The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-08-11CITY OF MOUND MLqSION STATEMF. NT- The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL RF~ULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 28, 1992 REGULAR MEETING. PG. 2614-2633 CASE #9Z-036: WILLIAMS HIBBS, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 42 0014, VARIANCE - REPAIR FOUNDATION. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF DENIAL. PG. 2634-2648 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW THE REPAIR TO A BOATHOUSE LOCATED ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CAROLE MUNSON. PG. 2649-2651 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION FOR A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CAROLE MUNSON. PG. 2652-2672 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. CASE #92-037: MOUND COLLISION & PAINT, SCOTT LINDQUIST, 2334 COMMERCE BLVD., PARTS OF LOTS 6, 7, 8, MCNAUGHTS ADDITION, PID #13-117-24 33 0050. REQUES?: VARIANCE - FREE STANDING SIGN· PG. 2673-2690 CASE #92-04:1.: PAUL LARSON, XXXX INVERNESS LANE & XXXX HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 6, 7, 8, & N 1/2 OF VAC. HAMPTON, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID #19-117-23 33 0093-0095. REQUEST: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE. PG. 2691-2715 2611 10. 11. 12. CASE #92-045: ERNEST & JILL WALTERS, 2348 FAIRVIEW LANE, LOT 27 & Nly 30' OF 26, BLOCK 4, L. P. CREVIER SUBD. LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PA]~, PID #13-117-24 43 0142. REQUEST: VARIANCE. PG. 2716-2733 CASE #92-047: JOSEPH & MARY FLEISCHHACKER, 5601 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF GOVT. LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 14 0001. REQUEST: VARIANCE. PG. 2734-2740 (THIS WILL BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 8/10/92) PETITION FROM COMMERCE PLACE AND ITS TENANTS RE: INSTALLATION OF A CROSSWALK BETWEEN COMMERCE PLACE & TONKA CENTER WEST (MUELLER/LANSING/COAST TO COAST CENTER). REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHT AT AMHURST LANE BETWEEN TUXEDO BLVD. AND HANOVER ROAD. PG. 2741-2746 PG. 2747-2750 13. REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL - CHRISTINE HAHN, 2273 COTTONWOOD LANE RE: DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER TO REAR OF PROPERTY (DAKOTA RAIL). PG. 2751-2755 14. APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST, 1992, SEAL COAT PROGRAM TO ALLIED BLACKTOP - $24,131.13. PG. 2756-2757 15. REQUEST FROM PAT & PAUL MEISEL TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING PROGRAM. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN AT 2121 COMMERCE BLVD. FOR POND SPORTS CENTER. RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT KEN SMITH TO THE MOUND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM - TERM EXPIRES 8/29/97. DISCUSSION: VACANCY ON HRA DUE TO ELDO SCHMIDT'S RESIGNATION. PG. 2758-2777 PG. 2778 PG. 2779 DISCUSSION: PROGRAM. FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION PENSION PAYMENTOF BILLS. INFORMATION/N!SCELLANEOU~ PG. 2780-2783 PG. 2784-2793 Department Head Monthly Reports for July 1992. PG. 2794-2825 2612 Bo Fe Ge He Je Ke L.M.C.D. Representative,s Monthly Report for July 1992. LMCD mailings. Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 1992. REMINDER: City softball game, Saturday, August 15, 1992, Philbrook Park, 2 P.M. REMINDER: Reception for Officer Ron Bostrom, Monday, August 31, 1992, at 3 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. PG. 2826-2827 PG. 2828-2836 PG. 2837-2843 ne NLC (National League of Cities) 69th Annual Congress of Cities Conference will be held November 28 - December 2, 1992, in New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme of this years conference is "Avenues and Bridges - Great Ideas for Community Leadership,,. Please let Fran know before September 1st if you are interested in attending. REMINDER: C.O.W. Meeting, Tuesday, August 18, 1992, 7:30 P.M., City Hall. Letter from Traci Huntemann Piatt, Mound resident re: Rental Housing Ordinance. PG. 2844-2845 Information from the LMCD on fees as requested at the last meeting. PG. 2846-2850 Invitation to attend the League of Minnesota cities Regional Meeting at the City of Hanover, Thursday, September 4, 1992, at 2:30 P.M. Please let Fran know if you would like to attend. PG. 2851-2852 Information from the West Hennepin Recycling Commission re: Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days which will be held on Friday, September 25 and Saturday, September 26, at the Hennepin County Public Works site in Spring Park. PG. 2853-2855 2613 July 28, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 28v 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 28, 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, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and the following interested citizens: Julie & Mark Lilledahl, Kathleen Okins, Sue Skilling, Kim & Michele Elifrits, John Kaster, Bo Hibbs, Phil & Eva Hasch, H. A. Solstad, Vernon Christiansen, Leonard Koehnen, Les Renner, Frank Sample, Greg Peterson, Tom & Pat Scherber, Dan Balloy, Arlene & Tom Donahue, Jane Weisman, Brian Johnson, Cheryl & George Fougeron, Dave & Brenda Hochstatter, Toby Trevis, Salley & Jim Bedell, Clinton Blaiser, Ken Junker, Wende L. Brady, Mike Colbert, Mary Ann LaVoie, Shirley Curtis, Jody Johnson, Mr. & Mrs. John Tombers, Denny Flack, Diane Maloney, Richard Indritz, Mark Hanus, Jane Kempf, Bill Beyer, Glen Neddermeyer, Michael & Mo Mueller, Allan Wigand, Diane & David Bartels, Bill Schumer, Dorothy & Bill Netka, Gordon Simons, Mr. & Mrs. Sam Snodgrass, Cklair Hasse, Tom LaVoie, George Warner, Del Pfeiffer, Rick Siler, Lewis Anderson, John Schulz, and Dennis Heckes. 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 Jessen to approve the Minutes of the July 14, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIO~ 495 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING A LICENSE TO RENT HOUSING, PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE (SECTION 319) The City Manager gave the background of the public hearings that have been held, April 28 and June 23. He explained that the City would like the rental inspection program to be self-sustaining, paid for by the revenues of licensing. He stated that no summary ordinances have been prepared for this meeting because of questions on the implementation of the two ordinances, the rental licensing and housing maintenance regulations for rental housing. 129 July 28, 1992 The Building Official reviewed the regulations in the proposed Chapter 319. The Mayor stated that the Council began looking at the deteriorating housing stock in Mound about 5 or 6 years ago. They looked at creating an overall ordinance but decided to break it down into 3 areas: 1. Truth in Housing (inspection at point of sale, where the new owner would be aware of any deficiencies) - this would apply to any dwelling that would be sold. 2. Exterior Maintenance - this would apply to any dwelling in the City. 3. Rental maintenance ordinance. The ordinance came about to control deteriorating rental property. Chapter 495 was created to cover the implementation of Chapter 319. The Mayor stated he has met with a number of landlords, listened to their position, and some very good points came out of that meeting. One of their points was that in order to get to the structures that need to be addressed, the City would have to apply this to every structure in town, not just rental units. They asked why they would be charged for an inspection that they don't need. The Mayor further stated that the City does not want to increase the cost of housing. The Mayor gave examples of why landlords have to maintain their property, i.e. internal revenue service rules on running this type of business, lease forms, etc. There also is a Minnesota law that requires landlords to maintain their property. Based on this, the Mayor stated that he feels the City should not implement the inspection fees or the rental licensing ordinance. However, he felt the standards should be instituted so that there is a standard which the landlord and the tenant are bound to. Councilmember Smith stated that this ordinance was not proposed to raise funds or raise rents. He stated that he is in favor of the ordinance because there are problem properties in town. The City currently has no ordinance to take care of these problems. He stated this is one part of three ordinances that the Council is considering. The Exterior Maintenance ordinance would address all the other properties in town. He stated, however, that can be accomplished by fines and he would be agreeable to no fees. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke against the adoption of Chapters 319 and 495 for the following reasons: 130 July 28, 1992 Gordon Simons, owns 3017 Longfellow Lane Mr. & Mrs. Sam Snodgrass, 3025 Longfellow Lane Jim Bedell, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. Clint Blaiser, Management company for Grandview Apts. John Dooms, Plymouth, owns rental property in Mound Cklair Hasse, 6627 Bartlett Blvd. Dennis Heckes, owns 3225 Tuxedo Blvd. Ken Junker, 4776 Island View Drive Paul Kaster, 2600 Casco Point Road, owns rental property Julie Lillidahl, 3233 Tuxedo Blvd., owns rental property David Hochsetter, Bloomington, owns rental property John Schulz, 3192 Westedge Blvd., owns rental property Kathleen Okins, caretaker, 2501 & 2479 Commerce Blvd. Lewis Anderson, 5000 North Arm Drive Tom LaVoie, Treasurer Lakewinds Association George Warner, Rental Housing Association Dorothy Netka, 2360 Commerce Blvd. Del Pfeiffer, owns 3137 Inverness Lane Phil Hasch, 4804 Northern Road, owns rental property Rick Siller, caretaker, 5322 Maywood Road GORDON SIMONS, owns 3017 Longfellow Lane - thanked elected officials and employees for the quality work that is done and the cost effective services that are rendered to the citizens; resents the city finding another way to get into his pocketbook for a few of his dollars so that the city can tell him what he can and cannot do; against Chapter 495; he explained that he and his wife are licensed to do adult foster care for Hennepin County and wanted to know how this would affect the adult foster care program. SAM SNODGRASS, 3025 Longfellow - stated Mound has enough laws and building codes but they need to be enforced; against licensing; renters having a hard time paying rent now. JIM BEDELL, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. - asked for statistics on complaints about rental property (weekly, monthly, or last 6 months); how many problem rental properties are there in Mound; disagreed with the number of units used to determine the revenues for the inspections (the report showed over 800 and there are only 550), thus projections are incorrect; inspections would be a violation to the tenant's right to privacy. CLINT BLAISER, representing management company for Grandview Apartments - fee structure is much higher than other cities, i.e. Brooklyn Park or Minneapolis (Brooklyn Park is $75.00/building plus $7.50/unit; Minneapolis is $28.00 the first unit and $15.00 each additional unit; he was not dead set against the ordinance, but the fees are outrageous; 131 July 28, 1992 problems with a couple of the items in the ordinances (compliance being within 15 days, too short, 30 days would be more realistic; has a problem with Sections 319.105 and 494:20 subd. 1); hate to see discrimination against rental properties. JOHN DOOMS, lives in Plymouth, owns property in Mound and Hopkins - not against having an ordinance to improve all properties; pays $15.00/year for the double bungelow in Hopkins; fees are too high; don't single out rental owners, should be for everyone. CKLAIR HASSE, 6627 Bartlett Blvd. - asked if 319:10 Subd. 5 included mobile homes; Section 319:15 subd. 12 should be for everyone, not just renters; against the ordinance. DENNIS HECKES, owns 3225 Tuxedo Blvd. - did not feel notification was appropriate; paying high taxes already; feels discriminated against as a rental property owner; the ordinance is too restrictive and complicated; against the fees and inspections; are the inspections to be announced of just random; against the ordinances. KEN JUNKER, 4776 Island View Drive - zoning ordinance is not being enforced; against increased taxes and increase in staff; against the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that the State of Minnesota does not regulate rental housing. There are general rules that apply between a landlord and a tenant as to habitable housing, etc. The State has no input whatsoever and does not regulate rental housing. Each municipality that is going to control its housing stock develops their own ordinances to regulate rental housing. VIRGINIA SNODGRASS, 3025 Longfellow Lane - against the ordinances. PAUL KASTER, 2600 Casco Point Road (owns home on Dale Road) - doesn't feel the same rules apply to the homeowner as what is proposed for rental property; suggested having neighbors police their own neighborhoods; against the ordinances. JULIE LILLIDAHL, 3233 Tuxedo Blvd. - against the ordinance; she pointed out that in the Landlords and Tenants Rights & Responsibilities booklet a renter can call the local building inspector and complain about violations in a unit; she complained there are no laws to protect landlords; need an overall city clean-up upon complaint only whether rental or owner occupied; there are enough codes if they are enforced. 132 July 28, 1992 DAVID HOCHSETTER, Bloomington (owns a house in Mound on Cedar Lane) - use the laws you have don't create another; they also manage 5 other properties in 5 other cities and the proposed fees are the highest of any of the other cities; against the ordinance. JOHN SCHULZ, 3192 Westedge Blvd. - against the ordinance; stated parts of the proposed ordinance (319) exceeds the Building Code; complained about all the illegal rental property in Mound; fees too high; KATHLEEN OKINS, caretaker of 2501 and 2479 Commerce Blvd. - asked about 319:30, subd. 1, which requires an approved security system on all entrances; owners asked that she tell the Council they are against the ordinances; against the fee structure also. LEWIS ANDERSON, 5000 North Arm Drive - against the ordinance. TOM LA VOIE, Treasurer of Lakewinds Association - against the ordinance; asked if this could be put on as a referendum at the next election; suggested a positive approach instead of a negative. The City Attorney stated that advisory questions are not permitted by State law in an election. GEORGE WARNER, Minnesota Multi-Housing Association - fees are about 200% greater than fees in other municipalities; have never heard of yearly inspections, 3, 5 or 7 year program is the usual; complaint base inspection system process would be effective; will have a negative impact on rental housing; felt the City should work with the landlords by forming a task force to study this process. DOROTHY NETKA, 2360 Commerce Blvd. - against the ordinance; invasion of privacy; discriminatory against rental property owners. DELL PFEIFFER, owns 3137 Inverness Lane - complained about ordinances not be enforced, having junk cars, unkept grass and general conditions of the property around his property. BILL MEYER, 6601 Bartlett Blvd. - have been through alot of this as Chairman of the Planning Commission, but here as a citizen and feels if we are going to make ordinances that affect the appearance of some of the homes then we should have the same ordinances for all homes. 133 July 28, 1992 JIM BEDELL, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. - asked that the Council act on a complaint basis only, using existing local and state laws or that a rental property owners association be formed to police the complaints among themselves and do this on a trial basis for one year. PHIL HASCH, 4804 Northern Road - asked about HUD property and if that would be a subject for this ordinance. DENNIS HECKES - stated the landlords should be pro-active citizens and allow themselves to improve the properties. There has to be a better way than what is proposed. The Mayor stated that he is opposed to the fees and inspections and it is his full intent to ask fora motion to table and to ask for input from the landlords to make a workable ordinance. ERIC SILER, caretaker of 5322 Maywood Road - against the ordinance as proposed. In favor of having landlords police themselves. The Mayor closed the matter to the public and brought the item back to the Council for discussion. The Mayor asked the Building Official and the City Attorney to explain if there are other existing rules or laws from other governmental units that would cover the items in the proposed ordinances. The Building Official pointed out that on page 2316 of the packet there is a pamphlet entitled "Landlords and Tenants". He explained that this pamphlet outlines the tenants and landlords responsibilities. This was published by the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. He stated that if there is an applicable code an order can by written. In most cases there is no housing code or rental code that applies in Mound at this time. The city Attorney stated that what the Attorney General has handed out is a general thing which goes to tenants rights and remedies, etc., but it does not go to specific things. General state law requires that if a person is going to rent property, 1) it has to be fit to live in, 2) it has to be kept in reasonable repair, and 3) it has to be kept in compliance with state and local, health housing codes. That is why the local municipalities have the local housing codes so that there is something to comply with. But anytime you have a dispute between a tenant and a landlord, they have to go to court to resolve their differences. The intention of this kind of an ordinance is not to exacerbate disputes between a landlord and a tenant, but to maintain housing stock by keeping it up on a regular basis. If the Building Official were called and 134 July 28, 1992 there was a violation of the health code, safety code, or fire code or something of that nature, he has some action he can take. The hazardous building state statute would allow the city to go out and if the property is hazardous, we can go to court and get it determined to be hazardous, but we have to go through a procedure and give the landlord the right to fix it up or to repair it. All of these things take court actions. There is no general housing code as it relates to the state. There is a Building Code and he asked the Building Official to address that because it has been brought up a couple of times that there are some things in this ordinance that are different than the State Building Code. The Building Official explained that when a complaint is received the Building Code that was in effect at the time the building was constructed would be what would have to be adhered to. The problem comes in when there is a complaint on an older building, there was minimal or no code in effect, so there is nothing to apply. He stated that to his knowledge there is nothing in the code that is in conflict with the State Building Code. He further explained that the State Building Code is a minimum requirement. The City Attorney pointed out that the State Building Code applies if you are going to build something. The Building Official or the City does not have the right to go out to a rental property as it now exists or to an individual property owners home and say that this is not in compliance with the current building code. The City's control is at the time the construction takes place or if someone comes in for a conditional use permit or a variance that is when the city can make some references and require things be brought up to certain codes if its at all practical or feasible. In some cases that can be done, in others not. The Mayor stated that in the lease forms he has seen, the landlord agrees to maintain the property to the state and local units of government ordinances. The Mayor asked the City Attorney if a tenant could refuse to let the rental property be inspected. The City Attorney stated that he has had experience with this code in another city and to the best of his knowledge this has not been a problem because the things that they are inspecting for are intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of the tenant. The way this is arranged, it is designed to be licensed just as any other business is licensed. When citizens engage in a business, the city has the right to adopt regulations and license it. The ordinance is not looking to whether the people are good housekeepers, it has specific standards which go to building, health and safety issues. The Council discussed the public nuisance ordinance. 135 July 28, 1992 The City Manager reported that of the 60 complaints received in the past year, 19 were on rental property and 41 were on owner occupied structures. The Building Official explained that they do receive many complaints from renters, but when they are informed that we do not have ordinances to deal with their problems, the complaints are dropped. These records were not kept in the past, they will be in the future. The Council reviewed the suggestions that were made; forming a task force to study this; a block to block survey; looking at the fee structure and inspections. The Mayor stated that what he is hearing from the Council is that the idea of fees and inspections be rejected. That the ordinance be administered on a complaint basis. We need to work with the landlords, a task force has worked in the past. The task force probably should contain landlords who own or operate multi-family units (4 or more), duplex or triplex, single family, and then one or two tenants (1 from multi-family and 1 from single family). If an inspector is going to react to a complaint he/she needs a code to inspect to. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to table this item and continue the public hearing, have the landlords decide who they want to represent them and get together and sit down and talk about Chapter 319. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 CASE ~92-019= GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERONt 1701 BAYWOOD LANE t LOT 4, BLOCK 4t REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORESt PID #13-117-24 21 0087, VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSION The Building Official explained that this is carried over from the last meeting. The Planning Commission vote to deny failed 4 to 4. The staff recommended approval of Option A based on reasonable use of the property. Councilmember Jensen stated that she cannot support this because it is not the minimum variance. Councilmember Jessen stated that she cannot support this because the house was built after the ordinances were in place and should meet all setbacks. The Council discussed the setback differences between Option A & B. They also discussed where the house is actually located versus what was shown on the site plan for the proposed house when it was built. Since then a new survey has been submitted and there needs to be a recognition of existing nonconformities in the setbacks for 136 July 28, 1992 the house also. property. No variances were granted previously on the George Fougeron was present and stated that when he purchased the property, about 1 year ago, he was unable to find an variances on the property. The City did not have any record of any problems with the property. He then requested that the Council approve his request for the 6 additional feet on the deck. He submitted pictures of the area and showed that the extension of his deck would in actuality only cover the planter box that is presently in front of his present deck. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-88 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ALAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAYWOOD LANE), PID #13-117- 24 21 0087, P & Z CASE #92-019 The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Jessen voting nay. carried. Motion 1.3 CASE #g2-032: KIM & MICHELE ELIFRITS, 2021 ARBOR LANE, LOT ~, BUBD. OF LOTS I & 32t 8 & L RAVENSWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 41 0033, FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE The City Planner explained the request and that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the fence height variance on an 8 to 1 vote. The staff recommended approval of the 2 foot fence height variance to permit installation of a 6 foot high fence due to practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. Arbor Lane is one of the most intensively developed areas in the City. Councilmember Jensen stated that her notes from the Planning Commission Meeting indicate that the fence is on top of a deck which made it even higher then 6 feet. The Building Official stated that the Zoning Code definitions for fences would not typically include an ornamental feature that is on top of the deck. Staff's opinion is that if you build a deck and put a fence up on top of the deck, that it is part of the deck and part of the structure rather than part of a fence that is independent of the deck and would be anchored to the ground and is typically on the lot line. The applicant was present and stated that the structure is already in place. She presented pictures. The new neighbor has no objections to the fence. 137 July 28, 1992 The Planner stated that normally the setback for a fence 6 feet high is for visibility of traffic, but in this case you have a garage that is closer to the road than the fence. She stated that there is a difference in the elevation (at least one foot) of the two lots and that is helping to cover up the unsightly cement slab with stuff piled on it. There was a fence there previously. Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-89 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FENCE VARIANCE FOR KIM & MICHELE ELIFRITS, 2021 ARBOR LANE, LOT 4, SUBD. OF LOTS i & 32t S & L R~VENSWOOD, PID %13-117-24 41 0033t FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE, CASE %92-032 The Mayor stated that he has moved this because the adjoining property is much more of a barrier to the line of sight from the street and that is the purpose for the ordinance in the first place. The Council discussed this not being a precedent to allow 6 foot high fences along the street, but this is a unique situation where the adjoining structure about 3 feet away is about 3 feet taller and if measured from the peak it would probably be 8 feet taller. The vote was 4 in favor with Jessen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.4 CASE #92-033: WENDY BRADY, 2174 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 11 & 28, BLOCK 7 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID ~13-117-24 31 0055, SETBACK VARIANCE - ADDITION The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-90 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NONCONFORMING ADDITION ONTO ANEXISTING NONCONFORMING DWELLING AT LOTS 11 & 12~ BLOCK 7~ ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID %13-117-24 31 0055, 2174 CENTERVIEW LANE~ P & Z CASE #92-033 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 138 July 28, 1992 1.5 CASE #92-034: SONCOR INVESTMENTS, 1943 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 17 & PART OF LOT'16, BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %18-117-23 23 0041, LOT AREA VARIANCE The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-91 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ALOTAREA VARIANCE FOR LOT 17 AND THAT PART OF LOT 16, BLOCK 7t SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %18-117-23 23 0041, 1941 SHOREWOOD LANEt P & Z CASE %92-034 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE ~92-035: LEONARD KOEHNEN, 2151 CEDAR LANE, LOT 26 & 1/? QF 27, BLOCK 2~ ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK~ PID ~13-117-24 32 0021, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-92 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT LOT 26 & 1/2 OF 27, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID %13-117-24 32 0021, 2151 CEDAR LANE, P & Z CASE %92-035 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 CASE ~92-036: WILLIAMS HIBBS, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 ~/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID ~23- 117-24 42 0014~ VARIANCE - REPAIR FOUNDATION The City Planner explained the request. The Staff recommended denial of the variance to rebuild or substantially repair the existing home. The Building Official had reviewed the existing home and prepared a list of deficiencies. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on the Building Official's report on the serious structural problems of the structure. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to have staff prepare a resolutlon of denial and bring it back to the next meeting. 139 July 28, 1992 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 CASE ~92-038: DANIEL T. BALLOY, 1701 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~13-117-24 11 0021, VARIANCE - SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The planning Commission Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-93 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ALOTAREA VARIANCE AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT LOT 1, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %13- 117-24 11 0021, 1701 SHOREWOOD LANE, P & Z CASE %92-038 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 CASE ~92-039: ALLAN WIGAND, 4754 HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 28, 29 & 30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID ~19-117-23 33 0106, VARIANCE - ADDITION The city Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-94 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING A NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO A CONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT LOTS 28, 29, & 30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID %19-117-23 33 0106, 4754 HAMPTON ROAD, P & Z CASE %92- 039 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 CASE ~92-041: DAVID & DIANE BARTELS, 5246 PIPER ROAD, LOT 28, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID ~25-117-24 21 0100, RECOGNITION OF EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE - ADDITION The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: 140 July 28, 1992 RESOLUTION %92-95 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 5246 PIPER ROADt LOT 28t WHIPPLE SHORESt PID %25-117-24 21 0100, P & Z CASE %92-041 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.11 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION: REQUEST FO~ STAIRWAY/WALKWAY, CAROLE MUNSONt 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVEr LOT ,6t BLOCK 7t DEVONt DOCK SITE ~42514 The Building Official handed out background material in addition to what was in the Council packets: Resolution 92-48 which allows Ms. Munson to construct a walkway to connect the two stairways on the Commons according to code; Minutes from the April 28, 1992, Council Meeting; letter from himself to Ms. Munson regarding City Council action regarding the boathouse, also included with that letter was information on handrails and stairways and that she needed to contact him; responses from Ms. Munson's structural engineer regarding the boathouse repairs and patio deck. Ms. Munson had previously stated that she would like to reuse the existing deck railing to prevent people from falling off the old patio area. Her engineer specifies some methods of reconstructing that area that have been reviewed and approved by staff. In the information is the staff recommendation to the Park & Open Space Commission, page 2471 and their recommendation on page 2472. There is a proposed resolution on page 2469 of the packet. The Building Official then reviewed the 7 items in the resolution. The Building Official recommended incorporating the existing masonry walls in the construction on public lands permit so that repairs can be made when the walls are exposed. The Council discussed the guard rail that Ms. Munson is requesting be installed where the masonry wall is located. The Building Official stated that if this area is to be used for plantings and not a patio area, he would not recommend a guard rail. The Park Director recommended that the area in question be filled and re- graded between the existing play house and boat house with black dirt and grass seed or sod, no crushed gravel or sand due to erosion problems. The applicant did not want to have to mow the area. The Council discussed using plantings in the area instead of grass. 141 July 28, 1992 Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-96 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CAROLE MUNSON TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY AND GUARDRAIL ON DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE #42314v ABUTTING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVEr LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON The Mayor pointed out that the stairway, walkway and maintenance of the masonry retaining wall were already approved. The Council discussed the area above the masonry wall and what should be put in there, plantings, grass, or shrubs. The vote was 2 in favor with Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting nay. Motion failed. Ms. Munson's, Attorney Richard Indritz, was present and asked what can be done with the area between the playhouse and the steps. He stated that the area in question is potentially dangerous because of the height. He stated that Ms. Munson would no longer be responsible for this potentially dangerous area. He stated that he believes that Ms. Munson is still entitled to access between the walkway and the playhouse and it's not been decided whether it should be crushed gravel or sod and that is being left up to her discretion. In terms of which choice it would be, the Park Commission thought it was more reasonable that there be crushed gravel there. Erosion is not a problem because of the level surface and there is a raised edge on the retaining wall, so it will not be washing off. Grass is impractical and if the City wants to take the responsibility for maintaining that grass, Ms. Munson will call the maintenance crews every two weeks to come and take care of it. Ms. Munson is willing to go along with all the recommendations of the Park Commission and he has not heard any alternatives proposed by the City Council. The Mayor recommended that the Staff (Building Official or Park Director) be directed to suggest some plantings that would work on the patio area to delineate the area of the edge of the retaining wall. Mr. Indritz stated that Ms. Munson would allow the City Park Dept. to put in the plantings they deem appropriate to delineate the edge of the retaining wall from the rest of the level area. The Park Director pointed out that the Park Commission wanted to have the expiration date of the construction on public lands permit be consistent with the existing maintenance permit. In other words, that in just over two years from now that all the maintenance permits will expire on the property and then they will 142 July 28, 1992 be able to decide if they want to take out this flat area and regrade it to a sloping area. The Council did not think cementing in 4 foot treated posts in this area was realistic if they are going to be taken out in 2 years. The City Manager asked if Ms. Munson's intent was to remove the deck as was ordered on December 10, 19917 He also asked about the boathouse. The Staff was asked to get clarification to Council questions from Ms. Munson's engineer on the condition of the boathouse. The Building Official presented information on his conversation with the engineer. The answers provided by the engineer were not conclusive. The Council discussed the fact that Ms. Munson wanted to do the repairs to the boathouse during the winter. Mr. Indritz stated he was not aware of this. The Council also pointed out that Ms. Munson, at a previous meeting, indicated that she thought she had 2 1/2 years to complete the repairs to the boathouse and that was not the Council's intention. Mr. Indritz stated that due to Ms. Munson's employment she is out of town alot and is asking that she be allowed 3 months to do the repairs as recommended or suggested by her structural engineer. He stated she would like until November 1, 1992, to do those repairs to the boathouse. The Council discussed removing the boathouse when the permit expires in 2 1/2 years. Mr. Indritz stated he understood this was a renewable permit, so she would have the opportunity to request renewal at its expiration. The Council decided that should be left to the City Council at that time. The Council then discussed having the minimal repairs done to the boathouse. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith directing staff to prepare a resolution that would allow the repairs to the boathouse as suggested by the structural engineer and that those repairs be completed by November 1, 1992. Within that resolution, it is to be stated that the structure be removed at the end of the maintenance permit. Councilmember Smith asked to make a friendly amendment removing the language that it must be taken down at the end of the maintenance permit (2 years). The Mayor stated that his intention was that this Council would recommend that the structure be removed at the end of the maintenance period. The City Attorney stated that as he understands it, if there is a message to be conveyed in the future, 1) you are saying to the applicant that you want her to spend a minimal amount of money on the repairs to make the boathouse safe, 2) the 143 July 28, 1992 Council is doing this with the idea that when the current permit expires they will be asked to remove the boathouse because of the unsafe conditions. The City Attorney asked if this is the language that the Council wanted in the resolution. The Mayor stated that was his intent. Councilmember Smith stated that would be forewarning any future buyers and alerting future Councils.~ The vote on the above motion directing staff to prepare a resolution with the language given by the City Attorney was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. The Council then discussed the construction on public lands permit that failed earlier. There were suggestions to modify items 3 and 4 in that resolution, as follows: The existing guardrail shall be removed and replaced with plantings along the guardrail area, as approved by the Park Director. There was discussion that the decorative lattice work that is currently 2 feet out from the retaining wall and that could be a problem if left after the guardrail is removed and plantings are done on the top of the wall. Allow such repairs as may be deemed necessary by staff to the existing masonry retaining wall closest to the lakeshore and that the decorative lattice work be moved in flush with the masonry wall and plantings be allowed to remain. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith that this item be continued for 2 weeks and directing staff to prepare resolutions on the boathouse and the construction on public lands permit in accordance with Council,s direction, changing items 3 & 4 and to clarify the walkway going to the playhouse. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 UNPAID LATE DOCK LICENSE FEE, CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DOCK SITE #42314 The Dock Inspector reviewed how late fees are charged. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended a $20.00 additional late fee. He explained that the late fee that Ms. Munson has paid so far is $20.00 on June 1st and another $20.00 just this last week. He is assuming that the later $20.00 is what the Park Commission recommended. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to concur with the Park Commission and approve Ms. Munson,s latest $20.00 late 144 July 28, 1992 fee. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Indritz asked if this would clear up the fee question. Council agreed. The The Council asked for an update on the deck removal at Ms. Munson's. Mr. Indritz stated Ms. Munson has been working on a process and now that there is a decision on the retaining wall she will be taking the necessary steps to comply. Staff to present a progress report at the next meeting. 1.13 PUBLIC I~NDSMAINTENANCE PER~TT APPLICATION REQUEST TO REPL~C~ A STAIRWAY, BILL SCHUMER, 2885 CAMBRIDGE L~NE, DOCK SITE ~5~435 The Building Official reported that the applicant has decided to replace the entire stair system and meet the Building Code. He has worked with the applicant on the plan. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended approval. Councilmember Smith stepped down as he is a neighbor of Mr. Schumer. Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-96 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON BRIGHTON COMMONS ABUTTING 2885 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOT 10, BLOCK 36t WYCHWOODt DOCK SITE #51455 The vote was 4 in favor with Smith abstaining. Motion carried. 1.14 TAX FORFEIT LOTS - REVIEW FOR POTENTIAL RELEASE FOR SALE 1) PID #13-117-24 12 0067, LOT 1, BLOCK 13, DREAMWOOD 2) PID ~13-117-24 12 0069, LOT 15t BLOCK 13, DREAMWOOD ~ID %19-117-23 32 0128, LOT 26t BLOCK 11, WYCHWOOD The City Clerk explained that the Planning Commission recommended that these lots be released for sale to adjoining property owners. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended that they not be release until they have completed their Nature Conservation Area Study. There was discussion on the Nature Conservation Area Study and its progress. The question is "What is a nature conservation area?" There was disagreement on whether to wait to release these properties. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: 145 July 28, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-97 RESOLUTION TO RELEASE THE FOLLOWING TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS 1) PID ~13-117-24 12 0067~ LOT BLOCK 13~ DREAMWOOD 2) PID #13-117-24 12 0069, LOT 15~ BLOCK 13~ DREAMWOOD 3) PID #~9-117-23 32 0128, LOT 26, BLOCK WYCHWOOD The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Johnson voting nay. Motion carried. 1.15 APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL DOCK APPLICATION FOR HALSTEAD ACRES IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to approve issuance of a Commercial Dock Permit for Halstead Acres Improvemen% Association. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. There were questions on how much time the L.M.C.D. spends on their review of this type of dock license that generate no fees for Mound and if others are subsidizing this type of program with fees. The City Manager stated that Mound's L.M.C.D. Representative and the L.M.C.D. Director will be attending the Committee of the Whole Meeting in August to address the issue of fees and budget. The Council asked for a copy of all the L.M.C.D.'s fees to be included in the next packet and before the August meeting. 1.16 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR 1992 CDBG PROGRAM (YEAR XVIII) The City Manager reported that this is to formalize what has been approved previously. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-98 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENTAGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT RE: SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE The City Manager reported that this is the same as previous years. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: 146 RESOLUTION #92-99 July 28, 1992 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ~GREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 PAYMENT OF BILL~ MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $84,711.72, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS ae June 1992 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman Finance Director. ' B. LMCD mailings. Ce Do Ee He Letter of resignation from Eldo Schmidt, Chair, Mound HRA. Eldo has dedicated many years of service to the City of Mound beginning in 1964 as a Planning Commissioner and then as a City Councilmember. He took office at the HRA in 1973 and has served there ever since. Please begin thinking about this vacancy and see if there are some individuals that may be suitable for this position. The City Manager stated we need to find a replacement for Mr. Schmidt. Letter dated July 17, 1992, from John Cameron, City Engineer re: explanation of final payment request on 1991 Lift Station Improvement Project. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of July 9, 1992. Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 1992. Letter from Ridgeview Medical Center re: efforts of Officer Dan Niccum in assisting with Basic Life Support on a recent case. Letter from the National League of Cities regarding key federal issues that will be coming before Congress before its scheduled adjournment. City softball game has been rescheduled to Saturday, August 15, 1992, Philbrook Park, 2 P.M. Let's see if we can put together a "respectable,, team to take on the Fire 147 Je Ke ne July 28, 1992 Department. We have scheduled a reception for Officer Ron Bostrom who is retiring from the City effective September 1, 1992. It is scheduled for Monday, August 31, 1992, at 3 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Please mark your calendar to attend and wish Ron well as be begins his retirement. We have received notice from the National League of cities that the 69th Annual Congress of cities Conference will be held November 28 - December 2, 1992, in New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme of this years conference is "Avenues and Bridges - Great Ideas for Community Leadership". Please let Fran know before September 1st if you are interested in attending. Notice from the Regional Transit Board of a meeting to share the local impacts of the RTB's "Vision in Transit" - Tuesday, August 11, 1992, 7:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., Best Western/Hotel Seville, 8151 Bridge Road, Bloomington. Please let Fran know if you are interested in attending. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 12:45 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 148 RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR LOT 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 42 0014, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-036 WHEREAS, The applicant, William Hibbs, has applied for a variance to do major structural repairs to an existing nonconforming dwelling; and WHEREAS, The existing dwelling is 17' from the front property line resulting in a variance request of 13' and there is a detached garage 2 feet from the side property line which received a variance in 1981; and WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, According to the Building Official, the portion of the existing structure that encroaches into the required setback has serious structural problems, the magnitude of the necessary repairs indicates' that it may be more appropriate to remove the nonconforming portion of the structure and add additional space to the home in a conforming location; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 23.404 (7) states, "Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful non- conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non- conforming use" and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended denial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby deny the requested variance to allow major structural foundation repairs at 5860 Idlewood Road. This variance is denied for the following legally described property: Lot 4 and the Easterly 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 1, The Highlands. The City Council finds that there are encroachments into the required setback area and that the portion of the building which encroaches has serious structural problems and should be removed before any expansion of the use. The Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 1992, the City Planner's written report of July 7, 1992, and the Building Official's inspection report and memorandum of July 26, 1992 are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this resolution and are part of the City Council's findings to substantiate denial of this variance. RESOLUTION #92- _ RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARI~NCE FOR LOT 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 42 0014, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-036 WHEREAS, The applicant has applied for a variance to do major structural repairs to an existing nonconforming dwelling; and WHEREAS, The existing dwelling is 17' from the front property line resulting in a variance request of 13' and there is a detached garage 2 feet from the side property line which received a variance in 1981; and WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-1 single Family Residential zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, According to the Building official, the portion of the existing structure that encroaches into the required setback · tructural problems, the magnitude of the necessary has serl~u~.s ..... it ma" be more appropriate to remove t~e repairs indicates Ln~u I - nonconforming portion of the structure and add additional space to the home in a conforming location; and WHEREAS, city Code Section 23.404 (7) states, ,,Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non-conforming use" and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended denial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby deny the requested variance to allow major structural foundation repairs at 5860 Idlewood Road. 2. This variance is denied for the following legally described property: Lot 4 and the Easterly 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 1, The Highlands. 3. The city Council finds that there are encroachments into the required setback area and that the portion of the building which encroaches has serious structural problems and should be removed before any expansion of the use. MINUTEs . MOUND CITy COUNCIL . JULY 28, 1992 117- W O D LOT 4 ~u~ - REPAI F _UN1)ATi~- The City Planner explained the request. The Star denia! of the variance to rebuild or substantia! f recommended existing home. The Building Officia! had reviewe ly repair the home and prepared a list of ~ecommended denial o- ~- - deficiencies. T ~ ~--~ the report on t~o ~-,- ' ~?= request base h~ =~gn~ng Commissi "~ o:~xous structural Dfc ~~t~Ullding 0fficia,?~ _ b .... ~ ~ne structure. MOTION made by SmitB, second a resolution .. ~ .... e4 b~ Jessen ~ ueaza~ and bring ~ back t~ohave staff Prepare the next meeting. MINUTES OF H MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13v 1992 CASE #92-036t WILLIAM HIBBS, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5m BLOCK lm HIGHL]%NDS, PID #23-117-24 42 0014 VARIANCE - repair foundation. city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow improvements to an existing principal structure. The dwelling is 17' from the front property line resulting in a 13' variance, and there is a detached garage 2 feet from the side property line which received a variance in 1981. The front portion of the structure that encroaches into the required setback area has a number of problems. According to the Building Official's inspection, the rafters are sagging and appear to be undersized, the foundation has failed on the west side, other sides of the foundation have been covered by a wooden material precluding further inspection, siding is not properly installed, and portions of the interior ceiling have collapsed apparently due to leaks in the roof. Based on the Building Official's inspection, it appears that the portion of the existing structure that encroaches into the required setback has serious structural problems. The magnitude of the necessary repairs indicates that it may be more appropriate to remove the nonconforming portion of the structure and add additional space to the home in a conforming location. Staff recommended denial of the requested variance to rebuild or substantially repair the existing home. The applicant should prepare a comprehensive plan for improving the existing home that includes removal of the front portion of the home, remodeling the existing conforming portions of the structure as necessary, and adding additional space to the home in a conforming location on the lot. Upon preparation of such a plan, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming garage. It was questioned if the structure would meeting the 840 square foot minimum required floor area for a dwelling if the front portion of the home was removed, and it was assumed it would not. Meyer commented that the time to get this structure into conformance is now. The applicant informed the Commission that there is another poured foundation inside the existing foundation, so the structure is not as bad as it may seem. Jon informed the applicant that if the variance is approved, all decayed portions of the foundation would have to be repaired. The applicant commented that he will fix whatever is needed. The applicant's estimated cost to improve the structure is $6,000. Mueller questioned if the basement ceiling height would be required to be raised. The Building Official replied that it would not have to be raised, but if it does not meeting the minimum height requirement it cannot be considered habitable space and it will reduce the square footage of the dwelling. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend denial of the variance request due to the substandard condition of the dwelling as determined by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. DD PLANNING REPORT TO:. Motmd Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: William Hibbs CASE NUMBER: 92-036 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30q LOCATION: 5860 Idlewood Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances to improve .an existing structure. At the present time, the existing home has a 17 foot front yard setback which is 13 feet short of the required 30 foot setback. Additionally, the property has a nonconforming garage which received a variance in 1981. The garage is 2 feet from the property line instead of the required 4 feet. COMMENT: The existing home is nonconforming due to its front yard setback. The intent of the nonconforming provisions of the Zoning Code is to see that uses and structures that do not meet current ordinance requirements are amortized over a period of time and eventually brought into conformance. In the case of buildings, they are typically required to meet ordinance criteria if they are proposed to be reconstructed or substantially improved. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Hibbs Variance July 7,1992 Page 2 The Building Official has reviewed the existing home and prepared a list of deficiencies. The front portion of the existing structure that encroaches into the required setback area has a number of problems. According to the Building Official's inspection, the rafters are sagging and appear to be undersized, the foundation has failed on the west side, other sides of the foundation have been covered by a wooded material precluding further inspection, siding is not properly installed, and portions of the interior ceiling have collapsed apparently due to leaks in the roof. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Building Official's inspection, it appears that the portion of the existing structure that encroaches into the required setback has serious structural problems. The magnitude of the necessary repairs indicates that it may be more appropriate to remove the nonconforming portion of the structure and add additional space to the home in a conforming location. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to rebuild or substantially repair the existing home. The applicant should prepare a comprehensive plan for improving the existing home that includes removal of the front portion of the home, remodeling the existing conforming portions of the structure as necessary, and adding additional space to the home in a conforming location on the lot. Upon preparation of such a plan, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming garage. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION 534~. Maywood Road, Mound, MN 553 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.-~~~ Address of Subject Property ~o ~--Cd . Owner,s Name_. /t~i/Jw~,~ /-///~ Day Phone ~/~/'~ 7/ ~ Owner's Address~~5 /~j. __ Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) ' ~' ~ I Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~ Block / Zoning District ~ / Use of Property: ~/~~ Y. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this ~Operty? .(~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action aKen, resolu=ion number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed cons~uction or alte ' ' ~6~ ~.~o=~e., ~e o~ ~se, etc.~: ~ ~.~.._ ~ ~ vat~o~ (.~ze, number revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 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 us~ (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) ~~~~ SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE Front Yard: ( NOE W ) go ft. Rear Yard: (~ S E W ) /~- ft. Lake Front: ( N S E W ) --- ft. Side Yard: ( N S&W~) /~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S ) ft. Lot size: _~~_~__sq ft Street Frontage ft. (or existing) I -7 ft. 94r ft. ---- ft. ft. ft. _~___.~_~sq 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 0~), 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 Page 3 Case No.~ e Was the hardship created by any other 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? 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 S ignatur. ~j/ OF- pROPERTY OF. · - To: Planning commission and City council Re: variance application for 5860 Idlewood As to my application, I wish to include the repairs of the minor deficiencies Jon Sutherland noted on his inspection of the property. My reason for not including those items on the application was, I planned to include them on the building permit I was to obtain. I fully knew the minor problems Jon had stated and planned to remedy them. · Also, with regard to the foundation, Jon is right, the original foundation is not in great shape, however a newer foundation had been poured inside the basement and there are newer block on the front part of the house. According to 2 concrete contractors the foundation is in average condition and very functional for that house, with the exception of the area noted on the plan, which was caused either by poor drainage or a backhoe or large tractor to close to the house when a patio was poured on the west side of house. I realize the home needs some work "dilapidated" is a bit strong. but Jon's definition of William A. Hibbs -- "~ 0::3 I.~0 ::) ..,, :::) .~, ..~ , = z-~-r (~'r ~_ :~z o ~ > · iAl~:tV$ QNV HIT~'~H '7¥NO~83d ~OX ~tOd ~d¥ ~IN31AI3Ltlf'IO~t .~OO0 z~- --0 hr'u,~ z z~ ~<0~0~5~ ~ooGo~<c z n- ~r .J ,~- fl[ 3 w~ W O~ w 297 August il, 1981 Councilmember Polston moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 81-271 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND GRANT A 2 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR A DOUBLE GARAGE - LOTS 4 & E.½ of 5, BLOCK I, THE HIGHLANDS WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the owner of Lots 4 and East ½ of Lot 5, Block I, The Highlands, Plat 61610, Parcel 0100, PID #23-117-24 42 0014, is requesting a 2 foot side yard variance to replace garage, and there is an existing nonconformancy for the present garage and for the dwelling, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended a variance be granted for a double garage with the stipulation that the garage be built no less that 2 feet from the property line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA: , That the Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation and does approve the variance For a double garage with the stipulation that it be no less than 2 feet from the side property line, recognizing the nonconforming front yard setback for the dwelling. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Charon and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson and Lindlan; the following voted against the same: Ulrick; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Manager. Mayor Attest: City Manager PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT TO ALLOW MINIMAL REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING BOATHOUSE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY KNOWN AS DEVON COMMONS DIRECTLY ABUTTING LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE WHEREAS, The applicant, Carole Munson, has requested permission to repair the hazardous boat house on public land abutting her property at 4729 Island View Drive, and; WHEREAS, The City Attorney has written two comprehensive legal opinions regarding nonconforming private uses of public land; and WHEREAS, On August Maintenance Permit for Resolution #78-372; and 8, 1979, the City Council approved a certain structures on the Commons by WHEREAS, On December 10, 1991, the City Council approved a 3 year Maintenance Permit for the Munson boat house and that permit expires on December 10, 1994; and WHEREAS, On April 13, 1992 during a scheduled inventory of Devon Commons adjacent to 4729 Island View Drive, Staff noted the sagging roof and dilapidated condition of the existing boat house, and it is the opinion of the Building Official that the nonconforming building is in an unsafe and hazardous condition; and WHEREAS, The City Council has issued a 3 year Maintenance permit which allows the abutting owner to continue the use of the boat house until the expiration of the Maintenance Permit contingent upon the applicant agreeing to make limited construction changes which will make the boat house safe with minimal expenditures as not to attempt to extend the life of the structure beyond the expiration of the Maintenance Permit; and WHEREAS, The City Council on April 28, 1992 directed the applicant to work with a contractor and the Building Official to develop the minimum repairs needed to make the building safe; and WHEREAS, The applicant has obtained the opinion of a structural engineer regarding repairs that could be made, the Building Official has reviewed the engineer's suggestions and is in substantial agreement with the engineer; and WHEREAS, To-date, the boat house remains in a dilapidated and unsafe hazardous condition and it is in the best interest of all concerned to make the building safe and to eliminate the hazard until such time that the 3 year Maintenance Permit expires and the boat house has been properly amortized and can be removed and the public area restored to a natural condition; and t, 1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT TO ALLOW MINIMAL REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING BOATHOUSE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY KNOWN AS DEVON COMMONS DIRECTLY ABUTTING LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE WHEREAS, The applicant, Carole Munson, has requested permission to repair the hazardous boat house on public land abutting her property at 4729 Island View Drive, and; WHEREAS, The City Attorney has written two comprehensive legal opinions regarding nonconforming private uses of public land; and WHEREAS, On August 8, 1979, the City Council approved a Maintenance Permit for certain structures on the Commons by Resolution #78-372; and WHEREAS, On December 10, 1991, the City Council approved a 3 year Maintenance Permit for the Munson boat house and that permit expires on December 10, 1994; and WHEREAS, On April 13, 1992 during a scheduled inventory of Devon Commons adjacent to 4729 Island View Drive, Staff noted the sagging roof and dilapidated condition of the existing boat house, and it is the opinion of the Building Official that the nonconforming building is in an unsafe and hazardous condition; and WHEREAS, The City Council has issued a 3 year Maintenance permit which allows the abutting owner to continue the use of the boat house until the expiration of the Maintenance Permit contingent upon the applicant agreeing to make limited construction changes which will make the boat house safe with minimal expenditures as not to-attempt to extend the life of the structure beyond the expiration of the Maintenance Permit; and WHEREAS, The City Council on April 28, 1992 directed the applicant to work with a contractor and the Building Official to develop the minimum repairs needed to make the building safe; and WHEREAS, The applicant has obtained the opinion of a structural engineer regarding repairs that could be made, the Building Official has reviewed the engineer's suggestions and is in substantial agreement with the engineer; and WHEREAS, To-date, the boat house remains in a dilapidated and unsafe hazardous condition and it is in the best interest of all concerned to make the building safe and to eliminate the hazard until such time that the 3 year Maintenance Permit expires and the boat house has been properly amortized and can be removed and the public area restored to a natural condition; and PROPOSED RESOLUTION MUNSON'S BOATHOUSE PAGE 2 WHEREAS, The City Council has directed in the interest of public safety that the minimal repairs suggested need to be completed in a timely fashion and shall be completed by November 1, 1992 and the limited repairs shall be made at the sole cost of the applicant/abutting owner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The minimal repairs to the boat house on Devon Commons, abutting 4729 Island View Drive, Lot 6, Block 7, Devon, as suggested by the applicant's structural engineer, Mr. Richard Eckroad, be allowed to the boat house as approved by the Building Official. An outline of the repairs authorized by this resolution is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. That a building permit be obtained by the applicant and the repairs be subject to the approval of the Building Official and all associated costs be the responsibility of the. a~plicant. , -/ ..... .,..~¢~v~J The applicant ~~'~Jmr ln,u~ance to_48rotect ~e~elf~. The priv~k4 u'se of ~ublic land is discouraged end.hall be~ terminated at the/ earliest opportunity and the ~rrent ~/~. Maintenance Permi~ allows for use of the boat house ~ ~ - / December 10, 1994~ at which time the boat house shall be~ removed within 30 days of the expiration of the_M~.{~nance Permit at the sole cost of the applicant/abutting owner. The area shall be restored to a natural condition as approved and under the direction of the Parks Director, City Engineer, and Building Official Permit expiration date is December 10, 1994 which is consistent with the previously granted Maintenance Permit for this property. Richard E. Eckroad, Inc. 10130 36th Place North · Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 · (612) 544-8~9~ Consulting Structural Engineers. June 15, 1992 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: 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° over to the side walls. It might be necessary to utilize steel angles on the r~ar 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. Sincerly, Richard E. EckroadP.E. Structural Engineer de PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 MUNSON'S BOATHOUSE WHEREAS, The City Council has directed in the interest of public safety that the minimal repairs suggested need to be completed in a timely fashion and shall be completed by November 1, 1992 and the limited repairs shall be made at the sole cost of the applicant/abutting owner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The minimal repairs to the boat house on Devon Commons, abutting 4729 Island View Drive, Lot 6, Block 7, Devon, as suggested by the applicant,s structural engineer, Mr. Richard Eckroad, be allowed to the boat house as approved by the Building Official. An outline of the repairs authorized by this resolution is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. That a building permit be obtained by the applicant and the repairs be subject to the approval of the Building Official and all associated costs be the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant be responsible for insurance to protect herself and the City. The private use of public land is discouraged and shall be terminated at the earliest opportunity and the current Maintenance Permit allows for use of the boat house until December 10, 1994, at which time the boat house shall be removed, within 30 days of the expiration of the Maintenance Permit at the sole cost of the applicant/abutting owner. ~ The area shall be restored to a natural condition as approved and under the direction of the Parks Director, City Engineer, and Building Official Permit expiration date is December 10, 1994 which is consistent with the previously granted Maintenance Permit for this property. 10130 36th Place North · Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 · (6i2) 544-8599 Richard E. Eckroad, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers. June 15, 1992 RECEIVED J U N 2 3 1992 t, qOUNO PLANNING & INSP. 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 ~lumbed and reattached to the top of the block walls or new stud walls added.~ou 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. Sincerly, Richard E. EckroadP.E. Structural Engineer de PROPOSED RESOLUTION ~92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CAROLE MUNSON TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE #42314, ABUTTING 4?29 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK ?, DEVON WHEREAS, Carole Munson has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the construction of a stairway and guardrail on Devon Commons, Dock Site #42314, abutting 4729 Island View Drive, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, on April 28, 1992, the City Council approved Resolution No. 92-48 "TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT (FEE WAIVED), TO CAROLE MUNSON 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALKWAY TO CONNECT THE TWO STAIRWAYS ON THE COMMONS, TO BE BUILT ACCORDING TO CODE," and; WHEREAS, on June 23, 1992, the City Council agreed to give Ms. Munson until July 28, 1992 to submit an application for a construction on public lands permit with a plan for whatever she is proposing to do with the railing that she wants on the edge of the old patio, and; WHEREAS, a proposed plan for the guardrail was received by City Staff the day prior to a meeting of the Advisory Park and Open Space Commission meeting, and; WHEREAS, The City Council met on July 28, 1992 and considered the recommendation of the Advisory Park and Open Space Commission and directed staff to prepare a resolution outlining the limitations and agreement as to the authorized improvement that may remain on the public lands. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: A Construction on Public Lands Permit for Carole Munson on Devon Commons, Dock Site #42314, abutting 4729 Island View Drive, Lot 6, Block 7, Devon, is approved subject to the following conditions: Allow the applicant to maintain a maximum 4 foot wide portion of the existing deck to connect the existing stairways. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CAROLE MUNSON Construct a new stairway to the old patio area between the existing play house and boat house (this area is under the existing deck), and also allow an on-grade pathway of wood chips or other similar material as approved by the Parks Director which specifically may not be wood or concrete or hard surface material. The existing guardrail shall be removed and replaced with plantings along the guardrail area, as approved by the Park Director. Allowing such repairs as may be deemed necessary by staff to the existing masonry retaining wall closest to the lakeshore and that the decorative lattice work be moved in flush with the masonry wall and plantings be allowed to remain. That a handrail of an approved type as noted on handrail handout be installed on each of the stairways above and below the connecting walkway the full length of each stairway and that the existing stairs may remain as constructed. That all such improvements shall be reviewed, inspected and approved by the Building official and Parks Director and the handrail and guardrail modifications shall be in conformance with the Building Code. The permit expiration date is December 10, 1994 which is consistent with the previously granted maintenance permit for this property. Permit renewal is required upon expiration of any existing permits and the applicant or his/her successors and assigns shall be advised that an application must be filed in 1994 which is consistent with all applicable city ordinances in force as of the date of application. MINUTES - MOUND CITy COUNCIL - JULY 28t 1992 1.11 C__ONBTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDB PERMIT APPLICATIONs RE UEBT FOR ~TAIRWAY WALKWAY CAROLE MUNSON 29 IS_LAND VIEW DRIVE LOT ~6, BLOCK 7__~DEVONo DOCK BITE f4231~ The Building Official handed out background material in addition to what was in the Council packets: Resolution 92-48 which allows Ms. Munson to construct a walkway to connect the two stairways on the Commons according to code; Minutes from the April 28 1992, Council Meeting; letter from himself to Ms. ' Munson regarding City Council action regarding the boathouse, also included with that letter was information on handrails and stairways and that she needed to contact him; responses from Ms. Munson's structural engineer regarding the boathouse repairs and patio deck. Ms. Munson had previously stated that she would like to reuse the existing deck railing to prevent people from falli patio area. Her engineer s~eci~ .......... ng off the old r &~=~ ~o~e me~n0~s 0£ that area that ha reconstructin ve been reviewed and approved by staff, g In the information is the staff recommendation to the Park & Open Space Commission, page 2471 and their recom]~endation on page 2472. There is a proposed resolution on page 2469 of the packet. The Building Official then reviewed the 7 items in the resolution. The Building Official recommended incorporating the existing masonry walls in the construction on public lands permit so that repairs can be made when the walls are exposed. The Council discussed the guard rail that Ms. Munson is requesting be installed where the masonry wall is located. The Building Official stated that if this area is to be used for plantings and not a patio area, he would not recommend a guard rail. The Park Director recommended that the area in question be filled and re- graded between the existing play house and boat house with black dirt and grass seed or sod, no crushed gravel or sand due to erosion problems. The applicant did not want to have to mow the area. The Council discussed using plantings in the area instead of grass. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~92-95 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CAROLE NUNSON TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY AND GUARDRAIL ON DEVON COMMONSt DOCK SITE ~42314~ ABUTTING 4729 ISLA~ VIEW DRIVEr LOT 6~ BLOCK 7, DEVON The Mayor pointed out that th~ stairway, walkway and maintenance of the~ masonry retaining wall were already approved. The Council discussed the area above the masonry wall and what should be put in there, plantings, grass, or shrubs. The vote was 2 in favor with Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting nay. Motion failed. Ms. Munson's, Attorney Richard Indritz, was present and asked what can be done with the area between the playhouse and the steps. Ne stated that the area in question is potentially dangerous because of the height. He stated that Ms. Munson would no longer be responsible for this potentially dangerous area. He stated that he believes that Ms. Munson is still entitled to access between the walkway and the playhouse and it's not been decided whether it should be crushed gravel or sod and that is being left up to her discretion. In terms of which choice it would be, the Park Commission thought it was more reasonable that there be crushed gravel there. Erosion is not a problem because of the level surface and there is a raised edge on the retaining wall, so it will not be washing off. Grass is impractical and if the City wants to take the responsibility for maintaining that grass, Ms. Munson will call the maintenance crews every two weeks to come and take care of it. Ms. Munson is willing to go along with all the recommendations of the Park Commission and he has not heard any alternatives proposed by the City Council. The Mayor recommended that the Staff (Building Official or Park Director) be directed to suggest some plantings that would work on the patio area to delineate the area of the edge of the retaining wall. Mr. Indritz stated that Ms. Munson would allow the City Park Dept. to put in the plantings they deem appropriate to delineate the edge of the retaining wall from the rest of the level area. The Park Director pointed out that the Park CommiSsion wanted to have the expiration date of the construction on public lands permit be consistent with the existing maintenance permit. In other words, that in just over two years from now that all the maintenance permits will expire on the property and then they will July 28, 1992 be able to decide if they want to take out this flat area and regrade it to a sloping area. The Council did not think cementing in 4 foot treated posts in this area was realistic if they are going to be taken out in 2 years. The City Manager asked if Ms. Munson's intent was to remove the deck as was ordered on December 10, 19917 He also asked about the boathouse. The Staff was asked to get clarification to Council questions from Ms. Munson's engineer on the condition of the boathouse. The Building Official presented information on his conversation with the engineer. The answers provided by the engineer were not conclusive. The Council discussed the fact that Ms. Munson wanted to do the repairs to the boathouse during the winter. Mr. Indritz stated he was not aware of. this. The Council also pointed out that Ms. Munson, at a previous meeting, indicated that she thought she had 2 1/2 years to complete the repairs to the boathouse and that was not the Council's intention. Mr. Indritz stated that due to Ms. Munson's employment she is out of town alot and is asking that she be allowed 3 months to do the repairs as recommended or suggested by her structural engineer. He stated she would like until November 1, 1992, to do those repairs to the boathouse. The Council discussed removing the boathouse when the permit expires in 2 1/2 years. Mr. Indritz stated he understood this was a renewable permit, so she would have the opportunity to request renewal at its expiration. The Council decided that should be left to the City Council at that time. The Council then discussed having the minimal repairs done to the boathouse. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith directing staff to prepare a resolution that ¥ould allow the repairs to the boathouse as suggested by the structural engineer and that those repairs be completed by November 1, 1992. Within that resolution, it is to be stated that the structure be removed at the end of the maintenance permit. Councilmember Smith asked to make a friendly amendment removing the language that it must be taken down at the end of the maintenance permit (2 years). The Mayor stated that his intention was that this Council would recommend that the structure be removed at the end of the maintenance period. The City Attorney stated that as he understands it, if there is a message to be conveyed in the future, l) you are saying to the applicant that you want her to spend a minimal amount of money on the repairs to make the boathouse safe, 2) the Council is doing this with the idea that when the current permit expires they will be asked to remove the boathouse because of the unsafe conditions. The City Attorney asked if this is the language that the Council wanted in the resolution. The Mayor stated that was his intent. Councilmember Smith stated that would be forewarning any future buyers and alerting future Councils. The vote on the above motion directing staff to prepare a resolution with the language given by the City Attorney was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. The Council then discussed the construction on public lands ermit that failed earlier. There were suggestions to modify item;3 and 4 in that resolution, as follows: 3. The existing guardrail shall be removed and replaced with plantings along the guardrail area as approved by the · Park Director. ' There was discussion that the decorative lattice work that is currently'2 feet out from the retaining wall and that could be a problem if left after the guardrail is removed and plantings are done on the top of the wall. Allow such repairs as may be deemed necessary by staff to the existing masonry retaining wall closest to the lakeshore and that the decorative lattice work be moved in flush with the masonry wall and plantings be allowed to remain. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith that this item be continued for 2 reeks and directing staff to prepare items $ & 4 and to clari-- -[~ ~uncll,~ direction, changing -x ~,e ea~xway qolng to the playhouse. The vote vas unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN BPACE COMMISSION JULY 9~ 1992 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L~NDS PERMIT APPLICATION: REOUEST FOR STaIRWAY/WALKWAY BY C~ROLE MUNSON~ 4?29 ISLAND ¥IEW DRI¥~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a construction on public lands permit. On June 23, 1992 the City Council ordered removal of the existing deck. The applicant stated her intentions at the June 3rd meeting to leave a 4 foot walkway between the existing two stairways and add a new step off the walkway to the old patio area and fill this area with crushed gravel or sand. Staff recommended approval of the applicant's request as amended by staff as follows: 1. Allow the applicant to maintain a maximum 4 foot wide portion of the existing deck to connect the existing stairways. 2. Construct a new stairway to the old patio area between the existing play house and boat house (this area is under the existing deck). 3. Fill and re-grade the area between the existing play house and boat house with black dirt and grass seed or sod, no crushed gravel or sand due to erosion problems. 4. Install a new guardrail along the lower old masonry retaining wall once'the illegal deck as been removed. The guardrail shall be a minimum of 36 inches in height with intermediate rails spaced less than 6 inches apart. 5. Allow such repairs as may be deemed necessary by staff to the existing masonry retaining wall closest to the lakeshore and that the decorative lattice work and plantings be allowed to remain. 6. That a handrail of an approved type as noted on handrail handout be installed on each of the stairways above and below the connecting walkway the full length of each stairway and that the existing stairs may remain as constructed. 7. That all such improvements shall be reviewed, inspected and approved by the Building official and Parks Director and the handrail and guardrail modifications shall be in conformance with the Building Code. 8. Permit expires five (5) years from date of City Council approval upon which time renewal is required. The Building official commented that an actual plan was not Park and Open Space Com~ission Minutes July 9, 1992 received until 3:07 p.m. on July 8 from the applicant and it was handed out to the Commissioners by the Secretary. Casey questioned if the applicant could install bushes instead of the proposed guardrail. The Building Official stated that the guardrail is required by code. Casey suggested that this permit have the same expiration date as the current maintenance permit on this property so when they expire the proposal can be reviewed as a whole. Ms. Munson addressed the Commission and stated that the "Use Plan', designates the commons area abutting her propert as area, and uses which Would discourage this area o be auJJ~ the ~ ' h' fishing should not be allowed. In her opinion, the improvements on commons do not discourage the use of the area for fishing. Munson proposed that the portion of the deck whic overhangs from the retain' allowed to .... :- . lng Wall b, ...... h currently Muns~- .... ~azn so she will .... z a~proxlmatelv 1 ._.~_C...-uueu that the reta~-~ ,,u~ 9ave to alter t~e ~-.~Y~ ~e --zcn is a~w~: .... ~-xng wall has ...... ~ ~u~rorail. ~v~zmuue~y 3' Wide. a'n~ ~ -~ .~ Pro-fusion, or guardrail back to the fetal '' ~ ~ ~ne is required to ?w..the jog which Wouldn~%%,.wal}.,_ the guardrail Will h ..... r~zgnt, the jogged portion j~ sl{ly, or if the ouard~/~ one retainin~ wall .... ~2 ~_ to those standing on the grade above which does not make any sense when she Could just leave the existing guardrail. What difference will 1 foot make? It Will save her a lot of time and money. The Parks Director emphasized that the City Council has ordered the entire deck be removed. Munson referred to item $3 of that it Would be very difficult staff,s recommendation and stated the patio portion and it is such a small area it does not make any , to carry a lawn mower down to mow sense. Munson stated that she won,t sod the area because she is not going to mow it. She would prefer to have sand or gravel, and she. does not believe erosion Will be a problem. Casey commented that an ideal proposal Would be to remove the retaining wall and slope the grade. MOTION made by Casey, secon that the re es ded by Mueller ex-o{~.,~__ q~..ted Constructi ........ to recommend Mainten ..... '- "" consistent ..~ _~ .... a ~ermlt ca~,4.~=~u~ Yermlt on file ~ .~,~aun the extstina --'=~ ~ co 2. --- ~-zs property. Those in favor were: sleson, Mueller and Skoglund -"~o~- opposea. · Byrnes and An~ ...... ey, MOTION made by Byrnes, seco ~proval as recom,--~-- - nd~d by Anderso,_ . ~ ...... %- -"y #e, and that t~- __~t" ~ne exception of ~vu the exlstin~ ~,..~__,. "~ ~mPazcant be a~-w.a · ~ Sko~l..-a _ ---v~ were~ B-r ..... ~*un carrle~ ~''"-. uasey and ~--- z ""u, ~aerson, -azeson were opposed. This request Will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. MINUTE8 - MOUND CITY COUlqClL - JUl~ 23s 1992 t.l~ ~TII~ED DISCg8810~ REt COHDITIOH OF BOATHOUSE ¥0~ C~ROLB HUlqSOH. The eui~din~ Official e~plalned ~hat he had just tonight received copies of letters from a st~ctural engineer re~rdin~ the boathouse and deck at 4729~Island View Drive and thus has not had time to respond. The coUnCil was given copies of the letters. There was considerable discussion about the report that Ms. Munson's structural engineer submitted. The city Attorney asked if Ms. Munson was willing to do what the engineer indicates needs to be done. Ms. Munson replied, absolutely. Ms. Munson indicated that the engineer's estimate of the cost of the minimal repairs as described in his report would be about $500 without labor. Ms. Munson stated that it was her understanding at the April 28th meeting that the building was to be repaired so that it would have at least the life e~ectancy of the maintenance use pe~it or 3 years. The City Attorney asked what kind of an agreement the city could make with her that she would do this work within a specified period of time to protect her safety or anyone else's. Ms. Munson stated that it could be done within a 3 year period of time. The City Attorney e~lained that the Council since giving the 3 year maintenance pe~ft just want it brought into a safe condition for that 3 year peri~. He asked if she could do that within the next month. Ms. Munson replied, no. Ms. Munson stated that her understanding of the engineer's report was that it is impossible to dete~ine exactly what shape the building is in from a safety standpoint so she feels she should have the period of the maintenance use pe~it to do the work. She stated that the st~ctural engineer's report does not indicate that the building in any i~inent danger of being a public safety hazard. She stated she would do the work during the time period of the maintenance use pe~it. The city Attorney stated that the City would like to work this out and have the repairs done in a timely manner. Ms. Munson stated she would like to do the work during the winter when ti~ers could be brought in over the ice on the lake. The Council e~ressed concern about doing this work when the ground is frozen. The Council asked that the Building Official speak with Richard E. Eckroad, P.E., St~ctural Engineer and clarify the info,etlon in the letter and a time frame for the repairs to be completed. The following ~estions need to be answered: Is the structure in go~ enough condition to stand where it is for 2 1/2 years? Can the boathouse wait until winter and what effect will winter frost have on the repairs? Ms. Munson stated she cannot do the work within the next 30 days. The council was polled to see if they were willing to give Ms. Munson 2 1/2 years to repair the boathouse. Four Councilme~ers stated no, they were not willing to allow this. Councilme~er ~rens stated she would like to hear from the structural engineer as to what time peri~ he thinks these kinds of things would need to be completed by. MOTION made ~ Jessen, seconded by Johnson to hold any action on this until the meeting on Jul~ 2~, 1992, to give the Building Official time to clarif~ info~atio~ s~mftted in the st~ctural engineer's letter an4 t~ to answer the ~estions ~ve. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOO0 ROAD MOUNo, MINNESOTA 55364 (6)2) 4?2. ~ )55 TO :~ NUMBER Of' PAGES TO FOLLO;4: C ~LtC~L , If- ~(ou H4Vrc 4~4Y qo~c:~ PHONE CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: -~ / ~ /~/ PHONE 0 ~_~%t~ CONVERSATION WITH: RIC~~ E~.KRC)~ ~,~, BY: ~G ADDRESS/CO.: CDkJ~O~-'~ ~.~ ~'~'[t~L ~-J~l~-~ &HP -rile ~o~11oM6 R~(:.F¢> ESY '"'r~6 crrY (ooM~t..... (OOU90C CUE, T'HE. LIFE c::,F THE BOlLblU'(.,- ¢ Ou~L-~ BE W~MT6E' ANp WH~fT F_..FFE. C'T VOid._ ~IMI-E'¢ FRO~'T' REPl.-tEASE.1) ,85 WHAT' VOOWLP Y"Ot.,, DC:, 1-O E..bt F/lld,~-EE AMMThlI,4"(=- l-faPPt MIM'G BE:TuOE..F_.k{ MOO 4:; (¢ l u ~ Bp.S ct=, .. 6o.~:- "TO A gSWF:::iE ''~ I {"ore ~"') PHONE CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: '7 / / /~/ PHONE # CONYERSATION WITH: ~L~~ BY.. ADDRESS/CO : · Co~U~M~ S~o~To~L ~. AH oPlkllotd At, iL, Richard E. Eckroad, Inc. , Consulting Struc[urol Engineers June 15, 1992 10130 36th Place North ' plymouth, Minnesota 55441 · (612) 544-8599 RECEtVEO J U N 2 3 1992 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Coma. tqo. 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, On 3une 12, [992 I visited your property at the above referenced address. The purpose of the visit was to examine the patio deck for proposed revisions. patio deck has to be removed to comply with the As I understand, most of the ^ narrow portion of the deck could remain to act wishes of the city of Mound. as e landing between the two flights of stairs which lead dowu to the dock and boat house. The portion of deck which is to remain will be very lightly 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 Zx6 "rim joist" 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. ~Si/ncerly, ~'~ Structural Engineer CIT ' of ,\ IOUND MEMORANDUM ':'£ --£ ''55 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 Ma 1 remind her of the action ta ~Sth meetin . T . .. _ ken by the Cit . Y 8, 1992 to Munson t~g ~_ ~e City uouncil tab Y._Cou~ll at the A ril minimum ~%i~ ~n~a~h~e. dilapidate~e~o~nY action t? give P~s. repairs wi%h sta~.'''~ une building safe ~ndh~gT_.e~luated for ~-~=~ ~ne proposed I did not receive a res one ~h~n. on June 2- 19m~ ~P_ e .from Ms. Munson ~~, ~s. M~nso~s ~t~~ed,~_a_phone the~ice~ss'o~n~itz ~oted th~t{~eMutnh~ona~cge~ co~e~~ needed to the boa~ k~.~glneer to review the ,__~:~t Yet.obtained u ~uuse re ~ux~lon an~ contact, and quested n ~- -~ · repairs a ....o u~ engzneers he could 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 7), 72 April 28, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 92-48 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, (FEE WAIVED), TO CAROLE MUNSON 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALKWAY TO CONNECT THE TWO STAIRWAYS ON ON THE COMMONS, TO BE BUILT ACCORDING TO CODE WHEREAS, within the last year and one half a deck was built on Commons in front of 4729 Island View Drive without a permit; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1991, the Council approved a 3 year maintenance permit for certain structures on the Commons at 4729 Island View Drive, but required that the newly constructed deck be removed by June 10, 1992; and WHEREAS, there are two sets of stairways which are connected by the deck which is to be removed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the issuance of a Construction on Public Lands Permit, (fee waived), to Carole Munson, 4729 Island View Drive, to allow construction of a walkway to connect the two stairways on the Commons. Construction to be according to code. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk 72 72 April 28, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 92-48 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, (FEE WAIVED), TO CAROLE MUNSON 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALKWAY TO CONNECT THE TWO STAIRWAYS ON ON THE COMMONS, TO BE BUILT ACCORDING TO CODE WHEREAS, within the last year and one half a deck was built on Commons in front of 4729 Island View Drive without a permit; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1991, the Council approved a 3 year maintenance permit for certain structures on the Commons at 4729 Island View Drive, but required that the newly constructed deck be removed by June 10, 1992; and WHEREAS, there are two sets of stairways which are connected by the deck which is to be removed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the issuance of a Construction on Public Lands Permit, (fee waived), to Carole Munson, 4729 Island View Drive, to allow construction of a walkway to connect the two stairways on the Commons. Construction to be according to code. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk April 28, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 28, 1992 1.11 REVIEW OF HAZ~kIIDOUB BUILDING (BOATHOUSE) ON PUBLIC LAND~ (DEVON COMMONS), 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CAROLS The Buildin9 Official reviewed his report on the dilapidated boat house. The Staff recommends the following: OPTION #1 - The City Council direct staff and the City Attorney to proceed with removal of the boathouse due to its unsafe condition on public land. OR OPTION {2 - Allow the applicant continued use of the boathouse until the expiration of the current maintenance permit on December 10, 1994, upon the condition that the structure be restored to a safe condition by the applicant. The applicant shall submit a detailed list of corrections that address the concerns as listed by the Building Official in his report. Carole Munson was present and stated she feels comfortable with the boathouse as is. She requested that the Council stand by their decision on December 10, 1991, and honor the 3 year maintenance permit that was issued. The Council discussed the boathouse~ the maintenance permit~ what repairs to allow, if any~ and the removal of the boathouse at the end of the maintenance permit period. The question is whether or not to repair the boathouse. The Building Official recommended that the applicant get a qualified person to review the building. The applicant stated she did intend to do some minimal things to the building, but no major improvements. The Council explained that the maintenance permit was to allow use to the extent of the useful life of the structure. The City Attorney gave the following analogy: 1. The building Official has recommended removal on the basis of, it is his opinion that the building is hazardous. 2. The Council is saying no, we've given a permit and we're going to live with that permit for the balance of the three year period. The Council is also asking the Building Official what needs to be done to the building to make it safe. 3. The Building Official is saying here are some things he can think of off the top of his head but essentially he does not want to be responsible to redesign her building. The City Attorney suggested that the Council defer action on this item for 2 weeks and let the Building Official work with the applicant and whoever her representative is to do what the Council is basically saying, i.e. do the minimal work to protect the health, safety and welfare of anybody who may be in or around that building for the 3 year period. At that time, it should come back, and an agreement be drawn between the City and Ms. Munson that: 1. There be insurance to protect she and the City. 2. It should contain language which would require its removal at the end of the permit period, at her expense. Another question that needs to be addressed is: Does the City want to require people to record these permit documents on their title, which is the only way persons buying the property would have official notice? MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to table this item until the June 9th Meeting, in order to give Ms. Munson time to have a building contractor look at the building and meet with the Building Official to do the minimum to make the building safe. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Frcm: CRROLE S MUNSON PHONE No. : 612 4?2 1676 Jul.08 1992 3:08PM P02 RECEIVED MOUf~ PLAI~I~f~G & INSP. i ,SUBJECl' MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 23~ 1992 There was another letter attached to the structural engineer's report on the boathouse. This letter refers to the patio and deck on Ms. Munson's property at 4?29 Island View Drive. The City Attorney asked if this second letter implies that Ms. Munson is going to comply with the Council's order to remove the deck as it is on ~O~mons and was voted upon last December. Ms. Munson stated that she is looking for several ways to keep the integrity of the deck area, and to keep a railing. She stated she has discussed this with the Building Official because she is very concerned about safety in that area. She suggested removing the planking from the deck, leaving 4 feet as the walkway between the stairways and have a step off the walkway to the old patio area. She would then like to leave the railing that is currently up on the edge of the deck as a safety feature so that people would not fall off that area. The Building Official explained that he and the Park Director told Ms. Munson that if she was going to do anything other than the walkway between the stairways, she would have to get a construction on public lands permit. That would require bringing a plan in and filling out an application and going through the Park & Open Space Commission and the City Council. The City Attorney explained that the City Council issued an order in December and Mr. Shukle wrote Ms. Munson a letter. The Inspectors went out to the property on the llth of June, have taken pictures, etc. Hone of the things that she was directed to do have been done. Mr. Shukle has contacted the City Attorney and has directed his office to commence proceedings against Ms. Munson and Mr. Hanus to have their properties brought into compliance with the Council's order. The City Attorney asked how he should proceed. Ms. Munson contended that she was instructed to investigate the possibility of keeping a railing. Ms. Munson was reminded that she was sent a handout for stairways and handrails in a letter that was sent by the Building Official on May 18, 1992. The City Attorney asked if Ms. Munson would agree to remove everything other than the stairways and handrails that have been required and approved by the Council on April 28, 1992. Ms. Munson stated she was in agreement. The Council agreed to give Ms. Munson until July 28, 1992, to apply and go through the process of construction on public lands permit. Ms. Munson was instructed to submit an application for a construction on public lands permit with a plan for whatever she is proposing to do with the railing that she wants on the edge of the old patio. Any plan would not include the deck that has been ordered to be removed. The deadline for submitting an application and a plan is July 1, 1992. If the application and plan are not received by July 1, the Building Official will notify the City Manager. The Council instructed the City Attorney to stay any action on Ms. Munson's deck removal until after the July 28, 1992, Council Meeting. Denny Flack, 1609 Bluebird Lane, an abutting property owner to Commons. He was not happy with having property abutting commons. He related several items that he has a problem with: 1. Docks piled up on the shoreline. 2. A picnic table that has been left on the commons. 3. He planted two pine trees and was told to remove them. 4. Difference between dedicated commons and regular commons. The City Manager will check with the Park Director and the Dock Inspector on these items. The Council complimented Mr. Flack on how nice he keeps his co~ons. N NOV 13 ~ ~ ~ ¢~:OVFR RO ~729 Island View Dr,u- ~ , , ' ~arole ~unson 12-2~-88 Lot 6 Block 7 30-117-23 22 0054 Survey_ D°I R-2 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR MOUND COLLISION & PAINT AT 2334 CONNERCE BLVD. P~TS OF LOTS 6, 7, & 8, MCNAUGHT'S ADDITION, PID #13-117-24 33 0050 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-037 WHEREAS, Scott Lindquist, applicant, has applied for a variance to City Code Section 365 resulting two variances for a free standing sign; and WHEREAS, City Code limits free standing signs to 48 square feet, the proposed sign measures 5' x 18' with a total of 96 square feet of area; and WHEREAS, the subject property is a corner lot and is allowed one sign per street frontage, therefore it is allowed to have ~ signs at 48 square feet each which would total 96 square feet in area; and WHEREAS, the sign is proposed to be setback 3' from Auditors Road and 2' from Commerce Blvd., measured from the furthermost projection of the sign. City Code requires signs to be setback 10 feet from any street right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Free standing signs cannot exceed 25' in height; and WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the B-1 Central Business District; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval 4 to 2, with conditions. The Planning Commission finds that due to the configuration of this property, it does not receive adequate visibility for signage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. To approve the following sign variances: ae A 7' setback variance to Auditors Road. An 8' setback variance to Commerce Blvd. A 42 square foot size variance. To allow a nonconforming free standing sign for Mound Collision and Paint at 2334 Commerce Blvd., upon the following conditions: a. The sign is not to exceed 17' in height. Approval of this variance precludes any issuance of temporary sign permits for this property. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE ~92-037 e This variance is granted for the following legally described property: COM AT A PT IN N LINE OF LOT Y DIS 79 81/100 FT W FROM NE COR THOF TH SLY 61 12/100 FT ALONG A LINE RUNNING TO A PT IN S LINE OF LOT 7 DIS 79 87/100 FT W FROM SE COR THOF TH E TO A PT IN E LINE OF LOT 7 DIS 38 26/100 FT N FROM SE COR THOF TH S TO SE COR THOF TH W TO SW COR THOF TH N TO NW COR OF LOT 6 TH E TO BEG ALSO N 1 FT OF W 75 FT OF LOT 8 EX ROAD. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A sign permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1992 CASE #92-037= MOUND COLLISION & PAINTt SCOTT LINDOUIST, 2334 COMMERCE BLVD. t PART8 OF LOTS $~7,8~ MCNAUGHT8 ADDITION, PID ~13 117-24 33 0050. VARIANCE - free standinq siqn. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the status of this request. At the July 13th Planning Commission meeting, a motion was made to table this request pending a meeting between the applicant and staff. A consensus between the applicant and staff was not attained at this meeting. Koegler presented three pictures to the Commission, each visualized a different size and style of sign at the subject site. The proposed sign, excluding the changeable letter portion as originally proposed, measures 5' x 18', or 90 square feet. The sign is allowed to be a maximum of 25' high. Koegler explained, that technically, two free standing signs at 48 square feet each are allowed on this site because it is a corner lot, which would total 96 square feet. The post of the sign is proposed to be 3 feet from Auditor's Road and 9 feet from the curb on Commerce Blvd. Mueller commented that he finds practical difficulty because their is a need for visibility from the north. MOTION made by Mueller to approve the variance to allow the proposed 5' x 18' sign upon the condition that it does not exceed 17' in height and it meets the 10' setback requirements from both Auditor's and Commerce. Approval of this variance precludes any issuance of temporary sign permits for this property. Approval is recommended due to the lack of vislbility available on this site for signage. Hanus seconded the motion. The owner noted that the building is 18' high, therefore, limiting the sign to 17' would not give it visibility over the building. Michael commented that he would rather see a higher sign than a bigger one. The City Planner suggested the setback variances for the sign be included in the motion, this includes a 7' setback variance from Auditor's Road and an 8' setback variance from Commerce Blvd. The setback to the sign is measured from the furthermost projection. Mueller commented that a building is allowed to be constructed in the B-1 zone up to the property line and up to 45' high. Mueller amended his motion to include the setback variances of 7' to Auditor's Road and 8' to Commerce Blvd. Hanus did not second the amendment to the Motion. Jensen seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 2. Those in favor were: Mueller, Hanus, Clapsaddle, and Jensen. Weiland and Michael were opposed. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 11, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Sign Variance Request - Mound Collision At the last Planning Commission meeting, action on the sign variance request for Mound Collision was tabled pending a meeting between the applicant and staff. A meeting will be held on Thursday, July 23, 1992 to review the request. Results of the meeting will be presented verbally at Monday's Planning Commission meeting. At that time, we should have computer generated graphics available showing the proposed sign as well as a sign that conforms to the ordinance. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design "300 Metro Boulevard: Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 83%9960 · Fax: (612) 83%3160 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORy PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 ~ASE ~92-037= ~OUND COLLISION & PAINT~ SCOTT LINDQUIST, 2334 ~OM~ERCE BLVD.~ PARTS OF LOTS 6,7,8~ MCNAUGHTS ADDITION~ PID ~13 117-24 33 0050. VARIANCE - free standinq siqn. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to install a nonconforming free standing sign. The proposed sign has a total area of 144 square feet with a height of 25 feet. The Mound Sign Ordinance allows freestanding signs with a maximum area of 48 square feet and a 25 foot maximum height. In addition, the proposed sign does not meet the required 10 foot setback from all rights-of-way. Staff recommended denial of the proposed variance. The proposed sign variance is inconsistent with the Mound Sign Ordinance and it is inconsistent with Mound's current efforts to revitalize the downtown area through the Mound Visions project. Reynold Lindquist, owner of the property, clarified for the Commission that the sign consists of two parts, the first being 5' x 18' (90 square feet) denoting "Mound Collision,- and the second being 3' x 18' (54 square feet) containing an area to allow for changeable letters. Mr. Lindquist stressed the need for the changeable sign which would eliminate the clutter of temporary/ seasonal signs in the area. He also emphasized the need to be able to expose the businesses in his building. The Commission commented on the enormous size of the sign and the impact it would have on downtown. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to table the sign variance request to allow time for the applicant to meet with staff to discuss alternative solutions. Motion carried unanimously. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. mc! PLANNING REPORT TO:. Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Sign Variance Request APPLICANT: Mound Collision and Paint (Scott Lindquis0 CASE NUMBER: 92-037 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30r LOCATION: 2334 Commerce Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance to install a free standing sign at 2334 Commerce Boulevard. The proposed sign has a total area of 144 square feet and will be installed at a height of 25 feet. The Mound Sign Ordinance allows freestanding signs with a maximum area of 48 square feet and a 25 foot maximum height. Additionally, they are required to observe a 10 foot setback from all rights- of-way. The proposed sign will have a 3 foot setback from Auditors Road and a 2 to 9 foot setback off of Commerce Boulevard. The site plan showing the sign did not identify the property line along Commerce Boulevard. COMMENT: The Mound Sign Ordinance was adopted to allow businesses the ability to install reasonable signage that does not create visual clutter, block views or cause traffic hazards. In the case of the proposed sign, it is three times larger than a sign that meets the ordinance criteria. Additionally, it will not meet required setbacks. Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design '7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Lindquist Sign Variance July 7, 1992 Page 2 The building frontage along Commerce Boulevard maintains a historic sense of downtown. Store fronts are generally along the road right-of-way and most buildings have wall signage. The proposed sign is so large that it would likely overpower all other buildings and signage in the area and would become a focal point in and of itself. While this may be desirable for an individual business, it would have a negative impact on other properties in the area as well as on the image of Mound's downtown. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed sign variance is inconsistent with the Mound Sign Ordinance and it is inconsistent with Mound's current efforts to revitalize the downtown area through the Mound Visions project. Denial of the proposed variance is recommended. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q~--O~] 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 235 ( Om Owner's Name. ~ /_ ~d~y~'t~,~ . Day Phone Owner' s Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner)_. Address ~3~ (~(% ~ ~44~ ~ ~/~3_~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~~ ( [~~ -(']~. , ~,~, ~_ . _ Addition ~. ~ [~(~ h~ ~{0' Day Phone Block P','D No. Zoning District .~.~3 '1 Use of Property: C~"~.~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, condition~~' 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. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed const~:uction or alteration (size, ~umber of stories, type of use, etc.): revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setb~k 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: ~. (~S EW) 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 ~¢~~¢~c required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. 9 ft. 3 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-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 ( ) 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 i~he land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No . If yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~ --~~~~ So relocation of a road? Yes (), No · If yes, explain such as the 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance pec. aliar 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. Applicant,s Signature~. City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 4724)6(X) FAX: 472-0620 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 55364 SUE 0 (if other than owner) SIGN CONTRACTOR PLEASE INDICATE ~UMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: being requested, see back): ~ permanent sign(s) TYPE OF SIGN: wall mount SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ~ PHONE (if more than one wall sign is seasonal/temporary sign(s) X .free standing high banner (s) .portable I IqqLO I sq ft SEASONAL SIGN: LENGTH OF TIME TO BE ERECTED: FREE STANDING: HOW HIGH WILL SIGN BE FROM GROUND LEVEL TO THE TOP?~O~°25 _~L WALL SIGN: WALL AREA: high x wide = sq ft NUMBER OF EXISTING WALL SIGNS: ~ TOTAL SQ. FT. OF ALL EXISTING W~ALL S~GNS: ~ sq ft DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (materials, is it illuminated, etc., . ~0~. ! ~_ ~. ) - - t I '' I -- ' , Date ' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii//11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/ Recommendations: APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL: Date sunSilqn Permlt 7702(7-1-87) for 2334 #8398 (4-24-89) sign: The Boulevard Salon #8646 (10-4-89) seasonal sign: 2334 Commerce #8748 (3-15-90) door #9021 (10-17-90) Mound Collission SEASONAL SIGN #9184 (5-20-91) brick retaining wall #9283 (7-12-91) SEASONAL SIGN & BANNER #9~72 (4-30-92) REMODEL: BEAUTY SHOP TO OFFICE #9623 (5-28-92) RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR INADEQUATE STREET FRONTAGE FOR LOTS 6, 7, 8, & NORTH 1/2 OF VACATED HANPTON ROAD, BLOCK PEMBROKEt PID 19-117-23 33 0093t 0094~ & 0095 P&Z CASE #92-041 WHEREAS, Paul Larson has submitted an application for a minor subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under City of Mound Code of Ordinances, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, a variance has been requested on proposed Parcel B to recognize inadequate street frontage of 23.7' to the required 40' off of an unimproved portion of Hampton Road; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, this subdivision is not subject to park dedication fee requirements; and WHEREAS, both parcels are proposed to exceed the minimum lot area required, as follows: Parcel 'A' = 8,729 square feet, and Parcel 'B' = 9,501 square feet; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that · application of the ordinance would ~---~ ...... the strict · ~=~z~ve ~ne a reasonable use of his la-~. =-~ -= ..... ppllcant of the -.-, ~.,u un~u nne waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and recommended approval by a 5 to 1 vote, with conditions. The Planning Commission finds that the subdivision request, with the stated conditions, is consistent with Section 330 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the requested lot frontage variance is consistent with Section 23.506 of the Mound Zoning Code. The shape of Parcel B presents a practical difficulty in providing access to the property, therefore the variance is justified. Proposed Resolution Case #92-041 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 16.3' street frontage variance for proposed Parcel B. The property in which the applicant has requested a waiver from the provisions of Section 330 of the City Code, which is less than five acres in area, is currently described as follows: Lots 6, 7, 8, Block 10 and that part of vacated Hampton Road which lines North of the centerline of said vacated road and between the southerly extension of the easterly and westerly lines of Lot 7, Block 10, Pembroke. It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per the following descriptions (see the attached Exhibit 'A'): Parcel A: That part of the following described property: Lots 6 and 7, Block 10, Pembroke, and that part of vacated Hampton Road which lies north of the centerline of said vacated road and between the southerly extension of the easterly and westerly lines of said Lot 7, which lies east of a line drawn south at right angles to the north line of said Lot 6 from a point thereon distant 123.00 feet west of the northeast corner of said Lot 6. Parcel B: That part of the following described property: Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 10, Pembroke, and that part of vacated Hampton Road which lies north of the centerline of said vacated road and between the southerly extension of the easterly and westerly lines of said Lot 7, which lies west of a line and its extensions; said line drawn south at right angles to the north line of said Lot 6 from a point thereon distant 123.00 feet west of the northeast corner of said Lot 6. Approval of this subdivision is subject to the following conditions: ae The lot line common to Parcels A and B shall be shifted a minimum of two feet to the east to eliminate the need for a lot depth variance on Parcel B. The developer shall dedicate a drainage easement over the south 15 feet of the easterly 25 feet of Lot 7 to accommodate the small sedimentation basin along Inverness Road. e Proposed Resolution Case #92-041 Ce Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to the recording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee shall be provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. The owner(s) of Lot B shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer line, water line and drainage swale that is accommodated within the vacated portion of ~ampton Road and within the drainage easement identified in item 2 above. The City of Mound assumes no responsibility for maintenance beyond the west right-of- way line of Inverness Lane. The private driveway located in the Hampton Road right- of-way shall be constructed to city standards for a 7-ton road design. The portion of the driveway within the Hampton Road right-of-way shall be constructed at a width of ten (10) feet. A cash deposit in the amount of $500.00 shall be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required under Section 330:145, Subd. 2 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The required escrow shall be paid prior to the time that the subdivision is reviewed by the City Council. Develop in accordance with drainage plan as proposed. Approval of the Subdivision includes issuance of a Construction on Public Right-of-Way Permit for the driveway being installed on the unimproved Hampton Road. The property owner of Parcel B .is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation of the driveway and maintenance. Additional construction, landscaping or plantings on the right of way requires approval by the City Council. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant. The applicant shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility of paying all costs for such recording. Proposed Resoluir£on Case #92-041 7. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. 4 IIL LARSON HOMES MINNETONKA, INC. '1/i// / / ,/ Be&~ngs I~o~n ~lound sever RECEIVED MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1992 CASE ~92-041: PAUL LARSON, XXXX INVERNESS L~NE & XXXX HAMPTON ROADt LOTS 6t7~8 & N 1/2 OF VAC. HAMPTON~ BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE~ PID ~19-117-23 33 0093-0095. MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to create two buildable parcels. As proposed, Parcel B has 23.7' of street frontage requiring a variance of 16.3' due to inadequate frontage on a public street. The proposed minor subdivision is not subject to park dedication fee requirements. Staff recommended that the Planning commission recommend approval of the minor subdivision and approval of the lot frontage variance subject to the following conditions: The lot line common to Parcels A and B shall be shifted a minimum of two feet to the east to eliminate the need for a lot depth variance on Parcel B. Plannin~ Co~ission ~inutes ~uly 27, 1992 2. The developer shall dedicate a drainage easement over the south 15 feet of the easterly 25 feet of Lot 7 to accommodate the small sedimentation basin along Inverness Road. 3. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to the recording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee shall be provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. The owner(s) of Lot B shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer line, water line and drainage swale that is accommodated within the vacated portion of Hampton Road and within the drainage easement identified in item 2 above. The City of Mound assumes no responsibility for alntenance beyond the west m ' right-of-way line of Inverness Lane. 4. The private driveway located in the Hampton Road right-of-way shall be constructed to city standards for a 7-ton road design. The portion of the driveway within the Hampton Road right-of-way shall be constructed at a width of ten (10) feet. 5. A cash deposit in the amount of $500.00 shall be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required under Section 330:145, Subd. 2 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The required escrow shall be paid prior to the time that the subdivision is reviewed 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 approval motion: The Planning Commission finds that the subdivision request, with the stated conditions, is consistent with Section 330 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the requested lot frontage variance is consistent with Section 23.506 of the Mound Zoning Code. The shape of Parcel B presents a practical difficulty in providing access to the property, therefore the variance is justified. Mueller questioned staff with regard to the drainage of the properties. Koegler commented that City Engineer,s biggest concerns with the subdivision related to the drainage, and after meeting with the applicant he is now comfortable with the revised plan as proposed. ' Mueller questioned staff if a variance is required because the property does not abut an improved public right-of-way. Hanus addressed the issue of the driveway on the public right-of- way and questioned if this should be processed as a Construction on Public Lands Permit. The City Planner agreed that a permit could be issued for the driveway. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1992 Applicant, Paul Larson, addressed the Commission emphasizing that both the lots exceed the minimum lot area requirement, and his original plan provided for Parcel B to have 40' of frontage on Inverness Lane which would have been conforming, however, staff recommended the parcel be configured as currently proposed. Larson emphasized that the.plan has been approved by both his engineer and the city Engineer. Linda Mitchell of 462~ Cumberland Road, an abutting neighbor to the north of the subject property stated that there are already drainage problems in the area. She is concerned that if the existing woods are cleared, there will be more drainage problems. She also feels that the proposed position of the House on Parcel B is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. She questioned what will happen if the subdivision is approved and additional drainage problems occur, who will take care of the problem? Lori Bullock of 4615 Cumberland Road also expressed a concern relating to drainage problems. All the problems and concerns relate to Parcel B, it is the highest spot in the neighborhood. David Bye of 3021 Inverness Lane, east of the subject property, stated that there are drainage problems in the subject area, his driveway washes-out every time it rains. His driveway was once paved, but the washed-out too. If the subdivision is approved, it is not doing Mound a favor by creating more smaller lots. The catch basin at Tuxedo and Sterling constantly backs-up during heavy rains. Vince Forstyk expressed a concern about drainage, hardcover, and the amount of water flowing down to the adjacent properties. The Building official commented that this subdivision should make the drainage for the area better rather than worse. Clapsaddle commented that the applicant/landowner should not be forced to solve the City's problems. Ted Breckheimer, owner of property to the west of the subject property stated that water runs onto his property also. He commented on the position of the proposed house on Parcel B stating that the house will face his side yard which is where he stores his boat and other items which may not create a nice view. Debbie Fisher, the potential buyer for Parcel B stated that they intend to leave the property in a natural state, they do not want to cause problems for the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes ~uly 27, 1992 The Commission compared this request to other similar requests when a driveway was allowed to be constructed on an unimproved public right-of-way. Concerns were expressed regarding potential problems with snow plowing. Michael is not in favor of approving a subdivision which creates a nonconforming lot. NOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of staff,s recommendation with an additional condition, as follows: Develop in accordance with drainage plan as proposed. Mueller opened discussion relating to drainage, and commented that there is no control at the northwest corner of the house to direct the drainage along the north property line and south to the pond. Mueller suggested that a swale could correct the problem, or that it be addressed in the motion. The City Planner commented that the flow of water to adjoining properties cannot be increased, and possibly all that is needed is one more spot elevation from the surveyor to determine if this will be a problem or not. NOTION carried 5 - 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Mueller, Weiland, and Jensen. opposed. Michael This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 11, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 22,1992 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variance Request APPLICANT: Paul Larson CASE NUMBER: 92-040 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30u LOCATION: Inverness Lane and Hampton Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two buildable parcels. As proposed, one of the parcels requires a variance due to inadequate frontage on a public street. This report will address the planning aspects of the request. The City Engineer has prepared additional comments in a separate report. Joint recommendations are included herein. COMMENT: The proposed subdivision resulted from a meeting between the applicant and city staff. Mr. Larson presented an initial proposal which created two lots, one of which was a flag lot off of Inverness Lane with secondary street frontage off of Hampton Road. The revised plan which is the subject of this approval request creates two lots, one of which has access off of Inverness and the other with one access off of Hampton Road. The minor subdivision creates two parcels: A has a total area of 8,897 square feet and B has a total area of 9,333 square feet. Parcel A conforms to all zoning requirements. Parcel B is nonconforming with regard to lot frontage on a public street and due to inadequate lot depth. Lots in the R-2 zone are required to have 40 feet of frontage on a public street. Proposed parcel B has 23.7 feet of frontage resulting in a variance of 16.3 feet Land [Jse/Environmental · Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Larson Subdivision Report July 22, 1992 Page Two Within the R-2 zone, lots are required to have a minimum depth of 80 feet. The depth of parcel B is 78 feet resulting in a 2 foot variance. As an alternative, the lot line common to Parcels A and B could be shifted two feet to the east removing the need for the lot depth variance. Parcel B will be served by an extended driveway access off of the current termination of Hampton Road. The driveway will follow the street right-of-way approximately 70 feet prior to entering private property. The Mound Public Works Department has reviewed the alignment of the driveway and has approved the location. Configured as proposed, adequate room exists for snow storage during the winter months. Construction of the driveway is further addressed in the City Engineer's report. At the present time, the area proposed for minor subdivision contains three parcels. Upon approval of the subdivision, two lots will be created. Therefore, the proposed minor subdivision is not subject to any additional park dedication requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the minor subdivision and approval of the lot frontage variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot line common to Parcels A and B shall be shifted a minimum of two feet to the east to eliminate the need for a lot depth variance on Parcel B. 2. The developer shall dedicate a drainage easement-over the south 15 feet of the easterly 25 feet of Lot 7 to accommodate the small sedimentation basin along Inverness Road. 3. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to the recording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee shall be provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. The owner(s) of Lot B shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer line, water line and drainage swale that is accommodated within the vacated portion of Hampton Road and within the drainage easement identified in item 2 above. The City of Mound assumes no responsibility for maintenance beyond the west right-of-way line of Inverness Lane. 4. The private driveway located in the Hampton Road right-of-way shall be constructed to city standards for a 7-ton road design. The portion of the driveway within the Hampton Road right-of-way shall be constructed at a width of ten (10) feet. Larson Subdivision Report July 22, 1992 Page Three 5. A cash deposit in the amount of $500.00 shall be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required under Section 330:145, Subd. 2 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The required escrow shall be paid prior to the time that the subdivision is reviewed 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 approval motion: The Planning Commission finds that the subdivision request, with the stated conditions, is consistent with Section 330 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the requested lot frontage variance is consistent with Section 23.506 of the Mound Zoning Code. The shape of Parcel B presents a practical difficulty in providing access to the property, therefore the variance is justified. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. CASE #92-040 HANDOUT AT 7-27-92 MTG. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 July 21, 1992 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound. Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Larson Minor Subdivision Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 10, Pembroke Case #92-039 MFRA #10046 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the plans for the above mentioned minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: ~rading and Drainagm The applicant will need to submit a detail of the proposed rip rap filter dam prior to construction. The entire area of the drainage swale will have to be seeded and covered with a wood fiber blanket immediately upon completion of the grading. This will be very critical because of the steep slope and the amount of water coming off the end of Hampton Road. Erosion control fence will be needed along the south and east property lines until the turf has been established. These requirements may be included on the plans submitted with the building permit application. To insure that future owner/occupants do not disturb the drainage control, we are recommending that an additional drainage easement be placed at the southeasterly corner of the property in the area of the last check dam. It should cover the south 15 feet of the easterly 25 feet of Lot 7. This easement would be in addition to the existing utility and drainage easements over the vacated street. Utilities There are no existing sewer or water services available at the mains in Inverness Lane to serve Parcel B. These will need to be installed at the Developer's expense. If the services are not installed prior to recording of the subdivision, some type of guarantee should be provided. It should be understood that the portion of the sewer and water services located in Hampton Road belong to Parcel B and the City would not be responsible for maintaining them. ~,'~1 An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Son Sutherland July 21, 1992 Page Two Access The proposed driveway from the end of Hampton Road, which will provide access for Parcel B, should be constructed to City standards for a 7-ton street. This would require a minimum of 6" Class 5 gravel base and 3" bituminous mat. In conclusion, we are recommending that the following conditions become a part of the subdivision approval: Dedicate to the City an additional drainage easement over the south 15 feet of the easterly 25 feet of Lot 7. e Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to recording of the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. Ownership of the utility services located in vacated Hampton Road belong to Parcel B, and the City assumes no responsiblity for maintenance beyond the west right-of-way line of Inverness Lane. Private driveway located in City right-of-way of Hampton Road shall be constructed to City standards for 7-ton design. Cash deposit in the amount of $500.00 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required by Mound City Code Section 330:145, Subdivision 2. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmk LARSON HOMES MINNETONKA, INC. LARSON CERTIFICATE OF EURVEY FOR HOMES MINNETONKA, IN lOTS ~.?.8. BLOCK 10. I~EMIBROKE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ,.0.. qZ-0dO PROPOSED LEGAb DESCRIP~ION~ I. Those parts o[ Lots 6 and 7, Block 10, Pembroke, ~hich lie north oK a ~' i Iron ~arker ~ound ~ I PrOpOled elevation EXHIBIT 'A' LARSON HOMES MINNETONKA, INC. ,' / RECEIVED AU6 6 1992 MOUND PLANNINP~ & IN~P. 05 !6/92 13:59 FAX 612 472 0620 CITY OF .qO['ND {~004 RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1992 Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND ci~:y of l/ound 5341 Naywood Road; Mound; MN 55364 Phone= 472-0600v Fax~ 472-0620 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Planning Commission Date:~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed~ Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Other: Case No.~ Application Fee: $50.00 Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED?., ~JO Please type or print the following information: / icant's N~e (if other than owner)~ Address ~ / ~&/~ ~ N~e of Surveyort CW~ ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning District &'--~ Useof 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 nu~er(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by al,1. owners of tho subject property, or an explanation givsn wh~ this is not the case. Signature of Owner Date Signature of Owner Date CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 472- I 155 Fee Case No. $50.00 Address of Subject Property C~vner' s Name ?/Z~/_ Owner's Address VAR I ANCE APPL ! CAT 1 ON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the Following Information.) Day Phone ~'~76--0 Applicant's Name (If other than owner) Address Lot Add t t t on Existing Use of Property: Day Phone P ID NO. OOy~ Zoning District 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, and provide resolution number(s) (copies of prevtous resolutions must accompany this application). VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: direction 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: ( ) Principal Building setback requested ( ) Accessory Building Ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft setback required Ft. ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. sq Ft VARIANCE REQUESTED Ft. ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. sq ft VAR!ANCE APPLICATION Page 2 Case No. Reason for request ~7- ~/~bA~/~/~ 17n/~1~/[/¢~ /[/~(~'/~y .~ Does ~he p~esen~ use of ~he proper~y conform ~o all ~egula~ions Eo~ ~he zoning dls~lc~n ~htch i~ is located! Yes ~, No (). IE no, spec iFy each non-conFonming use= Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations For the zoning district in whichIt 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? tcx~ narrow (~) topography ( I sol 1 I too small I Idrainage ( sub-surface too shal low )< shape ( ) other: spec i Fy e Was the hardship described above created ~;he action of anyone having property interests in the land after zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ), No (?~). IF yes, explain Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes/ ), No (~). IF yes, explain e Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar o~y to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ), No ( ). 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 ac- curate. ] 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 beof requiredinspectin~ law. or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may App' ,cant' s Si gnature Date'~/'~"--~'~--~'~--~,-~ "71D I i---'--- PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO AppROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 2348 FAIRVIEW LANE, LOT 27 & NLY 30' OF 26, BLOCK 4, L.P. CREVIER SUBD. LOT 36.LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 43 0142 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-045 WHEREAS, The applicant has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 5.8' setback to the side yard from the detached garage, and a 29.8' front yard setback from the principal dwelling; and WHEREAS, the proposed addition will conform to all setback regulations; and WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-3 single Family Residential Zoning District which according to city Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval due to practical difficulty. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby approve a .2' front yard setback variance to the front yard and a .2' side yard setback variance to the side yard to allow construction of a conforming addition at 2348 Fairview Lane. 2. 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. 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 20' x 20.3' two story addition. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-045 Se This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 27 and the North 30.0 Feet of Lot 26, Block 4, L.P. Crevier Sub. Lot 36 Lafayette Park, Mound Minn. 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 this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all of filing costs for such recording. A ._bu.ilding permit for the subject construction shall not De Issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1992 - ERNEST & JILL WALTERS 2348 FAIRVIEW L~NE LOT 27 & ~ BLOCK 4 L.P. CREVIER 8UBD. LOT 36 LAFAYETTE P]tRK PID ~13-117-24 43 0142. VARI]~NCE~ MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 11, 1992. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT ADD-ON ITEM Planning Commission 7-27-92 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 ~687 (612~472 i~55 FAX (612, 472 062,3 DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND July 24, 1992 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff~ / Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Ernest & Jill Walters 92-045 2348 Fairview Lane Lot 27 & Nly 30' of 26, Block 4, L.P. Crevier Subd. Lafayette Park R-3 Single Family Residential Lot 36 The applicant's are requesting a variance'of 0.2' to the required 30' front yard setback for the existing dwelling, and also a 0.2' variance to the required 6' side yard setback for the existing detached garage. The applicant's propose to construct a 20' x 20.3' conforming addition to the rear of the dwelling. A building permit for the detached garage was issued in 1988. It was interpreted at that time the required setback was 4 feet to the side yard. In light of the proposed addition and in the current zoning code regarding side yards and side yard setbacks, the existing garage becomes non-conforming and a building permit cannot be issued without a variance. RECOMMENDATION Due to the very minimal variance required (2.5") and the practical difficulty of moving the substantial structures, staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Note: This case will be heard by the Planning Commission on July 27, 1992, and by the City Council on August 11, 1992. printed on recycled paper revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 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 ty~e or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name ~~r ~ ~1~ Owner's Address ~z~ ~AI~%~-~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) 'ess Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~ A~ No~C~/~t ~0~e~OF tOT ~ Block ~ Addition %_,~. C¢~F~ ~t}~'~. ~% ~ LfO~L(.4~PID,NO. 15-~-~4 ~ O~ Zoning District ~-~ Use of Property. %<~%%O~qlk~. 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. LoT 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~4'-0" X ZO'-O" AOo~T(O~ TO revised 4/2/92 Variance ApPlication Page 2 Case No. q~~u~ 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), ' If nO, specify each reason for va~'ance request, i.e. setback, lot area, non-conforming use (describe S~BACKS: required Front Yard: ( N S Rear Yard: ( N S Lake Front: Side Yard: ( S E W ) Side Yard: ( N~E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage - 1,7' ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft ft. requested (or existing) ft. ft. ~q ft VARIANCE 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 located9 Yes ( ) No specify each non-conforming use: ' , ~. If no, 0 Which unique physical characteristics its reasonable use for the of the subject property prevent uses permitted in that zoning district? any of ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: soil existing other: specify Se 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 No. q.~--~ e Was the hardship created by any 9~her 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 Bo, list some other properties which are similarly affected? e AT A la,./ 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. ~ 20~ August 28, 1984 RESOLDTION NO. 84-132 RESOLUTION CORRECTING RESOLUTION #79-333 WHEREAS, Resolution ~7g-333 entitle "Resolution to Concur With the RecOmmendation of the Planning Commission APproving. the Subdivision of Land, Lots 25, 26 & 27, Block L.P. Creviers Subdivision of Lot 36, Layfayette Park", was passed by the City Council on August 14, 1979; and WHEREAS, the Parcel A and B descriptions were incorrectly typed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby correct the.Parcel A and B descriptions to r~ad as fo!!ows: PARCEL A - lot Size 50 x 120 = 6,000 sq. ft., zoned single family residence. "Lot 25 and the South 10 feet of'Lot 26, Block 4, L.P. Creviers Subd of Lot 36, Layfayette Park.,, · PARCEL B - lot size 70 x 120'= 8,000 sq. ft. (with structure on property, zoned A-2 single family residence. "Lot 27 and Northerly 30 feet of Lot 26, Block ~, L.P. Crevters Subd of Lot 36, Lafayette Park., · The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councllmember Charon. The following Councllmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen ,and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Peterson was absent and excused. Mayor At'est: City Clerk ..... ~.Councilmember Wlthh~rt moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 333 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND, LOT5 25, 26 & 27, BLOCK q, L.P. CREVlERS SUBDIVISION OF LOT 36, LAFAYETTE PARK WHEREAS, an appllcatlon to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by. the Planning Con~nlsslon and the City Council~.-and WHEREAS, it is determined that there are special circumstances affecting said pro- perty such that the strlct appllcatlon of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver Is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantlal property rlght; and that grantlng the waiver wlll not be detrlmental to the public welfare or.Injurious to other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE,'BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: i) That the request of Knutsen Hortgage for the waiver'from the ~rovlsion of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres is hereby granted to permit division of the following described property: Lots 25, 26 and 27, Block 4, L.P. Crevlers Subdivision of Lot 36 Lafayette Park, Plat 61570, Parcel 5128 PID 13-117-24-43-0099 and having a street address of 2348 Fairv~ew Lane, Mound, Minnesota, to be divided In the following manner: Parcel A - lot s]ze_~50 x 120 = 6,000 sq ft, zoned A-2 single family residence Lot 25 and the'~-~Jn~lO feet of Lot 26, Block 4, L.P. Creviers Subd of Lot 36 Lafayette Park. Parcel B - lot size 70 x 120 = 8,400 sq ftL (~_~[,th structure on property) zoned A-2 slngle family residence. -Lot 27 and~30 feet of Lot 26, Block q, L.P. Creviers Subd of Lot 36 Lafayette Park. 2) It ls determined that the foregoing division will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is In harmony with adjacent properties. 3) That any outstanding assessment deficiencies of Sanitary Sewer or Sewer Lateral be paid in full or waivers signed. 4) The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of.this resolu- tion to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepln County to show compllance wlth the subdivlslon regulatlons of this City. ~ugus~.l~ 1~?~ A mot[on for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council- member Polston and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted In .favor there- °f; Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson, Ulrlck and ~ithhart, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted~ signed by the Hayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. s/Tim Lovaasen Mayor UAHL)ARELLE & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Land Surveyors 941-3031 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 certificate of Survey Survey For ~.rn.se w~ le~_r~ Book ~ I£ Page ~ I File 2348 Faitwiew Lane Mound l,tn. 55346 4"/2-5615 I Ill Ltl -- fl , Scale: 1"=20, O Denotes Iron Non. Found .... ,. ~ ,ha~.r.~Lot 27 and the North 30 0 Feet hot 26 Bilk 4 L.P.Crevter Sub.~t 36 Lafayette Park, Mound Minn. of CA~'DARELL'~'~-ASSOC IAT E S, INC. STATE REG. NO. 650%7~ Z."~ Z 7 Il ~ WZ .Io Z CI'F' " X IOUNI) STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: August 10, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ Variance Request Joseph & Mary Fleischhacker 92-047 560i Bartlett Blvd. Part of Govt. Lot 1, Section 23 PID $23-117-24-14 0001 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing non- conforming side yard setback to the dwelling of 7'. The required side yard setback in the R-1 zone is 10'. The existing dwelling is a substantial structure. The proposed addition will be conforming except an additional west side encroachment of .2', this would not require any special fire resistive construction by the Building Code that would be required if the building was less than 3' to the property line. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended approval as the addition allows the applicant reasonable use of the property, that the additional encroachment of .2' is very minimal, and further, the proposed addition will enhance the use and is commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the area. This request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 10, 1992 and by the City Council on August 11, 1992. The abutting property owners have been notified. JS:pj printed on recycled paper revised 4/2/92 ~VARIANCE APPLiCATi01~ 5341 Ma~ood Road, Hound, HN 5536 Phone.* 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Address of Subject Property 5601 Bartlett Blvd., Mound, Minnesota Owner,s Name Joseph and Mary Fleischhacko~ Day Phone 472-3355 Owner's Address 5601 Bartlett 81vd., Mound, Minnesota Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) ~ " D.'' I(' Address~,~y Phone ~~_L~~ _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION. -- Addition~Z~ PID No. Block ~ 2311724140001 Zoning District ~t Use of Property:_(~ ~,.,~ ~'7/.~ /~q--,' lc-_ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditio~l/use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? yes, (~ no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, provide copies of resolutions· and ¢ ) resolution number (s) 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number ¢ rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. q~~ Do the existing~tructures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regula~ons 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.) f SETBACKS: Front Yard: (~,'~,E W ) Rear Yard: (~N E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N ~) Side Yard: ( N ) Lot Size: Street Frontage requ i red ( orr~ VARIANCE ft. I~-- ft. ft. ft. /0~--~5~. ft. ft. /c g / ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ft. ft. sq ft ~ /sC~ 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 ~o, 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 ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ~/) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ('') other: specify Please describe: So 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 ~es, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~~' ~--~ Was the hardship created by any ~.er man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No If yes, explain such as the ® 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: ~ W~,~._~ - ---------- 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~ Certificate of Survey for Joseph Fleischhacker in Sec. 23-117-2~ Hennepin County, Minnesota Existing Le~al Description The East $00 feet of that parcel of land lying in Section 23, Township 1]7, Ranae 24, in the Village of Mound, described' as follows: Commencing at the intersec- tion of the south line of Chapman Ave- nue with the east line of Lake Avenue in the plat of Mound Bay Park; fhence south- erly along Lake Avenue 260 feet; thence East parallel with the south line of Chapman Avenue 125 feet; ~hence South parallel with the east line of Lake Avo- nuc to lake shore; thence ~ast¢,rly a]onq lake shore to a point 20 feet west at right angles from the east linc of section; thence north para]lc] with east line of ~aid ~ect]on to :h~, line of Chapman Avenue; thence westerly to beginning .... This survey shows thc loca:icn of ail existin~ building~ and proposnd addi*- ions in relation to the boundaries or the above described property. It doc~ not purport to show any other improve- ments or encroachments. · : Iron marker found o : Iron marker set : Existing spot elevation Datum: City of Mound Bearings shown are based on an assumed datum. < 0 4.,I · ~ CONDO NO 560, OtAPk~AN PLACE CITY of MOUND 53z: MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND M,!NNESOTA 55364 612) 4721155 FAX 612, 472-0620 August 5, 1992 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE; CITY MANAGER PETITION FROM COMMERCE PLACE AND ITS TENANTS REGARDING INSTALLATION OF CROSSWALK BETWEEN COMMERCE PLACE AND TONKA CENTER WEST (MUELLER/ LANSING/COAST TO COAST CENTER) Attached is a petition signed by Commerce Place and its tenants regarding the installation of a crosswalk between Commerce Place and the Tonka Center West. I was invited to attend a meeting of the Commerce Place tenants. Also present at the meeting were representatives of JRW Properties. Concern has been expressed that a crosswalk needs to be located on Lynwood Blvd. between the two shopping centers. These individuals indicated that many persons cross'on foot between the two shopping centers. By having a crosswalk located there, they believe that this will make it more safe for individuals to cross the street at that location. I indicated to the persons present at this meeting that I didn't believe the City Council would respond favorably to their request. I indicated that if it were possible, the City Council would probably eliminate all crosswalks in the City. As it is right now, we have too many crosswalks and all they really do is create a false sense of security for persons who feel t~at once they get into the crosswalk they are protected from any injury from any motorized vehicle. Crosswalks are a real difficult problem to enforce and they are not automatically safe. As you recall, part of the agreement to locate a stoplight at Commerce and Lynwood about two years ago, was based on the problem with the mid-block crosswalk between the Tonka West Center and Ben Franklin on Commerce Blvd. That crosswalk was eliminated and moved to the corner of Lynwood and Commerce at the stoplight. By printed on recycled paper installing another crosswalk in a mid-block type of situation, you are further precipitating the problem that we eliminated on Commerce Blvd. People have to realize that crosswalks create a false sense of security. I have discussed this matter with Len Harrell, Police Chief, and he concurs with my opinion on this matter. We recommend to you to deny the request. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:is 1010 Metrodome S~[ue. re 1010 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 (~12) Se-~lS July 16,1992 Mound City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound Minnesota Re; InstaUation of crosswalk adjacent to Commerce Place MaU across Lynwood Blvd. To Whom it May Concern; We are writing to lend support to our tenants' request to locate a crosswalk on Lynwood connecting our mall with the businesses across the street. We understand your general concern regarding the safety of crosswalks elsewhere in the city, however we feel that in our case the situation is more dangerous without one. It is very common for customers to visit our businesses, and those across the street, in the same stop. In most cases they will park in one lot and walk straight across Lynwood to complete their errands. There is a logical crossing point since the two malls lie almost exactly in line with one another. This pedestrian traffic creates a very hazardous situation. Ideally people should go to the corner of Lynwood and Commerce Blvd. to cross, but we don't believe this is a reasonable expectation. Since people typically take the most direct route, the close proximity to the controlled intersection is not relevant. It seems to us that the type of traffic on Lynwood is more local than that traveling on Highways 15 and 110, where most of the current crosswalks are lOCated. One would think that the signs and striping would be better heeded by local drivers who get to know the traffic restrictions in their area. We hope that you will consider our request based on the specifics of the case and not on problems you have had elsewhere. ~incerely,~. < David A. G~r.~ndpre and Mary~/~oline Property Managers cc Commerce Place Tenants John Bierbaum Ed Shulke-Mound City Manager 7-..7 We, the undersigned, are petitioning the Mound Governing body for a pedestrian crosswalk safety area to be installed on Lynwood Boulevard between Commerce Place, Thrifty White Drug and the shopping area to the south, Westonka Jewelry. This portion of Lynwood Boulevard is heavily traveled by patrons of the shopping areas in Mound. Their safety is important to us as business owners. Their ease in a 'one stop shopping area' will benefit both the businesses and the city. Parking is a major problem in Mound. By allowing the consumer to walk, with ease, to many major businesses the problem of parking is kept at a minimum. It also allows for consumers to window shop, which enhances the buying in ~ Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 · 472-6780 August 11, 1992 Ferner Johnson, Mayor of Mound Ken Smith, Council Member Andrea Ahrens, Council Member Liz Jensen, Council Member Phyllis Jessen, Council Member Mayor and Council Members: At its August 11, 1992 meeting, the Board of Directors of the Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce voted to support the request of the businesses in Commerce Place and the retail center across Lynwood Blvd. for a painted crosswalk across Lynwood Blvd. to connect the two commercial areas. The Chamber Board's support for the crosswalk is based on a need (1) to protect commercial patrons, (2) to encourage "pedestrian- friendly" one-stop shopping and (3) to ease the parking and traffic congestion problems caused by customers having to change parking locations frequently. Sincerely, Mary Alexander 1992 Chamber President ~"Working Togelher~~ Serving the communities of Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono (Navarre), Spring Park, and St. Bonifacius. TO: FROM: DATE: Chief Harrell Sgt. McKinley Officer Ewald~ July 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Street light evaluation On July 23, 1992, a request for a street light in the area of 3201 Amburst was submitted by Connie Severson and endorsed by several residents of the area. I have surveyed the entire area and Amburst, between Tuxedo Boulevard and Hanover Road, is extremely dark. There is currently a street light in the southwest corner of Island View Drive and Hanover Road which is sufficient for that area. However, I would recommend that a street light be located in the area as requested. A recommendation for the location would be on an existing power pole and there are three within a two block area. One is located on the north side of Amhurst between Hanover Road and Island View Drive; the second is on the north side of Amhurst between Hanover Road and Tuxedo Boulevard; and the third is located on the west side of Tuxedo Boulevard at about Amhurst. I would suggest that the street light be located at the power pole on the north side of Amhurst between Hanover Road and Tuxedo Boulevard as it would illuminate both intersections of Tuxedo Boulevard and Amhurst, and Hanover Road and Amhurst, which is marked "A" on the attached map. If I can be other further assistance please contact me. 1 ?--? 50 AUG 06 '92 ll:32AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS P.2x2 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. '~$050 23rd Avenue North. Plymoutl% Minnesota 55447 Telephone Engineer~ e1~/476-~010 Plan nets 812/476-853~, FAX Surve¥Or~ TO: Mr. F~dwa~ J..Shukle, Jr., City Man~&~r FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer DATE: AuEust 6, 1992 SUB3ECT: City of' ~d, Minnesota Dakota Rail Culvert & Ditch #8903 As requested, Geno Hoff and m~,self ~nsp~cted the subject problem and repor~ the followin~: the Owners of 2273 Cottonwood Lane had requested that ~ublic Works clean the ditch directly upstre-m from the 36" culvert under Dakota Re/1. This d/tch is the only outlet from a small wetland located on pemt of hot 3~, Koehler's Second Addition to Mound, which is owned by the City of Mound. The City acquired this property in 1974 as a t~x forfeited parcel from the State of ~/nnasota, for use as a wetland. A fairly large drs/na~e area, extendin~ north of County Road 15, dischar~es into th~s wetland by means of a 2~" etor~ sewer. We can only assume that the 36" concrete pipe under Dakota Rail, which serves as an outlet for tJ~ts wetland to Lake Lan~don, was or£Einally installed by Bu~lir~ton Northern Railroad. This ditch is in very poor condition w~th steep side slopes and numerous trees ~ro~nE out of it. By cleanin~ the accumulated debris and silt from the bottom of the ditch, Public Works did the best they could under the circumstances. Th/s area is very flat and now a small amount of water is stand~n~ in the ditch. Part of the problem appears to be the water level in Lake ben,don, which is hiEh enouKh to back up into the culvert. The pipe is about 1/3 ffull at the outlet on the south side and has 8" of stand~n~ water the bottom of the inlet on the north end, which would account for most of the stand[n~ water in the ditch. Undoubtedly, in time, the ditch will aEain become silted in and overErown. There are several possible solutions to the problem, but they would be expensive. One would be to completely reErade the area, re~ovins all the trees in the d/tch bottom and side slopes. This may not eli~inate the s~andinE if it is indeed backins up from Lake Lan~don. Dependin~ on where the property lines a~e 1°cared and the ex/stance of any easements, the s=eepness of the side slopes may or may not be improved. The other solution would be to extend the culvert westerly to the edge of the wetlands, ~hereby elimtnatin~ most of the ditch. This probably will not eliminate the standin~ water, but would move it to the end of the new s~orm sewer pipe at the ed§e off the wetlands. W~thout elevations of the wetlands, the culvert and Leke Lan~don, it is very difficult to be more definite with our evaluation of the situation or proposed solutions. AEain, under the circumstances, I believe that Oeno did the best he could cleanin~ the ditch, especially when this is what the adjacent property owner wanted done. ~/ An Eaue: Oooo~unlty ~moloyer August 5, 1992 TO: City Council of Mound FROM: Philip and Christina Hahn, residents of Mound RE: Excess storm water run-off from the city Dear Sirs and Madams, In October of 1991, my husband Philip and I purchased the home at 2273 Cottonwood Lane in Mound. Since the purchase of the home and property, we have noticed a sizable "puddle" of water settling just south and directly on the property. This puddle is full of polluted, foul-colored water which promotes excessive breeding of insects.(Foul nature of the water is evident in enclosed photos.) Furthermore, the puddle is created by a non-functioning "drainage" system used by the city to relieve excess storm water run-off. At this point, the city refuses to relieve the water problem resulting from their "drainage system". Representatives from the City of Mound Public Works have informed me on several occasions that the area, including a culvert located at the end of the puddle, is used by the city to drain excess storm water from the surrounding private and city properties. The water runs to the "drainage" area, but instead of draining into Langdon Bay as planned, the water pools and remains stagnant on the surrounding land. Although the culvert and some surrounding land is owned by Dakota Rail, the water itself is run-off from city and private properties. Furthermore, since the city regards this area as a part of the city drainage system, it is the responsibility of the city to maintain its own system. The explanation submitted above is a brief, but accurate description of the problem. My husband and I will be attending the August llth council meeting, where we hope to explain the problem in detail as needed. Thank you for your time, and we sincerely hope to find a permanent solution to this problem. Christina~ Mi~ H~hn · - I I ~ I McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 AUG 4 1992 August 3, 1992 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Edward $. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota 1992 Seal Coat Program Final Payment Request MFRA #6173 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Allied Blacktop's Final Payment Request in the amount of $24,131.13 for the 1992 Seal Coat Program. The contract price for this project was $24,605.00. Because this work is fully completed, we do not recommend that any amount be retained. We have reviewed this project with your Street Superintendent and find that the work was completed in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. us. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact JC:jmk Enclosures Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron An Equal Opportunity Employer Z - [-,Z Netka's 2313 Commerce Blvd. Mound, Minn. 55364 August 11, 1992 Mound Council Members City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, Mn. 55364 Re: Meisel's request to withdraw from the City of Mound's CBD Parking Program. To: Mound Council Members We regret we are unable to attend the council meeting this evening. However, we wish to write this letter in regard to the Meisel's request to leave the CBD parking program. We understand the CBD committee has not met since the meeting of 3uly 30th, so they have not yet been able to discuss with any of the Mound Council members or the City staff what effects this would have on the community if this should take place. Also, we feel that more time and study should be taken before any action is taken by the City staff and the Mound Council members. As you know, the CBD parking program went into effect 22 years ago when Hennepin County took the parking off of main street. Ail the business owners agreed that this was the only way that could guarantee adequate parking for all concerned. The businesses cooperated and all paid for the cost of improvements to parking lots in the downtown area. One parking lot was paid for and donated to the City of Mound by the business owners at that time. Ne believe that all business owners have paid their way and their dues, and are entitled to have the right to park anywhere in Mound, as the CBD parking plan provides for at this time. The CBD parking program represents all the businesses in the area. Ne believe that parking goes with the buildings, and that should not be altered. Businesses change, and owners come and go, but the buildings are an integral part of the community, and all need parking to make Mound continue to grow and survive in the future. we do not feel that the Mound Council should set a precedent which allows one business owner to be removed from the CBD parking program, as this could very well dissolve the entire parking program. Very truly yours, Dorothy and Bill Net~a BN:DN August 10, 1992 CITY of MOUND Mr. C.L. Johnson West Lake Steno Service, Inc. 5545 Shoreline Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Johnson: I am in receipt of your letter to the Mayor and City Council dated August 10, 1992. In your letter, you state that you wish to be removed from the CBD parking program. Am I to take this letter as your petition? If so, please advise and I will place you on the next regular City Council meeting for council review which is Tuesday, August 25 1992, 7:30 PM, Mound City Hall. ' With regard to the actual formula, it was the consensus of the property owners at the July 30th meeting, that a committee be established to analyze the existing program and make possible changes in its function and operation. The committee will be meeting soon to discuss these issues. The basic consensus of the group was that they understood Meisel,s interest in leaving the district, but they were not in favor of abandoning the program. With regard to the purchase of your property and what you were told, I was not city manager of Mound at that time so I don't know what was told to you with regard to the CBD program. It has always been my understanding that the program was there for the businesses and the consumers who use the downtown area. It assures that public parking is available in the downtown area. To have the program be voluntary would certainly make it difficult to satisfy public parking needs downtown. Please advise me as to your interest in being removed from the CBD parking program. Shukle, Jr. City Manager ES:is cc: Mayor and City Council printed on recycled paper (612) 472-5353 August 10, 1992 Mayor and City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Gentlemen: I was unable to attend the July 30, 1992, meeting of business owners and have just received a copy of the July 31, 1992, report concerning the Meisel request to be removed from the CBD parking program. It is mentioned on page 2 of the July 31, 1992, report the only property owner other than Meisels who wished to be removed from the program at this time was the Mound Masonic Lodge. We would like to set the record straight and that we, too, would like to be removed. We have our own parking lot which is more than adequate for the use of our property according to the Parking Code, and we have provided our own maintenance until two years ago when the City insisted the snow removal be done by the CBD contractor and the cost be charged to the CBD program. Those businesses that have adequate parking and maintain their parking lots, such as Meisels and others, are unfairly subsidizing those businesses who do not have adequate parking. The formula used for our property is unfair and incorrect. When we purchased our property 12 years ago, we were told participation in the CBD program was voluntary and to be removed, it should not be necessary to petition out of it. Sincerely yours, CLJ/lma cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager CITY of MOUND 534~ MAYWOOD qOAD MOUND MINNESOTA 553(-; !68- 6!2 472 ~,!55 FAX (6~2} 472 962C July 31, 1992 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE~ CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: PAT AND PAUL MEISEL REQUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM CBD PARKING PROGRAM As you know, Pat and Paul Meisel had requested to be removed from the Central Business District parking program effective June 30, 1992. Mr. and Mrs. Meisel appeared at the July 14, 1992 city council meeting and asked the city council to take action on their request. The Council directed staff to prepare some background information and to bring the item back to the August 11, 1992, regular city council meeting. On July 30, 1992, a meeting was held at city hall with CBD property owners and business owners with regard to the Meisel request and its impact on the future of the CBD parking program. Of the 26 property owners within the CBD program, 8 were represented. Those that were present indicated that they understood the Meisel's reasoning for wanting to be removed from the CBD parking program and felt that the city council is in a position where they would probably have to grant Meisel's request. There did not seem to be any interest from those represented about completely dissolving the CBD parking program. Rather, it was suggested that further study be given to how the program could be revamped and made more flexible. Thus, the CBD parking committee will be meeting within the next few weeks to take a look at what can be done to update and make the program more flexible with today's changing needs and demands. With regard to the actual Meisel request, I have spoken with Curt Pearson, city attorney. He questioned whether we have had leases with Meisels or any of the other owners within the CBD program. I indicated that in the past, leases have been put together, but with regard to Meisel,s there isn't a current lease and most of the other leases that have been in existence have expired. We do not believe that there is anything from a legal printed on recycled paper standpoint that can hold the Meisels in the CBD parking program. In fact, if other owners within the district wish to petition out, I think we would have to grant their request as well. The only other property owner that seemed to be disgruntled with the program and wished to be removed at this time is the Mound Masonic Lodge. Whether they pursue formal petitioning out is another question. Ail in all, I think meeting with the CBD property owners was helpful. We stressed the importance of the private/public partnership that has existed between the business community and the City within the last 22 years, since the program was founded. We emphasized how important that partnership was and how we need to cooperate and work together to resolve our problems. The Mound Visions program is an excellent example of how the business community and the City have to work together in order to bring economic growth and development to our community. To just abandon the program at this time seems to go contrary to what we are trying to achieve within the Mound Visions program. Attached to this memo is a document that I put together dated July 30, 1992 for you and the CBD owners and tenants and staff with regard to the future of the CBD parking program. It is basically a memorandum which contains the history of the program and some thoughts and ideas that I have developed during my tenure in observing the functioning of the CBD parking program. Please take a look at this as you prepare for the August llth meeting and the Pat and Paul Meisel request. I have also attached to the memo, some correspondence and other information related to the program for your review. If you have any questions, please contact me. Attachment ES:is AGENDA MEETING WITH TI-IE CENTRAL BUSINE3S DISTRICT (CBD) PROPERTY OWNERS THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1992 - 7:30 AM 1. INTRODUCTIONS e CBD PARKING - "A PRIVATE/PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP, ® STATUS OF LITIGATION. DAKOTA RAIL 4. MEISEL REQUEST 5. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS 6. IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOO5 ~OAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 ,612 472-It55 FAX 612 ~'-2 2620 July 30, 1992 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CBD PROPERTY OWNERS CBD TENANTS CITY STAFF FROM: SUBJECT: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The Central Business District (CBD) Parking Program has been in existence since approximately 1970. This program was developed by downtown Mound merchants in cooperation with the City of Mound for the purposes of providing municipal parking to businesses and consumers doing business and shopping within Mound's downtown area. The merchants at that time wanted to assure themselves as well as potential customers that there was adequate public parking available. I am told that the original mission of the CBD parking program was for the purposes of retiring debt issued to cover the cost of improvements to parking lots in the downtown area. The program has become basically a common area maintenance program where private ownership of lots is still in tact, but availability and use of these lots for the general public has been created through a formula to address the maintenance issues of the district 1 printed on recycled paper and providing credits to those who "lease,, their lots to the CBD program. Currently, 445 customer parking spaces are required. A total of 169 spaces are allotted for employee parking. The number of spaces provided by property owners is 296.5. The CBD formula dictates that you add the customer parking spaces required and the employee parking spaces required and subtract the number of spaces provided. Based upon the above figures, 316.5 spaces are currently available within the CBD district. The formula goes on to dictate the amount of front footage, market value and then has factors which determine the ultimate cost for each property owner. Since 1986, the City of Mound has absorbed many of the CBD costs, i.e., street sweeping, (labor and equipment), garbage pickup, installation and take down of Christmas decorations, weed trimming and mowing, Christmas decoration supplies, maintenance material and special assessments. In addition, the railroad leases went from 100% paid for by the CBD to one-fourth paid by the City of Mound to one-third of the cost Paid by the City. In short, the City has been understanding of the CBD's concerns and has tried to cooperate in many ways, particularly financially, to keep the parking program viable. The City of Mound believes the CBD program is vital to the downtown economic climate. In order to do business in the community, parking must be available. Without municipal ownership of property, it is vital that private land owners cooperate with the municipality to provide the parking necessary for economic growth. When complaints have arisen from Z 7 .5 property owners and/or businesses the City has responded by trying to alleviate the problem by working with the property owners and the businesses. The best example of this cooperation has been in the acquisition of property from Dakota Rail. The city has spent numerous amounts of money and time to assure that public parking would remain in the downtown area. The process of attempting to acquire properties began in March of 1990. As you know, the matter is still unresolved due to a number of legal problems that have taken place since the negotiations that were finalized in September of 1990. As you know, the property owners became involved in an assessment program where 50% of the cost of the acquisition of the properties has been assessed to the property owners. The remaining 50% is being paid for by the City. In addition, the city has incurred significant number of legal, engineering and planning costs that have not been passed on to the CBD property owners. Although, complaints arise from time to time regarding the program, in general over the years the program has been a excellent example of a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. We owe a lot of credit to the merchants that were astute enough to develop this program along with the City in 1970. CURRENT STATU~ Dakota Rail: As you know, the city of Mound is in litigation with Dakota Rail in two lawsuits: 1). Fraud and misrepresentation and 2). Condemnation. Both lawsuits are proceeding and will take much time and expense. By condemning the properties that were to be acquired, the City has gained title to these properties. They will eventually become municipal lots. What is yet to be determined is if the City will have some sort of assessment on these lots for maintenance or if the City will absorb the maintenance costs within the City's general fund budget. and Paul Meisal Reques! The City of Mound received a letter dated June 17, 1992 and received June 26, 1992 from Paul and Pat Meisel, a copy of which is attached. The letter requests that the City Council allow Mr. and Mrs. Meisel to be removed from the CBD parking program effective June 30, 1992. Mr. and Mrs. Meisel have indicated that they are "unfairly subsidizing those businesses who do not have adequate parking.,, In response to Mr. and Mrs. Meisel,s request, I wrote a letter dated July 6, 1992, a copy of which is attached. My letter indicates that we had received their correspondence to be removed from the district. It also indicates that I was concerned that their request would have a severe impact upon the future of the CBD program. I told them that I would share the letter with the City Council and discuss it at the July 14, 1992 regular meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Meisel appeared at the July 14, 1992 regular meeting and asked the City Council to take action on their request. The City Council directed that the City staff put together some additional information about this subject and bring it back to the August 11, 1992 regular council meeting for discussion. Upon this direction, I felt it was appropriate that background 4 information be prepared for all interested persons. In addition, I felt it was appropriate that a meeting be held with the CBD property owners to discuss this matter with them. Future of CBD Parking Program What we are really talking about here is the parking maintenance program. This is the annual assessment that is placed against all property owners contained within the Central Business District parking program to cover maintenance costs associated with the parking lots. The amount of expenses incurred each year by the parking district program has varied. Essentially, there are three costs associated with the CBD maintenance assessment: 1) Railroad leases; 2) Property leases and 3) Snow removal. Lease expenses over the past four - five years have been relatively stable. However, snowfall amounts have varied which dictates snow removal requirements. Hence, we end up with varied amounts for snow removal. With the Meisel request at hand, a major question arises: Is the program necessary any more? Certainly one could argue that the program should be abandoned. Property owners are capable of maintaining their own properties and they could provide parking to their customers and others in whichever way they see fit. This may include, but not be limited to, restrictive parking areas, fencing off of lots, leases between property owners and tenants and/or other businesses and property owners, etc. Under this scenario, the City of Mound is removed from any administration of the program and basically leaves it up to the private property owner for maintenance. Basically, without a CBD parking program, parking needs and requirements are left to the property owner and/or tenants and those that demand or need parking. With the City of Mound acquiring lots from Dakota Rail, there will be essentially four public parking areas available for use~by the general public. As mentioned above, it is yet to be determined whether the City will attempt to assess the maintenance of these lots to benefiting property owners through some sort of an assessment program. The City Council will have to determine if they feel it is appropriate for the City to assume total responsibility for these lots or share in some assessment program with benefiting property owners. I see Meisel's as being the first of a list of property owners who wish to be removed from the CBD program. The property owners and/or businesses that have little or no parking are going to be the ones that are going to have to struggle to find parking within the district that will-meet their needs. I am not convinced that maintenance will be any cheaper, nor will I be convinced that it will be done any faster or better. Certainly the municipal parking areas will be available, but this may not satisfy everyone's demands for parking up to or near their building or business. Maintenance costs are going to continue, although they would be borne by the property owner in whatever fashion he or she chooses. Jerry Longpre, in a letter dated July 25, 1992 and attached to this memorandum, requests that the City Council consider directing the City staff to study and analyze the mission of the CBD program. He suggests that it need restructuring and he suggests that more time be spent on this. I raise to you the following questions: 1. What impact would the granting of Meisel's request have on the future of the CBD maintenance program? 2. As a property owner do you wish to be removed from the CBD parking program? 3. If abandoned, where do we go from here? 4. What other ideas, suggestions or comments do you have? At our Thursday, July 30th meeting with the CBD property owners, it is my hope that we can focus on these and other questions that come to mind with regard to this entire issue. It is difficult to take an immediate action on something that has worked successfully for over 20 years. I realize that many things have changed over the past 20 years, but something hasn't changed; that is, the downtown area is still a downtown area. For businesses to survive parking demands must be met. For economic growth to be achieved, parking must be available for businesses to expand or new businesses to develop. The CBD program has been the rationale used by several businesses in order to locate in Mound. Had CBD parking not been available, some businesses would not be in downtown Mound. Please remember what I stated earlier in the memorandum; that is, this program was originally developed by the downtown businesses so that public parking would be assured for business and for persons shopping within the downtown area. If the program is 7 abandoned, it is even more critical that the downtown businesses cooperate with one another to assure that parking needs and requirements will be met. ES:is Z7 g CORRESPONDENCE ATYACttF~D TO THI~q MEMORANDUM Letter dated June 17, 1992 and received June 26, 1992 from Paul and Pat Meisel requesting to be removed from the CBD parking program. Letter dated July 6, 1992 from Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager to Mr. and Mrs. Paul Meisel regarding their request to be removed from the CBD parking program. e Letter dated July 25, 1992 from Jerry Longpre regarding Meisel's request. e Letter dated July 27, 1992 from Bill Koenig regarding the CBD program. e Memo dated July 29, 1992 from John Norman, Finance Director regarding 1991-92 CBD preliminary expenses. ~ 7'7~ June 17, 1992 Ed Shukle, City Manager Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 1992 Dear Ed and Council Members: This letter is to inform you that we wish to drop out of the CBD Parking Agreement as soon as possible, and certainly no later than June 30, 1992. As you know, the CBD Parking has been a sore spot for both of us. We feel that we are unfairly subsidizing those businesses who do not have adequate parking. For example, we are not being credited at the same rate as the owner of the railroad property. Also, our experience with other commercial property proves that maintenance is much less costly for us to do privately than when administered by the City. Our decision will primarily affect the tenants in the old Snyder building. Also, the Netka building will be affected if it is leased at some future time. Please contact the owners of those buildings as soon as possible so that they can make other parking arrangements for their tenants. Please be assured that upon our exit from the CBD Agreement, we will continue to maintain the property in the same manner as it was done prior to our departure. Sincerely, CITY of NIOUND July 6, 1992 Mr. and Mrs. Paul Meisel PO Box 70 Mound, MN 55364 Dear Pat and Paul: We are in receipt of your letter dated June 17, 1992 and received June 26, 1992. I am not surprised at your letter since you have expressed over the years that you didn't believe the Central Business District (CBD) parking program was an advantage to you and your businesses. However, it concerns me that your request will have a severe impact upon the future of the Mound CBD program. I am planning to share your letter with the City Council and discuss it at the next regular meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday, July 14, 1992. I am going to ask the Council not to take any action on this letter until staff has had the opportunity to completely review the ramifications and impact of your request should the Council grant it. I will keep you informed as to the status of your request. If you have any questions, please contact me. Shukle, Jr. City Manager cc: John Norman, Finance Director ES:Is printed on recycled paper Z77Z ~'~ JUL 2 ? 1992 KOENIG & DICKINSON, LIMITED ATTORNEYS AT LAW MOUND OFFICE 2305 Commerce Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 Telephone: (612) 472-1060 F~x: (61/.) 472-6103 WILLIAM R. KOENIG JAMES B. DICKINSON LEGAL ASSISTANTS Marit M. Kaiser Joanne Johnson WAYZATA OFFICE 3600 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Telephone: (612) 411-0111 Fax: (612) 472-6103 July 27, 1992 JUL 2 8 Reply to: Mound City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Attention: Ed. Shukle, City Manager Re: CBD Meeting of July 30, 1992 at 7:30 a.m. Dear Ed: I received your notice dated July 23 with regard to the request of Meisels to withdraw from Central Business District. As you know, when the undersigned joined in the petition with regard to the acquisition of the parking lot across from the House of Moy, we were talking about a considerably different price than now is indicated. My understanding is that the potential now on the acquisition of that property is going to be substantial and probably far in excess of'what any of the businessmen in town can afford to pay. · cquxsltlon of that parking area. We are more remote from that area than i~ Mr. Meisel. It was further .my understanding that the substantxal portion of the price for pxck[ng up that parking would be borne by the general taxpayers and not burdened by the commercial property which is already overburdened and having difficulty in sustaining their property because of the heavy tax and assessment load. Our property is stretched beyond the limit. We cannot obtain ~2-~- that permit us to make any profit on the building at this ti'~;~ certainly should the impact be increased in future years, there would be no benefit whatsoever in trying to maintain our holding on any property in the City of Mound that has any commercial relevance. City of Mound Attn: Ed Shukle, City Manager July 27, 1992 Page 2 We would object to anything that would impact adversely on our property ownership. It is bearing more at this time than it can possibly stand. Very truly_y/~rs, WRK/jks ~ CITY of MOUND 5341 July 29, 1992 To: From: Re: CBD Businesses John Norman, Finance Director 1991-1992 CBD Preliminary Expenses The following details the CBD expenses for the period 7-1-91 to 6-30-92: CBD lease - Dakota Rail CBD leases - property owners Snowplowing Total Cost $8000 $10680 $16020 $34700 The expenses are up significantly over last year due to the record year of snowfall last winter. The snowplow costs are over $10,000 higher than last year. The expense figure includes continuing rent from Dakota Rail of $1000 per month (shared 2/3 CBD, 1/3 City). The judge on the pending dispute ordered the City to pay Dakota Rail rent each month during the pendency of the court action. printed on recycled paper CiTY OF MOUND 2-1155 QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION PORTABLE SIGN APPLICATION 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. Signs shall be placed on the premises oF the advertised event. A permit is required, however is exempt From all Fees. ADDRESS OF SIGN_LOCATION NAME OF APPLICANT FI~L. ~-~ APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 6~0 ~. ' PLEASE INOICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR: PHONE DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (materials, is tt illuminated, etc.): SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: LENGTH OF TIME TO BE ERECTED: DESCRIBE REASON FOR REQUEST Applicant's Signature high x ~' wide = sq. Ft. Date ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Recommendation: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: RESOLUTION NO. 92- RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT KEN SMITH TO THE MOUND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM TERM EXPIRES 8-29-97 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby reappoint Ken Smith to the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority for a term to expire August 29, 1997. CITY of MOUND MOL!ND L?~NES©TA 5536~ :6~2,a72-~!55 FAX.612:472 0620 August 5, 1992 TO: M~YOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: SUBJECT: ED SHUKLEt CITY MANAGER FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION PENSION PROGRAM Recently, you met with the board of the Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association concerning their request to have a benefit increase to the pension program of $25 per year starting on 1-1-93. The current monthly pension is $425. You requested that the pension board contact Bordewick and Company, who serve as the fire department's actuary. They were going to run numbers to determine the contribution required if the department was to get a $25 per month increase in pension for the next 7-8 years. Attached is a copy of the actuarial dated June 24, 1992. I have reviewed this with both Dave Carlson, president of the Fire Department Relief Association and Steve Erickson, board member. The numbers that are required for the contribution increase are significant. It is frightening to see what it would take each year to cover the $25 per month increase. Both Dave and Steve have indicated to me that based upon the department's investments, that the actual contribution would be less. I don't have a figure as to what that would be. Mr. Bordewick has given you the most conservative scenario in his report. I mentioned to Dave, when I talked to him regarding this matter, that I thought that it would be best that the board appear at the next regular city council meeting to discuss the program with the council. By next week or early the following week, I intend to have a budget proposal that will be sent to all of the cities in the fire service contract area. I need to have figures put together for the entire budget including the pension program so that the other cities can review the proposal and discuss it amongst themselves. printed on recycled paper I do not believe it is possible for us to put in the budgets for the next 7-8 years $13,000 increases to cover what the fire department desires. I do not think this is realistic. I suggested to Dave that perhaps we could look at a 4% increase in the contribution for 1993, which would be the same level that we have been contributing the last 2-3 years. In addition they would receive the 2% contribution from the state for insurance premiums. I have scheduled this for the agenda and the board is to be present to discuss this matter with you. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:is BORDEWICK & CO. ACTUARIES AND CONSULTANTS 72:4t OHMS LANE Ir DINAo MN ~ ! 2-B35.9772 June 24, 1992 RLrL"D JUL 8 1992 Mr. David J. Carlson President Mound Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association P.O. Box 37 Mound, MN 55364 Dear Dave: You requested that we determine the estimated required contribution increase for a benefit increase each year of $25 starting January 1, 1993. The current monthly service pension is $425 anJ the required contribution to support this benefit level is $115,700 compared to current estimated contributions of $116,000. There are two ways to conduct these estimates: 1) To project membership, status changes in membership, contributions, and as$=Ls for each future year and then determine the actuarial costs for the benefit increase and resulting required contribution. 2) To use a static approach as of January 1, 1992 which assumes that membership stays consistent with that on January 1, 1992 as to age, service, and status and that all actuarial assumptions are realized. We have conducted these estimates using the second approach since we are not certain any more accuracy would result by using the projected method. The following shows the required contribution increase for the $25 benefit increase and the total required contribution after the i~'.crease. Year Required Contribution Increase Total Required Contribution 1-1-93 1-1-94 1-1-95 1-1-96 1-1-97 1-1-98 1-1-99 1-I-00 $13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 $129,000 142,000 155,000 168,000 181,000 194,000 207,000 220,000 BORDEWICK & CO. ACTUARIES AND CONSULTANTS Mr. David J. Carlson Page Two June 24, 1992 If the actual contribution is less than the required contribution for any year, the required contribution in each suceeding year would be greater than shown above. The actuarial experience has historically shown gains which were primarily due to interest returns in excess of the 5% required assumption. Assuming these gains continue, the required contribution would be lower than shown above. It is not possible to predict, with any eccuracy how much lower the required contribution might be because of favorable actuarial experience. The expected Unfunded Liability is shown below. Basis 1 assumes all actuarial assumptions are realized. Basis 2 assumes all actuarial assumptions except the interest assumption (5%) are realized. In Basis 2, assets are assumed to earn 8%, compounded annually. Year Basis 1 Basis 2 1-1-93 1-1-94 1-1-95 , 1-1-96 1-1-97 1-1-98 1-1-99 1-1-00 $688,000 $644,000 775,000 681,000 855,000 704,000 930,000 706,000 997,000 681,000 1,057,000 637,000 1,109,000 572,000 1,154,000 485,000 Basis 2 is the more realistic Liability. projection of the Unfunded Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, James R. Bordewick, F.S.A. JRB:cah ASSIGNMENT OF DEV]EI,OPMENT CO--CT Agreement is hereby made this day of 1992 by and among Landstar, Inc. ("Assignor"), the City of Mound ("the City"), and Steve Martin ("Assignee"). Whereas, on December 11, 1989, the City and Assignor entered into a Development Contract (copy attached hereto as Exhibit I) to develop a plat of land known as Langdon View; and Whereas, by letter dated August 6, 1992 (copy attached hereto as Exhibit II), the City has specified the remaining requirements for compliance with the terms of the Development Contract; and WHEREAS, Assignor hereby authorizes the transfer of interest earned on Account Number 507-210 at Marquette Mound Bank to the City of Mound Escrow Account Number 0972 to be used for engineering, legal, administrative and all other related costs incurred by the City related to this Development. If any funds remain in Account Number 0972 after completion of development, those funds shall be paid to Assignee. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, Assignor hereby assigns all of its rights, duties and obligations under the Development Contract to Assignee and Assignee hereby agrees to accept such assignment including Assignor's rights in the bank escrow account deposited by Assignor for the benefit of the City pursuant to the Development Contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have signed this Agreement. CITY OF MOUND By: Its: By: Its: LANDSTAR, INC. (Assignor) By: Its: STEVE MARTIN (Assignee) k/494 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of ., 1992, before me a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared and to me personally know, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the and of the City of Mound, the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Counsel and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of , 1992, before me a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Robert R. Broberg to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, says to me that he is the President of Landstar, Inc., and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said Robert R. Broberg acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of , 1992, before me a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Steve Martin to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. Notary Public k/494 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGRSEM~NT dated December llth , 19 p9., between the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("the City"), and LAP~STAR, INC. ("the Developer"). WHERF_AS, the Developer has asked the City to approve a plat of land owned by it to be known as nA~IGDOU VZEW (also referred to in this Agreement as the "plat"). The land is legally scribed as follows: See attached Exnibit "A". AND WH£REAS, the City has approved the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Oevelopment Contract and comply with its terms. Representation by Developer. The Oeveloper represents to the City that the proposed plat complies with all City, County, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limitea to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances and Environmental Regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or de- velopment work in the plat until there is compliance. The Oeveloper further represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental assessment worksheet, environ- mental impact statement or the like is not required. If the City or another governmental entity or agency determines, however, that such a review is needed, the Oeveloper shall prepare it and reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney's fees, that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. -1- © Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in phase(s) in accordance with the attached Exhibit. Rhases not being final platted at this time shall be designated as outlots on the final plat for Phase I. The City may refuse to approve final plats of sub- sequent phases until development of all prior phases has been satisfactorily completed. Completion of work. The Developer shall complete the work required by Paragraph 4 of this Agreement in accordance with City specifications within 12 months from the date of this Agreement. All work shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and, when and if necessary, the Minnesota Oepartment of Health, the Minnehaha Creek Wa- tershed District, and any other governmental agency having jurisdiction. Public Improvements. The required improvements and estimated costs are set out in the letter of the City Engineer dated June, 6 ., 19 8__~_9, attached hereto as Exhibit "8". Within ninety (90) days after completion of the improvements, the Oeveloper shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans. The developer shall retain a competent professional engineer to prepare the appropriate plans, specifications, and other instructions to accomplish these activities. The Oeveloper shall specifically instruct his engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Oeveloper's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. The developer or his engineer shall schedule a pr,construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time and place with all parties concerned including the City Staff to review the program for the construction work. 0 Bond Requirements. The Oeveloper shall deposit with the City a perforsance, materials and labor bond satisfactory to the City to guarantee completion of the work required by the developer pursuant to Paragrapn four (4) of this Agreement and also guaranteeing the payment for all materials and labor costs incurred in conjunction with the work. The amount of the bond shall be for 125% of the estimated cost of the work as set forth in Exhibit "B". -2- © Other Costs and Contributions. Before the City signs the final plat the Oeveloper shall pay or make arrangements satisfactory to the City for the payment of the costs and contributions as set forth in the at- tached Exhibit "C". O_woershi~.of Imorovements. Upon the completion of the work and con- struction required to be done by this Agreement, the improv~ents ly- ing within public easements shall become city property without further notice or action. Warrantx. The Oeveloper warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of one (1) year, after its completion and acceptance by the City. The Oevel- oper shall post maintenance bonds or other security acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. Erosion Control. The Developer shall comply with any erosion control method requested by the City for the prevention of damage to adjacent property and the control of surface water runoff. As the development progresses, the City may impose additional erosion control require- ments if in the opinion of the City Engineer they would be useful. The Developer shall comply with the erosion control plans and with any such additional instructions it receives from the City. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Seed shall be rye grass or other fast growing seed to provide a tempo- rary ground cover as rapidly as possible. Ail seeded areas shall be mulched as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. 10. Easement. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors an easement and license to enter the plat to perform all work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the development of the plat. ll. Clean-up. The Developer shall promptly clear any soil, earth or deb- tis from streets in the plat resulting from construction work by the Oeveloper or its agents or assigns. -3- 12. Responsiblity for Cost.~. A® The Oeveloper shall pay all costs lncurred by It or the City In conjunction wlth the development of the plat. The Clty shall have no obilgatlon to pay such costs whether or not the Clty has approved the work. The Oeveloper shall hold the City harmless from claims by third parties, including but not ltmtted ~o other property owners, contractors, subcontractors and materialmen, for damages sus- tained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Oeveloper shall Indemnify the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such Claims by third parties. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this contract, including engineering and attorney's fees. The Oeveloper shall pay In full ail bills submitted to It by the City within thirty (30) days. If the bills are not paid on tfme the Ctty may halt all plat development work until the bllls are paid in full. The Developer agrees that the City, at its option only, can in- stall and construct any work on improvements required herein to be made by the Oeveloper. If the City makes any such improve- ments under its power to make local improvements, or if the City makes improvements due to the Developer,s default as outlined in Section l~ the City may in addition to its other remedies assess its cost in whole or in part. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the Oeveloper shall pay the entire assessment in a single installment in the year after adoption of the assessment. -4- © Ih. Developer hereby waives any and all substantive and procedural ooJections to the City doing the work and assessing the cost. Developer's Default. If the Developer does not satisfactorily com- plete the work this Development Contract requires of it, the City may at its option perform the work and the Oeveloper or the bonding pany shall reimburse the city for all expenses incurred by the City. The City shall give the Oeveloper and the bonding company at least ~8 hours notice of the City's intention to perform any such work. However, in the event of an emergency as determined by the City, 48 hours notice is not required and the Oeveloper or the bonding company shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in the same manner as if notice had been given. 14. ~iscellaneous. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, as the case may be. Breach of any term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Oevelopment Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the re- maining portion of this Agreement except that the City may elect to rescind its approval of the plat. No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until: (1> sanitary sewer and water lines have been installed, hooked up, tested and approved by the City, and the streets needed for access to the residence have been paved with a bituminous surface and concrete curb an~ gutter have been installed. -5- The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Development Contract. To be binding~amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Counc11. The City's fallure to promptly take legal action to enforce thls development contract shall not be a waiver or release. The securlty in the form of a performance bond or an approved letter of credlt shall not explre or be released untll all work ano Improvements have been satisfactorily completed and approved by the Clty. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the property on the plat. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents or mailed to the Oeveloper by certified or registered mail at the follow- ing address: LANDSTAR, INC. 3500 West 80th Street Suite 700 Bloomington, MN 55431 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand de- livered to the City Manager or mailed to the City by certified or reg- istered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, HN 55364. Attention: City Manager. IN WITNESS ~HER~Or-, we have hereunto set our hands and seal: Its: President By: Its: -6- Sl~lE OF MINN£SO~A) )SS COUNTY OE HENNF_PIN) On this.~day of ~/mJ. _, lP~L~, before me a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Steve Smith and Edward J. Shukl~.,. Jr. to me personally known, who being each by me Ouly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the mayor and manager of the City of Mound, the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council and said MaY°r and City Manager acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. , ~UNIY OF On this ll~b_ day of Dece~er and for said County, personally ~peared Notary- Public .., 1989 _, before me a notary public within Robert Broberg and to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say to me that they are respectively the President and - Of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Olrectors, and said Robert Br.oberq and - acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. '~Notary ~ublic ~ ~ NOTARY I~JBL~-- MINNESOTA · ~ HENNEPIN COUNT" ~ · ~vC ....... ~ ~,resAu~ : ,It~e STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On thls______day of _, 1~.___, before me a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that_._he executed the same as free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY Or- HENNERIN) On tnis~day of and for said County, personally appeared before me a notary public within to me known to be one of the partners of the partnership that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same. Notary Public -8- CITY OF ~OUNO ~001 CITY of MOUND 5:M1 MAYWOOD ROAD MO~JNO, MINNESOTA 5~3~,4-1687 FAX {612l 472-06~0 August 6, 1992 Mr. Curt Pearson WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 FAXED #338-2625 Mr. Robert Benjamin Senior Vice President E.W. BLANC~ CO. 3500 West 80th Street Minneapolis, MN 55431 F~DfED /896-4566 ATTAC~ED ASSIGI~]~NT AGREEMENT BETWEEN LANDSTAR INC. (OWNER WHO NOW HAS O~ C~ AND $15,0~0 ESCRC~ ~ CITY OF M0~ND) AND MR. STEVE MAR~IN (PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER) Dear Mr. Pearson and Mr. Benjamin: I have inspected, with the City Engineer, the construction sites on Beachwood Road that this development contract was originated for between the City of Mound and E.W. Blanch Co., of which the City still holds $15,000 in escrow to ensure proper completion of the project. Mr. Cameron and myself are in agreement that the majority of the development is in substantial compliance with the exception of landscaping, grading and erosion control at 5865 Beachwood Road. The following it-m- need to be incorporated into the new development contract, as suggested by staff, regarding 5865 Beachwood Road. The existing retaining walls on site have been installed without the proper engineering review andars showing signs of failure due to soil pressure, amd have not been installed according to the approved plans as reviewed by City s~aff. A new sate grading and drainage plan is required to be prepared by a registered la~d surveyor with all retaining walls being properly designed by an engineer licensed to practice as suc~. Plans shall be subject to the approval of city EngineBr and Building Official. The cost of this review by staff is the responsibility of the applicant. Erosion control measures shall be in place at all times and turf shall be established on the complete site. Hr. Cu~. Pe&rno~ Mr. Robert: Benjamin Auquac 6~ 1992 PaGe 2 3. A hard surface driveway is required. 4. A Certificate of Oc~apancy is required to be issued by the Building Official and all of the above items shall be completed prior to any occupancy of the dwelling. If you have any questions, please contact me. Jon Sutherland Building Official JS: pj enclosure cc: John Cameron, City Engineer File - Langdon View Plat File - 5865 Beachwood Road BILLS ........ .AUGUST 11, 1992 BATCH 2073 BATCH 2074 TOTAL BILLS $149,431.87 115,492.18 $264,924.05 Z t~ WURST, Pr'ARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ IlO0 F'IR.~T BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA $$40a August 10, 1992 Mr. Nicholas M. Wenner Attorney at Law 1000 Northstar Center East 608 Second Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55402 Re: Hanus v. City of Mound Dear Nick As we continue to research and prepare to proceed on this matter, I have come across a case recently decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals I wish to call to your attention. I am enclosing a copy of Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W. 2d 802, which is a recently decided case. The applicant in that case had obtained a permit to do some reconstructive work on a boat house but far exceeded what the permit authorized. Wright C~nnf~ ~t~or~ him %0 ~Omove ~hc boa~ house, ~n~ the DistriCt Court directed a verdict in favor of the County. In the case at hand with Mr. Hanus, we have substantial additional factorswh~chsupport the City's position, i.e., (1) he did not proceed with a permit, and (2) the structure is located on public land. I would very much appreciate it if you would review this case with your client, and hopefully we could proceed cooperatively and not continue to incur expense. If you have questions or wish to discuss this, Please feel free to call me. CAP:lb ~nclosure CC: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager Sincerely, Pearson City Attorney ~. ooo-~oz~ HU9 IU,WZ ll;Zf ~o.UUO F.O5 {/,I {' L~JII 809. Minn. 475 NOBTH WF,$TERN Guidr~ ~. Sheet Mc~l Worke~ Not'i P~n. ~on ~nd, 49~ U.~. ~5, ~, 110 ~.~ ~, ~, 1~ L.~.~d ~82 (19~) (emphasis ~dd~) (f~tno~ omitS8). ~e ~u~ fu~ ~er ~knowledg~ ~at "~ere may ~ natu~! dts~ for ~e result we here." 1~ st 3qV, 110 S.C~ at ~. Gui- d~ ~ clear authority requi~ng reversal In reversing, ~e have fully consider~ ms~den~' contrition tha~ we should fol- low Kell~ u. Robi~o~ 4q9 U.S. 86, S.Cc ~53, 9~ L.~.M 216 (1986). In Kelly, ~e U~d 5U~s Supreme ~u~ reve~ a bankrup~y coup's discharge of a ~ order for resolution on federalism ~u~ds. ~e ~ght ~ fo~uls~ and enforce ~nal sanctions ~ an im~nt ~ct of the sovereignty re~ined by ~e S~s. This ~u~ has empha~iz~ ~a~dly "the fundamen~l ~licy against federal in~r- ference with s~ criminal pros~u- 1~ at 4~, 1~ S.Ct. at 360 (quoting er u. Ha~, 401 U.S. ~7, 46, 9t S.Ct. 746, ~81, ~ L.Y~.M 669 (~1)). ~he ~u~ fu~her nord ic~ mluc~nce ~ in~rpret ~ of ~ngress as in any way infringing on ~itional s~s' dgh~ ~ fasMon cdm- in~l sanc~ons. ~ in~re~on of the ~e would do mom than force prosecu~m ~ defend s~ criminal Judgmenu ~ fede~l bank~p~y cour~ In some cases, it could lead ~ federal remission of judgmen~ im~sed by cHminal judge. ~ pms~K in ~rn, would hamer · e flex~iHty of s~ criminal ~udges in chasing ~e combination of imprison- ment, fin~, and resfituaon most likely f~er the ~habili~tive and de~rrent gos~ of s~ cKmlnal ~usdce sys~ms, We do ~t ~ink ~ngress Jight~ would limit the rehabili~five and de~rrcnt o~ ~ons available ~ s~ criminal ~udges. !~ 4~9 U.S. at 49, 1~ S.Ct. at (f~tno~ omit~d). Kelly, however, ~ distinguishable ~is c~. ~ere, the restitution order a condition of probation. Here, Williamson REPORTER, 2d SERI£$ b currently incarcerate~. Failur~ to ~e mst;tuUon ~us would have no eff~t on the crIm{nal sunctIon In ~is ~se. ~]a~d dis~ncUon. Minnemnt~ o~em are d~ke~d and enfor~ ~ civ~ Judaea,. Minn.g~L ~ 611A.~, ~u~. (19~). ResUtut{on orde, in ~nnec~cu~ ~e oHgiual ju~dictlon in gelly, am d~k- ~ and enforced am a pa~ o~ the ~nalty. I~ ~t 40, 1~ ~.Ct. at 8~. More imprint, however, ~e lion In ~11~ discharged and rendered void a ~ c~m{na] sanction. Here, ~e~ }~ no discharge of ~nction, ~ther emp~on for celia funds. remains in eff~t and is enfomeab]e against other sources of Wil{iamson'm in,me. exemption docs only minimal v~lcnce · e federalism in~res~ at issue in Kellg. In light of the uncqqiv~l dir~tive ~ Gui. d~, ~s~ut{on of the funds ~ WiJliamson must ~ DECISION The district tour erred in concluding funds from Williamson's ERISA qualified p{an are available for payment of court ordered restitution. 'lqme funds must be released for distribution in accordance with the terms of the plan and Williamson's directions. Reversed. Donald A. 9TOTF9, et al., Ap~llants, Vo WRIGHT COUNTY, Respondent. No. C2-91-1050. ~ourt of Appeals of ~innesota. Dec. 31, 1991. Review Denied Feb. ll, 1992. Landowner sought review of county board of adjustment's denial of variances t~or tw~-st~q District Court, Wrig CLxncola, J., rule:! ir peals, Lansing, J., issuance of ~rmlt boathouse did not from ordering rem nonconforming ing ordinance proh houses; and (3) boar ably in denying var etory ~oathouse, on boathouse nance's setback req Afl'u'med. I. Zoning and Pla{ Property owner edge of whether loc. tara consL,'uction u 2. Zoning 8nd Pla m~eling ~d new ~un~ ~d ~t hay o~et ~it ~ cou] ne~ ~a~o~e. 3. ~nlng &nd Pla ~d ~ps~ ~p coun~ f~m ~ndo~ner f~ · ny scion of ~ur s~cang ~a~ou~ 4. ~nlng ~4 Ph ~ndo~er ~ght ~n ne~ly ~r ~ndowner exc~d~ ~mMel and S. ~nlnf ~d PI, ~n~g ~ing ~ ~e~. ~g. 6. ~nlng tnd ~un~ ~nir, ~ ~ou :for two. story boathouse tad deck. The District Court, Wright County, Gabriel D, Gt~ncola, J., ruled in favor of county, and Itndowner appealed. The Court of Ap- peals, Lnnslng, J., held that~ (l) county's ~ssuanee of permit ~o remodel and repair boathou~ did not equitably estop count)' from ordering removal of reconstructed nonconforming structure; (2) county zon- ing ordinance proh~i~ed two-story boat- houses; and ($) board did not act unreason- ably in 4enylng variance to construct two- story boathouse, and variance to allow deck on boathouse which did not meet ordi- hahne's setback requirements. Affirmed. STOTI'fi v. WRIGIIT COUNTY ~{nn. ~)~ · CRc ~ eT$ N.W~a ~ ~MAn~App- ~0 even ~ough another provlsion of o~inance OB dimensional ~qukemen~ for s~ctures allowed building ~ ~ twoand~ne-half s~ 1. Zoning and Planning ~762 Property owner is charged with knowl- edge of whether local zoning ordinance per- mits construction unclert~kcn on property. ~. Zoning and planning ~,762 When issuing permit for "repairs, re- modeling and new block" for boathouse, ~unty dkl not have duty to inform land- owner that he could not build an entirely new boathouse. g. Zoning and Plannin~ ~,762 County*s issuance oF permit to remodel and repair boathouse did not equitably es. top county from ordering remo~31 or recon- strvcted nonconforming structure, where l&ndowner failed to show that he relied on 8ny &etlon or county in completely recon- structing boathouse. 4. Zoning and Planning l~ndowner did not a~quire vested right in nearly completed boathouse when I&ndowner exceeded purview o! permit to remodel tad repair boathouse by b~ilding new structure. 6. Zoning and Planning ~,233 Zoning ordinances must be construed according to their plain and ordinary mean* lng- 6* Zoning and Planning County ~oning o~inance prohibited two-story boathouses, where ordinance de- f~ned '~ooathouse' ~ one-story structure, ?, Zoning and Plsnnlng Decks were subject to county zoning ordinancc's setback requirements, which were appllcablc to structures appurtenant to building. 8. Zoning and Planning Review of z~ning board's denial af var. iance is limited to determining whether board's decision wa-~ based on legally cient re~sons. S, Zoning and Planning County board of adjustment did not act unreasonably in denying variance to con- struct two-story boathouse, where two-ate- ry boathouses were prohibited under zon- ing ordinance, board members concluded after inspecting site that boathouse consti- tuted "site p~llution," and landowner eom- plet~ly :ailed to present any rea.~on why board should grant variance. 10. Zoning ~nd Planning County board of a~ustment did not act unreasonably in denying v~riance from zoning ordinance's setback requLrements for deck on boathouse, where landowner already had two-level deck on his house, and landowner completely failed to present any re~son why board should grant vari- ance. 11. Zoning and Planning [andowner's offer of proo! o! neigh- bur's setback ,arlance for deck could not substitute got la~k of evidence on zoning ordinance's criteria ~ot granting variance. Il. Constitutional Law Landowner ould not meet similarly situated requirement for equal protection claim based on zoning board's granting of setback variance to neighbor and not to landowner, where variance requests were separated in time. U,S.C.A. Const.imend. 14. &£.£f 804 Minn. 478 NORTH WESTERN $~lttobu~ by t~ Court A county's issuance of a ~R ~u~ly e~p the ~un~ f~m ~mov~l of ~e recons~uc~ nonconfo~ ~g a~ctu~. ~he landowner ~a not quire a ves~a right in 8 nearly comple~d ~athouse when it exceeds the pu~icw of ~e ~rmit. ~ndall T. Skor, Skaar & Richards, P.A., Buffalo, for W~an A. Nelson, Wright ~unty ARy., ~omu ~. Sins, AssC Wright At~., Buffalo, for rest·dent. ~naidered and decided by ~NSING, P2., ~nd PARKER and ~LEY, M. OPINION LANSING, Judge. The trial court directed a verdict for Wright ~ounty on the issue of equ{table estoppel, ruled that the Wright County houses, and upheld the Board of Adjust. meat's denial of a variance. We affirm. FACTS Donald StotL~ applied for and received a permit to remodel, repair, and add new block to the foundation of his two-stor7 boathouse on Lake Sylvia. According to the Wright County Zoning Ordinance, two story boathouses are non<onfomdng uses. A property owner may continue to use a non<onforming structure and may make non-structural repairs, but may not replace, expand, or structurally alter iL Stot~ talked to no one at Wright County about hb plans for the boathouse except the clerk who i~ued the permit. After Stott$ began the boathouse re- ~ir~o he discovered the basic structure to be unsafe and beyond repair. Instead of eomplet|ng hi~ planned rcpoir~, Sbatt~ tore down the entire structure and built a new two-story boathouse, enlarging the founda- tion and using approximately ~Y~ new ma, tarsals. When the work wu nearly done, RE¥ORT£R, M SERIES the county zoning administrator sent Stow · letter ordering him to stop work because the essentially new boathou~ violates the oral{nonce prohibiting two-story boathouses and violated setback provlslons. Stotts applied to the Wright County Board of Adjustment for · v~ance for the boathouse and for perm;ssion to eor~Lruct · deck attached to the boathouse within 75 feet of the lake, centrary to the setback requirements of the ordinance. The board considered the requests at a regular meet. ing and performed an on-site inspection, but denied both requests and ordered Stotts to remove the top story of the boat. house. rollowing a bifurcated trial, Stott~ ap. peals the court's determination that he failed to present a prima facie e~se on equitable estoppel, that the ordinance clear- ly prohibits two-story boathouses, and that the Board of Adjustment acted reasonably in denying hi$ request for a var{ante. ISSUES I l'1{d th~ t~! court or~ in db~etlng s verdict for Wright ~unty on ~e ~ui~bb es~ppel issue or in ~nduding ~at ~e~ wcrc .u pro.ethic ves~ 2. D~s ~e W~ght ~unty ~ning Ord~ nonce preheat tw~s~ ~athouses? & Did ~e Wright ~unty ~ard of A~ justment act u~e~onably in deny~g 8~t~' valance request? ANALYSIS 1 To prevail on an equitable estoppel claim against a local government exercising sorting powers, · property owner must (1) rely[ ] in good faith (~) upon some act or omission of the government, [make] such s substantial change in tion or [incur] such extensive obligstiops · nd expenses that it would be highly inequ{t~,ble ~nd unjust te dcotr~y the rights which he ostens~ly had acquired. Rid~ewood Dev. Co. ~,. State. 294 N.W.2d 288, 292 (Minn. 1980) {emphasis omitted). Under this test, the property owner be~ NO.UU3 K.Ub heavy burden of p~ ful conduct on the If the court finds balances the inters property owner. [!,21 Stotta fa county a~ted wron{ permit to remodel A property owner edge or' whether permiu eonstruct~ property. 80~ N.W.2d 40, 44 ing the permit · nd new block", duty to inform St could not bund an Iai St~tta also relied on any acti~ pletely reconstruc testified at trial ·nyone about the the County Zonin rely on any repr clerk who helped ·pplication, and read on the perm establish a prima toppel at u'ial.. Heatin~ & SAte! 667, 669 (Minn.lc. not err in directi Wright Count7. $1/~-, /ac. a. ¢, [41 Sto~ · cquired· vestee plated boathouse justrnent may ne vested when it has arisen Ul tie· la the nat rlzea by statut right have be~ nothing remalr ~serting it. ~ De~. eases, the "cent; buildin~ permit, revoked for sore, N.W.M 40. In t h'eavlt burden of proof to trust show wrong. ful conduct on the p~rt of the government- If the court finds eur. h eonfluct, it then balances the interest of the laU~llc )roperty owner. /d. at 293. Il, ti i;tott~ tailed to show that the e~,,~ty a~d wromdully in ia.suing him the permit to remodel and repair hid boaU~ouse. A property owner la charged with knowl- edge at whether a local zoning ordinance permits construction undertaken on the property. ,ra.~a~ca Co. v, City of $~ Pau~ 309 lq.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn.1951). When issu- ing the permit for "repairs, remodelling · nd new block", the county did not have duty to inform Starts that this meant he could not build an entirely new boathouse. Ia! Stott~ also failed to show that he telled on ·ny action of the countlt in eom. pletely reconatructing the boathouse, lie testified at trial that he did not consult anyone about the ordinance, did not rely on the County Zoning Administrator, did not rely on any representation made by the clerk who helped him fill out the permit · pplic~tiono and did not rely on what he read on the permit it.~elf. Starts f~ilea to establish a prima fade case supporting es- toppe! ~t trial. See ,Vernank Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc., 337 N.W.2d 667, 669 (Minn.1983). The trial court did not err in directing · verdict in favor of Wright County. See Ad~nced $¥~.o I,~ ~. Ca.s~etl Equip. Co., ~$2 N.W.2d 1, 12 (Minn.1984). [4] Starts alternatively contends that he ~equired · vested right in the nearly eom- plated boathouse which the Board of Ad- Justment may not now divest. A right la vested when it has arisen upon · contr~t, or transac- tion in the nat6re of · contract, autho- rized by statute and liabilities under that right have been so far determined that nothing remains to be done by the party ~serting it. ,razaka, 309 N.W.2d at 44 (quoting Ridgg. ~vood Dev. Co., 224 N.W.IM 288). In zoning canes, the "contract" is the issuance of · bmqding permit, i~sued in error or later revoked for some reuon. See Jazaka, 309 N.W.lkl 40. In this case, the county issued 8TOTr8 v, WRIGIIT COUNTY l~inn. 805 · C2~e ~ 471 1~.W2~1 ~02 (MlrmAi)p. IWl) I ~rmit ~ ~pa{r And ,m~el ~e ~at- house, It did not ia~ue a ~it ~ bund a new buildlng, so Starts cannot have ~. qulred · vested right to retain his building. I1 {$.6] Zoning ordinances must be eon- meaning. County of Lake v. C. our~nt¥, 451 lq.W.2d 338, 340 (Minn.App. 1990), pal for rev. denied (Minn. April 18, 1990). Giv. en · plain reading, the Wright County Zon- ing Ordinance proh~iLs two-story boat- houses. Section 8(30D o! the o~in&nee ~rovides the r~les tot inter~reting the ordinance. Wright County Zoning Ordinance, Cede 00TS, § ~(30~) O988). Rule ($) states [w]henever · word ot term defined here- i~at'ter appears in the text of this OrdL nance, its meanin8 shall be constructed u set forth in such deflnlt~on, Rule (?) provides that "[i]n the event ot conflicting provisions within this ordin&nce, the more re.~trict~ve ~rovision shall Section ~(302X~1) defines boathou.~e ~ [&] one (~) story s~ucture not bo exceea 15 Ice, in height [or the put. se o! stor- age of boats and accessories the top of which may be used as an en¢1o~ed deck with sat'cry railing. When read together0 (~02X~1) and ($0~X~) unambiguously mean that in the context of the ordinance a boathouse may be on1¥ one StoU-~ contend.~ that beeau.~e § ~(S~g.4), which establishes dimensional rea.~ire- ments for structures, ·11~s a building to be two-and.one-haft stories, and are men6oned in a footnote to that section M an exception to the shoreline setback provL~ions, boathouses can be two-and-one- half stories aa well. This reading conflicts with the rules of inter~retation laid out in J $($0~), however, because the ($O2X1~) definition of bo&thou.~e must a~ply t~roughout the ordinance. ITl Stotta also argues that the ordL~&nce setl~ack re~.uirements do not ~ly to decks. We find this to be an inaccu- rate reading o~ the ordinance, es~ci&lly l~U . ~u.,.) I" . UD AUG :Z 0 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 AM Saturday, August 15, 1992 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135 (Elevator access for handicapped, use west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) Multiple dock licenses: A. North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono: renewal with minor change, update on status with Orono, memo attached B. Shorewood Yacht Club, Gideon's Bay, Shorewood; renewal without change C. Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay, Woodland; application for change, as allowed per new Ord. 116, trading 5 moorings from DMA for 5 boat lifts next to dock per site plan dated 2/3/92, reducing DMA license from 7 moorings to 2 D. Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 2, Wayzata Bay, Wayzata: new site plan dated 6/18/92, replacing proposed platform shown on 11/5/86 site plan with a smaller seasonal make ready dock, 6' x 40', update on zoning status with Wayzata, memo attached E. St. Alban's Bay Marina, St. Albans Bay, Excelsior; new owner- Bell Waterfront Corporation, and review of amenities for special density and new multiple dock licenses per 7/29/92 letter Draft Ordinance "relating to the effect on licenses of failure to construct licensed docks within a specified time"; amending LMCD Code Section 2.05 Special Density Licenses. Subcommittee report on study of non-restricted watercraft and off- lake storage at multiple docks Review of permanent dock definition: staff recommends making the definition the same as the DNR permanent dock definition Annual 3-4 boats/dock inventory, staff report News report concerning Hennepin Regional Park and initial plans for transient dockage, for discussion Lost Lake Channel- Mound's plans to develop this area and the affect on surrounding wetlands and wildlife, for discussion LMCD policy and DNR's position on docks placed over wetlands, for discussion 9. Additional business recommended by the committee LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO' FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Len Harrell Monthly Report for July 1992 STATISTICS The police department responded to 1,002 calls for service during the month of July. There were 39 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 7 burglaries, 1 aggravated assault, 28 larcenies, and 2 vehicle thefts. There were 71 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child abuse/neglect, 1 forgery/NSF check, 9 weapons, 3 narcotic, 10 damage to property, 8 liquor law violations, 7 DUI's, 1 simple assault, 5 domestics (3 with assaults), 7 harassments, 9 juvenile status offenses, and 7 other offenses. The patrol division issued 74 adult citations and 2 juvenile citation. Parking violations accounted for an additional 18 tickets. Warnings were issued to 47 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 2 adults and 6 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 40 adults and 23 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 21 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 7 vehicular accidents, 1 with injuries. There were 28 medical emergencies and 164 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 18 occasions in July and requested assistance 1 time. Property valued at $15,288 was stolen and $3,893 was recovered in July. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - JULY 1992 II. III. IV. INVESTIGATION The investigators worked on eight child protection cases accounting for 44 hours of investigative time. Other cases investigated included burglary, theft, narcotics, criminal damage to property, threats, forgery/NSF checks, domestic assault, possession of stolen property, runaway, and obstructing legal process. Formal complaints were issued for worthless check, criminal sexual conduct, and dog at large.. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 40 hours of overtime during the month of July. Officers used 55 hours of comp-time, 97 hours of vacation, 27 hours of sick time, and 8 holidays. Officers earned 80 hours of comp-time. Ron Bostrom worked his last shift on Tuesday, July 28, and will be on vacation until his retirement date. Training officers received in-service training in firearms and defensive tactics. Three officers attended the Wilson Learning course in'JUly. Other courses included "Use of Force for Instructors,,, report writing skills, and effective reading skills. Officer Huggett and "Rambo" competed in regional competition and received certification through the U.S.P.C.A. I attended the Southern Police Institute retraining conference. The topics included, "Quality Training and Liability,,, Violence Reduction, Training in the Future. An afternoon was dedicated to "hands on" training techniques used for pursuit driving, firearms training, canine, defensive tactics, special operations, field training, computers, and a host of other management issues. 2 Run: 5-Aug-gZ 11:3] CFS08 MOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT Page 1 primary ISN~s only: No Enfors CaLfs For Service range: 06/26/92 - 07/25/92 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE How Received: ALL Activity ResuLted: ALL Oispositions: ALL Officers/Badges: ALt Grids: Att Patrol Areas: ALL Days of the week: ALL ACT[VITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 9002 9006 9010 9014 9019 9038 9040 9100 9140 9150 9200 9210 9309 9312 9313 9314 SPEEDING 25 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 1 TEST REFUSAL 1 8AC OVER .10 6 STOP SIGN 5 J-EQIPMENT VIOLATION 1 J-EXHIBITION DRIVING 1 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 1 NO SEATBELT 5 PARKING/ALL OTHER 15 NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS 1 NO TRAILER PARKING 2 DAS/DAR/DAC 4 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 17 FOUND/RUNAWAY 2 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 3 FOUND PROPERTY 9 FOUNO VEHICLES/LMPOUNDEO 1 UNCLAI#E DESTROYED ANIMALS 4 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 1 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. Run: 5-A~-92 11:33 CFS~ Primary ISN~s on[y: No Date Reported range: 06/26/92 - 07/25/92 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Ho~ Received: Activity Resulted: Dispositions: Officers/Badges: Alt Grids: AIL Patrol Areas: At[ Days of the week: At[ MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACT%VITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUHBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9500 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ACC/OTHER 2 9561 DOG BITE 2 9563 DOG AT LARGE 2 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 2 9710 NEDICAL/ASU 1 9720 NEDICAL/DOA 1 971:0 NEDICALS 18 9731 MEDICALS/DX 4 9732 MEDICALS/CI 4 9750 FIRES 1 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 9 9801 DOHESTIC/NO ASSAULT 2 9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 2 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 3 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 5 ~20 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 1 ~30 HANDGUN APPLICATION 2 ~50 INFO/INT 1 ~80 ~4.UtRANTS 20 9990 NISC. VIOLATIONS I Page Run: 5-Aug-92 11:33 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No ~eported range: 06/26/92 - 07/25/92 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: AL( Activity Resutted: ALt Dispositions: AtL Officers/Badges: AtL Grids: Att Patrot Areas: Att Days of the week: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOK ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS ASLT 2-INFLICTS BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-ACQ ~4 9996 A2332 NUMBER OF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 ? A4057 ASLT 4-ACT NOT APPLICABLE-HAND ETC-POLICE A5331 ASLT 5-1NFLT BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-FAN A5351 ASLT 5-1HFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM ASLT 5-1NFLtCTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANOS-CHLD-FAM B3434 BURG ~-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK I~EAP-CON THEFT B3494 BURG ~-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK b'EAP-CON THEFT 83794 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK I~EAP-COH THEFT B3894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK ~/EAP-CON THEFT B4760 BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UN[ ~/EAP-UNK ACT C3211 FORGERY-NS-UTT POSSESS PLACE-CHECK-PERSON D8500 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIdUANA-POSSESSION I3060 CRIN AGNST FAM-NS-NEGLECT OF A CNILO J2700 TRAF'ACCLD-GH-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION J3500 TRAF-ACCtD-NS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR L40~1 CSC 2 ~EAP-UNK ACT-OTH FAN-UNDER I~-F N2313 OBSTRUCT CORRESPONDENCE (POSTAL) ALCOHOL OFFENDER N~199 LIQUO~ - OTHER N5313 JUVENILE-CURFE~ Page Run: S-Aug-92 11:33 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 06/26/92 - 07/25/92 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 #o~ Received: ALI Activity ResuLted: ALL Dispositions: ALL Officers/Badges: ALL Grids: Ali Patrol Areas: AlL Oays of the week: AL( ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS M5350 RUNAWAY Z M6501 DRUG PARAPHERNALIA-POSSESSION 1 N3030 DISTURB PEACE-NS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 N3190 OISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COHMUNICATIONS 6 03882 OBSENITY-MS-OBSCENE PHONE CALL-ADULT 1 Pl110 PROP OAHAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 P3110 PROP DAHAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 9 P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 1 T2021 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRN BUILDING-MONEY 1 T2029 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 T2059 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRM YARDS-OTN PROP 1 T2159 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP 5 T2169 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRN WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 3 T4029 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRN BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 T4059 THEFT-$2SO LESS-NS-FRN YARDS-OTH PROP 2 T~159 THEFT'$250 LESS-NS-FRM MOTOR VENICLE-OTH PROP 7 T~169 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 4 T~179 TNEFT-$2SO LESS-MS-FRN POSTAL-OTH PROP 1 U3250 FRAUO-NS-FRALIOULENT STATEMENT 1 U'~,98 THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO MOTON-$200 OR LESS 2 1/2023 VEH THEFT-FE-251-2500-MOTORCYCLE 1 1/2029 VEH THEFT-FE-251-2500-BOAT-MOTONIZED 1 Page Run: .S-Aug-92 11:~ CFS08 MOUNO POLICE DEPARTMENT Primary [SN~s onty: eported range: :ange each day: How Received: Activity Resutted: Oispositions: Officers/Badges: Grids: Parrot Areas: Days of the week: No 06/26/92 - 07/25/92 00:00 - 23:59 Alt AL! Att ALt Att AIL. Alt Enfors CaLts For Service INCIOENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF INCIDENTS W3180 WEAPONS-MS-DISCHARGE-FIREWORKS'NO CHAR W3190 YEAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR Y3690 WEAPONS-NS-POSSESS-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR W3980 WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-FIREWORKS-NO CHAR X3080 CRIM AGNST AOMN JUST-MS-OBST LEGAL PROCESS Page ~eport Totats: 320 Run: S-Aug-92 12:0S OFF01 Primary ISN's on[y: No Date Reported range: 06/26/92 - 07/25/92 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: A[[ Activity codes: A[[ Officers/Badges: A([ Grids: At( MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPT]ON A2332 ASLT 2'INFLICTS BODILy HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-ACQ A~05Z ASLT ~'ACT NOT APPLICABLE-HAND ETC-POL]CE A5311 ASLT 5-1NFLT BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-FAM A5351 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAN A5354 ASLT 5-INFL%CTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAN 83434 83494 B3~94 83894 84760 C3211 D8500 13060 J2700 J3500 L4041 N2313 ~3001 N4199 M5313 ~5350 16501 ~3030 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK REAP-CON THEFT BURG 3'UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK REAP-CON THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK REAP-CON THEFT BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK REAP-UNK ACT FORGERY-NS-UTT POSSESS PLACE-CHECK-PERSON DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION GRIM AGNST FAN-NS-NEGLECT OF A GHILO TRAF'ACCIO-GN-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION TRAF'ACCID-NS-ORIVE UNOER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR CSC 2 REAP-UNK ACT-OTH FAN-UNDER 13-F OBSTRUCT CORRESPONOENCE (POSTAL) JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENOER LIQUOR - OTHER JUVENILE-CURFEW RUNAWAY DRUG PARAPHERNALIA-POSSESSION DISTURB PEACE'N$-OISOROERLY CONDUCT ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL AOULT JUVENILE 8Y EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO 1 100.0 I 100.0 1 100.0 2 100.0 1 100.0 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 O. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Run: 5-Aug-92 12:05 OFF01 Primary ISN's on[y: No range: 06/26/92 - 07/25/92 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Ail Activity codes: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page Z ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING N3190 O3882 Pl110 P3110 P3600 T2021 T2029 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX' PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO T2159 T2169 T4029 T4059 T4159 T4169 T4179 U3250 U3498 V2023 V2029 ~180 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COHHUNICATiONS 6 0 6 5 0 0 1 1 16.6 OBSENITY-MS-OBSCENE PHONE CALL-ADULT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 PROP OAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK iNTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 PROP OAHAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 9 0 9 ? 0 0 2 2 22.2 LiTTER-UNLAWFUL OEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRM BUILOiNG-NONEY 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 'THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRN YARDS-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP 5 0 5 3 1 1 0 2 40.0 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRM WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM YARDS-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 THEFT-S250 LESS-NS-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP 7 1 6 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 4 0 4 ~ 0 0 0 0 0.0 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRH POSTAL-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 FRAUO-MS-FRAUOULENT STATEMENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 THEFT-MS-BiCYCLE-NO MOTOR-S200 OR LESS 2 1 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 VEH THEFT-FE-251-2500-MOTORCYCLE 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 VEH THEFT-FE-251-2500-BOAT-MOTORIZEO 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 WEAPONS-MS-OISCHARGE-FIRE~KS-NO CHAR 3 0 3 0 ~ 0 0 3 100.0 S-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 U~APONS-MS-POSSESS-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 W"cAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT°FIREWORKS-NO CHAR & 0 & 0 3 0 1 & 100.0 Run: 5-Au~-92 12:05 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 06/26/92 - 07/25/92 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: AiL Activity codes: AL[ Officers/Badges: AL[ Grids: ALt MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ..... OFFENSES CLEARED ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- CODE DESCRIPTION PERCENT ............................ REPORTEO FOUNDEO OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO X3080 CRIM AGNST AONN JUST-MS-OBST LEGAL PROCESS 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 **** Report Totals: 105 5 100 48 28 15 9 52 52.0 JULY 1992 OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT. CLEARED BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUVENILE PART ! CRIMES Homicide 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 1 0 0 1 Burglary 7 1 0 2 Larceny 28 2 0 3 Vehicle Theft 2 1 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 39 4 0 6 2 PART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect 4 I 0 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 1 0 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 10 0 2 0 0 Weapons 9 0 2 6 7 Narcotics Liquor Laws 8 0 0 8 12 0~I 7 0 0 7 7 Simple Assault 1 0 0 1 Domestic Assault 3 0 1 2 2 Domestic (No Assault) 2 0 0 0 0 Harassment 7 0 1 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 9 0 2 7 0 Public Peace 2 0 0 2 Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 Att Other Offenses 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PART I%I & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Nedicats Animal Cceptaints Mutual Aid Other Genera[ Investigations 71 1 9 37 40 6 1 0 28 164 18 672 TOTAL Hennepin County Child Protectio~ TOTAL 889 3 1,002 9 43 42 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JULY 1992 CITATIONS DWI More than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired, or No Plates Illegal Passing Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Derelict Autos Seat Belt MV?ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL ADULT 7 6 0 4 0 25 1 0 17 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 2 0 5 0 92 JUV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JULY 1992 WAI~NINGS No Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL ADULT 11 10 10 0 5 5 0 0 0 3 44 JUV 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WARRANT ~RRESTS Felony Warrant Misdemeanor Warrants 2 19 0 0 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JULY 1992 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY THIS MONTH Hazardous Citations 30 Non-Hazardous Citations 24 Hazardous Warnings 8 Non-Hazardous Warnings 14 Verbal Warnings 84 Parking Citations 18 DWI 7 Over .10 6 Property Damage Accidents 6 Personal Injury Accidents 1 Fatal Accidents 0 Adult Felony Arrests 4 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 58 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 20 Juvenile Felony Arrests 6 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 23 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 4 Part I Offenses 39 Part II Offenses 71 Medicals 27 Animmal Complaints '164 Other Public Contacts 672 YEAR TO DATE 412 159 89 259 676 413 38 27 46 13 0 38 264 72 20 57 20 197 438 173 615 3,778 LAST YEAR TO DATE 507 159 17 170 722 296 53 33 55 21 0 35 156 48 2O 38 27 212 391 183 653 3,476 TOTAL 1,286 Assists 110 Follow-Ups 30 Henn. County Child Protection 3 Mutual Aid Given 18 Mutual Aid Req~ested 1 7,804 551 162 40 74 27 7,272 345 73 26 76 24 RUg: PRO03 ~-AUG'9Z INSTALLATION #AFIE -- HOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT ENFORS PROPERTY - STOLEN/RECOVERED 06/26/92 THRU 07/25/92 PROP PROP INCIDENT SEQ TYPE DATE STOLEN DATE RECOVERED TYPE OESC NUMBER NO NO STOLEN VALUE RECOVEREO VALUE PAGE BIKE BIKE BIKE CLOTH CONSUM CONSUM CONSUM GUNS JEgELRY JEWELRY JEWELRY JEWELRY HUSICAL PER ACC HTRCYC RADIO RADIO RADIO RADIO RADIO RADIO RADIO RADIO RADIO RADIO RADIO SPT EQP SPT EQP SPT EQP SPT EQP CURNCY CURNCY CURNCY CURNCY )IV PRTS MV PRTS MV PRTS MV PRTS 92001223 1 1 BICYCL 92000901 1 1 06/02/92 $225 BICYCL 92001261 1 1 07/21/92 $30 92001193 1 3 07/13/92 $320 92001216 1 3 07/15/92 $5 92001226 1 1 07/16/92 S3 92001281 1 I 07/21/92 92001229 1 1 92001216 1 1 07/15/92 $135 92001259 1 1 07/20/92 $60 92001259 1 2 07/20/92 $60 92001277 I 3 07/23/92 $1,592 92001270 1 1 92001151 1 1 92001158 1 1 07/08/92 $1,800 92001110 1 1 07/02/92 $500 92001111 1 1 07/02/92 $1,000 92001113 1 1 06/27/92 $127 92001204 1 1 07/06/92 $1,000 92001227 1 1 07/16/92 $234 92001228 1 1 07/16/92 $510 920012(>8 1 1 07/12/92 $179 92001269 1 1 07/22/92 $980 92001277 1 1 07/2~/92 $100 ANPLIF 92001193 1 1 07/13/92 $400 E~UALI 92001268 I 2 07/12/92 $50 SPEAKE 92001193 1 2 07/13/92 $190 SPEAKE 92001217 1 I 07/15/92 $175 STEREO 92001312 I I 07/20/92 S350 92001189 1 1 07/13/92 S75 92001203 1 4 07/15/92 $200 LOCATO 92001203 1 6 07/15/92 $129 STEREO 92001203 1 8 07/15/92 $150 92001150 1 2 07/06/92 $450 92001169 1 1 07/09/92 $650 92001226 1 2 07/16/92 $1 92001277 1 2 07/23/92 $65 92001119 1 1 07/03/92 $800 920011~6 1 1 07/06/92 $200 92001211 1 1 07/15/92 $30 92001218 1 1 07/15/92 $30 92001189 I 2 07/13/92 $100 9~001203 1 2 07/15/92 $100 92001203 1 3 07/15/92 $300 07/16/92 $75 07/13/92 $75 07/16/92 $2 07/15/92 $135 07/20/92 $60 07/23/92 $100 07/07/92 $650 07/08/92 $1,800 07/22/92 $980 RUN: PRO03 5-AUG-92 INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE PRO~ TYPE PROP DESC ENFORS PROPERTY - STOLEN/RECOVERED 06/26/92 THRU 07'/25/92 INCIDENT SEQ TYPE DATE STOLEN DATE RECOVERED NUMBER NO NO STOLEN VALUE RECOVERED VALUE EQP TLS EQP TLS ALL OTR ALL OTR ALL OTR ALL OTR ALL OTR ALL OTR ALL OTR ALL OTR ALL OTR ALL OTR SNO~BL 92001203 92001203 9200107~ 92001150 92001189 92001190 92001205 92001210 92001216 92001226 92001227 92001228 1 5 07'/15/92 1 1 07/15/92 1 1 06/26/92 1 1 07'/06/92 1 3 07'/13/92 1 1 07'/13/92 1 1 07'/06/92 1 1 07'/15/92 1 2 07'/15/92 1 3 07'/16/92 1 2 07/16/92 1 2 07'/16/92 $7'O ~,00 $250 $550 $3O $2O $5O $~00 $16 $1 $5 07/15/92 $16 TOTALS: $15,288 $3,893 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364. 1687 ~6121 472 1155 FAX ~612: 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 10, 1992 city Manager, Members of the City Council an~_taff Jon Sutherland, Building official t JULY 1992 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY In July 40 permits were issued that brings year-to-date construction value to $2,296,918, it was an increase in value over last July, and in addition, an increase of 22% for the year-to- date. There were 30 plumbing, mechanical and miscellaneous permits for a total of 70 permits issued this month. This activity has kept staff very busy trying to keep our customers satisfied. PLANNING AND ZONING The Planning Commission and city Council reviewed more than 15 cases this month in addition to the review of the floodplain ordinance, shoreland management ordinance and a continued public hearing on the proposed rental ordinance. JS:pj printed on recycled paper CITY OF NOUND .5341 Naywood Road Mound, NN 55364 IUIU)INO ACTIVITY REPORT ~o~ JULY ~r~ 1992 ro~ r:..-_'~,- u,~ 3 3 288,363 ~6 1,607,300 ~ RESIDENT~ ~ ~ 9 324 30 7Z,824 ~ 300,322 173 1,068,~31 ~ ~ ~ ~ 55 132 ~a~ ~a~ 1 35, 000 10 133,632 623,685 ~ 2,809,363 '*~ ...... 2. 2 CITY of MOUND PARKS DEPARTMENT JULY 1992 MONTHI Y REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364.'~687 (6"2) 472-1 !55 ,.,FAx ~612 472 0620 Parks The cool weather has made the summer maintenance a little easier in the parks. The grass has been very manageable for cutting. The dandelions have not been as bad as last year when they seemed to grow as fast as we mowed. We hauled 172 tons of washed sand into the parks play areas and beaches. We intend to do this each year when the street department needs to haul old asphalt to a disposal site where washed sand is available. As always, the trucking is more expensive than the sand when ordering it delivered by private truckers, so this allows the parks department to get sand at a minimal cost. This summer season seems to be the time for truck repairs. The 1978 1 ton lost its transmission along with other needed repairs to keep it on the road. The 1982 3/4 ton truck (4x4) had to have extensive front end repair caused by age along with repairs to the engine because of excessive leaking of fluids. The 1990 1 ton dump truck lost its transmission, luckily this should be covered by the warranty, we are still waiting to hear on this. Summer Park and Recreation Program and Lifequards The attendance for park programs seem to be up. The cool weather has kept the kids attending, where the hot weather tends to drive them away during the normal July and August season. The beaches, on the other hand, have not had normal attendance. Docks July began the public hearing on dock fees for 1993. There were a lot of comments from residents that ranged from a reduction in fees to the City centralizing docks in areas. These comments are covered in the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting Minutes from July. Cemetery Five new maple trees were planted in the 'C' division. They had to be moved at a time that is not good for planting so we have been watching them and giving them extra care, we'll see what spring brings for them. Monthly Report for Parks Department July 1992 Page 2 Tree Removal/Weed Notices Two trees were removed from City property, and one notice was sent for a hazardous tree on private property. August will see more trees felled due to a number of tree removals which had to be delayed because of schedule problems with the contractor. Five notices were sent for tall grass and weeds during July. JF:pj MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT MON3M MON3H TO DATE TO DATE NDNTH OF JULY 1992 NO. OF CALLS 47 50 279 248 FIRE 12 11 61 39 MOUND I2.1~RGIR~fY 15 18 102 97 MINNETONKA BEACH FIR~ ,, 2 1 7 8 MMERGENCY 1 1 2 5 FIRE 1 O 10 18 MINNETRISTA fl~ERG~q~f 3 4 20 20 FIRE 3 2 10 19 ORONO I~ERGENCY 2 2 11 8 FIRE 0 ] 2 SHOREWOOD M'IERGENCY 0 O 1 l SPRING PARK FIRE 2 2 16 17 FIRE 0 Z 4 MUTUAL AID m~ERGm~Y 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FIRE CALLS ZO 19 110 TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 27 31 169 145 O0~ClAL 0 0 ~ Z INDUSTRIAL 0 0 1 Z GRASS & MISC~.I~IEOUS 2 9 24 30 AUtO 2 0 7 FALSE ALARM ! FIRE ALARMS 6 2 29 NO. OF HOJRS FIRE 323 319 1704 1124 - MOUND fMfRGENCY 302 ~42 1984 1915 TiYrAL 625 661 3688 3039 FIRE 3:$ 1~ 103 - MTKA BEACH ]~DRGENCY 23 30 53 80 TOTAL 58 42 156 241 FIRE 28 0 313 500 - M' TRISTA I~iERGENCY 66 60 364 4{7 TOTAL 94 60 677 917 FIRE 39 42 189 394 - ORONO tI~RG~ 25 25 239 157 TOTAL 64 67 428 551 FIRE 0 6 126 8 - SHOREWOOD 1~,~2RGEIgCY 0 0 16 15 ~ 0 6 142 23 FIRE 50 _69 330 385 _ - SP. PARK ]~MERGE~ICY 128 165 689 240 TOTAL 178 234 1019 625 FIRE 0 108 220 18 - MUTUAL AID M~2RGfl~ 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 108 220 18 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 167½ 177½ 1210 1127½ TOTAL FIRE HOURS 475 556 2985 2590 TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 544 622 3345 2824 TOTAL FIRE & f/~RGfl~CY }DURS 1019 1178 6330 5414 MUTUAL AID RECEIVED 0 O 3 2 MUTUAL AID GIVEN 0 2 4 I MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF . JULY 1992 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 1 J~'F ANDERS~ X X 2 19.00 39 6.00 234.00 2 GREG ANDERSON X X 2 19.00 32 6.00 192.00 3 Jify t~BB X X 2 19.00 35 6.00 210.00 4 DAVID BOYD X X 2 19.O0 22 6.00 132.00 5 DON BRYCE X X 2 19.00 29 6.50 188.50 6 SCOTT BRYCE X X 2 19.00 13 6.00 78.00 7 DAVID CARLSON X X 2 19.00 26 6.00 156.00 8 JIM CAsEy X X 2 19.00 25 6.00 150.00 9 S~E COLLINS ~ X I 9.50 26 6.00 156.00 ..!0 RANDY ENGEL~RT X X 2 19.00 24 6.00 1~4.00 11 S'r~.~E ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 26 6.00 156.00 12 PHIL FISK X X 2 19.00 22 6.00 132.00 13 GfRALD GARVAIS X X 2 19.00 23 6.00 138.00 14 DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 35 6~00 210.00 I5 KEVlN GRADY X X 2 19.00 22 6.00 132.00 ',16 CRAIG fD~)ERS(~ X X 2 19.00 41 6.00 246.00 .17 PAUI~ HEI~Y X X 2 19.00 26 6.00 156.00 .18 BRAD L,~NDSMAN X X 2 I9.00 32 6.00 192.00 19 RON MARSCT~E X X 2 19.00 21 6.25 131.2{ x x 2 19.00 20 6.00 120.00 3~ El) VAI~_~.~ X × 2 19.00 ~ 6.00 20~.00 ?~ RICK Wlr~.!~S X X 2 19.O0 24 6.00 144.00 36 TIM WILLIAMS X X 2 19.00 19 6.00 114.00 37 DENNIS WOY~ X X 2 19.00 30 6.00 180.00 33 34 67 ~D~ 82½ 85 167½ 636.50 1019 t4~ 6,133.75 ]DrAL 7,937.25 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT DRILL REPORT Date scipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Pumper Operation Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations Ho~se Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliance Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused 0 Present / Not Paid iscellaneous : PERSONNEL J.Andersen G.Anderson J.Babb D.Boyd .Bryce .Bryce .Carlson s.Casey .Collins .Englehart .Erickson ~-~7~p. Fisk 2~ J.Garvais Henry ~B!Henders°n Landsman ~/z~R. Marschke ~~/~J. Na fus J.Nelson M. Ne 1 son B. Niccum .¥~,dPalm .Palm ,?~T.Palm G.Pederson 2~7~T.Rassmusen 2'~-~M.Savage Z'~K.Sipprell R.Stallman ,Swenson .Swenson .Vanecek ~-~7~R.Williams T.Williams D.Woytcke DRILL REPORT MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Discipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused Pumper Operation Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations Ho~se Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliance O Present / Not Paid × P E R S O N N E L CJ'Garvais D.Grady K.Grady ~_T.Palm · Henderson ~,~_G.Pederson P.Henry ~_j T.Rassmusen ~M.Savage i J'Andersen .Anderson .Babb .Boyd .Bryce S.Bryce D.Carlson J.Casey pS.Collins R.Englehart S.Erickson .Fisk jS.Landsman R.Marschke ~ =K.Sipprell · Nafus ~ -R.Stallman ~J.Nelson ~h ~__~; ~T.Swenson ,Swenson ~M.Nelson / ~// ~_~.Vanecek __~.B.Niccum ~ i~,~,R.Williams ~_G.Palm ~_4~T.Williams ~_~M.Palm Woytcke DATE MOUND FIRE DEPARI~ TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF MEN ON DUTY (~) J. NAFUS ~. ,].NELSON / M. NELSON ~.~ B. NICCUM ~.~ G. PAI~ ! M. PALM I~ T. PALM ~? G. PEDE~SON ~ M. SAVAGE ._~ K. SIPPRELL O R. STA],TMAN ! T. SWENSON ~ W. SWENSON ~- E. VAN~Cm ~ T. WrLL~AMS ~OT~L ~Om~LY .oas August 5, 1992 CITY of MOUND 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-~687 (612) 472-1155 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: RE: CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK JULY MONTHLY REPORT There were 2 regular Council Meetings in July. Packet preparation as done for each of those meetings. Minutes were prepared after each of those meetings. 23 resolutions and 1 ordinance were prepared. There were clean-up items from the meetings and things that had to be sent to various persons. The last few meetings have been very long and involved requiring more time afterward. 3 parcels of tax forfeit land were researched and a report written to the Park & Open Space Commission and the Planning Commission. These parcels were acted upon by the City Council at the July 28th meeting. Its election time again. I had three different election meetings in July, the Optical Scan Users Group, the League of Minnesota Cities Elections and Ethics Committee, and the Hennepin County Election Meeting. Elections will become a big part of my job over the next few months. Absentee ballots for the Primary Election will be available on August 14, 1992. We don't know as of this date if we will have one or two ballots because of the Supreme Court uproar on that one seat. Time will tell. An update to the Clerk's Index Program was sent and has now been loaded into the computer. This will be a great help. I can now search my word processing files for items in the minutes with just a key word instead of having to breakdown each agenda item and manually key in the keywords. There were a number of research items and the usual calls from residents. fc printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 (612', 472-!: 55 FAX (612 472 052.3 August 5, 1992 TO; Ed Shukle City Manager FROM; Geno Hoff Street Supt. SUBJECT; July's Activity Report In our spare time, if there is such a thing, w='ve hauling last Spring's sweeping out to residents that using it for fill. We have about half the pile haut=d out. Bjork Country Stone finished the retaining wall [epaJts ~o£ this year. They did repairs to 19 different locations. cost $8,919.66. we were without our blacktop roller for 10 days becaus~ t~£ a major break down. The transmission went out: and w= we[= unable to repair it ourselves. We ended up taking it tu Zielger Cat. $1,600.00 later we got it back. We started sealcoating the 21st and had a lain day the 2Znd, finished on the 23rd. We shot 25,067 gallons of oil and laid about 1200 tons of buckshot. We sealed tile Flru Station this year and instead of buckshot we used 1/8" Class A Trap Rock. This type of seal will last longer th~n a buckshot seal, it also costs alot mole. We've had some good size blacktop patches I:hJ~ mtCuth, 2 9at= valve repairs, 1 watermain break, 1 water lille ~xt.~lision alld 2 frost boils on Jennings Rd. in Three Points. spent $1,500 on some sidewalk repairs and 15' or curb. printed on recycled paper SIGN WORK 5 - No parkinG, 1 - Stop, 3 - Slow Children, 3 - Street sign replacement, 8 - new posts. CEMETERY 6 grave stones and $ graves, also hauled in 4 loads of black dirt to the cemetery. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 1687 t6~2 472-1 FAX (612~ 472 0620 August 5, 1992 TO; FROM; SUBJECT Ed Shukl e City Manager Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator July's Rec¥c]ing The Hennepin County Mid-Year Report was due in July. We have recycled a total of 569.23 tons of material (this includes the material collected in April). For the year of 1991 our total of recycled material was 689.46. July 23 there was a meeting with Hennepin County and the cities of Mound, Wayzata, West Hennepin, Minnetrista and Mtka. Beach about the Hazardous Waste Drop-off Site. We will again be asked to get volunteers to help out and I'm in charge of getting the food. I hope everything goes as smoothly as it did last year. Hennepin County is hoping to have 4 lines of cars dropping off material instead of 2 lines like we had last year. Letters will be sent again to all our community groups asking for help again. The City of Minnetrista hasn't decided if they are still going in with us for our Fall Special Recycling. We should decide if we are going to handle brush too. printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 1687 (612) 472-1 !55 FAX (612) 472-0620 /Vug,,~[ 5, :/992 TO; FROM; SUBJECT; Ed Shukle city Manager Greg Skinner Water & Sewer Supt. ,July'~ Activity Report WATER P~P~R~MENT In June we pumped 24,052,000 gallons of water. This is 12,000,000 gallons less than the month of June. All Wells are up and running fine now. We had some wires at Well #6 that were burnt but no damage was done. We think that it may have been hit by lighting. We repaired 5 water shut-off's and installed a blow-off hydrant at Westwo0d' Circle for flushing the 2" copper service line. We had 1 watermain break and 1 flange that was leaking. The Sewer Dept. has been very busy with line maintenance and the lift station upgrades. The lift station upgrades are going very well. The first station (A-2) located on Grandview Blvd. should be on line the first week of August. We had a sewer line clog at 3237 Gladstone. Roots were found in the cities 6" stub. What made this repair difficult was it had to be dug up by hand. The City has a utility easement that runs through their yard, but they put up a retaining wall with a walkway. This made it impossible to get a machine up to do the digging. I am currently working with the Building Inspector and .John Cameron to see if we can come up with a solution to try and prevent something like this from happening in the future. Problems like this one will come up again seeing that we have more situations like this out there. printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND 53~'~ MAYWOO[ ~OAD MOUN2. !/!NNESOYA 5536~ ,}'2. 472 1155 FAX 612~ 472-0620 August 5, 1992 TO: FROM: RE: MAYORv CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTORTM JULY FINANCE DEP~RTMENT REPORT INVESTMENTS The following is July investment activity: Balance: July 1, 1992 $5,669,482 Bought: CD 3.35 Marquette Due 10-15-92 240,000 CP 3.35 Shearson Due 10-30-92 217,694 CP 3.42 Dain Due 1-29-93 179,738 CP 3.37 Shearson Due 11-13-92 199,889 Matured: CP 4.00 Shearson (159,143) CP 4.00 Dain Bosworth (98.844) Balance as of July 31, 1992 $6,248,816 LOIS SANDOUIST Lois Sandquist gave notice that she will be retiring from emplyment with the city of Mound effective December 1, 1992. Lois has worked in the utility billing department since 1970. She has always done an excellent job in dealing with the residents in Mound and resolving any problems with their utility billing accounts. Lois strengths as a caring and dedicated person have served the City of Mound well in her position as utility billing clerk. I would like to thank Lois for her contributions during the seven years I have worked with her. I know Lois is looking forward to spending more time with her family. I wish Lois the best of luck in the future. We will all miss working with her. printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND 534~ MaYWOOD fiOa~ MOUND MiNNESOT~ 553E~ t687 612,472 ~55 FAX~612~472 062~ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 4, 1992 MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER ~/( JULY 1992 MONTHLY REPORT Another Milestone reached. Another barrier broken. Another record for the historians and statisticians. Another feather in our caps. Another highlight to our careers. Another first in a growing list of achievements here at the Mound Liquor Store ..... , What? Get on with it you say? Stop beating around the bush and get straight to the point. I forgot what it was I was going to say! Oh, yes, now I remember. For the first time we broke the $125,000.00 barrier in gross sales for a single month. The previous record was last August when we had $124,728.00 in sales. This July we had a resounding $126,898.00 in sales. The fact that we were open on the 4th of July this year contributed significantly to our success. The legislature passed a law early in 1991 allowing liquor stores to be open two more holidays; July 4th and New Year's Day. I opted to open on the Fourth this year for one reason only, because the Fourth landed on a Saturday, and I could not see us being closed on a Saturday. When this holiday falls on a weekday then we will be closed because there would not be enough business to justify us opening our doors because of the high overhead. JK:ls printed on recycled paper BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, Chair Greenwood Tom Reese, Vice Chair Mound Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spring Park J. P. Boswinkel, Treasurer Minnetonka Beach Scott Carlson Minnetdsta Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior JoBlen L. Hurr Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Tom Penn Tonka Bay Robert Rascop Shorewood Robert E. Slocum Woodland TO: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: AUGUST 6, 1992 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRF~ENTATIVE SUBJECT: JULY REPORT - LMCD 1.0 GENERAL INTEREST ITEMS. 1.1 Eurasion Watermilfoil Task Force. The areas of surfaced out weed growth continue to be sparse. To date some 232 acres have been harvested. This acreage was mostly in a few bays where growth has been traditionally dense, ie. Carmens, Phelps, Gideons, Layfayette, etc. Work is slated to end on August 14th. New infestations have been located in Christmas Lake, Shorewood; Long Lake, Orono; Lake Oscar, Alexandria; Wabasso, Shoreview; and three new pools in the Mississippi River. The independent outside evaluator of the harvesting system, called for in the Management Plan is wrapping up his work. His work has resulted in numerous efficiency enhancing suggestions. 5 acres of Diamond Reef were treated this week with 2-4-D to test the open water effectiveness of this chemical. The cost ($920) was split 50- 50 with the yacht clubs. It appears that the county funding, potentially some $75M may still come through an arrangement with the Hennepin County Conservation District. The timing for us appears to start for the 1993 harvest season, and could include the cost of the test Sonar treatment in St Albans Bay. The base line data gathering in St Albans bay is completed, with the exception of the end of season plant assessment. A more detailed fall inventory has been recommended by the Scientific Sub Team due to the slow spring growth of aquatic weeds. Some parallel investigation on natural control agents is being done under separate grant by the U of M. 1.2 Management Plan The Lake Access sub committee has identified more than 800 potential public access points on the lake, against the 700 goal. This has resulted from a more detailed inventory, plus a relaxing by the DNR of some of the more stringent identifiers of what constitutes a reliable space. This study highlighted that some cities are doing much more than their share in providing spaces, while others are doing nothing. Some additional amenity and signage work is needed to qualify.some of these spots. A full task force meeting of all cities and agencies is slated for September 16th. The Technical sub committee in looking at the topic of objectionable lake shore lighting has tentatively agreed that common language for all cities should be in all Shoreland Ordinances. The LMCD is in the process of developing such language. 1 Twenty-Fifth Anniversary 1967-1992 The Biocentric lake survey continues. 16 of the 20 scheduled flyover, surveys have been completed. Boat counts are down. The on site surveying of users of marinas, public accesses, and origin/destination s.urve, ys of general boaters is continuing. In addition mail surveys of riparian owners are being done. The initial water quality monitoring under the auspices of the Freshwater Foundation is being organized. Volunteers are being sought from the LMLOA. Shoreline ordinance drafts and flexibility requests from the cities are due to the DNR October 10th. Target date for completion of the SLO's is December 10th. 1.3 Other General Interest Item~ The annual Public Officials Boat Tour of the lake was conducted last Saturday, with more than 100 in attendance. We were blessed with unusually nice weather. There is some continuing concern on potential conflict of interest situations by some LMCD members who vote on marina and club issues, while being members of such organizations. This topic will be re-visited at the next board meeting. 2.0 CITY SPECIFIC ITEMS - MOUND 2.1 Meetine with Council. Gene Strommen will not be available for the reqtiested meeting with the Council, August 18th. If you will let me know the items on which you might be wanting very specific information that only he might know, I am sure that I can handle the ~O11. Mound Representative Lake Minnetonka Conservation District cc Gene Strommen Action Report: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: 4:30 p.m., Monday, July 20, 1992 Norwest Bank, Wayzata, Community Room Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James Grath- wol, Excelsior; William Johnstone, Minnetonka~ Thomas Reese, Mound; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay. Also Present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 1. Invitation Nan Woodburn, Deephaven, invited the members to attend an event on Tuesday, July 28, 1992 at the Lafayette Club. The purpose is to raise funds for the Minnesota Transportation Museum for restoration of the Streetcar Steamboat MINNEHAHA. Woodburn said they plan to have the boat ready to float in 1996. Reserva- tions can be made by calling Robert Woodburn at 474-4594. 2. Request for Slow Buoys in ltalsted's Bay near the King's Point Access. Edward Hentges, 3399 Kings Point Road, submitted a petition signed by residents of the Halsted's Bay King's Point Road area requesting that an area of Halsted's Bay be declared a "Quiet Waters Area". Hentges distributed a sketch showing a small bay at the King's Point access which they would like to have marked. Hentges said they are experiencing shore erosion, and they believe the lotus beds are being disturbed. This is also a breed- ing area for ducks and geese, and boats leaving the access are noisy. DISCUSSION: It was noted the subject area is already indicated as a no wake area on the Hennepin County map. There are no "slow" buoys. Penn asked if there are established guidelines for declaring quiet waters. Foster said it is a difficult balance to attain. He added the first 150' from shore are quiet water by law. The executive director mentioned three things have been taken into consideration. Carson's Bay,for example, is a quiet water area because the area is surrounded with residences near the access. Excelsior Bay is a quiet water area because of the density of use. Channels are quiet water areas due to their restricted width. Penn wondered if all areas near access should be quiet waters. He suggested establishing criteria for designating quiet waters. Hentges said not all of the residents signed the petition but there were no objections to the petition. Grathwol thanked Mr. Hentges for his interest. Committee members are asked to view the area. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to refer the matter to the staff to seek comments from the DNR. The item is to be placed on the next 'committee agenda. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE 3. Special Event License - Fireworks July 20, 1992 The committee received an application from John M. Morrison, 2550 Cedar Ridge Road, Wayzata, for a Special Event License for a fireworks display on Saturday. September 26, 1992 as a part of wedding. The fireworks would be discharged from a barge in Wayzata Bay. This is a time of the year when there is usually light boat traffic. The fireworks will be operated by Americana Fireworks, a professional organization with which the LMCD is familiar. Jan Graser, representing Morrison, said the display will last about 15 minutes. She said the fireworks are to be a sur- prise for the guests. Chandler said the Water Patrol is not excited about fire- works displays but he does not see any reason to deny the re- quest. Johnstone asked if typically the LMCD approves fireworks for private parties. The executive director explained this has been done in the past. There are not many requests usually one per year. ' ~OTION: Orathwol moved, Reese seconded, to recommend granting a Special Event License to John M. Morrison, 2550 Cedar Ridge Road. Wayzata, for a fireworks display on September 26. 1992. subject to the stipulations prepared by staff, noting the marker buoys must be placed by 5 p.m. and removed after boat traffic leaves the bay. VOTE~ Motion carried, Johnstone voting nay. 4. Noise and Air Pollution Dick Rank. 409 Lake Street Excelsior, addressed the commit- tee on the subject of noise and air pollution in the Excelsior Bay area. Air Pollution - Rank said he is a resident of the Bayshore Apartments, adjacent to the City of Excelsior charter boat docks. He said in the past two years he has noted an increase in air pollution on the Bay and in downtown Excelsior. The major source of pollution is the docked cruise boats leaving their engines running. He suggested all charter boats be required to turn off their engines when they get to the dock. Noise Pollution - Rank said he also notes an increase in boats without mufflers or inadequate mufflers. The boats leaving the Excelsior Park Tavern at night seem to "roar" away, and this makes it difficult for him to sleep. Chandler responded that the Water Patrol has increased their decibel testing this year. The time of the night mentioned by Rank is a busy time for the Water Patrol as they are concentrat- ing on speeders and Boating While Intoxicated incidents. Chan- dler said they are finding that many of the boats stopped for a decibel test are meeting the State standard of 82 decibels even though the deputies may feel they are loud at that level. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE July 20, 1992 Foster noted that Minnesota has the lowest decibel rating, at 82 decibels, in the nation. He added that the LMCD was able to have the personal watercraft decibel rating for new machines lowered to 79 starting in 1992. Penn said he would like to investigate whether the LMCD could lower the boat rating to less than 82 decibels. Chandler said it is difficult to make one lake more strict than the others in the state. He informed Rank that he can call 9-1-1 or 525-6216 when he. experiences the noise problem. They will respond promptly if they are available. Chandler will immediately post a notice of the noise complaint at Water Patrol headquarters. Penn said if 82 decibels is too loud, this is something the committee should be studying. Grathwol returned to the subject of air pollution noting the exhausts from the boats are pointed directly at Ranks's resi- dence, Bayshore Apartments. Rank said he has talked to the captains of the charter boats about engines running but did not get any satisfaction. Foster wondered if there would be relief if the City of Excelsior extended the dock out further. Reese suggested having hook-ups at the docks so the engines could be turned off. Penn said he would be opposed to extending the docks. He feels the engines could be turned off while docked. MOTION Reese moved, Penn seconded, to have staff investigate the possibility of having charter boats shut off their engines while docked and contact the City of Excelsior advising them of the discussion. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Jim Sechser, Excelsior Gables Condominiums, Excelsior, said he also had unpleasant experiences with both the sound and fumes while visiting Rank's residence. Sechser also expressed a need for speed and wake controls in the area between Huntington Point and Recreation Point between Big Island and Minnetonka Beach. He was critical of a water Patrol boat speeding in that area, ap- pearing to be on a "joy ride" Sechser asked how many tickets have been issued for viola- tion of the noise level. Chandler responded that their statisti- cal reporting does not include that breakdown on a current basis, only in year-end summaries. Johnston asked if there is anything in the Management Plan calling for changes in the code regarding noise. The executive director responded that there is not a specific objective. The Management Plan does have an over-all Lake use policy #2, P.32, which addresses speed limits, quiet water areas and buffer zones. MOTION: Penn moved, Johnstone seconded, to have staff draft an outline and plan to change the LMCD code for all watercraft from 82 decibels to 79 decibels and to study the fine structure and possibility of a mandatory court appearance when a noise citation is issued. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE $. Special Events - Deposit Refunds July 20, 1992 MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval of Special Event deposit refunds of $I00 each to the following, all stipulations {laving been met: A. Jimmy Rodgers Celebrity Fishing Tournament, 6/9/92, event was canceled. 6/21/92 E. VOTE: Minnetonka Crossing, 1992 Windsurfing event, 6/13/92 Minnesolar '92, Solar Boat Regatta, 6/20/92 Mound City Days, Water Ski Show & Fireworks Display, IN Bass Tournaments. Bass Fishing Tournament. 6/28/92 Motion carried unanimously. 6. Discussion: Minnesota Legislation Regulating Exotics and LMCD Special Event Procedures in Meeting that Law The executive director provided the committee with the response he sent to the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Associa- tion regarding the requirements for controlling the spread of harmful water exotic species. The memorandum was sent in re- sponse to a challenge from a LMLOA Board member concerning the LMCD procedures used in controlling exotics from entering the Lake during fishing contests. The executive director wanted the members to be aware of the memo and to be assured the LMCD is meeting the State law. Foster suggested studying, over the winter, the possibility of expanding the requirements to sailing regattas. 7. Water Patrol Report A. 7/3/92 Boating Sobriety Checkpoint Report Chandler reported on the boating sobriety checkpoint expe- rience. The checkpoint was located at the Narrows channel with a full Lake saturation. Seventy-seven personnel participated from five agencies. Eight BWIs were issued Friday, the night of the checkpoint. One BWI was issued Saturday. One on Sunday. demon- strating the impact. There were also some decibel tests. In addition to the BWIs there were boaters who had partial impair- ment, which was brought to their attention. There are plans for more saturation patrols and perhaps one more checkpoint. The Water Patrol has receive inquiries from a number of states at a recent North Central Law Enforcement Conference regarding Lake Minnetonka laws and how they can do a similar operation. Chandler showed the committee the material which was handed to each boater along with an explanation of why the stop was made. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE July 20, 1992 B. Monthly Activity Report * There have been 37 BWls issued through 7/20/92, including one by Orono police. * Chandler listed 8 accidents in his written report * The number of thefts have increased. * Six stolen boats have been recovered * The Water Patrol will share in the $13,000 funding for overtime from the DNR which will be released 7/24. Chandler showed a video tape of the checkpoint operation after the meeting. 8. Lights at the Narrows Channel The executive director reported Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvements, estimates it would cost $500 - $1000 to put red and green lights on the existing light poles near the Narrows channel. Northern States Power will not put up the lights. The cost is based on Hennepin County doing the work. Foster encouraged having the lights installed. If needed some funding could come from the Save the Lake Fund. ~OTION: Penn moved. Grathwol seconded, to obtain a more exact cost, including the cost of operation, for installation of red and green lights on the appropriate sides at the Narrows channel. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 9. Goals and Objectives The committee received a progress report on the committee's goals and objectives. Included was an advance progress report from Biocentric, Inc. on the Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Study. The report was distributed to the committee members. It will be reviewed at the next committee meeting. 10. Special Event Licensing Procedures Foster noted that there is a duplication of services in that the LMCD issues special event permits and the Water Patrol also' issues permits. Foster suggests an inter-agency agreement be- tween the LMCD and the Water Patrol giving the Water Patrol the permit rights for special events under the LMCD code and State law. Chandler said an arrangement such as Foster proposed would not change anything the Water Patrol is currently doing. Reese said he has reservations about the fishing contest permits. He foresees the time when fishing contests may be prohibited. There was no action. 11. Boat Parade There was a brief report by the executive director that the Celebrity Boat Parade held 7/1~ attracted fewer than 100 boats. The short preparation time limited the response. There were no incidents during the parade. z 5 LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE 12. Adjournment July 20, 1992 Chair Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 473-7033 L.M.C.D. I~EETING SCHEDULE August 1992 Saturday 1 Public Officials' Lake Tour Arrive 10:45 am for 11:00 am departure Return 2:00 pm Lafayette Club dock Tuesday 11 Environment Committee 8:30 am, Wayzata City Hall, 600 Rice St, Wayzata Wednesday 12 Standards Subcommittee, Lake Access Task Force 7:30 pm, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Thursday 13 Water Structures Subcommittee on Nonrestricted Watercraft and Off-Lake Storage 8:00 am, LMCD office, Wayzata Saturday 15 Water Structures Committee 7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Monday 17 Lake Use and Recreation Committee 4:30 pm, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Tuesday 25 Technical Review Committee 8:00 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Wednesday 26 LMCD Board of Directors' Regular Meeting 7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall Friday 28 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata 7-28-92 Lake Hinnetonka Conservation Oistrict 473-7033 EVENTS SCHEDULE August 1992 Sat 1 10500 am HYC Hain - ~ 10:00 am gYC gayzata .... -' 11~00 am SYC Big I~land' , 2500 pm HYC Hain .... ;'~.-i~., Sun 2 10:00 am HYC Hain ls30 pm WYC Hain ged 5 Thu 6 Sat 8 6:00 pm HYC 6:00 pm ged Hain Evening Bass Tournaments, Goose Is 6:15 pm gYc Hain 10:00 am HYC Hain 10:00 am WYC gayzata 10:30 am UHYC East 2:00 pm' HYC Hain 2:30 pm UMYC East Sun 9 10:00 am MYC Main 10530 am UMYC East I:3'0 pm W~fC Main - -'.' Wed 12 ~ 6:00 pm .- .NYC Hain .... ./"-'.".. ' :.-6:00'pm '- Wed Evening'Ba~s ToUrnaments, Goose Is Fri 14 6:30 pm "UHYc gest Sat 15 10:00 am W~fC Wayzata 10:00 am NYC Hain 11:00 am SYC Big Is 2:00 pm NYC Main 2:00 pm UMYC West Sun 16 6:00 am to 3 pm 10:00 am 10:30 am 1:30 pm Westonka HDA Bass Tourney, Excelsior Park Tavern NYC Main UHYC East WYC Hain .(continUed) Lake Mtnnetonka Conservation District August 1992 Events Schedule - Page 2 Thu 20 Sat 22 Sun 23 Sat 27 29 Sun 30 6~15 pm WYC Wayzata 10~00 am WYC Main 2~00 pm HYC Hain 2~00 pm UHYC East 10~00 am HYC Main 10:30 am UMYC East . . 11~00 am SYC Big Is 6~15 pm .WYC Wayzata 10:00 am 10~30 am 10:00 am 10~30 am 1~30 pm HYC and UHYC. Burton Cup Course WYC Burton Cup Course HYC Main UMYC East (make-up) WYC Hain 7-28-92 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1992 Those present were: Commissioners Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Mark Hanus, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioners Bill Meyer, Bill ross and Brian Johnson were absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Thomas and Lori Bullock, Keith and Linda Mitchell, Ted Breckheimer, David Bye, Stephen L. Vertnik, Debra Fischer, Paul Larson, Brad Sohns, Scott Lindquist, Rey Lindquist, Vince Forstyk and Ernie and Jill Walters. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of July 13 1992 were presented for approval. ' MOTION made b~ Ranus, seconded by Weiland, to approve the Planning Com~xssion Minutes of July 13, 1992 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~92-037: WOUND COLLISION & PAINT, SCOTT LINDOUIST, 2334 COMMERCE BLVD., PARTS OF LOTS 6,7,8, MCNAUGhTS ADDITION, PID $17-24 33 0050. VARIANCE - free standinq sian. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the status of this request. At the July 13th Planning Commission meeting, a motion was made to. table this request pending a meeting between the applicant and staff. A consensus between the applicant and staff was not attained at this meeting. Koegler presented three pictures to the Commission, each visualized a different size and style of sign at the subject site. The proposed sign, excluding the changeable letter portion as o~iginally proposed, measures 5' x 18', or 90 square feet. The sign is allowed to be a maximum of 25' high. Koegler explained, that technically, two free standing signs at 48 square feet each are allowed on this site because it is a corner lot, which would total 96 square feet. The post of the sign is proposed to be 3 feet from Auditor's Road and 9 feet from the curb on Commerce Blvd. Mueller commented that he finds practical difficulty because their is a need for visibility from the north. Plann[nq ~o~[ss£on ~nutes Jul~ 27, 1992 MOTION made by Mueller to approve the variance to allow the proposed 5' x 18' sign upon the condition that it does not exceed 17' in height and it meets the 10' setback requirements from both Auditor's and Commerce. &pproval of this variance precludes any issuance of temporary sign permits for this property. &pproval is recommended due to the lack of visibility available on this site for signage. Hanus seconded the motion. The owner noted that the building is 18' high, therefore, limiting the sign to 17' would not give it visibility over the building. Michael commented that he would rather see a higher sign than a bigger one. The City Planner suggested the setback variances for the sign be included in the motion, this includes a 7' setback variance from Auditor's Road and an 8' setback variance from Commerce Blvd. The setback to the sign is measured from the furthermost projection. Mueller commented that a building is allowed to be constructed in the B-1 zone up to the property line and up to 45' high. Mueller amended his motion to include the setback variances of 7' to &uditor's Road and 8' to Commerce Blvd. Hanus did not second the amendment to the Motion. Jensen seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 2. Those in favor were: Mueller, Hanus, Clapsaddle, and Jensen. Weiland and Michael were opposed. This case will be reviewed by the city Council on August 11, 1992. CASE ~92-041: PAUL LARSON, XXXX INVERNESS LkNE & XXXX HAMPTON ROAD~ LOTS 6~7~8 & N 1/2 OF VAC. HAMPTON~ BLOCK 10~ PEMBROKEt PID ~19-117-23 33 0093-0095. MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to create two buildable parcels. As proposed, Parcel B has 23.7' of street frontage requiring a variance of 16.3' due to inadequate frontage on a public street. The proposed minor subdivision is not subject to park dedication fee requirements. Staff recommended that the Planning commission recommend approval of the minor subdivision and approval of the lot frontage variance subject to the following conditions: The lot line common to Parcels A and B shall be shifted a minimum of two feet to the east to eliminate the need for a lot depth variance on Parcel B. 2 Plann[n9 Co~ss£on ~[nutes ~uly 27, 1992 2. The developer shall dedicate a drainage easement over the south 15 feet of the easterly 25 feet of Lot 7 to accommodate the small sedimentation basin along Inverness Road. 3. Sanitary sewer and water services shall either be installed prior to the recording of.the subdivision approval or some type of guarantee shall be provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. The owner(s) of Lot B shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer line, water line and drainage swale that is accommodated within the vacated portion of Hampton Road and within the drainage easement identified in item 2 above. The City of Mound assumes no responsibility for alntenance beyond the west m ' right-of-way line of Inverness Lane. 4. The private driveway located in the Hampton Road right-of-way shall be constructed to city standards for a 7-ton road design. The portion of the driveway within the Hampton Road right-of-way shall be constructed at a width of ten (10) feet. 5. A cash deposit in the amount of $500.00 shall be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required under Section 330:145, Subd. 2 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The required escrow shall be paid prior to the time that the subdivision is reviewed 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 approval motion: The Planning Commission finds that the subdivision request, with the stated conditions, is consistent with Section 330 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the requested lot frontage 'variance is consistent with Section 23.506 of the Mound Zoning Code. The shape of Parcel B presents a practical difficulty in providing access to the property, therefore the variance is justified. Mueller questioned staff with regard to the drainage of the properties. Koegler commented that City Engineer's biggest concerns with the subdivision related to the drainage, and after meeting with the applicant, he is now comfortable with the revised plan as proposed. Mueller questioned staff if a variance is required because the property does not abut an improved public right-of-way. Hanus addressed the issue of the driveway on the public right-of- way and questioned if this should be processed as a Construction on Public Lands Permit. The City Planner agreed that a permit could be issued for the driveway. Planning Commission Minutel July 27, 1992 Applicant, Paul Larson, addressed the Commission emphasizing that both the lots exceed the minimum lot area requirement, and his original plan provided for Parcel B to have 40' of frontage on Inverness Lane which would have been conforming, however, staff recommended the parcel be configured as currently proposed. Larson emphasized that the plan has been approved by both his engineer and the City Engineer. Linda Mitchell of 4623 Cumberland Road, an abutting neighbor to the north of the subject property stated that there are already drainage problems in the area. She is concerned that if the existing woods are cleared, there will be more drainage problems. She also feels that the proposed position of the House on Parcel B is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. She questioned what will happen if the subdivision is approved and additional drainage problems occur, who will take care of the problem? Lori Bullock of 4615 Cumberland Road also expressed a concern relating to drainage problems. All the problems and concerns relate to Parcel B, it is the highest spot in the neighborhood. David Bye of 3021 Inverness Lane, east of the subject property, stated that there are drainage problems in the subject area, his driveway washes-out every time it rains. His driveway was once paved, but the washed-out too. If the subdivision is approved, it is not doing Mound a favor by creating more smaller lots. The catch basin at Tuxedo and Sterling constantly backs-up during heavy rains. Vince Forstyk expressed a concern about drainage, hardcover, and the amount of water flowing down to the adjacent properties. The Building official commented that this subdivision should make the drainage for the area better rather than worse. Clapsaddle commented that the applicant/landowner should not be forced to solve the City's problems. Ted Breckheimer, owner of property to the west of the subject property stated that water runs onto his property also. He commented on the position of the proposed house on Parcel B stating that the house will face his side yard which is where he stores his boat and other items which may not create a nice view. Debbie Fisher, the potential buyer for Parcel B stated that they intend to leave the property in a natural state, they do not want to cause problems for the neighborhood. 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1992 The Commission compared this request to other similar requests when a driveway was allowed to be constructed on an unimproved public right-of-way. Concerns were expressed regarding potential problems with snow plowing. Michael is not in favor of approving a subdivision which creates a nonconforming lot. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of staff's recommendation with an additional condition, as follows: Develop in accordance with drainage plan as proposed. Mueller opened discussion relating to drainage, and commented that there is no control at the northwest corner of the house to direct the drainage along the north property line and south to the pond. Mueller suggested that a swale could correct the problem, or that it be addressed in the motion. The City Planner commented that the flow of water to adjoining properties cannot be increased, and possibly all that is needed is one more spot elevation from the surveyor to determine if this will be a problem or not. MOTION carried 5 - 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Mueller, Weiland, and Jensen. Michael opposed. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 11, 1992. ~ ~NEST & JILL WALTERS 2348 FAIRVIEW LANE LOT 27 & PID 13-117-24 4~CE' MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on August 11, 1992. ~HORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE - REVIEW OF MOUND'S FIRST DRAFT. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the first draft of the proposed shoreland management ordinance for the City of Mound. This draft includes all sections except material relating to the subdivision ordinance and planned unit developments. Mound's shoreland ordinance will be adopted as a part of the Zoning Code. 5 Plannlng Commission Minutes July 27, 1992 Koegler noted the definition (116A) for Water-Oriented Accessory Structure or Facility. He reported the conclusion of the Council was that the only Water-Oriented Structure allowed to be constructed within the 50 foot setback from the OHWL should be an on-grade deck. Definition (l16A) for WOS's was discussed at length. The Commission was deadlocked 3 in favor and 3 opposed to allowing some kind of storage facility near the shoreline. A change was noted in (52A) ". . . controls; the plight of thc any landowner is due . . ." Page 4, Subd. 2. should read, "The uncontrolled use of shorelands of the City of mound affects . . ." Page 9, under ',Assembly/Storage" a "C" should also be indicated under Non Shore. On the same page under "Buildings over 35 feet in height" should be all "C's" in the B-1 Zone. Mueller referred to Page 13, Subd. 2. ". · · lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line." Mueller commented that this restriction would create never-ending variances in Mound. Koegler questioned if the Commission wanted to determine a minimum width at the shoreline. It was suggested that this rule should only apply to newly created lots. The Commission agreed to amend this section as follows ,, . . . Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters can be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards for newly created lots must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. Lots of Record must be measured at the buildinq setback line only. It was agreed that the minimum lot width requirement at the ordinary high water level for newly created lots should be 40 feet. Page 13, Subd. 3., the Commission determined that due to the minimal 50 foot setback requirement from the OHWL in Mound, structures should not be allowed to conform to the setback of structures on adjoining sites. Page 14, A.3., the City Planner is to investigate what is an "accessory facility." Page 15, B.3.f., Koegler is to investigate the phrasing of this section as information cannot be removed. 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 16, C., it was noted that structures may exceed 35 feet in height in the B-1 zone. Page 17, B.3.a. & b., Weiland questioned if this would allow a person to move 8 cubic yards month after month without a permit. Page 19, C. 5th line, should be amended to read, ,, For public and private facilities, the grading and ;i~ ' are met. ling . . .,, ~ITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'B REPORT Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting of July 14 1992 and the Council Agenda for July 28, 1992. ' MOTION made by Weiland, adjourn the meeting at unanimously. seconded by Clapsaddle, to 10:56 p.m. Motion carried Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: July 29, 1990 JUL 3 g Skip Johnson, Mayor City of Mound Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor lohnson: I am writing in response to your proposed rental unit ordinance. As a renter and resident of Mound since February 1991, I am in complete favor of this ordinance. I have attended the last three City Council meetings when this item was discussed as a public hearing. I am writing because there was no tenant representation at these meetings and thus, only the landlord's side of the issue was brought up. As a tenant, I feel it necessary to clearly define the rights of both the tenant and the landlords. As a renter since 1983 in both Milwaukee and the Minneapolis area, I have often found myself in situations where a landlord was doing questionable things. Without such a clearly defined ordinance, I felt powerless to stop such practices. Although I will be moving out of Mound on August 11, I have found Mound to be an extremely pleasant place to live and would like to see it remain that way - which I believe this ordinance will help do. In a more recent incidence in Mound, my landlord sold parking spaces for the Mound City Days fireworks event at the unit I rent. There are four total units in the building, none of which are occupied by the landlord. When I called the landlord to suggest this is in violation of my privacy, privacy I feel I pay for through my rent, I was told it is their property and they can do what they please. As a result, there were over 15 cars parked in a lot (at a fee of $3.00 a piece) that is designed for only 8 cars. I am also aware of another tenant in our building who was not happy with this situation. I felt there was nothing I could do to combat that kind of thinking without a written city ordinance I could quote. I'm not sure this action would be considered illegal by definition in this ordinance, but it certainly should be - and be clearly defined as illegal. I believe when you pay to rent an apartment, that includes (to a degree) to outside lawn and parking. In another incidence, my landlord showed my apartment at about 4:30 in the afternoon when I was out of town, and forgot to lock the door. The door stood unlocked from that time until we returned about midnight. This in not only aggravating, but a bit disconcerting. Luckily, no incidence occurred as a result of my landlord's irresponsibility. But if anything had happened, I'm not sure of my rights. Mayor Skip Johnson Page 2 In regards to the ordinance, I do not believe annual inspections are necessary - which makes the fee structure necessary. I agree with Mr. Bedell's suggestion of handling these cases on a complaint basis. But the ordinance is necessary, as you, Mayor Johnson, stated at the last meeting, to allow the building inspector to check out these complaints and say, "You are in violation of these sections of the ordinance I have in my hand." A fine for violations of the ordinance could be imposed to pay for the building inspector's time and administration costs. After listening to the complaints of the landlords about the ordinance, I believe most would be willing to accept the ordinance if it did not include annual inspections and annual fees. In this way, the ordinance does not punish those who already comply by the ordinance, just those who don't. I also suggest to you and the Council that when you develop the task force to look into this ordinance, that you include not only several landlords and caretakers, but several longtime renters. I believe having this ordinance on the books will only benefit both the landlords and tenants by clearly clef'ming each of their obligations to the other. Sincerely yours, 2631 Commerce Blvd. Mound, Minnesota CC.' Ed Shukle, City Manager Jon Sotherland, Building Official RESOLUTION NO. 76_ RESOLUTION SETTING APPLICATION FEES FOR LICgNSES POE NULTXPLE DOCKS OR MOORING AREAS, COMMERCIAL DOCKS, LAUNCHING RAMPS AND DOCKS IN EXCESS OF lOS FEET; FOR DISTRICT ~OORINO AREAS, FOR DBIGING, FOR SPECIAL DENSITY, FOR VARIANCBS, AND FOR PERMANENT DOCKS ~HEREAS, various provisions of the LMCD Coda provide for the setting of application fees for licenses or permits by resolution; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the application fees for such licenses herelnafcer provided are reasonably necessary to defray the expenses incurred by the Discrlcc in processing appllcaClons for and adminlacering such licenses; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED chat application fees for licenses required by the Code provisions hereinafter cited shall supersede Resolutions 61 & 62~and be as follows: 1. Pursuant to Code Section 2.03, $ubd. 2, for multiple docks or mooring areas, commercial docks, launching' ramps, and docks in excess of 100 feet: e. For each launching ramp located on a site which does not contain & multiple dock or mooring area or a commercial dock, the application faa shall be $~0. No license fees shill be required for launching ramps o~ned and operated by municipalltiss or other governmental agencies ~hich are available for uae by ~he general publi'c ~ithout payment of fees or other charges. b. A ne~ multiple or commercial dock license application shall be $500 base fee plus $15 per ~atercraft Storage Unic (~SU), plus additional costs incurred over the appllc&tion fee. c. A reneval without change multiple or commercial dock applicatiofl shall be $~0 base fee plus $12 per ~SU for 1992 and $15 per WSU ~herea£ter. I 1£:68 ~66I '~0'80 (]3W9 WOBd Resolution ~o. 76 4, Pass 2 e d. Watercraft Storage Unit (WSU) refers to the space or facillt7 available for moorlnS, docking or otorifl8 a boat or wacarcr&ft, including a mooring, boat or watercraft slip, space within a boat or watercraft sllp, or an7 other space provided for storsse of boats or watercraft to be used off the lake. ~atercra£t storage units multiple docks and commercial docks shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule for each sl~p: up to 20' long and/or up to lO' wide 20'+ to 24' long and/or up to Il' w~de = 1.$ VSU 2~'+ to 32' long and/or up to 12' w~de = 2 ~$U 32'+ to ¢0' long and/or up to 14' wlde ~0'+ to 48' long and/or up to 16' -ida = 3 ~SU over ¢8' long sad/or over 16' ~ide = & ~$U e. LaCe fees for multiple or commerc/al dock 11cense renewals pursuant to Coda Section 2,03, Subd. l&, shall be $$0 minimum or 10~ of appllcat~on fee ;~ received after 12/1 to 12/31, 20~ 1/1 to 3/1, 30~ of fee after 3/1. Pursuant to Section 2.04, Subd. 4, for District ~oorin8 Areas, shall be $50 base fee plus $27 per mooring for 1992, and $30 per moorine thereafter. Late fees for renewals regulred pursuant to Coda Section 2.04, Subd.8, shall be $$0. Pursuant to Code Section 2.09~ Subd. 3, for license applications shall be for the 1992-1993 season and thereafter, $100 plus $1 per VSU ~ith $2~ minimum; plus a $100 deposit. ~ate ~ees for renewals required pursuant to Code Sect/on 2.09, $ubd.8, shall be $$0 a~ter 10/1 to 12/1 $100 after 12/1. ' Pursuant to Section 2.05, Subd. 3, Spec.ia1Dens~t¥ license applications shall be $300 base fee plus $50 per Boat Storase Unit (BSU), plus additional costs incurred over the appllcatlon fee. Pursuant to Code Section 1.07, $ubd. 5, for Variance applications shall be $500, plus additional costs incurred over the application fee. Amended 7-22-92, Variance application fee shall Be ~250 plus a ~250 deposit for additional costs incurred over and above the application fee. :£~60 Z66! '~e'ee Resolution No. 7__6, PaSs 3 Pursuant to Section 2.06, Subd. 2, Eot Permanent, non-commercial dock applications, shall be $150, with after-the-fact application fees doubled, or $300; plus additional costs incurred over the application fee. The application deposits shell be $O Eot: New multiple and commercial dock licenses; lsunchin8 ramps; district moorin8 area licenses; special density licenses; variances; and permanent docks. Adopted by the Lake N[nnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors thls 4th day of December ~, 1991. Chairman David Cochran ATTEST: NOTE At the 1-25-89 Board meetin$ and upon recommendation of the com~tttee, BJor~tn moved, Raacop seconded :ha~ a $2~ annual admtntatrattve fee be requtred for continuous recordtn8 of dock ltcenae renewals tn the tnstance where a dock ltcenae would be heZd tn abeyance for one or mote years. The motion carries unantmousXy. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. -1L RESOLUTION SETTING APPLICATION PRES FOR LICENSES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS AND WATERCRAFT FOR HIRE ON LAKE HINNETONKA WHEREAS, various provisions of the Lake Hinnetonka Conservation Oiacr£ct Code provide for the setcin{ of application fees for licenses by resolution; and WHEREAS, the Eoard has determined that the application fees for such licenses hereinafter provided are reasonably necessary Co defray the expenses incurred by the District in processin8 applications ~or and edmlnisterlng such licenses: and WHBRRA$, LHCD Resolution 62~ and Resolution 59 in part, have set fees for licensing Special Events end ~atercraft for Hire; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that applicaclon fees for licenses required by the Code provisions hereinafter cited shall supersede Resolution 62~and Resolution s follows: 1. Pursuan~ to Code Section 3.09, Subd. 2, for Special Event licenses, the foe required shell be $100 for · ach event up to 4 days duration, plus $10 per day over & days, and the deposi~ shall be $100. Per Section 3.09, Subd. 5, b) renewal applications for open water fishin~ con,eats submitted less than 90 days prior to the scheduled date shall be accompanied by a lace fee of $100. Applications for new special events submitted less than 60 dmys prior ~o the scheduled dace of the special event and ocher runewal appllcatione submitted less than 30 days prior ~o the schoduled date o~ the special even~ shall be accompanied by a fee of k 'd E£:65 ~66I '~0'80 Re~olu~on ~o. 7~, PoS~ 2 Pursuant to Code ~eer;nn ~.07, Subd. Z, for re~£strec~on st watercraft for Hire, she applica~£on ~ee shell be aa ~ollows= passsn~ec ¢~pac[ty 0-24 = $125 25-49 = $250 ~0-~ = 3300 lO0 * : $~00. Re~eNet applications, yursuafl~ to Section 3,07, Subd, 4, shell bo neeomDnn~ed hy m la~e fee 0~ ~ received a~ter 3/1 co ~/~, and $~00 agte~ ~/1. Adopted by the L~ke Minfl~oflka Conservation District ~oard o£ Directors chis 4~h day ~£ Decembers, 1991. Chairm~n David ¢ochran C *J <33~ IJ 0 ~1 =1 CITY OF HANOVER 11250 - 5TH STREET N.E. HANOVER, MINNESOTA 55341 (612) 497-3777 Dear City Official: I wish to extend to you a cordial invitation to attend the Minnesota Cities' regional meeting hosted by the City of Thursday, September 4th, at the Hanover City Hall located at Street N.E. . League of Hanover on 11250 5th The afternoon program, beginning at 2:30 p.m. will cover a variety of subjects during a roundtable discussion, including solid waste programs, "what cities around the state are doing" and the new Transportation Utility Fee. At 3:30 p.m. a discussion will cover fire relief association activities and at 4:00 p.m. a presentation will address council/staff relations and the need for performance appraisals. Because of the importance of this subject the League is asking that at least one elected official from each city is present. '' The afternoon program, concluding at 5:00 p.m. will be followed by a social hour and then dinner at 6:15 p.m. Following a welcome to our city from myself, LMC President Larry Bakken will address the audience regarding the organization's focus for the coming year. After the President's message the League will present its new video followed by a discussion of legislative matters, including the status of the process to develop a new local government aid (LGA) formula. The meeting will conclude with door prizes, including a free registration to the 1993 annual conference in St. Cloud. To make reservations for your city, please return the enclosed registration form as soon as possible. In case of cancellations, please notify City Clerk Susan Yergin of any cancellations by August 28th. Your city will be billed for those who did not attend and did not cancel their reservations by the cancellation date. I look forward to seeing you on Thursday, September 4th. Sincerely yours, Maxine Ladda (~V~ Mayor of the City of Hanover ML/slv gue of Minnesota Cities 183 University Ave. East St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 (612) 227.5600 (FAX: 221-0986) 1992 League of Minnesota Cities' Regional Meeting Program Afternoon Proqram 2:30 - 3:15 p.m. 3:15 - 3:30 p.m. 3:30 - 4:00 p.m. 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. 5:00 - 6:15 p.m. 6:15-7:00 p.m. Round Table Discussion -Solid Waste Programs What cities around the state are doing New state mandates -Transportation Utility Fee BREAK Relief Association Activities -Spending Relation Association funds What's legal, what isn't -Mayors and city clerks role in Relief Association activities Council/Staff Relations -Performance appraisals Social Hour Dinner · Evening Proqram 7:00 - 7:15 p.m. 7:15 - 7:30 p.m. 7:30 - 7:45 p.m. 7:45 - 8:45 p.m. 8:45 - 9:00 p.m. Welcome, Host City Mayor LMC President's Message -- Larry Bakken Mayor, Golden Valley LMC Video on city spending Local Government Aid (LGA) Discussion Legislative Candidates -- Questions & Answers Registration Prize Drawing/Close The Mayor and City Council of Mound: .WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION ...... Greenfield-lndependence-Lbng L~ke_Loretto-MaPle Plain-Medina~Orono - 1620 Maple Ave. Maple Plain, MN 55359 476-0012 August 4,. '1992 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days Hennepin County is again~ hOsting HousehOld Hazardous Waste collection days for West Hennepin .residents to be held at the Hennepin County Public Works'.Site, 3880 Shoreline Drive on Friday -September 25 and Saturday September 26 .from 9 a.m. -'3 p.m. each day .(see enclosed .letter).~ Hennepin- County will' be providing 'trained staff, a site'.coordinator, all. safety eqUipment and gear, training, publicity materials, tents, and ultimately' the proper disposal of. a large variety of household hazardous waste. This year Hennepin 'County will also be providing a handOut detailing .household alternatives. WeSt' Hennepin cities are reqUested to provide a forklift and operator/s, food and beverage for workers, and volunteers, safety offiCials, a local coordinator and volunteers to direct traffic *help unload, and stack batteries and tires. ' On ThUrsday, July 23, representatives from 'several West Hennepin 'cities-and Hennepin County staff met.to begin organizing for this very.important environmental protection event. In order to ensure a successful event, we need your help. Would Mound be able to provide or recruit 12 volunteers - 18 or older - to work from 8:30 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. on Saturday, September 26, and, as well, be responsible for foodstuffs for volunteers and workers? The City of Minnetonka Beach has already agreed to procure a forklift and provide drivers, and the City of Minnetrist'a will provide 12 volunteers for Saturday afternoon and procure a dumpster.. -- -'As_ the lOcal coordinator for .this event, I thank you for your .cOnSideration of this request. I can be reached at 476-0012, but I' will phone if I haven't heard from you by August 31. With all West Hennepin cities pulling together to support this event, we will not only help provide the safe disposal of many household hazardous wastes, but demonstrate our concern for a safe- environment for ourselves, as well as the generations to come. Sincerely, Amelia Kroeger cc: Joyce Nelson enclosure -1 Printed on Rt~ed Paper DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540'1 -'1309 Phone: [6'12] 348-6846 FAX: [6 '12] 348-8532 June 22, 1992 Mr. Ron Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mr. Moorse: Hennepin County would like to hold a community household hazardous waste event collection this fall in-the City of Orono. The County would like to host its Orono collection on the weekend of September 25 and 26 from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM. The County would like to use its Orono site at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The collection would be primarily for the cities around Lake Minnetonka. The County will need the name of the coordinator for the City. Like last year, the responsibilities for the event will be divided between the City and the County. Attached is a listing of the City's responsibilities and the County's responsibilities. Details will have to be worked out between the County coordinator and your site coordinator. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. We look forward to working with you on the event collections in the fall of 1992. Sincerely, J~anet D. Leick Director Enclosure cc: John Gerhardson, Director of Public Works HENNEPIN COUNTY an ~:lual opportunity employer FALL 1992 CONHUNZTY EVENT 'COLLECTZONS RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CONHUNITY EVEt~ COLLECTIOtl ~ITY COUNTY Project Coordinator Site Volunteers (18 and older) Insurance (policy coverage) Telephone Sanitary facilities Food and beverage for volunteers and workers Disposal of non-hazardous waste collected Safety officials Forklift and operator Public information coordination Coordinate traffic routes Disposal of household hazardous waste EPA ID number Program Director and County staff Training Publicity materials Emergency contingency plan Educational and survey materials Protective clothing and equipment Tire and battery collection Battery, tire and oil disposal Tents and other equipment t: ~,corr\t hom~ s~descr I p :mr