Board action, the application should be sent back to committee. Noting Bean's suggestion to return to a plan approved 7 years ago, LeFevere said the critical time would be 1982 for determining if something is grandfathered. Re-construction later than 1982 does not create grandfathered rights. The Board would have to agree that a hardship exists in order to grant a vari- ance. Hurr arrived. VOTE: Motion on amendment carried, 8 ayes, 4 nays, 1 abstention. Markus, Reese, Penn and Hurr voted nay. Owen abstained. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Hurt seconded, to refer the application to the Water Structures Committee for further study. DISCUSSION Cochran said he would want any recommendation from the committee to be consistent with the Board majority vote on the amendment. Foster said, as a clarification, that a variance is being denied and #84 is being grandfathered. LeFevere said the action would be predicated on the Findings that #84 extended beyond 100' in 1982. ACTION: Orathwol and Hurr withdrew the motion to refer to the committee. Babcock and Reese withdrew the original motion, which had not been voted. With that withdrawal the amendment was, in effect, voided. MOTION Carlson moved, Babcock seconded, to deny the variance application and to accept the original proposed site plan identi- fied as 2B1) (dated 5-8-92) in recognition of the 'fact that this was a pre-existing condition and to grandfather #84 as a 10' x 24' slip to extend beyond 100', a distance to be determined by staff, and that the grandfathered docks beyond 100' on the north side are not affected. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 27, 1992 DISCUSSION: Hurt 'expressed confusion as to how a determination was reached to grandfather #84. Hurt said she would have to see more documentation in the form of photos and affidavits. Cochran said the 1983 aerial photo shows that location. Babcock added there are a number of discrepancies between the aerial photo, the hand drawn site plans and the 1990 certified survey. The result- ing differences are minimal. VOTE: Motion carried, Penn, Hurt, Markus and Reese voting nay, Owen abstaining. 8 ayes, 4 nays, 1 abstention. 2) Forest Arms Improvement Assoc., Orono, Forest Lake MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to deny the Forest Arms Improvement Association application for a change in configu- ration to 14 slips at 10' x 28' DISCUSSION: Slocum expressed his opinion that the Association should be allowed to re-construct their Multiple Dock License to 14 10' x 28' slips. It is his belief that is in keeping with what the LMCD is trying to accomplish. To support his contention he mentioned: 1) the dock system will take up less space; 2) it will keep the boat sizes down; 3) it is a safer configuration than what they now have. Admittedly they are increasing the size of 4 16' slips but they are reducing the total amount of occupied lake space. Babcock reviewed the existing Multiple Dock License as 4 at 10' x 16' 5 at 12' x 24' and 5 at 12' x 32' Ordinance 2.05 , Of Subd. 9 says clearly there is to be no increase in slip size. concern is how a slip size is defined. LeFevere said he thought there was too much discussion about what the Code says. The discussion is about water versus land rights, not vested rights. The Board is free to get the results it wants, but not by throwing out or disregarding the Code. However, if the Code is too restrictive, or unnecessarily re- strictive, the answer is to amend the Code. LeFevere further explained the Board can amend the Code either way. If the Board feels there is some ambiguity, that the slips ought to be 16' long and left at that, the ambiguity can be resolved by correcting the Code to get strict results. If the Board feels this is something it wants to permit, then the Code should be adjusted to allow changes in slip size with a grandfa- thered density. LeFevere continued that rather than get caught up too much in the words, decide what result the Board wants, and the appro- priate adjustment can be made in the Code. Babcock suggested forming a sub-committee to look at the wording in the Ordinances. However, he said, there are approxi- mately 140 (LMCD records confirm 95) Multiple Dock Licenses on the Lake and any amendment should be studied carefully to deter- mine the effect on them and on the Lake. MOTION:. Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to table the Forest Arms Association application and return to the committee to work out an arrangement. VOTE: Motion failed, 12 nay 1 aye. Foster voting aye. 5 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 27, 1992 Carlson suggested denying the new configuration and to refer the subject of an ordinance change to the committee. Lynn Adams, President, Forest Arms Association, reported the dock has been installed at its currently licensed configuration. He mentioned the licensing of the Water Patrol dock was based on the average slip length. He submitted figures which indicate the current 27.6' average dock length is essentially the same as the average dock length in their application. Adams also submitted a 1987 license showing 10 doCks at 32' and 4 inside slips. They are willing to back license to 1987. Babcock said they would have to back license to 1982. At that point a determination would have to be made as whether there were changes in configura- tion in the interim. LeFevere mentioned that in 1978 the District passed the one boat per fifty feet provision. Subsequently, in 1982 the Special Density License provision was adopted by the Board and the Dis- trict decided to grandfather slip sizes as well as a specific number of boats. Penn said the whole issue is that the Association request cannot be granted without violating the Code. Foster asked Adams if the Association would be willing to work with the LMCD to clarify the Code by amendment. Adams stated that in view of the discussion about a possible Code amendment, the Association will withdraw its application for a change. MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve renewal of the Forest Arms Improvement Association Multiple Dock License without change for 1992. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3) Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Woodland, Wayzata Bay MOTION: Babcock moved, Slocum seconded, to approve renewal of the Methodist Lakeside Assembly Multiple Dock License for 1992 without change. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously It is noted an application for change transferring storage from the District Mooring Area to the dock is being held until a proposed Ordinance amending Section 2.04 is adopted. C. Ordinance Relating to District Mooring Areas ~OTION: Babcock moved, Cochran seconded, to approve the second reading of An Ordinance (#116) Relating to District Mooring Areas as amended by committee: Amending LMCD Code Section 2.04; waiving the third reading and ordering adoption upon publication. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 27~ 1992 D. Ordinance Relating to Storage of Lake Maintenance Equip- ment MOTION: Babcock moved, Cochran seconded, to approve the third reading of An Ordinance (#117) Relating to Storage of Lake Main- tenance Equipment and ordering adoption upon publication. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Ordinance Relating to Low Water Variances; Docks in Excess of 100 Feet; Multiple and Commercial Dock Licenses; and Permanent Docks. MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to approve the second reading of An Ordinance (#118) Relating to Low Water Variances; Docks in Excess of 100 feet; Multiple and Commercial Dock Li- censes; and Permanent Docks; Amending LMCD Code Sections 1.07, 2.01, 2.03 and 2.06, waiving the third reading and ordering adoption upon publication. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. F. Appointment of Sub-Committees Babcock asked for volunteers to serve on the following sub- committees of the Water Structures Committee. 1) A sub-committee is needed to study whether to allow sales of non-fuel related items from gas docks. Suggested items to consider are the size of the structure, safety, lighting, advertising signs, what to sell and any other subjects. Slocum and Foster volunteered. 2) A second sub-committee would consider how to count restricted vs. non-restricted boats on and off shore, including slides. Cochran said off-lake storage should also be an item to discuss. Hurt, Grathwol, Slocum and Foster volunteered. 3) Babcock suggested postponing the study of Ordinance 2.05 Subd. 9 and the issue of slip size until later in the season. The study should be completed by the next boating season. The executive director asked that sub-committee meeting dates be set for inclusion on the June calendar. G. Additional Business Non-Submittal of Multiple Dock License Applications or Delinquent Multiple Dock License Applications The executive director repo~ted two multiple dock license renewal applications have not been received to date. Roger Wikner has not renewed his private residential license. It is possible a license is no longer required if Wikner plans to keep less than 5 boats. North Shore Drive Marina has not submitted an application for renewal. Staff is working with them. The Chair returned to Item 1 on the agenda. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1. ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurr May 27, 1992 A. Committee Report. The report of the 5/12 Environment Committee meeting has been forwarded to the members, to be cor- rected to show Babcock was present. Hurt said attendance was very good. The next meeting is scheduled for 6/9 at 8:30 a.m. at the Wayzata City Hall. B. Independent Contractor Agreement - Milfoil Harvesting Evaluation. The Board received a proposed agreement between the LMCD and Robert L. Pierce. Pierce is to act as an independent contractor to conduct an independent evaluation of the District's Eurasian water milfoil harvesting and control program. LeFevere suggested inclusion of a clause regarding cancella- tion at will. MOTION: Cochran moved, Penn seconded, approval of the Independ- ent Contractor Agreement between the LMCD and Robert L. Pierce with the addition of a "cancellation at will" clause with a ten day advance notice. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Eurasian Water Milfoil 1992 Budget. Penn presented a proposed budget for the1992 EWM harvesting season. This is a revision of the budget approved in June 1991 for 1992. MOTION: Penn moved, Foster seconded, to approve the revised 1992 Eurasian Water Milfoil budget. DISCUSSION: Babcock asked if there is a provision for barging if it is needed later in the season. Penn said if the budget needs adjustment it will be brought to the Board for approval. All indications, from various sources, are that there will not be a heavy harvest this year. Carlson noted reserve funds are being used for income while there is an expense item for a contingency fund. The executive director responded that the contingency item is included to provide immediate funds for any unusual occurrence. Babcock asked about the $170,000 budgeted in June, 1991 to be received from the MN DNR and Hennepin County. The executive director replied that the MN DNR reviewed their plans for 1992 and 1993 and concluded they would not continue to fund control projects for existing milfoil infestations. The MN DNR is fund- ing control of new infestations in areas primarily outside of the metropolitan area. The funds were not forthcoming from Hennepin County because of a legal opinion from the Hennepin County attor- ney and lack of State legislative action to authorize county funding. Babcock suggested considering another approach to the Hennepin County Board through the use of the Joint Powers Act. Markus expressed concern that there are no funds available to a Lake with the heavy boating use experienced on Minnetonka with 8,000 boats stored on it. Penn said there is optimism that if the Sonar testing is successful there could be funding assistance in that area. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 27~ 1992 Babcock asked for a delay in action to allow presentation to his Council. Strommen responded that this budget is an amendment to the 1992 budget sent to the cities in 1991, which actually represents a decrease in costs from that adopted in 1991 for 1992. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Harvesting Personnel MOTION: Penn moved, Foster seconded, to authorized the executive director and Task Force Chair to hire the staff necessary to carry out the Eurasian water milfoil harvesting program. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Penn reported the aquatic plant survey in St. Alban's Bay started 5/25. This will be the first step in building a data base. The process will continue throughout the summer. 2) A sub-committee is looking at a University of. Florida Center for Aquatic Plants management evaluation of DNR~s Fisher- ies and Ecological Services Departments done in 1991. A copy is available for Board members. 3) At the last Task Force meeting it was proposed the name of the committee be changed to something with a broader concept to include other exotics. 4) Three bids were received for truck hauling. The low bid was $41.90 per single truck and $87.80 for two trucks. The two truck price is more than double because they are using a smaller single axle truck for the one truck and a dual axle truck for the second. The low bidder is Ceres Trucking Co., Roseville. The bid is $8.001/hour lower than the second low bidder, Minnetonka Portable Dredging. MOTION: Cochran moved, Penn seconded, to approve contracting with Ceres Trucking Company to provide the trucks for hauling harvested weeds. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5) Penn reported John Barten, Hennepin County Parks, has taken the responsibility of bringing the scientific people to- gether so there is a fairly defined scientific base line for the Lake. 6) It was agreed by the Board that the appointment of a sub-committee to monitor water quality does not have to come before the Board. 7) Johnston asked how the decision is made when and where to harvest. Penn responded that it is done in consultation with the executive director and EWM Task Force Chair. The decision when to start is determined by when the weed starts to surface. Where to start is determined by the first heavy weed emergence. The executive director explained that last year there was excessive personnel turn over because of lack of continuous work. This year an effort will be made to keep the crew engaged in doing equipment maintenance and lake-related weed control shore- line maintenance activities. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 27, ~992 Markus asked if the harvest crew can do private work around docks. The executive director said there are limitations because of the size of the equipment. LeFevere said it is possible under certain circumstances. Babcock would rather see the harvesters working than sitting on shore. 3. LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Minutes. Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 5/18/92 Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. Charter Boat Roster For their information, the Board received the listing of charter boats licensed for 1992. C. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report Sgt. Chandler added the following to the report presented at the 5/18 Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting. * There was one more Boating While Intoxicated violation, for a total of 6 this season. * The Water Patrol has prepared a request through the MN DNR to use the Coast Guard Auxiliary for assistance. It would be used for safety patrol. This would free up a patrol boat. The Coast Guard boats will be identified by red and yellow lights as well as signage on the bow. 4. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol 1) Grathwol submitted a report indicating steps which were taken in March and April by the Task Force. Grathwol invited the Board to a meeting on 6/4 at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of gaining advice in developing an agenda for the 6/10 meeting of the data gathering sub-committee. 2) Grathwol reported a 1992 inventory summary indicates 473 car-trailer parking spaces. The 473 includes 100 to be built at the new Hennepin County Regional Park, the new Gray's Bay site and some from Deephaven which were not counted in the 1983-86 studies. 3) Grathwol has asked the MN DNR and staff to prepare standards for parking spaces and boat ramp design and construc- tion. Grathwol has met periodically with Orono city officials and the MN DNR regarding the proposed Maxwell Bay launching site. The DNR has acquired the 2.1 acre Strahley site on Maxwell Bay. At Orono's request, the DNR has agreed not to develop it until the Task Force reviews further sites and looks at alternate proposals. The Legislative Committee on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) will consider the MN DNR and LMCD request for $3,500,000 for access sites on Lake Minnetonka. The Board will be furnished with the names of the LCMR members and is asked to contact them to support the request. The first LCMR hearing is scheduled for June 10. ' LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 27, 1992 FINANCIAL REPORTS A. 'April Statement of Cash Transactions Slocum moved, Owen seconded, to approve the April Statement of Cash Transactions as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment Grathwol moved, Penn seconded to approve payment of bills in the amount of $27,852.12, Checks No. 8490 through 8561. Motion ca'rried unanimously. C. Audit Report and Management Letter The executive director reported the auditor indicates there were no procedural discrepancies in the 1991 financial records calling for any further management review of the financial opera- tion. The audit fairly represents the financial condition of the LMCD. · Cochran moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the 1991 audit report and order it filed. Motion carried unanimously. D. Draft of 1993 LMCD Budget Carlson submitted a draft of the 1993 budget. He pointed out the significant drop of $40,000 in levy revenue from the cities. This is accomplished by the increase in license and permit fees. There is also an allocation from the Reserve Fund. This is an effort to reduce the size of the reserve so it does not exceed one year's budget. Reese asked if the Reserve is being drawn down enough. Carlson responded that the receipts under the license and permit fee schedule is only an estimate. In his judgment the $15,700 from the reserve is a prudent figure. Babcock questioned why the Reserve is not being used to focus on specific items called for in the Management Plan. Carlson said the use of the increased license and permit funding addresses the Management Plan objective of putting the cost of operation on the user, rather than the cities. Carlson stated the cities should be made aware that this one year reduction does not mean the levy will not go up in the future. Carlson also pointed out Disbursements line 2, the part-time technician item under Personnel Services and line 30 under Con- suiting Services/Studies are for implementation of Management Plan objectives. Hurr asked about the School.District Boater Education Pro- gram item. The executive director said that is a 1993 Management Plan objective. Hurr also questioned the expenditure for a Fish Monitoring Impact Study. She does not feel that is an LMCD charge. Penn asked for a summary of Management Plan objectives which will require funding for the next 5+ years. Carlson suggested a short synopsis of the 1993 Management Plan objectives be included with the draft budget sent to the cities. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 27, 1992 MOTION: Carlson moved, Reese seconded, to forward the proposed 1993 LMCD budget to the cities, combining Fish Monitoring Impact Study with Management Plan Implementation Consultant. A cover letter is to be sent to the cities detailing the Management Plan objectives, explaining the one year reduction in the levy to the cities, and the milfoil program. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen Strommen presented Resolutions for adoption as they relate to the change in Treasurer and banking arrangements. 1) Penn moved, Babcock seconded, to adopt Resolution (#83) Approving a Certificate of Authority for Maintenance of a Cash Account. Motion carried unanimously. 2) Hurr moved, Penn seconded, to adopt Resolution (#84) to designate Norwest Bank as LMCD depository. Motion carried unani- mously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: Monday, June 15, 1992, 4:30 p.m. Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; Duane Markus, Wayzata {as noted); Thomas Penn, Tonka Bay; Thomas Reese; Mound. Also Present: Steve Tallen, LMCD Prosecuting Attorney; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Special Events: A. New applications, with stipulations 1) Westonka MDA Bass Tournament, Sunday, 8/16/92 Excelsior Park Tavern, Excelsior Bay Thibault explained this is the second 1992 tournament being sponsored by the Westonka MDA (Muscular Dystrophy Association). Denny Nelson, the responsible party, has had experience in organ-' izing tournaments. Nelson is asking the LMCD to waive the permit fee as all profits go the MDA Association. Reese said he believes the LMCD should be listed as an additional insured on the insurance certificate. By being named on the certificate the LMCD is protected if there is an accident and there is a need to defend issuance of the Special Event License. Foster agreed there should be a waiver of liability or hold harmless clause. Chandler said the Water Patrol has a release form and is named on the insurance. Strommen suggested an LMCD policy on insurance certificates should be reviewed for all Special Events. The committee discussed the request for waiver of fee. Nelson explained there is a $100 fee charged to the participants. 75% of the entrant's fee is used for prizes and 25% goes to the MDA. The consensus of the committee was to continue the current policy of requiring a fee for all applicants. Nelson understood the committee's position. Nelson said all of the participants sign off to acknowledge they are aware of the Eurasian Water Milfoil and Zebra Mussel control rules. Reese asked how they enforce the rules. Nelson responded that it is virtually impossible to guarantee enforce- ment. Nelson said much of the EWM is picked up at the accesses and in many cases it is difficult to get it all off before leav- ing the access. They distribute pamphlets from the DNR on EWM control. With reference to Zebra Mussel, Nelson said the number of boats from the Mississippi River or Lake Superior is minimal. MOTION: Foster moved, Penn seconded, to recommend approval of the application of the Westonka MDA Bass Tournament subject to the stipulations for open water fishing tournaments. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE 2. Deposit Refunds June 15, 1992 MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of deposit refunds of $100 each to the following: 1) Minnesota Bass State Federation, 5/16 2} Minnetonka Bass Classic, 6/6 3) AJA Fishing Tournament, 5/26 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Markus arrived. 3. "Boat Club" Concept Mike Lunning (Midwest Boat Club Inc.) and Jack Trudeau (The Boaters Club) were present at the invitation of the committee to explain the concept of a "boat club". Trudeau distributed a brochure explaining The Boaters Club. They operate from Lakeside Marina on Maxwell Bay. Lunning said the Midwest Boat Club Inc. is based at Shoreline Marina,.Smith's Bay. The two clubs operate on the same base. The Boaters Club owns a certain number of boats as detailed in their brochure and provides dockage, insurance and maintenance to the members. Membership in their club is sold to the public. Trudeau said, in their operation, the ratio is 10 members to 1 boat. The only additional cost, beyond the membership fee, is the cost of the gasoline used. Foster asked about how the time is apportioned to the mem- bers. Trudeau said members are limited to two reservations at one time. When one is used, another time and date can be select- ed. There is a priority on weekend use. If a boat is available during the week it is not counted against the priority system. Reservations are for half day (8 a.m. - 2 p.m. or 2 p.m. to day's end) or for a full day. They lease space from Lakeside Marina and are a separate operation. Lunning said their concept is similar to the Boaters Club. They have fewer boats and a smaller number of members to boat ratio. One reason for fewer boats is that they do not have maintenance facilities available at Shoreline Marina. They are also interested in developing clubs on the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. They feel they are offering an affordable boating experience to the beginner boater prior to purchase and to the older population who do not want the responsibility of ownership. Their operating cost to the member is gasoline and propeller damage repair. The committee questioned Trudeau and Lunning on various aspects of the Club concept. Lunning said he feels the Club offers lake access to many without increasing the density. Foster quoted the Management Plan statistic which indicates for every 4 boats docked on the Lake, only 1 would be in use at a given time. In the Club concept all 4 boats could be in use. They countered that fewer boats are stored on the Lake. Both Trudeau and Lunning offered their booking statistics to the LMCD staff on a confidential basis. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 15, 1992 Foster noted the Club concept could result in less storage density. Referring to the clubs on the Rivers, Lunning said they would not transport boats back and forth. Chandler said the Water Patrol considers the Club concept fails under the "rented boat" definition and the boats will need inspections. The Clubs agreed to this procedure. 4. Special Event 7/18/92 New Application, with stipulations 1) Way to Happiness/Aqua Celebrity Rally Parade John Wilkie, S. J. Breen and Bob Brandt were present to explain the parade. Wilkie said they are members of a sub-committee of the Min- neapolis Aquatennial, responsible for events on Lake Minnetonka. The Parade of Princesses will be the official Aquatennial activi- ty'on Lake Minnetonka on another day. The parade is not an event of the Aquatennial although they have hopes it will be sanctioned in the future as a method of publicizing water activities. In their presentation Wilkie and Brandt said they plan to have two to four 40'+ high powered performance boats as the parade leaders. Those boats will also participate in the Aquat- ennial day and night parades. There will be a $5 fee charged for participation in the parade. Additional funds will be raised through corporate spon- sorships. Profits would be donated to the Save the Lake Fund for EWM control. There is the possibility of ra. ising $125,000 to $150,000 from mainly corporate sponsorships with 75% profit going to "Save the Lake". The plan is to start the parade with celebrity lead boats from the Excelsior Park Tavern, with additional boats joining the parade at designated points along the parade route. They antici- pate 500 - 1500 boats to participate. Chandler said he is concerned about the number of boats and the course as presented with the application. He wants the boats in the main part of the Upper and Lower Lake and to use fewer channels. The speed will have to be limited to a minimum wake. Chandler also wants the start and finish times to be earlier to avoid afternoon peak use crowds. At Foster's suggestion the parade would also have to avoid the sail boat regatta area. Wilkie said they would like shore exposure. Markus suggested the high speed boats could be demonstrated at 40 mph in Wayzata Bay with shore visibility along the City of Wayzata shoreline, sepa- rate from the parade. Penn cautioned about creating road traffic problems. Foster said that the high speed boats may require a Water Patrol waiver from the decibel limits. MOTION: Foster moved, Markus seconded, to recommend approval of a Special Event License for an Aqua Celebrity Rally Parade on Saturday, 7/18/92 with the stipulations to: LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 15, 1992 1) waive the decibel reading and exhaust cut-outs for the. high performance race boats; 2) the 40 mph speed limit to be enforced; 3) the route is to be worked out with the Sheriff's Water Patrol; 4) the parade to start at 9 a.m. and end at 1 p.m.; 5) Seventy-five percent of the fees/sponsorships raised to be donated to the Save the Lake Fund for EWM control; 6) the applicant is to be aware the Hennepin County Sher- iff's Water Patrol has final authority on when the parade is over, if crowding requires an earlier dismissal, and on water traffic control; 7) insurance with adequate dollar coverage is to be provided with a certificate naming the LMCD as additional insured, at least two weeks before the event. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Goals and Objectives The committee agreed to hold over review of the Goals and Objectives as introduced at the April meeting. 6. On-sale Wine and On-Sale Beer Licenses for the "Excelsior Park" Charter Boat The committee received the minutes and Findings of the Public Hearing held on 5/25 to consider the license applications for the "Excelsior Park" charter boat. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of an On-Sale Wine License and an On-Sale Beer License for the "Excelsior Park" charter boat. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 7. Lighted Buoys at the Narrows Channel Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvements, reported on the cost, style, potential vandalism, maintenance and possible use of solar power lights to provide lighted buoys at the Nar- rows. He said Hennepin County has an overhead light at each end of the Narrows and Tonka Bay has one in the middle. He noted they were not all in operation when he looked at the channel, that to be remedied. A copy of Bailey's report is attached with these minutes. Foster suggested a red and/or, green light.could be placed on the existing pole, tied into the electric switch for the overhead light. Bailey will.check that possibility with Northern States Power. 8. Board Participation in Water Patrol Ride Along' A show of hands indicated the committee members and staff members present are interested in participation in Water Patrol evening/weekend enforcement patrols. Foster asked the members to promote partic- ipation with the other Board members. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 15, 1992 Chandler distributed copies of the Ridealong Liability Release participants will sign. He suggested the 6 p.m. shift is the best time to go out and he further suggested starting the ride-along at 8 p.m. Pick up can be arranged with the Water Patrol. Release is attached with these minutes. Water Patrol Report A. Activity Chandler presented a written report, copy attached. B. Rescue Chandler reported Paul Oberhauser, 2425 Dunwoody, Wayzata, rescued a potential drowning victim in Lafayette Bay on 6/9/92. Oberhauser has been commended by the Sheriff's Water Patrol. Chandler suggested a letter of commendation from the LMCD would be appropriate. C. Decibel Testing Chandler explained the procedures used in doing decibel testing, exhibiting the new equipment they now use. D. 1992 NACo Achievement Award Chandler reported the National Association of Counties has awarded the 1992 NACo Achievement Award to the Hennepin County Sheriff for the Drunken Boater Deterence and Water Safety pro- gram E. Fish Count The DNR is starting a nine week fish count of the Lake. They are now putting out fish nets. 10. Management Plan Education Program Steve Tallen, LMCD Prosecuting Attorney, asked for committee support in developing a plan that would incorporate the Minnetonka Power Squadron boater education program, and a class by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) for BWI offenders as an education supplement with reduced punishment or fine/incarcer- ation for the serious and repeat offender boating violators. Foster pointed out that the Management Plan calls for a boater education plan for this purpose. The Power Squadron course runs for eight weeks for a total of sixteen hours. There would be a separate period of time for the MADD course for those convicted of a BWI. Reese said he would want to be sure the course requirements would meet a test of reasonableness. Tallen pointed out that the judges make this determination in setting the punishment. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 15, 1992 Tallen advised the committee that there may be a reduction in fine revenue if the courses replace or reduce the fines. It was the committee consensus that developing responsible boater behavior was more important than collecting fine revenue. MOTION: Foster moved, Penn seconded, to recommend the Board act on the Boater Education sub-committee report for a boater education plan that would be recommended to the courts for seri- ous and repeated offenders. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 11. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. 6 JUN 2 2 .... ; LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Environment Committee Minutes 8:30 am, Tuesday, June 9, 1992 City of Wayzata Council Chambers PRESENT: LMCD Chair Dave Cochran, LMCD Board members Tom Reese, George Owen, city representatives Frank Kelly, Greenwood; Bill Englehardt, Deephaven; Jay Blake, Minnetrista; Mike Gaffron, Orono; agency representatives Tom Maple, Loren Larson, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; Carolyn Dindorf, Hennepin Conservation District; Dick Osgood, Freshwater Foundation, Tom McDowell, Hennepin Parks; Beverly Blomberg, Lake Minne- tonka Lakeshore Owners Assn., Executive director Gene Strommen; ABSENT: Board members JoEllen Hurr, Doug Babcock, Scott Carlson, James Grathwol, Tom Penn, Bob Rascop0 cities of Excelsior, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Wayzata and Woodland; agency representatives from Carver Soil & Water Conservation District, MN PCA, Board of Water & Soil Resources, MN DNR~ Gray Freshwater Biological Institute.. MINUTES REVIEW. Following introductions, minutes of the 5/12/92 meeting were accepted, with attendance corrected to show Doug Babcock, Spring Park, present. LAKE MONITORING SUB-COMMITTEE. Material from sub-committee chair Dick Osgood was reviewed, namely a 5/12/92 "Lakewatch" outline~ 5/19/92 "Plan of Attack" and a 6/1/92 1st "meeting" outline addressing a proposed comprehensive monitoring network on Lake Minnetonka~ all items sent in advance to all Environment Committee members. Nelson, MCWD, questioned the lake monitoring being used to establish goals on tributary streams.. He believes monitoring on streams should be done, concurrent with lake monitoring. He is concerned that the study outcome will put performance goals on the streams without knowing what is happening in them. This requires sophisticated monitoring equipment and/or technicians. Nelson also pointed out that " benchmark" and "goal" are used interchangeably. Osgood acknowledged he is doing that at the present time. He notes the data is quite variable. Nelson sees a goal being set from benchmark data. MCWD resource data was then presented to the committee by Nelson. A chart illustrated Past & Present Projects from ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 6/9/92, P. 2 1967 to 1995. A second chart outlined Future Projects up to 2002. Four of these Future Projects are specific to Lake Minnetonka. A number of detailed reports were illustrated. Committee members were invited to review them. .An outline of typical MCWD projects included its 509 Plan, Grays Bay Outlet Control Structure, Minneapolis Chain of Lakes Monitoring, Long Lake Clean Lakes/Clean Water Partnership, Gleason Creek, EPA Wetland Studies, Painter Creek and Waterway Maintenance and Repairs highlights. Since 1988~ MCWD reports are included in Storette computer network available through the PCA. Englehart commented that this committee should define its purpose so that it does not overlap with other government authorities. This committee could serve as a depository for for various agency environment information. Cochran agrees. Maple recognizes the committee could produce needed additional information. The committee should know what it wants Lake Minnetonka to be in advance of its studies. Reese points on the committee could move ahead on some projects to assist MCWD. Maple pointed out MCWD does have certain taxing authority which its board could exercise. Osgood does not see the subcommittee data collection as an overlap. If other data is there, the committee needs to find it he points out. He is aware of the past 25 years of data. Past data is supported by few samples which has a limiting effect on the data value, does not answer very many questions Osgood further observes. He sees the main task as that of getting everything together, determine the best approach for data collection to guide future lake management. Dindorf agrees and sees the Iow-cost approach to many samples on a high frequency basis over many years being significant. Use of LMLOA voluteers are particularly valuable. Larson agrees the data accumulation presently proposed is good. He sees much variability in the yearly results, and when the data shows deterioration in a span of some five years he fears valuable time will be lost to correct the problem. He supports beginning tributary monitoring at this time. He notes that even basic monitoring is costly. A dollar range of $20,000 to $200,000 can be expected. Englehart sees the need to know what is causing the problem from the tributaries first. He asked how the management plan addresses funding of monitoring plans. Strommen and Cochran responded that LMCD will assist agencies requiring legislative or other support to secure needed ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE~ MINUTES~ 6/9/92~ P. 3 funding to provide for governing responsibilities affecting Lake Minnetonka. Agencies identified as "lead agency" for the various Management Plan objectives will likely require funding to achieve them. Maple understands that MN PCA is putting the burden of financing storm water control programs on the cities~ while it collects the $85 fee for the permit to regulate them. At the same time PCA is not adequately staffed to follow-up on the permits it issues. It also has a directive to reduce non-point pollution sources by 40%, but there is now standard by which to measure the 40% reduction. Maple added that the "day of the trophy lawn" is over. Englehart further pointed out the difficulty a city like Deephaven is experiencing in managing storm water, having no ponding areas in which to collect it. LAKEWATCH ACTION. LMLOA was identified for their ability to help educate lake shore property owners on environmental concerns. They can also attract volunteers for collecting water data. LMLOA board approved a 1/2 share of the $2,000 Lakewatch cost. It was the subcommittee's concensus that the LMCD board should also participate in a 1/2 share. Osgood reviewed his role in training volunteers doing the sampling and observing as well as data assembly and reporting. The concensus was to recommend LMCD's participation. STYROFOAM DRAFT ORDINANCE. The City of Orono has drafted an ordinance to govern the use of styrofoam in docks, presented by Mike Gaffron. Fragmentation has created a litter problem which is considered more of a nuisance than environmental hazard, particularly as it accumulates along shoreland. The ordinance appears to have application for all cities bordering Lake Minnetonka. It was suggested Orono circulate the draft copy to the cities. The committee recognized the ordinance as a valuable step in solving this problem. AGENCY REPORTS. There were no additional reports. The next meeting was set for 8:30 am, Tuesday, July 14. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 am. Respectfully submitted, TYPICAL MINNEHAHA CREk':K WATERSI:tE~ DISTRICT PROJECTS 509 PLAN The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) prepared the Water Management Plan pursuant to the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (Chapter 509, Laws of 1982, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.875 to 473.883). According to the law, the MCWI) Plan and all others must be designed to achieve five basic objectives. The objectives are: · To reduce, to the greatest possible extent, the public expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff. · Improve water quality. · To prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows. · To promote groundwater recharge. · To protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreation facilities. GRAYS BAY OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE, LAKE. MINNETONKA In 1990, the MCWD constructed a three-bay dam to stabilize widely fluctuating lake levels on Lake Minnetonka and provide a more stable flow within Minnehaha Creek. The outlet structure and operating plan were designed to take into account the oRen-competing interest of creek and lake residents, recreational canoeists, and tourists to picturesque Minnehaha Falls. 1YilIN'NEAPOLIS CHAIN OF LAKES MONITORING Since 1983, the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board has cooperated with the MCWD to obtain water quality data on the five Minneapolis Chain of Lakes (Brownie Lake, Cedar Lake, Lake ofthe Isles, Lake Calhoun, and Lake Harriet). -1- LONG LA~ CLEAN LAKES/C~,~AN WATER PARTNERSI:IYP The Long Lake Watershed is currently less than 50 percent developed. However, by the year 2000, this area is projected to be 100 percent developed with single and multi.family homes. This project is to assess nutrient loading to the lake now, and to predict loading and resulting water q~,,~llty under future conditions. The water quality protection plan develop recommend specific management practices and structural improvements to assure that Long Lake meets its water standards in the future. The Watershed District is working closely with three municipalities located in the watershed to estimate future land use, primarily utilizing local land use zoning ordinances. A comprehensive monitoring program was being implemented to calculate a nutrient budget for the lake. Computer modeling, incorporating current and future land uses, was used to identify future trends in nutrient contributions from the numerous subwatersheds. GLEASON CI~K The petition requested that the Watershed District address water quantity and water quality impacts along Gleason Creek from Gleason Lake to Lake Minnetonka. Gleason Creek has historic flooding problems and was identified as a major contributor of sediments and nutrients to Lake Minnetonka. An alternative was recommended which limits the flooding concerns expressed by the City of Wayzata. This alternative provides a significant increase in upper watershed storage capacity and improvement in the water quality discharged from the Gleason Creek subwatershed. The alternative recommended is consistent with the stormwater plans of both the Cities of Wayzata and Plymouth and is consistent with the Watershed District's objectives to utilize existing upstream storage rather than simply increase downstream flow rates. Furthermore, the study addresses improvements which will reduce sediment and nutrient loadings to Lake Minnetonka by the construction of the water quality treatment ponds. EPA WETLAND STUDIES A project in 1975 studied the effectiveness of wetland treatment for the removal of phosphorus from stormwater runoff. The Headwaters Control Structure and Channel Improvements were constructed in the winter of 1979-80 as a result of a petition prepared -2- and forwarded to the District by ~he five creekside munlcipali~ies. The con~rol structure is a three-bayed taintor gate design placed on the eastern shoreline of Grays Bay where Minnetonka has historically discharged int~ Minnehaha Creek. PAI1VrER CILEEK This project was constructed during the winter of 1984-85, and was the first stage of the Upper Watershed Improvement Project originally petitioned by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The project included the construction of four detention structures, two sedimentation basins, one fish barrier, and the cleaning and repairs along a l-mile segment of Painter Creek, a designated County Ditch (Hennepin County Ditch No. 10). The project benefits the District by providing an additional 900 acre-feet of flood water storage capacity above Lake Minnetonka under 100-year frequency storm runoff conditions, improving water quality, and by reducing rates of runoffto both the lake and Minnehaha Creek. WATERWAY MAINTEN~CE AND REPAIRS Other projects undertaken by the District have included dredging and channel improvements along various reaches of Minnehaha Creek, and the construction of canoe landings at access and portage points along the creek. Through its Waterway Maintenance and Repair Fund, the MCWD has also participated in numerous cost-share efforts with municipalities for smailer-scaie maintenance projects including culvert replacement, shoreline protection, and dredging. -3- METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mear.~' Park Centre, 230'E~tst Fifth Street. St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 ITY 612 291-0904 June 16, 1992 All Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Local Government Key Contacts Dear Key Contact Person: Enclosed are the municipal forecast allocations for your community covedng the period from 1990 to 2020. The forecasts cover population, households and employment. Other materials included in this mailing are: A summary of the forecast methodology used by the Council to develop regional forecasts and then to allocate these forecasts to subregions and municipalities. · The 1990 Census data for yOUr community, which is the base for the Council's forecast process. · We arc also enclosing a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) map for your community. The final step in the forecast process will be to ask your assistance in allocating local municipal forecasts to TAZa within your community. This process will not occur until third quarter 1992, however, we want you to have sufficient time to review thc TAZ boundaries in your community. In the letter describing thc Council's forecast process that I ~nt .you.ear!y last fall:. I explained that the allocation of the forecasts to local municipalities marks the thircl step in me regional forecast process. On November 14, 1991, thc Council staff held a planners' forum to discuss the regional forecast totals for population, households and employment. On January 30, 1992, a second forum was held to discuss the subregional allocation of these forecasts to rings, sectors and planning areas. Many of you attended these sessions and participated in thc discussions. As you are aware from these forums and [rom the materials contained in this package, forecasts for thc seven-county Metropolitan Area are trend based. The base data for thc forecasting are the 1990 Census results and employment data from thc Minnesota Department of Jobs and Traininb The forecasts take into account the relationship of the Twin Cities Area to growth trends in the United States, other major metropolitan areas, the multi-state region and the state of Minnesota. The regional forecasts are next stepped down to major subregional areas, namely policy areas and quadrants. These areas are used because they have much more stable trends than individual municipalities. Local municipalities within the seven-county region share allocations of these subregional forecasts. In allocating local forecast shares, the Council has taken into account local supply of developable land, availability of public services and the rclationship of thc community to existing urban development. Other aspects of thc local allocation process are contained in the attached methodology paper. Thc Council has reserved a 60-day period for local review and comment on the municipal .forecast allocations. The process will operate in the following manner:. 1. Forecast package mailed (June 16, 1992). Key Contact Person June 16, 1992 Page 2 Within three weeks Council staff will send communities a reminder that the review period for the local forecast allocations ends on August 14, 1992. e Communities with questions should contact the proper Council staff, as indicated in the forecast materials, or call Bob Davis of our staff at 291-6317. e On August 14, 1992, the local review and comment period will end and the Council will mail to each community the 1990 census-based population, honsehold and employment data for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) within the community. Each community will be sent the ~nal municipal forec~t allocation totals (1990-2020) resulting from this local review process. Each city will be requested to allocate the forecasts to the proper TA7s within their corporate boundary. Council staff will provide a.~istance and will review the zonal allocations for comlstency with forecast totals. During the local allocation review period, we would like to hear from any community that has information about development projects that might significantly alter our forecasts. Often plans for development projects change (or even disappear) before actual construction occurs; these plans cannot simply be inserted into the forecasts until they are firm. In particular, we are interested in any new projects where construction funds (public or private) have actually been committed. Also, any new growth must be considered by the Council within the context of growth in the region. Staff will be looking for unanticipated shifts of employers, other land use factors, such as a committed honsing development, or a change in sewer capacity or highway access. We are all aware that over time conditions and forecasts will change. However, local community growth trends are much more volatile than region-wide changes primarily due to their smaller size. As such, cities and townships should be wary about using short-term growth trends to make long- range forecasts. Such trends will not be used by the Council to modify forecasts, but will be monitored and subzequently considered in actual decisions that are made in formal plan reviews, or regional service investment proposals as part of our ongoing review process. The Council ha~ established an Interim Forecast Process to deal with growth changes. Following our current forecasting work, this interim proce~ will be updated for use in reviewing all local plan changes or projects relating to metropolitan ~tem investments. If you desire a copy of the current Interim Forecast Proce~, please contact Bob Davis. Thank you for your participation in the forecast process to date. Our staff looks forward to working with you. Sipcerely, Mary E. ~Ander~n, Chair cc: Metropolitan Council Member~ PRELIMINARY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Forecasts for MOUND 1980._~.~ 1990' .._1 2000 ] 2010 ~ 2020 Population 9,280 9,634 9,400 8,950 8,450 Households 3,384 3,710 3,750 3,800 3,800 Employment ** 1,849 2,350 2,650 2,750 *Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training *'1980 employment data is not comparable in all cases. NOTE: The employment data we are now using as a basis for forecasts and future monitoring comes from the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training, and is usually referred to as "covered employment," or "ES202" data. It is derived from administrative files used for the unemployment insurance program. It does not include a small percentage of jobs that are not covered; for example, self-employed people. Cities that would like further explanation or data should contact the Council's research staff, below. Contacts: Overall coordination---Bob Davis (2914317) Population, household base data--Kathy Johnson (291-6332) Employment base data--Regan Carlson (29145407) Population, household forecasts--Michael Munson (291-6331) Employment forecasts--Tim Fleetham (291-6374) ~0 000~ ~ ~0 O0 000000 ~o ~ m ~ ~ m 0~0 ~0~ ~ Z ~0~ O~ Z · ~ 0 000 000 000 O0 0 o $~o o~o - OZ Z Z~< Z ~ Z ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ooooo o o ~ 00~ 00~00 0000 0000~ ~ ~ ~0000~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~-- O0~ ~~0~ 0~0~ --000 ~ 000~ Z .. ~0 Z Z Z-. 0 0 ~.. 0 _J ~ 0 0 g 0 0 U" Lucy -~Z ~00~ ~0~00000~ ~ ~0~ 00000000 ~Z~ ~ "J~ ~'~ ~ ~O~O000m ~~ ~m~O 0~000 ~v I ~mO0~O0~o00~O00000~O 00000000000 ~ Jm~O0~o00~O000~O~O~O~ ~ ~ ~0000000 ~0 x ~0~000~00000~0000~0~00000~000 ~O~O~O~O~oomo~o~o~~O0~o00 Z ~ ~0~ ~OOm~ ~00~000-- 00~_~ 00--0~00 Z~ ~ ~~OOmm~O0-O00~O~ ~m~mm ~O~OmO0 Z 003 :D Z I-- 0 O. I-- ~ --~ ~ 0 ~ ~-- O0 0 ~00000000 0000000 0 ~ ZD . ~ ~ ZOO000000 0000000 ~ = ~ ~ o 6666666 ~z Z D~ ~0 --= I ~ J I= ~ D~ ~ =~00000000 0000000 ~ ~> ~I I ~ ~ ~ ~ 0--== D= 6666666 ~ 00~ -- O0 0 .. ~ Z ~ ' ' ' ~ O0 0 >0~~0~ 0000000 o ~0 ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ Z O ~<~ O~ O~ OZZ ~ ~ 000 ~ Z O= ~ ~ 0 ~0~0~ < Z~O ~OZZI~Z Z~O 0 u~ 0 .~ .J ~ m nn ~C= ~0 0~= I O0 mm ~ m DOm 0 m ~ m m 0 0 0 Z 0 0 ,", 0 · -m '"'Z O ~ c~ 0(3 0 0 T 000000 goooog ~0000~ Z 0. ~-0 0 O~ 0 o ~o o 6~ 8 omO 0 O~ z~ '1- ~nZ T~ 0 0 O. ~'- Z ~ 0 0 0~Z Z .T ~ Z~<Z~Z ~o 0 ZOZ< ~ZZZ~Z~ ~<00~0~0~ O0 0 ~o ~ m Z~ Z~ · ~Z · Z · -. ~Z ~ 0 · .. 0 ~ 0 Z 0 Z 0 ..J u.I 0 Z 0 U Z 0 ~ 0 -I 0 ts) <{ (:3 Z~ Z 0 FORECAST METHODOLOGY Forecasting makes statements about what could happen- Prediction makes statements about what will happen- Forecasting implies that we have some ability to influence the course of events in the future. Council regional forecasts attempt to provide an understanding of the forces at work and, given a continuation of forces, a likely range of possibilities. The forecasts provide a basis for monitoring growth. This is crucial for developing and applying procedures which have enough flem'bility to respond to the trend shifts that are likely to occur in the future. However, it is important to recognize future uncertainty and the associated risks or costs of an incorrect forecast. The risks will vary with the service or facility being planned for. Roads, transit, sewer lines, waste treatment facilities, landfills, schools, social programs, etc., each differ in how much flem'bility can be provided to deal with future uncertainty and at what cost. Despite the uncertainty, decisions have to be made that result in things being built or organized that will have to be lived with for some time. In planning, these decisions will often be made, in part, based on the best available expectations of the future. We need to strike a balance between flem'bility and associated REGIONAL POPULATION (AND HOUSEHOLD) FORECASTS Basic assumptions underlying thc forecasts of population and households: No wars or disasters. Although these events have profoundly influenced the demographics in thc past--thc post-war baby-boom being a particularly profound recent example--these events are not predictable. No major human behavioral changes in: 1. Family size 2. Marriage and divorce rates 3. Housing preference 4. Labor force participation and age at retirement Although these demographic and social behaviors have been continuously changing, they've demonstrated a certain amount of trend stability. Many appear to be leveling off after alex. aries of change. · No radical changes in the structure (functioning) of the U. S. economy. A step-down method is used to forecast population and households for the Twin Cities Metro Area as a whole. A generally accepted forecasting principle is that the larger the geographic area, the more accurately it can be forecasted. This is because smaller areas tend to be influenced by more factors outside their control (many of which are internal to the larger area). In addition, it allows use of sophisticated forecasts that are available at the national level Twin Cities growth trends over the past several decades have remained vary stable in relative terms. Specifically, among the largest twenty-five metro areas the Twin Cities has been near the middle in terms of growth rate for the past 50 years. Since 1950, the Twin Cities has outgrown all of the dozen northern and eastern large metros, but has seldom grown faster than any of the dozen largest sunbelt or western metro areas. In the 1980s the Twin Cities growth rate was closer to thc rates of several sun-belt/western metro areas (Miami, Houston, San Francisco and Seattle). Such stable long-term relationships make a step-down approach especially appropriate. This relative trend stability is the major reason we have relied on a national step-down method in preparing overall population forecasts for the Twin Cities re,on. U. S. mid-range forecasts prepared by the U. S. Census Bureau were used as an overall control forecast. Trends of the Twin Cities share of growth for the U. $., all metros and 25 largest metros were projected using several different trend-based assumptions. The result chosen continued to show the Twin Cities increasing its share of U. S. growth, but at declining rate. We also looked at the high and Iow Census Bureau forecasts and related the Twin Cities growth to these forecasts. 'l~ne result ranges from 2.3 mill!on 3.35 million for the year 2015-no change to an increase of over one million people in the next 25 yearz. This is a reasonable range of expectations based on the variation in trends occurring in the U. S. and Twin Cities over the past 40 years. In the future we will use models such as cohort-survival to improve our understanding of the more subtle growth factors and generate essential detailed data on age and race. But we will st~ rely on a general step- down approach to provide realistic 'control' forecasts. SUBREGIONAL HOUSEHOLD (AND POPULATION) ~TION Subregional forecasts were prepared as the next stage in the Council,s step-down forecast method. There are two main reasons for using subregional forecasts (allocations of the regional control total) as an interim step in making city-level forecasts. One reason is that large subareas of the region have much more stable, and thus predictable, trends than individual municipalities. The second reason is that subareas can be related to regional policy. The Council's subregional allocation process uses households because they relate to land supply more closely than population. Once the households were allocated to subareas they were converted to population based on past trends, and then recon~ed to regional population forecasts. One grouping of subregional areas used for this allocation is quadrants. These areas break the region, excluding the central cities, into four areas: Northwest, Northeast, Southeast and Southwest. The north- south break is roughly Highway 12 and the east-west break is about at the Minneapolis-St. Paul boundary. This configuration was used because it best fits the geographic grid pattern of Twin Cities Area cities and townships. Quadrant trends for household growth have been extremely stable over the past three decades as a share of regional growth_ Most of the "errors' of past Council forecasts are due to major changes in overall regional growth trends and local variation, not changes in the broad patterns of growth within the region. - Quadrant trends were expressed as shares of regional household growth and extrapolated (with shares converging slightly over the forecast period). Since these quadrants are of roughly uniform size (in terms of development capacity over the next forty or more years), it is unl~ely that any one quadrant will capture a greatly increasing share of growth for an extended time period. Different assumptions regarding how these past trends should be projected were tested. This resulted in little variation in household forecast~ The other major subregional forecast areas that were used were the Metro Counc~ policy areas: fuIly developed area, developing area, freestanding growth centers and rural service area. These areas were used' for two reasons. One was to reflect Metro Council policies and the other was to be able to relate growth forecasts to the movement of urbanization outward from the core of the region. · Policy area household control forecasts were determined using a slm~ar extrapolation methodology as was used for quadrants. Policy area trends are not as stable as quadrant trends and are not used rigidly as controls. The reason for this is that as cities in the inner policy area fill up growth moves further out-into the next policy area. Land use data at the city. level was used to modify thc city-level household forecast~. This resulted in new policy mca totals. · The household control forecasts for policy areas (as revised) were converted to population. MUNICIPAL LEVEL HOUSEHOLD (AND POPUI~TION) ALLOCATION Because of the great, and largely unpredictable variation that occurs annually in residential growth at the municipal level, the municipal allocation of households was done in a very methodical way. This is more equitable than having the Council attempt to guess which cities will significantly exceed their past trends and which ones will fall behind. The formula for allocating household forecasts extrapolated a city or township's past share of its policy area/quadrant segment. This projection used different groupings of years, weighting recent trends more heavily. Several different groupings of years were teated. One grouped years according to housing cycles (boom or bust). Another looked at residential growth trends by decade. This formula-based process was modified to account for land supply and density trends of communities where land supply is, or will become a growth constraint. This process could not be specified using standardized equations and required some judgement. Adjustments were based on growth trends, land use data and local plan information. The final results were reconciled to quadrant household control forecasts. As land supply shrinks in developing cities, growth slows, but picks up in adjacent, less dcvelope, d cities. For most developing communities it was assumed that during the forecast period 70 percent of vacant land, if developed, would be residential (including streets and alleys). This is consistent with trends over the past decade. Also, the mix of single-family and multifamily was generally held at the current mix. Finally, densities were kept close to those that prevailed during the 1984-1990 period. The household forecasts were convened to population at the city level, using projections of local population per household trends. The primary goal of the municipal allocation process is to establish a technically objective method that we believe produces reasonable results. The goal is to provide a reasonable number that is objectively and equitably dctermlned, which can then be closely monitored. Growth trends that deviate from the forecasts over time (when it becomes clear that the changes are not simply cyclical variations, but a major trend shift}, can be dealt with through the Council's interim forecast process. Forecast revisions will also be mae for the region and aH of its minor civil divisions approxirnately every five years. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS Basic assumptions underlying the employment forecasts: · Continuation of the Twin Cities increased share of national and urban growth. · No major changes in the structure of the national economy over the forecast period. · Due to current high labor force participation, there will bc only modest increases in the near future. · As the baby boom cohort reaches retirement age, the TCMA and national employment growth rates will decline. · Employment tends to concentrate rather than disperse. Employment growth in subareas of the region is not strongly correlated with population and household growth, it is, however, on the regional leveL Employment concentrations, while not neceas~ stable in employment levels, continue for the long The location of employment concentrations is highly related to transportation corridors, intersectiom and traffic levels. Land cost, availability and local government incentives and subsidies affect employment growth at the subarea leveL Employment was forecast by using a national employment projection prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor. The national projection was used to determine the Metropolitan Area employment forecast based on the historical relationship between Twin City Metropolitan Area employment and national employment. Alternative forecasts were prepared using separate methodologies and data series to establish a range within which future metro area employment is likely to fall We assume no major changes in the structure of the national economy over the forecast period; and that labor force growth will decline when the baby boom cohort reaches retirement age beginning around the year 2010. SUBREGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYMENT ALLOCATION As with population and households, the methodology does not attempt to directly forecast at the subarea leveL Instead, forecasts are made for the entire region and allocated to subareas (quadrants, policy areas and cities) based on long term historical growth trends and other factors such as connnercialfmdustrial construction activity, location of retail centers, population growth, highway improvements, and land supply. There were three steps. · Fh'st, data for the period 1970-1990 were thc basis for projecting future subarea growth for the period 1990-2020. The methodology used common statistical techniques (regression analysis) to relate employment change in the Twin Cities to forecasts of changes in thc national economy. · Second, the projections were dampened to fit within the region-wide employment growth totals for the period. · Third, these projections were adjusted based on historical commercialfmdustrial construction activity, retail center location and retail leasable space, office space base and growth, highway upgrades and improvements planned for the period, and population and household growth. Central dty employment allocations were prepared in the same manner as quadrants. The total of all quadrants, along with the central cities allocation, equals the regional employment forecasts. Allocations were then made to quadrant by policy area. Community level allocations were made using the quadrant/policy areas as control totals. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION More specific details are available for the forecast methodology in the form of tables and graphs (the materiah presented at the Council's first planner's forum on forecasts). Contact Bob Davis (291-6317). METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mean Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612 291-6359 TDD 612 291-0904 DATE: June 14, 1992 TO: Local Government Key Contact FROM: Metropolitan Council Staff SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis Zone Map The attached copy of the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) map contains the latest revised Minnesota Department of Transportation TAZs. As explained in the cover letter the map is being sent to you at this time so that your community can prepare for allocating community forecasts to TAZ (scheduled to take place later this summer and early fall). We believe that the map reflects the correct municipal boundary as of mid 1991. However, if you note any errors or know of any recent annexation changes that are not reflected please contact Council staff. You will note that some TAZ numerical designations overlap into more than one community. When the Council sends you the TAZ package, including 1990 Census material assigned to TAZs, you will receive only the data for the TAZ or portion thereof for your specific community. In other words the Council will "split-out" the appropriate community population, household and employment shares for those TAZs which overlap. If you have any questions please call Bob Davis at 291-6317.