The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-08-25CITY OF MOUND MI~qSION STATEM~NT. ~he c~y o~ Mou.d, 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, M~WNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCH. REGULAR M~WHNG 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1992 CITY COUNCH. CHAMBERS e PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 11, 1992 REGULAR MEETING & THE AUGUST 18, 1992, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. PG. 2859-2882 CASE #92-036: 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 OR LETTER OF WITHDRAWAL RE: VARIANCE APPLICATION. PG. 2883-2900 REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF THE REMOVAL OF THE DECK LOCATED ON PUBLIC LAND AT 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL. CASE #92-041: REQUEST= CASE #92-042: 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· MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE. PG. 2901-2942 VERNON CHRISTRIANSEN, 5098 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOT 3 AND THE SOUTH 50' OF LOT 2, KOHMAN'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID # 13-117-24 43 0042-0043. REQUEST= VARIANCE - NEW DETACHED GARAGE. PG. 2943-2952 2856 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. CASE #92-043; DAN SINNER, 5053 WREN ROAD, LOT S, BLOCK 1, LINDEN HEIGHTS, PID #13-117 24 13 0037. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION. PG. 2953-2966 CASE #92-044: JEFFREY RITENOUR, 5656 BARTLETT BLVD., LOTS 11 & 16, BLOCK 9, MOUND BAY PARK, PID #23-117-24 14 0027. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR DECK. PG. 2967-2980 CASE #92-046: ROBERT WOLD, 1580 HERON LANE, LOT 3 AND PART OF LOT 4, BLOCK 22, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0130. REQUEST: VARIANCE - NEW CONSTRUCTION. PG. 2981-2993 CASE #92-050: WES OLSEN (OWNER) DON BONNICKSEN (APPLICANT) 2539 EMERALD.DRIVE, LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 6, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID #24-117-24 12 0066. REQUEST: VARIANCE THIS ITEM WILL BE HEARD AT THE 8/24/95 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETiNG. PG. 2994-3007 REQUEST FROM CURT JOHNSON TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CBD PARKING PROGRAM. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. DISCUSSION: HRA VACANCY. PG. 3007-A APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST TO GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION FOR THE 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - APPROX. $93,000. (MATERIAL WILL BE HANDED OUT AT MEETING). 15. RESOLUTION APPROVE THE 1992 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY & THE CITY OF MOUND AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR & CITY MANAGER TO SIGN & SUBMIT THE AGREEMENT. PG. 3008-3019 16. DISCUSSION~ COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC LANDS LITIGATION AND SOURCES OF FUND TO PAY THESE COSTS. 17. RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT A PLAN BE PREPARED BY CITY PLANNER RE: NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS. PG. 3020-3024 18.COMMONS MARKINGS. PG. 3025-3028 2857 19. 20. He PAYMENT OF BILLS. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ce De Ge PG. 3029-3035 Financial Report for July 1992 prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. Planning Commission Minutes of August 10, 1992. Information on Canadian Geese is a follow-up to geese complaints from earlier this Summer. PG. 3036-3037 PG. 3038-3042 Information from the MTC on upcoming changes to MTC bus service in Mound effective September 26, 1992. PG. 3051-3059 REMINDER: Reception for Officer Ron Bostrom, Monday, August 31, 1992, at 3 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. PG. 3043-3050 NLC (Nationa} League of Cities) 69th An Conference will be held ~,,~-~ ..... nual. Congress of Citie Orleans, Louis~ .... ...v.~_~=£ ~ _ uecemDer 2- ~a~ :_ .. s ,,~ ........ -~.,a. ~ne theme of ~ .... ' ~' ~n ~ew ~.~ ~ear? conference is ~¥=nues an~ Bridges - Great Ideas for Communlt Lead,, ~e~e~n~anknowbefore Se~t^_= ...... Y ership. ~ =~=r ~s= lr you are interested REMINDER: Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting is rescheduled for September due to the Primary Election. It has been rescheduled to Tuesday, September 29, 1992, 7:30 P.M. The main agenda item will be a detailed discussion on the Shoreland Management Ordinance. If time allows, other items will be discussed. REMINDER~ Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days which will be held on Friday, Septem~.er 25 and Saturday, September 26, at the Hennepln County Public Works site in Park. Spring REMINDER~ Emergency Preparedness Meeting, Tuesday, September 29, 1992, 3:00 P.M., Mound City Hall. Plan to attend, if you can. 2858 August 11, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - &UGUST 11, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 11, 1992, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Finance Director John Norman, Fire Chief Don Bryce, City Engineer John Cameron and the following interested citizens: Jim Kuehn, Keith Foerster, Philip & Christina Hahn, Tom & Sandi Effertz, David & Tammy Bye, Keith & Linda Mitchell, Tom Bullock, Mark Hanus, Richard Indritz, Ted & Brenda Breckheimer, Sue Weibel, Walter Wolfe, Orval Fenstad, Gene Garvias, Jeffrey Andersen, Shirley Andersen, Janet Zingsheim, Scott Lindquist, Paul Larson, Jim McKinnon, Ernest & Jill Walters, Pat & Paul Meisel, Mark Gronberg, Paul Larson and John Royer. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 ~INUTES 1.1 MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the July 28, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW THE REPAIR TO A BOATHOUSe; LOCATED ON DEVON COMMONS ABOTTING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, ~AROLE MUNSON The Building Official presented photographs that were taken today showing the current condition of the property. There has been no change. He then reviewed the proposed resolution with the Council. The Council discussed item 4 of the resolution which requires that the boathouse be removed within 30 days of the expiration of the Maintenance Permit. The Council then discussed the structural condition of the boathouse. They then discussed the message that they wanted to impart to any future Council that a minimal amount of repairs be done because they do not want to extend the useful life of the boathouse. Ms. Munson's attorney, Richard Indritz, was present and objected to some of the items in the proposed resolution: 1) that the building is in a hazardous condition; 2) the language in #4 requiring the removal of the boathouse. His contention was that a future Council 149 August 11, 1992 could decide if the boathouse should be removed. He stated that the permit is a renewable maintenance permit. He also stated they do not believe the boathouse is hazardous and refereed to Ms. Munson's structural engineer's letter. He asked that the "shall" in #4 of the proposed resolution be changed to "may". The Building Official disagreed with Mr. Indritz on'the hazardous building issue. There was discussion on the structural engineer's letter regarding the boathouse. The Mayor stated that the Council is trying to send a message that the boathouse should probably be removed now but that they are going to allow it to remain for the duration of the permit with minimal repairs and that whoever buys this property or owns it at a future time will understand that they will probably be required to take down the boathouse when the permit expires in December of 1994. The City Attorney pointed out to Mr. Indritz that nowhere in the ordinance does it refer to a renewable permit. He further stated that what the Mayor is saying is that he doesn't believe that Mr. Indritz's client should put a lot of money into this on the premise that it is going to be kept because the whole purpose of this ordinance is to get rid these structures. Therefore, the clear understanding should be either with Ms. Munson or anyone else who comes in the future that the boathouse should come down. It would come down now if the Council had not granted the permit in December 1991, and the Council could without granting and passing this resolution take the position that this is a hazardous building and move to have it removed which would bring this into litigation. Mr. Indritz stated that his position is that what the Council is trying to do is bind future council actions when that is not provided for in the code. The City Attorney stated that what he is hearing is that the Council does not want anybody to misunderstand the fact that the Council is considering allowing some work that should be an implication that there is going to be a renewal. In fact, the Council is saying they feel it should come down now, but if Ms. Munson insists that it be kept for 2 years and she is willing to spend the money, do so with the understanding that if she does, the boathouse is probably going to come down in 2 years. The Mayor asked if Ms. Munson wants this resolution passed allowing the repairs to the boathouse. Mr. Indritz stated that if Ms. Munson has to take the boathouse down in two years, the resolution is not necessary. He further stated she will be happy to make the repairs but she does not feel she has to make the repairs to this building at the City Council's direction because those damages are not severe enough. She recognizes that repairs need to be made. 150 August 11, 1992 The Mayor stated that what the Council is trying to do is get these structures off the Commons when the building is amortized and in a state of disrepair to the point where its useful life is over, it should be removed. Mr. Indritz stated, yes, but that it's Ms. Munson's position that its useful life is not over. The Building Official quoted the following from the structural engineer's letter, dated June 15, 1992: "You should be aware that because of the present poor condition 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 longevity of the structure." The Building Official stated that it is his position that the building is in a hazardous condition. Councilmember Jensen offered the following language replacement to the proposed resolution: 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 boathouse until December 10, 1994. It is the intent of this City Council that the boathouse be removed within 30 days of the expiration of the Maintenance Permit at the sole cost of the applicant/abutting owner and the area shall be restored to a natural condition as approved and under the direction of the Parks Director, City Engineer, and Building Official. The City Attorney suggested that this resolution be recorded at Hennepin County so that anyone who might purchase this property would be aware of the terms of this resolution when doing a title search. In which case, the following language also needs to be added to the proposed resolution: e "This Maintenance Permit 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." and "The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject minimal repairs shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk." Jensen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution with the above language included: 151 August 11, 1992 RESOLUTION ~92-100 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LJ~ND8 PERMIT FOR CAROLE MUNSON TO ALLOW MINIMAL REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING BOATHOUSE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY KNOWN AS DEVON COMMONS DIRECTLY ABUTTING LOT 6t BLOCK ?t DEVON~ 4?29 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE Mr. Indritz stated that Ms. Munson's insurance agent has informed her that while some insurance may be available to protect against collapse of the structure that they will not insure against all events that occur on City property. Councilmember Smith stated that if she cannot provide insurance, then the structure should be taken out right now. He further stated that the City should not be liable for a building that the City has already said is dilapidated and ready to fall down. There was discussion on the requirement for liability insurance. The Mayor stated that he feels Ms. Munson should be responsible to obtain insurance to protect the City for a structure that she wants to keep, that the City doesn't think should be there, that the City is trying to be accommodating and let her keep for the duration of the permit. Mr. Indritz stated his client would just not be responsible for insurance for accidents that might occur on City property. The Council stated they are concerned about liability and want this covered. Councilmember Smith moved to call the question. died for lack of a second. The motion The City Attorney suggested that if the Council is going to pass the resolution in lieu of what Mr. Indritz has said, he would amend paragraph 3 to read as follows: mm 3 · Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the city with a certificate of insurance in the amount of not less than $600,000 general liability and coverage to protect herself and the City against any loss on the property (boathouse)." The Mayor asked if #3 should read the City is named insured. The City Attorney stated yes, that the applicant provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance protecting the City and Ms. Munson. 152 August 11, 1992 The Building Official asked what would happen if the minimal repairs where not completed by the November 1, 1992, date in the proposed resolution. The City Attorney stated that the following provision can be added to the resolution to cover this: "It is a further condition of this permit that if everything required by this resolution is not completed and all repairs completed by November 1, 1992, the boathouse shall be removed immediately thereafter.,, The vote on Resolution #92-100 with the above amendments was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. 1.2 CASE #92-036: WILLIAMS HIBBS, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, ~ HIGHLANDS, PID ~23-117-24 42 0014, YARIANCE - REPAIR FOUNDATION - APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DENIAL Jim McKinnon, attorney representing William Hibbs, asked that this item be withdrawn from the agenda. Me stated Mr. Hibbs does not own the property. The City Attorney suggested that this matter be continued for 2 weeks pending a letter from Mr. Hibbs withdrawing his application. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to continue this item for 2 weeks allowing the applicant to submit a letter withdrawing his application. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION FOR A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND~ PERMIT, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRI¥~, CAROLR MUNSON The Building Official stated that the resolution is as discussed a the previous meeting. The Council asked that the word "guardrail,, in the title be deleted. Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #92-101 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CAROLE MUNSON TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE 42314, ABUTTING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON The vote was for in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. 153 August 11, 1992 Mr. Indritz asked to speak on behalf of Ms. Munson. He stated that it is his understanding that approval of the connection between the stairway on the side of the hill was approved as indicated in the resolution dated, April 28, 1992. This had to do with a step down from that approved walkway to the level area created by the retaining wall and for a guardrail along the retaining wall. The Mayor stated that as discussed at a previous meeting, 'the Council is not allowing the guardrail. Mr. Indritz stated he understood this. Mr. Indritz further stated that this is against the Park & Open Space Commission's recommendation, against the Staff's recommendation and the City is aware that there have been problems with regard to that retaining wall and possible injuries in the past. The Mayor stated that that is the why it was specifically stated in the resolution that there needs to be plantings done along that area to delineate the edge so that people don't walk off the edge. Mr. Indritz stated that that question was asked of staff at the Park Meeting and they recommended against that and recommended that a guardrail be put up. The Council asked when Ms. Munson is going to remove the deck. Mr. Indritz stated that Ms. Munson was waiting for a determination on what to do with the guardrail before removing the deck because the guardrail is an intregal part of the existing deck. Mr. Indritz stated that the deck will be removed at the first available opportunity and that his client is out of town. The Council asked that staff give a report on the progress of the removal of the deck at the next Council Meeting. ~.4 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS pRESENT Keith Foerster, 4645 Island View Drive - expressed concern about any precedent set by the City CounCil regarding buildings or structures on Commmons and how the precedent is being set that if something is going to be removed that the City Council can mandate what has to be done and then pass all those costs on to the home owner of that abutting land. He stated he thinks it is a dangerous precedent. It is great for the City because it is a win-win situation for them, they get rid of the building and they don't have to pay a cent for it, but for the land owner it can become a financial burden and being an abutting land owner and having 120 some feet of land with retaining walls and so on it could essentially make a person like himself have to give up his house because he couldn't afford to replace or do that type of work. Mr. Foerster asked that because of one or two people who have broken the law, by not obtaining the necessary permits, that the Council not let this become an adversarial relationship with the abutting Commons landowners. 154 August 11, 1992 Mr. Foerster further asked that there be communication between the Commons landowners and the Council by discussing the problems and coming up with amicable solutions because the abutting Commons landowners do provide a service to the City by maintaining the areas. The Council explained there have been a number of people who have asked for stairways, lights, etc. and there were amicable solutions for these people. The Council further explained that the adversarial relationships are with very few people. 1.5 CASE #92-037= NOUND COLLISION & PAINTt SCOTT LINDQ. UIST, 233~ COMMERCE BLVD. t PART8 OF LOTS 6~ 7~ 8, MCNAUGHTS ADDITION~ PID ~13-117-24 33 0050~ VARIANCE - FREE STANDING SIG~I The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-102 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR MOUND COLLISION AND PAINT AT 2334 COMKERCE BLVD., PARTS OF LOTS 6t 7 & 8, MC NAUGHT'S ADDITION~ PID #13-117-24 33 0050, P & Z CASE %92-037 Councilmember Jensen asked for the following correction in the proposed resolution, the third whereas should read as follows: "WHEREAS, the subject property is a corner lot and is allowed one sign per street frontage, therefore it is allowed to have two signs at 48 square feet each which would total 96 square feet in area: and". The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 EASE ~92-041~ ~AULLARSON, XXXX INVERNESS LANE& XXXXHAMPTO~, ~OAD, LOTS 6, 7, 8~ & N 1/2 OF VAC. HAMPTON~ BLOCK 10, pEMBROKE, PID #19-117-23 33 0093-0095, MINOR SUBDIVISION £ VARIANCE The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two buildable parcels. One of the parcels requires a variance due to inadequate frontage on a public street. The City Engineer had prepared some comments in a separate report. The case was reviewed by the City Planner, Street Superintendent and the Sewer & Water Superintendent on site with the City Engineer. At the Planning Commission meeting there were many comments made by various neighbors and are in the Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 1992. Those comments were 155 August 11, 1992 mainly about drainage concerns. The Building Official then showed an overhead with the drainage pattern for the sites. The initial proposal that was submitted by the applicant was rejected by Staff and then the applicant revised his proposal and that was what was given to the Planning Commission. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval with a following additional condition: "6. Develop in accordance with drainage plan as proposed." This condition was added because of the concerns of the neighbors. The Council reviewed the drainage plan. They then discussed requiring drainage easements along the lot lines. The City Engineer stated that would be possible. Mark Gronberg, engineer for Paul Larson, stated they would have no problem allowing some drainage and utility easements on the lots. Mr. Gronberg explained that swales would be installed on the lots and this would slow the water down. The Council discussed the storm water ponding area on Parcel A. They then discussed the original plan which the applicant could have obtained two building permits for without having to apply for a variance. They would have both fronted on Inverness. The plan that is being proposed now, the Staff felt was the best configuration that could be achieved in working with the applicant and his engineer. The Building Official explained that originally there were 3 parcels and this subdivision would change it to 2 parcels of more than adequate size. The Council asked that all drainage easements be obtained for these parcels. The Council discussed the proposed driveway that will serve Parcel B off of Hampton Road. The Engineer stated that this has been reviewed and he and the Street Superintendent feel this will work. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-103 RESOLUTION TOAPPROVEA MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR INADEQUATE STREET FRONTAGE FOR LOTS 6, 7, 8 & NORTH 1/2 OF VACATED HAMPTON ROAD~ BLOCK 10~ PEMBROKE~ PID %19-117-23 33 0093v 0094 & 0095, P & S CASB #92-041 Councilmember Jensen stated she has a problem with Subd. 5 of the proposed resolution relating to the position that the house on parcel B will be facing. The house will be facing Lot 9 instead of 156 August 11, 1992 facing Hampton. The Engineer explained that because of the grades the current position makes sense. Bob Nichols and Mr. Patterson, attorneys for Mr. Breckheimer, asked to be recognized. They questioned whether this is a legal subdivision under Mound City Code, Section 330.20, subd. 1., which requires that all lots must have frontage on an existing Public road. His contention is that there is no existing public road for Parcel B. They are also questioning the hardship for this variance. The Building Official stated that according to the City Planner's report, "proposed parcel B has 23.7 feet of frontage resulting in a variance of 16.3 feet". The Planner also addressed the practical difficulty in providing access to the property and has stated that therefore the variance is justified. The City Attorney stated that there is a right-of-way there, whether it is improved or not does not make a difference. The hardship, that was explained by the Planner and the Engineer, was that they have changed the recommended division which met all the city standards and they did it because of drainage and several other factors. So actually the property owner is creating the lots and the configuration that they are because the Planner, the Engineer and the Building Official determined that it was a hardship if they had let it go the original way because of drainage and other problems that would have existed thus solving a problem rather than creating one. The following persons spoke against the proposed minor subdivision because of drainage, house being built on the Breckheimer sideyard that faces directly into his house, private driveway running along the side of the Breckheimer property or other problems: David Bye, Linda Mitchell, Brenda & Ted Breckheimer, and Tom Bullock. Mr. Patterson suggested that the 3 lots be developed into one building site. The Council discussed the 3 lots of which 2 are buildable. The Building Official pointed out that if this is subdivided as proposed Parcel B would have 9,501 square feet and Parcel A has 8,727 square feet which is substantially more than the required 6,000 square feet. The Building Official reminded the Council of the Voss case which was similar to this case as far of allowing a driveway on a public right-of-way. The City Attorney pointed out that the City has to allow reasonable use of the property by the property owner. Councilmember Smith and Mayor Johnson withdrew the motion for 157 approval of the resolution. August 11, 1992 The Building Official pointed out that the applicant could get building permits for the 2 houses on Inverness at this point without a variance and without a subdivision. The staff spent considerable time looking at that plan and rejected it, so a new plan was developed which is the one presented tonight. The City Attorney suggested that the Council direct staff to prepare a staff report for the next meeting showing the 2 plans, the advantages and the disadvantages of the 2 plans, and the ramifications of them. If this proposed plan is to be adopted, then the Council needs to specifically address the question of hardship, these should also be in the report. The Mayor asked the staff to look at if there is precedent to issue two building permits, as it sits right now. The other thing that needs to be done is to look at the drainage if the lots were developed as they currently are (this would include looking at the size of the building envelope this would create), keeping in mind limiting to 30% hardcover. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to table this item and bring it back in two weeks to look at the other plan and have the staff report on the above. Paul Larson, the owner of the subject property, stated that he has already delayed his project to redesign it to meet the staff's requirements and by tabling this the Council is denying him reasonable use of his property. The house that is proposed to be built there is sold and the new owner is waiting for construction to begin. He stated he has done the engineering, had the meetings' with the staff, the property works the way it is proposed. There is no reason to table at this time. This is the best use of the property. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney suggested that the people put some of their thoughts in writing and convey them to the staff. 1.7 CASE ~92-045: ERNEST & JILL WALTERS, 2348 FAIRVIEW LANE, LOT 27 & Niy 30' OF 26, BLOCK 4, L, P. CREVIER SUBD. LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARKm PID ~13-117-24 43 0142, VARIANCR The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: 158 August 11, 1992 RESOLUTION %92-103 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCON~ORMIN~ SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 9348 PAIRVI~W L~N~, LOT 27 & Nly 30' OF 26v BLOCK 4~ L.P. CREVIER SUBD. LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID %13-117-24 43 0142, P & Z CASE %92-045 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 CASE #92-047= JOSEPH & MARY FL~ISCwWaCKERv 5601 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF ~O'VT. LOT 1, SECTION 23, pID ~23-117-24 14 0001, VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request and that it was heard by the Planning Commission last evening and they recommended approval. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-104 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK~ AND .2' SIDE YARD SETBACK~ TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 5601 BARTLETT BLVD.~ PART OF GOVT. LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID %23-117-24 14 0001~ P & Z CASE %92-047 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 PETITION FROM COMMERCE PLACE ANDITS TENANTS RE: INSTALLATIO~ OF A CROSSWALK B~TW~EN COMMERCE PLACE & TONKA CENTER WEST .(MUELLER/LANSING/COAST TO COAST CENTER) The City Manager explained that he has received a petition and request for the City to install a crosswalk on Lynwood Blvd. between Commerce Place and the Tonka Center West. He reported that he has met with these individuals. He stated he told them that he didn't think the Council would act favorably because of past problems with the crosswalks in Mound. He stated he feels crosswalks create a false sense of security, and they don't prevent accidents and in some cases they may even cause accidents. The City Manager has discussed this with the Police Chief and he concurs. The City Manager and the Police Chief did not feel that we should create another mid-block crosswalk especially since we just eliminated the mid-block crosswalk across Commerce Blvd. by the Ben Franklin when the stop light was installed on Lynwood & Commerce. 159 August 11, 1992 Janet Zingsheim, Lovin Oven Bakery, presented additional petitions signed by persons in favor of the crosswalk, and a letter from the Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce supporting the crosswalk installation. She spoke in favor of the crosswalk. There were 2 other persons present in favor of the crosswalk. Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen all felt a mid- block crosswalk creates a false sense of security and therefore were not in favor of the mid-block crosswalk for pedestrian safety reasons. They all agreed they would like to see the two centers connected but not in this way. Councilmembers Smith and Ahrens stated they are in favor because it is a natural crossing area and could be helpful getting people across Lynwood Blvd. between the two shopping centers. Another reason is to tie the two shopping centers together. The Council discussed the pros and cons of crosswalks. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve the installation of a crosswalk mid-block on Lynwood Blvd. between Commerce Place and Tonka Center West. The vote was 2 in favor with Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting nay. Motion failed. The Mayor stated that the reason you have a crosswalk is to suggest to people where to cross, it is not a method of protection, but people think it is protection. 1.10 REOUEST FOR STREET LIGHT AT AMHURST LANE BETWEEN TUXEDO BLVD. AND HANOVER ROAD The City Manager reported that a request has been received for a street light in the area of 3201 Amhurst Lane. The request has been reviewed and the Police Dept. has recommended approval. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-105 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF A STREET LIGHT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AMHURBT BETWEEN HANOVER ROAD AND TUXEDO BLVD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 REOUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL - CHRISTINE N~aHN, 2275 COTTONWOOD LANE RE: DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER TO REAR OF PROPERTY (DAKOTA RAIL) The City Manager explained that there is a report from the City Engineer dated August 6th in the packet. 160 August 11, 1992 Christine Hahn presented some pictures and maps of the areas. She explained that she has a large area of storm water drainage that is just south of her property and the puddle itself is so long that it does tail onto her property. She has contacted Public Works several times, but has gotten no solution and no relief. She stated the water drains from the wetlands into the puddle. The puddle never goes away and does not drain. She stated the City has told her that the area is designated as part of the drainage area and it cannot close off the culvert because of this. Her contention is that it is part of the City drainage system and the water is coming from City land, therefore the City should take responsibility for making sure the water does drain from that land. The culvert has a 16 foot drop. They want the water drained. Mr. Hahn stated that the culvert runs underneath Dakota Rail, there is no storm sewer in the street and it ends at the cul-de-sac. They are getting the water not only from the wetlands but from the road and the back from the culvert under Dakota Raid. They don't think it is their responsibility to divert the water from the puddle. The City Engineer presented an aerial photo of the area. He stated the photo does not show where this culvert is located. He further stated that he is assuming that this is the original culvert that was placed when the railroad tracks were put'in. He assumes it was put in because of the wetlands and the railroad had to get the water from that side into Lake Langdon in order to protect their tracks and not block everything upstream. Over the years as the City developed, storm sewers were built and there is a major one that empties into that. It runs off of Lynwood south and runs in an open ditch for a little way and then under property owned by Ron Bostrom through a culvert then emptying into the wetland and that's where the major portion of the runoff gets into the wetlands. The ditch from the wetlands to the culvert under Dakota Rail is in very poor condition with steep side slopes and numerous trees growing out of it. Public Works did go out and clean the debris and some of the materials out of the ditch at the request of the Hahns. It appears, without having the survey crew go out and take elevations that there is 8 inches of water standing in the north end of that culvert and it's about 1/3 full on the south end which appears to be backup from Lake Langdon and there is no way to keep water out of that culvert unless you go to the level of Lake Langdon. There are several possible solutions to this. One would be to completely regrade the ditch which is not going to get rid of the standing water if it is backing up from Lake Langdon. The other way would be to extend the storm sewer and fill the ditch in. Extending the storm sewer would be a very expensive alternative. He further stated that the area being talked about is either railroad right-of-way or the Hahn's property. 161 August 11, 1992 The City Engineer stated that he had not been told there was a problem with drainage on Cottonwood into the ditch. The Council explained that the City cannot drain an area that is lower than Lake Langdon. The City Engineer suggested that he have the survey crew shoot the elevations to determine if the land is lower than Lake Langdon. He stated he will also check the drainage on Cottonwood. The Engineer further stated that there is a another big storm sewer that runs down Cottonwood Lane that goes under the railroad tracks and empties into Lake Langdon and the outlet of that storm sewer is a good 1/2 foot below normal high water of Lake Langdon. 1.12 APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REOUEST, 1992, SEAL COAT PROGRAM TO ~LLIED BLACKTOP - $24~151.13 The City Manager stated that the City Engineer has recommended approval of the final payment request. MOTION Made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to approve the final payment request of Allied Blacktop for the 1992 Seal Coat Project, in the amount of $24,131.13. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 REOUEST FROM PAT & PAUL MEISEL TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING PROGRAM The City Manager reviewed his memo in the packet regarding the request, the meeting with some of the CBD owners and tenants, the future of the program, and the impact that this request, if granted, would have on the future of the program. He reported that he feels the owners realized why the Meisels wanted to get out of the parking program. In talking about the rest of the program, the owners felt that it should not be abandoned, but should be looked at and analyzed. They formed a committee and will be meeting soon to look at the possibility of revamping the program, trying to keep it in tact. Mr. & Mrs. Meisel were present still asking to be removed from the program. The City Manager presented a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Netka against removing Meisels from the program. A letter was also received from C. L. Johnson stating that when he bought his property 12 years ago, the parking program was voluntary. The City Manager wrote to Mr. Johnson stating that if he wishes to be heard by the Council he could bring his request to be removed from the CBD parking program back to the Council on August 25th. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve a request from Pat & Paul Meisel for them to withdraw from the CBD 162 August 11, 1992 Parking Program. The Council discussed the fact that this is not the first property owner allowed to withdraw from the CBD Parking Program. Commerce Place had sufficient parking and was able to demonstrate that they did not benefit from the Program, therefore they were allowed to withdraw. The Meisel situation is very much the same. The Council also discussed the fact that there is no legal means to force Meisels to stay in the program. The Council then discussed problems this may cause to some businesses who do not have adequate parking , i.e. impact on conditional use permits; availability of parking in some areas; paying for costs to maintain the remaining lots. The Mayor also stated that there was a letter in their packet from Jerry Longpre asking if the Meisels would agree to a date of November 1st (90 days) to see if the committee could restructure the CBD Parking Program. The Meisels stated that that would not be acceptable. The Council agreed that there needs to be a parking program for the businesses who do not have enough parking, but the City is making attempts to secure parking for downtown. How that is apportioned and what the City does with it needs to be part of the discussion. They determined that they cannot force this particular program on people. There needs to be a cooperative program to allow all businesses to have parking. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Orv Fenstad stated that when this program was set up it was a gentlemen's agreement between the Council and the businessmen and there is nothing binding. The Council pointed out that the program has changed over the years. The City Attorney stated that most of the parking properties were under lease to the City for parking. Mr. Fenstad stated that the Mound Masonic Lodge would also like to withdraw from the CBD Parking Program. He stated they do not benefit from the CBD Parking Program. The Council asked that the Lodge be informed of the next meeting of the committee. The City Attorney pointed out that different situation than the Lodge. parking for their business. the Meisels have a Meisels have adequate 163 August 11, 1992 The Council asked that everyone be kept informed as to what the Committee is considering. 1.14 APPLICATION FOR PORTABL__~ SIGN AT 2121 CON~RCE BLVD. FOR PON~ .SPORTS The .City Manager explained that they are applying for a sign to advertise hockey sign-ups. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a portable sign permit application for the Pond Sports Center, 2121 Commerce Blvd., from 9-8-92 to 9-20-92 to advertise hockey registration dates. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT KEN SMITH TO THE MOUND HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM - TERM EXPIRE~ 8/29/97 Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-106 RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT KEN SMITH TO THE MOUND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM - TERM EXPIRES s/29/97 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.16 DISCUSSION= VACANCY ON HRADUE TO ELDO SCHMIDT'S RESIGNATION The City Manager reported that Mr. Schmidt has resigned and the Council needs to make an appointment. Mr. Schmidt's term does not expire until August 29, 1994. The Council stated they would try to come up with some names of possible candidates for the next meeting. 1.17 DISCUSSION= FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION PENSION PROGR~ The City Manager reported that since the Council met with the Relief Association concerning their request to have a benefit increase to the pension program of $25 per month, per year for the next 7-8 years, they have had an actuarial done. The numbers for this contribution increase would be about $13,000 per year for the next 7-8 years, therefore, the City Manager's recommendation would be a 4% increase for 1993 which is at the same level as the past 2- 3 years. In addition, they would receive the 2% contribution from the state for insurance premiums. The reason for the urgency is that the fire budget has to be submitted to the contracting cities within the next week. 164 August 11, 1992 The Fire Chief stated they need a good pension program to keep good people on the Fire Department. He further stated that there are more people receiving a pension and living longer at this point. The Council discussed the actuarial study. They discussed looking at some number in between 4% and 10% and the look at the performance of the assets, looking back a year, rather than trying to generate a lot of money and then seeing what can be done with it. The Council decided to do the following and then look back and see how the assets perform. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to increase the contribution to the Fire Relief Association by 7% effective January 1, 1993, for one year and then look back at the assets and see how they perform at the end of 1993. They will also look at the 2% money. The Council discussed putting the 7% in, then next year working on the percentage and then every two years when the actuarial report is received, the Council can review the pension benefit. The Fire Chief agreed. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $264,924.05, when funds are available. The Council asked that the bill relating to litigation on Hanus and Munson be discussed at a future meeting. A roll call vote was 4 in favor, with Ahrens voting nay. carried. Motion 1.20 ADD-ON - DEVELOPMENT AGREENKNT - LANGDON VIEW SUBDIVISION The Building Official explained that Landstar, Inc. seeks to transfer ownership and all responsibilities to Mr. Steve Martin and this needs to be approved by the Council. The contract was prepared by Landstar in conjunction with himself, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney. The development is substantially complete and the Building Official is confident Mr. Martin can and will fulfill the obligations of the new contract. Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: 165 RE~OLU~ION #92-L07 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CONTRACT FOR LANGDON NARTIN August 11, 1992 THE DEVELOPMENT VIEW WITH STEVE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.20 ~NFORMATION/MISCELLANEOU5 A. Department Head Monthly Reports for July 1992. B. L.M.C.D. Representative's Monthly Report for July 1992. Co Fo Ge Je Ke ne 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. 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. Information from the LMCD on fees as requested at the last meeting. 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. 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. 166 August 11, 1992 MOTION made by Smith, seoonded by Jessen to adjourn at 1:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 167 I('rNUTES - COI4~'rTTEE OF THE NHOLE I(EETIN(~ AU(~UST 18, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen (arrived at 8:45 PM) and Mayor Skip Johnson. Absent and excused: Ken Smith. Also present: Tom Reese, LMCD Representative; Jim Fackler, Parks Director; Jon Sutherland, Building Official; Mark Koegler, City Planner; Tom Casey, Parks and Open Space Commission; Mark Hanus and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Tom Reese, LMCD Representative, was present to review the activities of the LMCD. Concern was expressed regarding increases in fees for non-profit organizations. Reese responded by indicating that the LMCD operations are to be user fee supported as much as possible. Concern was expressed by the Council with regard to the timing of applications and review of those applications before the LMCD, as well as the actual fees. He will carry this message back to the LMCD board. He also reviewed the Milfoil program and touched upon the Long Term Management Plan. Mark Koegler was present to review the Shoreland Management Ordinance. He indicated that the ordinance had to be adopted before December 10, 1992 and submitted to the DNR. He further indicated that the Planning Commission has been working with him on this and they will be holding more meetings this fall. The City Council decided that they would hold their public hearing on the Shoreland Management Ordinance November 10, 1992 and will keep the hearing open and continue it to November 24th. Koeqler indicated that he would be presenting the Shoreland Managemen~ Ordinance to the Technical Review Committee of the LMCD on September 22nd. He also indicated that since the zoning code modifications public hearing will be held September 8, 1992, that hearing could be left open to take input from the public on the Shoreland Management Ordinance in November and eventually the Shoreland Management Ordinance will become part of the zoning code. He asked that the City Council consider a special meeting to review the Shoreland Management Ordinance in more detail. It was suggested that Tuesday, September 29, 1992 at 7:30 PM at Mound City Hall to be the time and place for that meeting. Council agreed on this date. The subject of exterior maintenance ordinance was briefly discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle asked for clarification as to what the Council wanted to pursue under this subject. He presented a chronological history developed by Peggy James and Jon Sutherland of the exterior storage and housing maintenance issues that were developed by the Planning Commission between 1987 and the present time. Shukle further explained that the original exterior storage ordinance pertained only to recreational vehicles and how many you could store on your property. He further indicated that the Planning Commission developed a housing maintenance code, which took into account exterior maintenance and interior maintenance and Minutes - Committee of the Whole - August 18, 1992 intertwined them within the ordinance. The question becomes, can we accomplish cleaning up the exteriors of single family dwellings with existing nuisance ordinances or do we have to develop a separate ordinance? Council suggested that the Planning Commission take a look at the nuisance ordinances that are currently on the books and that the city manager contact the city attorney to get clarification as to the enforcement of the nuisance ordinances. Perhaps an exterior maintenance ordinance is not needed if the nuisance ordinance can be enforced. This matter will be brought back to the next Committee of the Whole meeting. The subject of nature conservation area was discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that the Parks and Open Space Commission has been dealing with this issue for almost two years. It began when it was suggested that an area on Drummond Road be designated as a nature conservation area. The city Council did so and the property was left to grow in its natural state. A sign was placed on the property indicating that it was a nature conservation area. The Parks and Open Space Commission further pursued this subject by requesting that the Council designate nature conservation areas within the community. The commission put together a Goals and Objectives and a general outline as to how a nature conservation area study could be undertaken. Former commissioner Neil Weber developed this outline and the Goals and Objectives along with a timetable in which tasks could be performed and completed. In August of 1990, the Parks and Open Space Commission asked the City Council if they were in favor of nature conservation areas. A motion was made and passed unanimously by the Council to have the Parks and Open Space Commission come up with a definition of a nature conservation area and to suggest potential locations and restrictions for those areas. Also discussed was how to maintain these nature conservation areas and how they would fit with other open space. The commission began looking at over 250 parcels that are designated as open spaces, tax forfeit parcels, etc. Commission members spent a great deal of time looking at these parcels by physically inspecting them, taking photos, etc. They came up with a list of properties that they felt could be possible conservation areas, but now have reached a road block in which they do not know exactly how to go about putting a plan together for a nature conservation area system. The commission suggested that the City Planner Mark Koegler be involved in putting together a plan that could assist the commission in their studies. Tom Casey, a member of the commission and Ed Shukle, city Manager met with Mr. Koegler regarding such a plan. Koegler responded by presenting a letter indicating what the plan would entail and an estimated cost of $2500. The Council discussed this matter and suggested that it be presented at the August 25, 1992 regular meeting. The consensus was to have a plan prepared at a cost not to exceed $2500. The City Manager suggested that if the Council wanted to do this plan now, that it could be paid for by Minutes - Committee of the Whole - August 18, 1992 the Park Dedication Fund. The Council thought that this fund would be appropriate for this project. The Council will discuss this at its meeting next Tuesday. "After the Fact" permits were discussed. The city manager explained that through the process of construction on public lands the issue of people not having permits to do certain work was talked about. Council had discussed previously how to address this consistent problem. Information was presented by the city manager and Jon Sutherland, Building Official concerning what is currently being done with building permits and other permits that the City requires. Also presented was information from the watershed district and DNR as to how they handle after the fact permit problems. It was suggested that the staff review existing fees and see how those fees could be applied to permits that are required by the City that currently do not have any fee attached to them. The Council's main concern is to deal with after the fact issues. For example, construction on public lands permits do not require an application fee. The Council wants to keep it that way. However, if someone does work without a construction on public lands permit, as an example, they would have to pay some sort of fee on an after the fact basis. It was suggested they follow what is in Section 520 of the City Code which applies to building permits, plumbing and other related fees. Council wanted to make it clear that this problem really only is with after the fact situations and in cases where fees are not currently charged, i.e., construction on public lands, land alterations, commercial docks or public right-of-way situations. Staff is to work with the city attorney on coming up with a proposal. City Manager Ed Shukle, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Parks Director Jim Fackler discussed the commons dock, public land inventory that has been completed. City Manager Ed Shukle stated that the Council needs to give the staff direction as to how to proceed with other possible violations of structures on public lands or commons areas. Consensus was to follow the original processes designated in 1976 by the Park Commission and City Council and to deal with the simple cases first, followed by the water oriented structures and stairways. The city manager emphasized how important it is that the Council be consistent with applying the same rules and regulations as they have with the Hanus and Munson cases. Commons markings was briefly discussed, city Manager Ed Shukle presented a memo dated August 3, 1992 from Jim Fackler concerning monuments and prioritized sites for those monuments. Jim Fackler explained his rationale for these priorities. It basically deals with two issues: 1. Location of commons and Minutes - Committee of the Whole - August 18, 1992 public dock areas and 2. Problems we have experienced in the past with people understanding where the commons were located. After considerable discussion, the Council requested that this matter be placed on the August 25, 1992 regular agenda and the consensus of all but one councilmember present was to do all the sites which is a total of 50 sites and 56 monuments to be charged against one of the following funds: 1. Liquor Store, 2. Docks, 3. Parks - general. Advisory commission appointments and reappointments were discussed. This matter was continued until the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Artwork for the city Council Chambers was continued until the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Ed Shukle, city Manager, made the Council aware of an emergency preparedness meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 29th, at 3 PM, in the City Council Chambers. He invited the City Council to attend if they are available. He specifically asked if the Mayor could be present. Mayor Johnson indicated that he would try to attend. Phyllis Jessen discussed the crosswalk issue that the Council recently acted on. She indicated that she had talked with Geno Hoff, Street Superintendent, regarding locating stop signs in the area on Lynwood Blvd. between Commerce Place and Tonka Center West. She went to the site with Mr. Hoff and observed the problems with that area and concluded that stop signs would not work there. They also observed the patterns of shoppers walking to and from the centers. The patterns were never really alike and people just tried to get from one place to another in whatever direct route they could. Geno had suggested that perhaps some signs could be placed approaching that area from both directions warning drivers of pedestrians crossing the street in that area. Council consensus was to go forward with this approach. The next meeting of the Committee of the Whole was discussed. Normal meeting date is the third Tuesday, which in September is primary election day and no public meetings are allowed. The Council discussed this matter and the consensus was to make the September 29th meeting on the Shoreland Management Ordinance a Committee of the Whole meeting with the primary topic being the Shoreland Management Ordinance. If time allows other issues will be discussed. Minutes - Committee of the Whole Meeting - August 18, 1992 Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM. P~-~Dectfully submitted, Ed'~hukle City Manager ES:ls 5 hlc~und C Jty C'ounci~ Hour, d, ,~nnesot.a RECEIVED AUG 1 3 1992 MOUND PL~.~iNING & INSP. Ple~:ze fin.d eno lo?.ed ar, original ~ter from Mr . ~illiarr, A. Hibbs re,~arding his formal withdrawal for a variance at the property locatezl at ~860 !,llewood Road, h~,z~ur, d, MN. As per Lhe Council's request, ~c understand that this action r, ob~ b~ pern,aner~t~y dropced. 612 } a76-2125 R'ece' ~ red of Properties 14i~t[am A. Hibbs. G~ oup the above referenced letter from August 11, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1992 1.2 CHSE t92-035~ WILLIAMS HIBBS. ~86~ IDLEWOOD ROHD, IX)T 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5m BLOCK lm THE HIGHLANDB~ PID ~23-117-24 42 0014~ VARIANCE - REPHIR FOUNDATION - ~PPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF DENIH~ Jim McKinnon, attorney representing William Hibbs, asked that this item be withdrawn from the agenda. He stated Mr. Hibbs does not own the property. The city Attorney suggested that this matter be continued for 2 weeks pending a letter from Mr. Mibbs withdrawing his application. MOTION made by ahrens, seconded by Jensen to continue this item for 2 weeks allowing the applicant to submit a letter withdrawing his application. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 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, existing structure that encroaches into the required the portion of the 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. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 28, 1992 CASE #92-0365 NILLIAMS HIBBS, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 % 1/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, THE ~IGHLANDS, PID ~23- ~17-24 42 0014m VARIANCE - REPAIR FOUNDATIO~ 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 resolution of denial and bring it back to the next meeting. MINUTES OF ~ MEETIN~ OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PL~d~NIN~ CONNIsSION ~ULY 13~ 1992 ~SE ~92-036~ ~ILLI~d~f HIBBS, 5860 IDLE~OOD RO~D LOT 4 & ~ 2 OF · ~ ~r zoundat~on. -- ~ 0~4. VARIANCE - 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. g~' This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. rnm mH PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound 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 CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No._~~ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property _~-~o Owner's Name /Ji///~,~ HJJ~ Owner's Address ~/~- ~oq~K$ //- Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ,,ct q Addition 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, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of propos.ed cons~ruction or alteration (size, number ~f ~%~!~ories, type of use, etc.). revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. qLo 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~ (desc~be reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)~ ~p~~ , SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE Front Yard: ( NOE W ) Rear Yard: (~ S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S&W~) Side Yard: ( N S ) Lot Size: Street Frontage ft. ft. _ /6~) ft. ft. /~,,~ o _sq ft ft. (or existing) ft' ft. ft ft. '-- ft. __ ft. ~'-- ft. ft. ~%'CW- ft. ft. sq ft sq ft 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 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 u ired by law. ~j/ I { r 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 but Jon's "dilapidated" is a bit strong. definition of S i ncej;e~,, y, ~"~ j/ William A. Hibbs 297 August 11, 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 !, THE HIGHLANDS 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 WHEREAS, WHEREAS, there is an existing nonconformancy for the present garage and for the dwelling, and the Planning Commission has recommended a variance be granted for a double garage wlth 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 ~rHeY A ~ c ~tt~Y ~tAV~ XOT Pcc'p 4~,V PERMIT NO. ADDRESS CITY OF MOUND INSP~I'ION NOTICE M ~ W TH F Time OWNER ~ PHONE# CONTRACTOR PHONE # I-] FOOTING 1-1 PLUMBING ROUGH-IN SITE INSPECTION I-I INSULATION [] MECHANICAL · [] FINAL~ [] DEMOLITION u I-IHEPLACE FINAL [] ~ [] WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED (3 [] CORRECT WORK & PROCEED [] PHOTO TAKEN [] CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING [] CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN [] STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR [] INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TOARRANGE ACCESS Call for the next Inspection 24 hours in advance. Owner/Contractor on s~e -, ~_~~ .... '~"sPJCcotO~i,e.o,,~ -'"'--If~J~' !l~ , -472-0600 White Copy/Inspector's FiFe Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. DD MEMORANDUM TO: Mound City Council and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: August 19, 1992 SUBJECT: Larson Minor Subdivision - Case #92-040 During the discussion and review of the Larson minor subdivision request, the City Council requested that Staff provide additional information on development options for the site. The following material is offered in response to this request. .Alternate One (Ori_~.nal Plan) The exhibit labeled Alternate One is Mr. Larson's original proposal for the subdivision of the land. Upon receipt of the plan, City Staff met with Mr. Larson to review a number of concerns principally related to the shape of the proposed parcels and concerning drainage in the area. During the meeting, it became apparent that drainage was the most significant issue affecting the proposed subdivision. In order to avoid the "gerrymandered" lot arrangement and to provide more flexibility in the overall design of a system to control stormwater runoff, Staff suggested that the applicant consider an alternate plan. The plan depicted as Alternate Two is the result of that discussion. Alternate Two (Revised Plan~ The revised plan identified as Alternate Two divides the property into two parcels lying essentially east and west of a common lot line. As such, one parcel takes driveway access from Hampton Road and the other has access from Inverness Lane. This access configuration is the same as the one used in Alternate One. The advantage from the staff perspective of this proposal is more flexibility in the placement of a future home on Parcel A and specifically, also having added flexibility in locating detention ponds and other stormwater control elements adjacent to Inverness Lane. It also creates lots with more typical shapes. Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design ~X",qo/' 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax:(612)835-3160 Larson Subdivision Memorandum August 19, 1992 Page Two Alternate Three (Conforming, No Variance Subdivision) Alternate Three has been assembled to demonstrate that it is possible to prepare a minor subdivision plan which meets all city criteria and does not require the issuance of variances. In this option, Parcels A and B contain approximately 10,990 sq. ft. and 7,330 sq. ft. respectively and can each accommodate a single family structure conforming to 'all setbacks and impervious cover restrictions. The plan shows the structures with a 20 foot setback off of Inverness Lane. In reality, the homeowner or builder could position the homes within 15 feet of the western property line if they so desired. Positioning the homes in the western portion of the lot may require a tuck under type of housing unit to accommodate the steep grade. Comment The City of Mound strives to do away with the necessity to issue variances. In this case, it was the opinion of the City Engineer, Building Official and City Planner that Alternate Two afforded the best means of handling stormwater runoff despite the fact that it required variance approval. Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances identifies topography as a circumstance suitable for variance approval. In this case, topography and resulting drainage concerns are a key issue. It is reasonable, therefore, to find that a hardship exists in this case due to the topography of the site and the necessity to manage stormwater without adversely impacting adjacent properties. Vincent D. Forystek 5151 Inverness Lane Mound Minnesota 55364 August 2,t, 1992 To: The Mound City Council Members Re: Paul Larson/Construction at end of Hampton Road Ca,se ~ 92-041 minor subdivision variance. Ladies and (3entleman, Paul Larson Is not nor has he ever been a citizen of the local community in the area of Inverness and Hampton. Paul Larson is an investor, he new what the risks were when he bought the property and I feel that you have no responsibilities to him The concerned neighborhood should be your primary concern. The people in that neighborhood ~ee Paul Larson with dollar signs in his eyes and he has given them no reason to trust him. After re~iew of this particular drainage plan i guarantee that there will be problems and law suits filed by the existing neighbors to this property. Specifically, I do not see how the runoff from lot 9 and the additional runoff from the proposed dwelling will be able to flow through the small strip of property that lies to the north of the proposed dwelling. Turf tends not to survive on the north side of structures and eventually there will be a large amount of erosion in this area and others. I am aware that I am not a degreed expert. However I have worked around allot of grading situations. There has been no disclosure of facts (specific calculations) on where the water is coming from and where the water will be going to and more importantly how much (for example if there were a 2" plus down pore). The proposed lot division will not constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is not in harmony with adjacent properties. If Hampton road were finished through to Inverness Lane the applicant could build both of the proposed dwellings towards either Inverness or the future extention of Hampton. This option should be suggested and explored by staff. If Paul Lar'son is allowed to run a driveway off the end of 8 dead end street as is being proposed than I will request to do the same at the end of Paisley Road on Four or five lots. I propose that a moratorium for building on lots of 8 size les~ than 8,000 square feet should be instituted immediately. This proposal may seem rediculous however, only two years ago we were in a drought that had everyone concerned about the preservation of tree~ and natural areas (non hard cover areas) This property as it sits, for ail practica] purposes is large enough for one dwelling that would face Inverness Lane. I am well aware of the minimum building requirements In the area however 6,000 thousand square feet lots are rediculously small. And just because people have been doing it doesn't mean that the practice should be kept up. The proposal above is not unrealistic, several years back, The City of Brooklyn Park placed a mora...torium on development above 85th avenue. I recall that it was challenged yet the city prevailed. An appraisal should be taken as to the effect the building on these small lots will have on the environment and the quality of life for the community. Yours truly, Vincent D. Forystek August 20, 1992 Mayor Skip Johnson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Mayor: All of the members of the city council are now aware of the concerns by the neighbors regarding the proposed plans of Mr. Paul Larson. Our lawyer has sent a letter to you with copies to all of the council members. As stated in his letter, the subdivision and variances are in complete violation of city codes and ordinances, and we feel it should be denied on this basis alone. With the legal implications aside, we would invite all the council members to make a trip to the proposed building site and see for themselves the potential problems that will be created by this plan. The slope of the land is very steep, and we feel that the run off from the surrounding properties and Hampton Road has not been properly addressed or studied by the engineers. Their repons are lacking detailed information regarding the amount of run off, and we feel the issue is being down-played by the engineers. This proposal should not be considered unless the builder and his engineer "guarantee in writing" to be liable for correcting any future problems. It does not take a "storm of the century" to create a small river of water running across our property that virtually travels directly to the center of the proposed building site on lot B. The report from the engineers state that most of the water flows to the southeast. This is not true, because when it rains, half of the water seems to flow to the northeast into our yard. The road is crowned at the end of Hampton with a gully directed to the southeast, therefore they think all the water flows that way. The same erosion would appear to the northeast if it were not for our efforts to save our yard from this erosion (the water packs the grass down tiaO. There is also run off from our house and lot of which probably 80% runs east directly down to the proposed building sites. Another concern is the proposed location of the house on lot B, as one council member eluded to at the meeting. Currently it is laid out to be facing to the west rather than to the south, and will also be 35 + feet further south than the rest of the houses on the street. This does not conform to the flow and continuity of the other houses in the neighborhood, and basically will "stick out like a sore thumb", and look ridiculous. This goes against any efforts the city could make to help improve the existing neighborhoods and make them more attractive for future home buyers. It will decrease the value of our property and that of the other neighboring properties as well. This concept obviously was not foremost on the minds of our city engineer, city planner, and building inspector. Page 2 Also mentioned in our lawyers letter is the fact that you are allowing a private driveway to be built on public property. This seems to be a complete contradiction to the issue of public land for private use, as is the case with the recent "commons" issue. We would like you to consult with the head of your planning commission who voted against creating a non-conforming lot that will present problems in the future. Everyone on the planning commission was very negative about the proposal, but reluctantly passed it, solely on the recommendation of our city engineer and city planner. They may have had good intentions, but did not take into account the effect it could have on the neighbors and the city of Mound. The most obvious and reasonable solution to the proposal would be to have one nicer, larger house on a decent size legal lot, which would conform to the neighborhood, resulting in less hardcover and reduce the amount of run off, with little or no additional drainage problems for the surrounding properties. We would hope that you will deny this subdivision and restrict Mr. Larson to building the one house fronting Inverness, therefore increasing the value of that property, and maintaining the value of the adjoining properties. We have a difficult time understanding the efforts being taken by our city employees to enable Mr. Larson to accomplish this lucrative endeavor. It is not their job to help builders and/or contractors realize extreme profits at the expense of the city and its residents. By allowing Mr. Larson to "squeeze" two homes on these minimal size lots, whether one being up on the hill, or both down on Inverness, he is the only one to benefit from such a development. Approving the subdivision and variances which do not conform to the codes and ordinances of our city, basically for one developer's own financial gain, is totally against the best interest of the City of Mound. Thank you. Brenda & Ted Breckheimer ccl Council Members: City Manager: Andrea Ahrens Elizabeth Jensen Phyllis Jessen Ken Smith August 21,1992 Dear Mayor Johnson, We fully understand Paul Larson has the right to build houses on the properties he owns. We think it is wrong to grant him the subdivision and variances he requested because: 1) He has two buildable lots which require no subdivision or variance. 2) Lot 8 alone is not buildable and adds no useful land to the property other than square footage. 3) The first house with the driveway on Inverness poses no problem to anyone. The house behind it will cause serious water problems for the adjoining property owners. 4) The position of the second house will not conform with the rest of the homes on Hampton Road. 5) The most important reason we feel this subdivision and variance should not be granted is the fact that no one can give any of the adjoining property owners any kind of assurances that if problems occur they will be handled. We know first hand about this type of situation because we have mud running onto our property and the street every time it rains from a new home built by Fine Line Homes. We are not opposed to the houses being built. We are opposed to the placement of the house on top due to the fact we already have water problems that come from the area of that house. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Keith & Linda Mitchell 4623 Cumberland Road 472-3878 Z ? / / / / / / / / / / / .% LU o ILl ILl LLI Z Itl August 17, 1992 Michael D. Pederson Attorney at Law P.O. Box 119 103 West Second Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 (612) 448-9950 ItLq2'D AU8 1 8 1992 The Honorable Skip Johnson Mayor, City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: Proposed Minor Subdivision and Variance Inverness Lane and Hampton Road Dear Mayor Johnson: Pursuant to your request at the August 11, 1992 City Council meeting, we submit this letter outlining our opposition to the above-referenced matter. As we stated at the meeting, we oppose this proposal for two reasons. First, the application is an improper minor subdivision under Mound's Zoning Code. Second, the applicant has failed to meet its legal burden of proving the elements necessary for granting of a variance under Mound's Zoning Code. The Proposed Application is an Improper Minor Subdivision We believe that the proposed minor subdivision should be denied because it violates the requirements of Section 330 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Section 330 (a copy of which is enclosed) provides that all lots in a minor subdivision must conform to four requirements. These are (1) The property must have frontage on an existing public road; (2) The subdivision must not require the construction of any new public facilities or public improvements; (3) There must be no adverse effect on remaining or adjoining property; and (4) There must be no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance or Official Map. The proposed subdivision fails to meet three of these mandatory requirements: First, the second lot in the subdivision has no frontage on any existing public road. Second, developing this property as proposed will cause adverse effect on adjoining property through increased drainage problems. Finally, the proposal conflicts with the zoning requirements for R-2 zoned property. We respectfully disagree with the contention made at the council meeting that the currently proposed Parcel B has "_~_fronta~e on an existing public road." Anyone who views the area will see that Hampton Lane,-{he-road upon which Parcel B allegedly fronts, is not, and has not been, used as a public road where it fronts the property in question. Indeed, Hampton Lane ceases to be an existing public road approximately seventy feet to the west of Parcel B. The survey made by the applicant's engineer clearly shows two very large trees right in the middle of this allegedly existing public road. Furthermore, staff has essentially admitted this in its report which refers to this part of Hampton Road as the "Hampton Road right-of-way." We understand that this part of Hampton Lane has not been legally vacated. We also understand and agree that the public currently retains rights to travel across this right- of-way. However, the clear language of the ordinance provides that the property must have "frontage on an existing public road." The ordinance does not provide that the property must merely have access to a public road or that it must have frontage on a public right-of-way. Common sense compels the conclusion that this barren land, which is not used as a road, and which has large trees blocking it, is not an "existing public road." Nor does the proposed private driveway provide Parcel B with frontage on an "existing public road." Indeed, after this development is completed, the "Hampton Road right-of-way- will cease to even be a public right-of-way because this proposal allows the owner of Parcel B to construct a private driveway across this public right-of-way. We question the propriety of granting a private easement over public right- of-way property. At the very least, however, such a grant would eliminate the "Hampton Road right-of-way" from being a public road after the project is complete. We also believe that this mandatory requirement of frontage on a public road should not be ignored because the city caused some kind of hardship by vacating that part of Hampton Lane which fronts the property in question. First, we note the language of Section 330 provides that all lots in a minor subdivision "must conform" to all four listed requirements. The ordinance simply provides no exception for variance from this mandatory requirement. In addition, we fail to see how the city has caused any kind of undue hardship to this particular landowner in that (1) he purchased the property in May of 1992, knowing fully that Hampton Road had been vacated, and (2) he is now the fee owner of one-half of the vacated portion of Hampton Lane - approximately two thousand square feet of valuable land for which he will undoubtedly be compensated. Because Section 330 provides that the four listed requirements must be met, we believe that council has no choice but to deny the requested subdivision and variance. The applicant has failed to meet its legal burden of proving the elements necessary for grantinq of a variance. Mound's Zoning Code ({23.506) provides that a variance can be granted to provide relief to a landowner where the zoning ordinance imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the landowner in the use of his land. We believe that the applicant will not suffer any undue hardship if a variance is denied. Consequently, we believe the variance request should be denied. The property in question already has 80 feet which borders directly on Inverness. It can readily be developed with access to Inverness, without the need for the variance being requested. This is what the applicant initially requested, and we believe that this can be done just as easily as the proposed variance request. Council is not being presented with a situation where a person who had no idea that there may be problems developing a property is being prohibited from developing that property because of a technicality in the zoning law. When the applicant purchased this property in May of 1992, he was well aware of the fact that Lot 8 was land-locked and that Lots 6 and 7 were very narrow lots with very steep slopes and drainage problems. We believe that the price he paid for these lots reflected these problems with the property. Any difficulties he has in developing these lots cannot be considered an undue hardship, in light of his advance understanding of the problems with these lots. The applicant also has another option available to him which we believe will protect his investment while minimizing the damages to adjoining landowners. That option is to place one house on the property, with its driveway coming down on Inverness. We recognize that the applicant may not be able to maximize his profit by developing his property this way. However, many of the houses in this neighborhood are built on double, or even triple lots. There is little doubt that the applicant could realize a profit by building one larger house on a 80 foot wide lot. We recognize that the applicant may be able to realize a larger profit by putting two houses onto two lots. However, we believe that council should not grant a variance merely to allow a developer to maximize his profits when the property can be easily developed, without a variance, in a manner which will still allow the developer to realize a profit. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully contend that council should deny the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and variance. If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact the undersigned. We thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, mp/bms encl. cc: Councilwoman Andrea Ahrens Councilwoman Elizabeth Jensen Councilwoman Phyllis Jessen Councilman Ken Smith Mr. Ted Breckheimer Mound City Code Section 330:20 Minor Subdivision 1. Sketch plan 2. Final subdivision plat B. Major Subdivision 1. Sketch plan 2. Preliminary plat 3. Final Subdivision plat Section 330:20 Classification o~f Subdivisions. Any division of land that is subject to these regulations shall be considered either a major subdivision or a minor subdivision. The classification shall be determined under the following criteria: ~Minor Subdivisions. The following shall be considered minor subd[-gisio~? Residential. Any subdivision of land creating not more than three residential lots. Such lots must conform to all of the follovimg: 1. Have frontage on an existing public road. Not require the construction of any new public facilities or public improvements. 3. There will be no adverse effect on remaining or adjoining property. There is no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance or Official Map. Be Hinor Boundary Adjustments. The relocation of the boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing the creation of a new parcel or .parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance. Subd. 2. Major Subdivision. Any division of land regulated by this ordinance shall be considered a major subdivision unless specifically defined as a minor subdivision in Subd. 1. Section 330:25. Pre-application Procedural Requirements. Prior to the preparation of a preliminary plan, the subdividers or owners shall meet with the Building Official and/or Planning Staff in order to be made fully aware of all applicable ordinances, rllulations and plans in the area to be subdivided. At this time, or at subsequent informal meetings, the subdivider shall submit a general sketch plan of the proposed subdivision and drainage plan. The sketch plan can be presented in a simple form but shall show any zoning changes which would be required and shall sho that consideration has been given to the relationship of the proposed subdivision to existing community facilities that would serve it. to neighboring subdivisions and developments and to the topography of the site. If need be, the subdivider shall 12, 1992 To the planning commission, In regards to case no- #92-041 Paul Larson My husband and I live in lots 4 & 5, we have lived here for ? years and in that time we have invested over $10,000. dollars in improving our lots. We have had a bull dozer out, we have built a garage and just recently we have built a double keystone retaining wall. Paul Larsons lots are perfectly buildable for two houses on inverness, both houses can face the street and both can have easy excess to the street. The only problem Paul Larson has with this is that he can't build as BIG of a house as he might like. That is a very greedy reason to subdivide a lot that is perfectly buildable the way it is now. Two houses on inverness is not going to cause the drainage problems that this other plan will for all surrounding propertys. Please keep in mind also WHO we are working with, the contracter for this lot has a reputation for leaving jobs % done. Jon the building inspecter knows this better than anybody. Jon told my husband and I that he would not grant another building permit to this builder, so thats why he has to hide behind Paul Larson. This man used our electricity for 4 months building the house on the other side of us he said he would pay our bills, he only paid one bill. He also said he would replace our grass after tearing up our front yard, he ran off and left us with the damage. So yes the plans of a house in lot 8 might look good on paper, but we from experience, it won't work. If this plan goes thru I hope you are willing to replace a $3500. Keystone wail we just put in. Tammy Bye Page 2 In the beginning Paul must have planned on building on lots 6 & ? because called all the neighbors trying to sell lot 8 to us, but he wanted to much money for it. Has anybody thought of the mud slide that our property will receive from the building of that house on lot 8? Every time it rains we will get a mud slide down our back yard. It would be in the best interest for all if the houses to be built would face the street, and the lots would all be conforming to the city code. We believe this can be done with out any type of variance and would not necessatate the exotic water drainaga system as proposed. I think it would be better to put one house in lot 6 and one in lot 7 and let each lot take care of the water that flows on it's own lot, rather thar to create a potential drainage problem as proposed with lot 8 draining thr~ lot 6 & ?. Also we would like to see the water departments report on capacity for the storm sewer on the corner of Tuxedo and Streling because during every heavy rain the water backs up and gets deep enough to come in your car door. Larson only cares about how much money can be made off this property, he dosen't care about how many problems he may cause to surrounding propertys. Why should the city of mound keep letting this kind of variance go thru, when the lot is perfectly buildable the way it is. I don't think the city of Mound should be concerned with lining Larsons pocket just a little bit fatter. David & Tammy Bye 3021 Inverness Ln Mound, Mn 55364 Lots 4 & 5 AC HAMPTON BLOCK 10 ~11-2 O0 -ONINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to create two buildable parcels. One of the parcels requires a variance due to inadequate frontage on a public street. The City Engineer had prepared some comments in a separate report. The case was reviewed by the City Planner, Street Superintendent and the Sewer & Water Superintendent on site with the City Engineer. At the Planning Commission meeting there were many comments made by various neighbors and are in the Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 1992. Those comments were 155 August 11, 1992 mainly about drainage concerns. The Building Official then showed an overhead with the drainage pattern for the sites. The initial proposal that was submitted by the applicant was rejected by Staff and then the applicant revised his proposal and that was what was given to the Planning Commission. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval with a following additional condition: "6. Develop in accordance with drainage plan as proposed." This condition was added because of the concerns of the neighbors. The Council reviewed the drainage plan. They then discussed requiring drainage easements along the lot lines. The City Engineer stated that would be possible. Mark Gronberg, engineer for Paul Larson, stated they would have no problem allowing some drainage and utility easements on the lots. Mr. Gronberg explained that swales would be installed on the lots and this would slow the water down. The Council discussed the storm water ponding area on Parcel A. They then discussed the original plan which the applicant could have obtained two building permits for without having to apply for a variance. They would have both fronted on Inverness. The plan that is being proposed now, the Staff felt was the best configuration that could be achieved in working with the applicant and his engineer. The Building Official explained that originally there were 3 parcels and this subdivision would change it to 2 parcels of more than adequate size. The Council asked that all drainage easements be obtained for these parcels. The Council discussed the proposed driveway that will serve Parcel B off of Hampton Road. The Engineer stated that this has been reviewed and he and the Street Superintendent feel this will work. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-102 RESOLUTION TOXPPROVEA MINOR SUBDIVISION XND VARIANCE FOR INADEQUATE STREET FRONTXGE FOR LOTS Ss 7, 8 & NORTH 1/2 OF VXCXTEDHAMPTON ROADs BLOCK 10s PEMBROKEs PID ~19-117-23 33 0093s 0094 & 0095s P & CASE ~92-041 Councilmember Jensen stated she has a problem with Subd. 5 of the proposed resolution relating to the position that the house on parcel B will be facing. The house will be facing Lot 9 instead of 156 August 11, 1992 facing Hampton. The Engineer explained that because of the grades the current position makes sense. Bob Nichols and Mr. Patterson, attorneys for Mr. Breckheimer, asked to be recognized. They questioned whether this is a legal subdivision under Mound City Code, Section 330.20, subd. 1., which requires that all lots must have frontage on an existing public road. His contention is that there is no existing public road for Parcel B. They are also questioning the hardship for this variance. The Building Official stated that according to the City Planner's report, "proposed parcel B has 23.7 feet of frontage resulting in a variance of 16.3 feet". The Planner also addressed the practical difficulty in providing access to the property and has stated that therefore the variance is justified. The City Attorney stated that there is a right-of-way there, whether it is improved or not does not make a difference. The hardship, that was explained by the Planner and the Engineer, was that they have changed the recommended division which met all the city standards and they did it because of drainage and several other factors. So actually the property owner is creating the lots and the configuration that they are because the Planner, the Engineer and the Building Official determined that it was a hardship if they had let it go the original way becaus? of drainage and other problems that would have existed thus solving a problem rather than creating one. The following persons spoke against the proposed minor subdivision because of drainage, house being built on the Breckheimer sideyard that faces directly into his house, private driveway running along the side of the Breckheimer property or other problems: David Bye, Linda Mitchell, Brenda & Ted Breckheimer, and Tom Bullock. Mr. Patterson suggested that the 3 lots be developed into one building site. The Council discussed the 3 lots of which 2 are buildable. The Building Official pointed out that if this is subdivided as proposed Parcel B would have 9,501 square feet and Parcel A has 8,727 square feet which is substantially more than the required 6,000 square feet. The Building Official reminded the Council of the Voss case which was similar to this case as far of allowing a driveway on a public right-of-way. The City Attorney pointed out that the City has to allow reasonable use of the property by the property owner. Councilmember Smith and Mayor Johnson withdrew the motion for 157 approval of the resolution. August 11, 1992 The Building Official pointed out that the applicant could get building permits for the 2 houses on Inverness at this point without a variance and without a subdivision. The staff spent considerable time looking at that plan and rejected it, so a new plan was developed which is the one presented tonight. The City Attorney suggested that the Council direct staff to prepare a staff report for the next meeting showing the 2 plans, the advantages and the disadvantages of the 2 plans, and the ramifications of them. If this proposed plan is to be adopted, then the Council needs to specifically address the question of hardship, these should also be in the report. The Mayor asked the staff to look at if there is precedent to issue two building permits, as it sits right now. The other thing that needs to be done is to look at the drainage if the lots were developed as they currently are (this would include looking at the size of the building envelope this would create), keeping in mind limiting to 30% hardcover. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to table this item and bring it back in two weeks to look at the other plan and have the staff report on the above. Paul Larson, the owner of the subject property, stated that he has already delayed his project to redesign it to meet the staff's requirements and by tabling this the Council is denying him reasonable use of his property. The house that is proposed to be built there is sold and the new owner is waiting for construction to begin. He stated he has done the engineering, had the meetings with the staff, the property works the way it is proposed. There is no reason to table at this time. This is the best use of the property. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney suggested that the people put some of their thoughts in writing and convey them to the staff. 1.7 gASE ~92-045~ ERNEST & JILL WALTERS, 2348 FAIRVIEW LANE, LOT ~7 & NIy 30' OF 26, BLOCK 4. L. ~, ~REVIER SUBD, LOT 36 L~FAYETTE PARK, PID t13-117-24 45 0142, VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: 158 ~1 MAYWOOD ~~/~ MOUND, MINNESOTA Received of RECEIPT Date 36 27 NO. Fund Object Dept. Amount Description Received By PAUL W. LARSON -:-:-:-~ :: :-: ....................... -:-_-. 10 SHORELINE PLACE 471-9122 . - .................. Fir. t National Ba~k of t~;Lakel/ -' DOLLARS 70~ Second A ye. $. Minneapolis, MN 55402 3100 Hennepin Ave. M/nneapol/s, MN 55408 2445 Shadywood Road Navarre, MN 55392 RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION ~ VARIANCE FOR INADEQUATE STREET FRONTAGE FOR LOTS 6, 7, 8, & NORTH 1/2 OF VACATED H~,~PTON RO~M), BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID 19-117-23 33 0093, 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 the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the 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 I 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. 0 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. Proposed Resolution Case #92-041 Se 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 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. de 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. ee 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 Resolution ease #92-041 This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. tL LARSON HOMES MINNETONKA. INC. H~NNEPI# COUNTY, MINNESOTA --~ : Pro~l~ elevation KCE~O MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1992 CASE #92-041~ PAUL LARSONf XXXX INVERNESS LANE & XXXX HAMPTO~ ROAD. LOTS 6,7.8 & N 1/2 OF VAC. HAMPTON, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKBt P~l; #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: 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. Pl&nnin9 ~ommisston M£nute8 July 27, 1992 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. 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. 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. 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 Co~lssion ~lnutes 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. Ail 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. Plannin9 Conission Minutes July 2?, 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 $ - 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. Holsington 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 Use / 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 Plan ners 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 #100q6 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the plans for the above mentioned minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: Grading and Drainage 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. ~ ~ 3(~) An Equal Oppodunity Employer Mr. Son §utherland 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. 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 $500.00 be required to offset any direct outside City expenses as required by Mound City Code Section 330:145, Subdivision 2. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmk LARSON HOMES MINNETONK~ INC. CERTIFICATE OF SUR~IEY FOR LAR~ON HOME~ MINNETONK~ INC.. IN LOTS 6,7,~. BLOCK 10. PEMBROKE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MIHHE$OT& 6,7,8, Block tO an~ [hat par~ o~ vacated Road which [les Hor~h o[ the cente~l[ne PROPOSED LEGAD DESCRII~TIONS A. Those parts of Lots & and 7, B[ock 10, Peebroke, which lie nocth of a was Ic,q~ mi Ir~ me or uncle e~, dinct ~ EXHIBIT 'A' t. ARSON HOMES MINNETONKA. INC. [ ,.~ ~'".. ~,~ '"', ,, ....,,'., ~~..'.".'-.., . . :: I", / ¢ " , B. ~o., ~ -'. ~: .~ ~ '~ ',....""""'~ ' ,,. !,.,£ .:. ,,,. ,., ,.; ,, l't,~ ,; .. , ,, , ..... , / ~, '~'~,'!~ ' . t~, r '~ : ~ ' ;J / I ~V*. I ', / ,~. . / ~ ,,1~*',,~ .' .,~b" Jr'N~ .~/r i i z ~ ~[ ~J' ~', ', , ,,?, ...... ,',,,~,-,' ,, · : i , _~, ,,,,,, . · , i! [ I "~' ~---'~'xx'~--'' ~r hrt '~.1 ~/.[~..:,'~... ~ ~ ~:L~Z.~I. , X,' ,/'~ ~ .~, / / ,,,., ,,L..r.,, . , .., ,/' _,_._.~,Z~~,:J',.~,D' ,'._Z' ~..,,Y_~:.~I /ri / ~--- ,.. "~ ° ',.t,p~"~~'",.~, ' ~'~.,/~,~.C;"'" I "~~~'- .'~'1.,I '! . / '.~.~ · .,,,,~ .. -.~,, ~ ,, -,,"'-:'~'-, ?"" ,,?, '~-,~, · ~/ -'-,...~ ......... , ,.. / / ,'., ......... ~: ~. Z ,~-.., .......... ~ ............... ,-.,.,...,~ ....... ,.-.'-,.,-.-' ,-,:,' ................ '"" RECEIVED AU6 6 1992 05 !6-.'92 13:59 FAX 612 472 0620 CITY OF )IOUND [~3004 RECEIVED J U N 2 5 1992 Application for ' .... ' MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound · 1 Maywood Road, Mound; MN 5 5 3 6 4 ! /- . Phone: ·72-0600, Fax~ 4?2-0620 UOUND PLANNING & INSP. Planning commission Date:~ City Council Dat.'._~~~~ 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? i~0 Please type or print the following information~ Address Of Subject Property ~// ~7~ icant's N~e (if other than owner) N~e of Surveyor: ~W~ ~ ~f~6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 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 sig~ed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case, Signature of Owner Date ~ignature of Owner Date CITY OF HOUND 5341 Haywood Road Hound, HN 55364 472- I 155 Fee Case No. $50.00 Address of Subject Property, Owner' s Name ?//6//- L/~u~/~ Owner's Address VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the Following information.) Day Phone ~/~--O¢/~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Lot Add i t i on Existing Use of Property: Day Phone 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 previous 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 VARIANCE APPLICATION Page 2 Case No. Reason For request 5'~/~7- ~/~A/7~6~- V~IJ~/~¢~ ~/EC~J'/~/~7 ..~ Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations For the zoning district.-in which it is located? Yes (~, No ( ). if no, spec iFy each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations For the zoning dtstrtct in which It is located? Yes ( ), No ( ). IF no, specify each non-conforming use: e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow (~) topography ( I too small IXl drainage ( too shal low shape ( soil sub-surface other: specify Se Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interes2s in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ), No (~/~). IF yes, explain 0 Was the hardship created b~ any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ), No (~). IF yes, explaln Are the conditions of hardship For which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in thts petition? Yes ( ), No ( ). IF no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? V~M 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. 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. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR LOT 3 AND THE SOUTH $0' OF LOT 2, KOHMAN'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PID #13-117-24 43 0042 & 0043, $096 & 5098 SHORELINE DRIVE. P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-042 WHEREAS, Vern Christiansen has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 26.1' side yard setback to Chateau Lane resulting in a 3.9' variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-3 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 12,000 square feet, 30 foot front yard setbacks to both Shoreline and Chateau, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The existing impervious surface, including the duplex with two single tuckunder garages, driveways and a 10' x 16' shed equates to 34% of the total lot area; upon completion of the new garage and additional driveway, the total mount of impervious cover will rise to 41%, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing a 26.1' nonconforming side yard setback to Chateau Lane to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, upon the condition that the two existing tax parcels be combined into one parcel. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 30' x 24' detached garage. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-042 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The 8outh 50' of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Kohman's Addition to Nound. PID #~3-X~7-24 43 0042 & 0043. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Henri·pin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. ~I~UT~$ OF A MEETIN~ OF ?~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST lO, 1992 CASE ;92-042: VERNON CHRISTIANSENm 5096 & 5098 SHORELINE DRIVE f LOT 3 & S:50v OF LOT 2~ KOHNAN'8 ADDITION TO MOUNDf PID ~13-117-24 43 0042 & 0043. VARIANCE (new detached qaraqe). Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's Report. The applicant is proposing to construct a conforming detached garage and is seeking recognition of an existing nonconforming 26.1' side yard setback to the duplex which is 3.9' short of the required 30' setback. The existing impervious surface, including the existing duplex with tuckunder garages, driveways and a 10' x 16' storage building, equates to 34% of the total lot area. Upon completion of the new garage and the additional driveway, the total amount of impervious cover will rise to 41%. Upon adoption of the proposed zoning code provisions, all structures exceeding 30% of the lot area will be come nonconforming. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission feels that the amount of impervious cover is acceptable, a variance could be granted. If the amount of impervious lot coverage is deemed to be too high, consideration could be given to either reducing the size of the garage or denying the variance. The Commission's decision on this matter may set a precedent for future cases that occur until the zoning code modifications and shoreland ordinance are adopted. If the Planning Commission approves a motion granting a variance for the construction of the proposed detached garage (regardless of size), the motion should include the condition that the two existing tax parcels be combined into one parcel. The commission pondered the idea of removing the shed. It was determined that removal of the shed would only reduce the amount of impervious surface by about 1%. Meyer questioned if the proposed zoning code modifications require the same percentage of lot coverage for two family homes in the R-3 zone. Meyer commented that the garage will help eliminate exterior storage. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance upon tho condition that the two existing tax parcels be combined into one parcel. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on August 25, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 29, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Vernon Christiansen CASE NUMBER: 92-042 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30w LOCATION: 5098 and 5096 Shoreline Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential B A C K G R O U N D: The applicant is seeking recognition of an existing nonconforming side yard setback for a duplex located at the corner of Shoreline Boulevard and Chateau Lane. The structure has an existing setback of 26.1 feet off of Chateau Lane which is 3.9 feet short of the required 30 foot setback. The variance is being requested in order to construct a new detached garage on the property. The garage will be located on the north side of the existing home on a lot that is currently a separate tax parcel. Construction of the detached garage cannot occur under the Zoning Code until the two parcels are combined. The location of the garage will conform to all setback requirements. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Chrlstiansen Variance Suly 29, 1992 Page 2 COMMENT: Variances require a finding of either practical difficulty or hardship. The existing home was constructed in 1959, prior to the enactment of the current Zoning Code. Therefore, the only way to bring the structure into conformance would be to move the home 3.9 feet to the east. Since this approach is unrealistic, a practical difficulty situation exists. The proposed garage will meet all required setbacks. Correspondingly the location of the garage is not an issue. The size of the garage, however, does need to be considered by the Planning Commission due to the amount of impervious surfacing on the lot. The lot presently contains the existing duplex units which include tuck- under garages, driveways and a storage building measuring approximately 10' x 16'. These elements, combined, result in an existing impervious surface total that equates to 34% of the total lot area. Upon completion of the new garage and the additional driveway, the total amount of impervious cover will rise to 41%. Mound has drafted an update to the Zoning Code which limits the total amount of impervious cover on any particular lot to 30%. This amount will also be reflected in the upcoming shoreland management ordinance. State rules call for a maximum of 25% of impervious cover on any lot within the shoreland district. At the present time, a strict limitation on the amount of impervious cover on any lot is not part of the Zoning Code. Upon adoption of the proposed provisions, however, all 'structures exceeding 30% will become nonconforming. If the duplex on the subject lot had conforming setbacks, a building permit could be issued for the construction of the proposed detached garage. Since it requires a variance, however, lot coverage can be considered as a factor in deliberations. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission feels that the amount of impervious cover is acceptable, a variance could be granted. If the amount of impervious lot coverage is deemed to be too high, consideration could be given to either reducing the size of the garage or denying the variance. The Commission's decision on this matter may set a precedent for future cases that occur until the zoning code modifications and shoreland ordinance are adopted. If the Planning Commission approves a motion granting a variance for the construction of the proposed detached garage (regardless of size), the motion should include the condition that the two existing tax parcels be combined into one parcel. =ev£aed 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLIg~ATION CITY OP MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~N 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 JUL I 5 1992 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: 8-1o-qz Application Fee: $50.00V/ Case No. ~~~ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property~--O~ Owner's Name//~ r/~O;u; Owner's Address ~O~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address LEGAL DESCRIPTION: .s' Day Phone Block PID ,o.13:/17-o)'./¥& Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): rev£sed 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? ~Y_e_s_(_); No ~. If ,o! specify each non-conforming use (describe ~reason zor variance reque~st, i.e. se, tback, lo~t area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W,~) Side Yard: ( N S E~) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~----~'~/---- ft. -' 0 ~, / ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) 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 rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: , 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. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT LOT 8, BLOCK 1, LINDEN HEIGHTS, PID #13-117-24 13 0037 (5053 WREN ROAD) P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-043 WHEREAS, Dan Sinner has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 5.4' side yard setback resulting in a .6' variance to allow construction of a conforming garage addition, and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 50 foot lakeshore setback, and; WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The lot presently contains 38% of impervious surface to the total lot area, and upon completion of the new garage and additional driveway, the total amount of impervious cover will rise to 45%, and; WHEREAS, adjacent to the subject property is an unbuildable parcel owned by the City of Mound which accounts for approximately 7,000 square feet of open space, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval upon the finding that they recognize the unbuildable open space adjacent to the subject property which benefits the lack of open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 5.4' side yard setback to allow construction of a conforming addition. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-043 Se e It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 13' x 19.1' garage addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 8, Block ~, Linden Heights. PID #~3-~7-24 ~3 0037. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTEB OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISoRy PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST ~0# ~992 CASB ~92-043~ ~3 WREN ROAD LOT 8 BLOCK I LINDEN EIGHT8 PID 13-117-24 13 0037. VARIANCE ara e addition . Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner,s Report. The applicant is proposing to construct a conforming addition consisting of a third garage stall, and is seeking recognition of an existing nonconforming 5.4' side yard setback, .6' short of the required 6' setback. The lot presently contains 38% of impervious surface to the total lot area. Upon completion of the new garage and additional driveway, the total mount of impervious cover will rise to 45%. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission feels the amount of impervious ~over is acceptable, a variance could be granted. the amount of Impervious lot coverage is deemed to be too high, If the variance should be denied. The Commission,s decision on this matter may set a precedent for future cases that occur until the zoning code modifications and shoreland ordinance are adopted. The Building Official noted that the subject property is adjacent to an unbuildable parcel owned by the City of Mound which is approximately 7,000 square feet which provides for open space. The commission discussed with the applicant the possibility of purchasing a portion of the adjoining property owned by the City of Mound. The applicant commented that he is willing to purchase a portion of the parcel to make his lot conforming. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of tho variance. The Planning Commission recognizes the unbuildable open space adjacent to the subject property. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on August 25, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 29, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Dan Sinner CASE NUMBER: 92-043 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30x LOCATION: 5053 Wren Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential B A C K G R O U N D: The applicant is seeking recognition of an existing nonconforming side yard setback in order to construct a conforming, attached, third garage stall. The existing home has a 5.4 foot side yard setback which is .6 feet short of the required 6 foot setback. COMMENT: Variances require a finding of either practical difficulty or hardship. The existing home was constructed in 1979, prior to the enactment of the current Zoning Code. Therefore, the only way to bring the structure into conformance would be to remove .6 feet from the eastern side of the home. Since this approach is unrealistic, a practical difficulty situation exists. The proposed garage will meet all required setbacks. Correspondingly the location of the garage is not an issue. The need for the garage, particularly in light of the fact that the property currently has a two-car garage, Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 Sinner Variance July 29, 1992 Page 2 however, should be considered by the Planning Commission due to the amount of impervious surfacing on the lot. The lot presently contains the existing home and driveway. These elements, combined, result in an existing impervious surface total that equates to 38% of the total lot area. Upon completion of the new garage and the additional driveway, the total amount of impervious cover will rise to 45%. Mound has drafted an update to the Zoning Code which limits the total amount of impervious cover on any particular lot to 30%. This amount will also be reflected in the upcoming shoreland management ordinance. State rules call for a maximum of 25% of impervious cover on any lot within the shoreland district. At the present time, a strict limitation on the amount of impervious cover on any lot is not part of the Zoning Code. Upon adoption of the proposed provisions, however, all structures exceeding 30% will become nonconforming. If the home on the subject lot had conforming setbacks, a building permit could be issued for the construction of the proposed garage. Since it requires a variance, however, lot coverage can be considered as a factor in deliberations. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission feels that the amount of impervious cover is acceptable, a variance could be granted. If the amount of impervious lot coverage is deemed to be too high, the variance should be denied. The Commission's decision on this matter may set a precedent for future cases that occur until the zoning code modifications and shoreland ordinance are adopted. =ev£sed 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPIJCATION CITY OF I~OUND 5341 ~faywood Road, ~found, MN 5536~ Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:~ City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee:~ Case No.-__~_~~__ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please t~pe or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~""-0__~__~ ~,"-~. Owner' s Name 0~v%' c_~_?'i~ ~ Day Phone Owner's Address .~-O~q U~ ~r~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~ Block / zOning District-'; ~P~,~_..~ ~se of Property: HO~' Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): la' l i, I: revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, 10t area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: (~S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N~E W ) Lake Front: ( N~E W ) Side Yard: ( N S~W.~) Side Yard: ( N S E~J) required ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. requested (or existing) VARIANCE ~Z-O ft. ft. ft. ft. ~O~- ft. ft. ~ ,~ ft. ft. C~- ft. O~&-- ft. Lot Size: sq ft ,~2_~ sq ft Sq ft Street Frontage ft. ~-0 ft. ft. 3. Does the present use of the property confor 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 in t~e land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~'. If yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 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 ]~o, list some other properties which are similarly affected? ;~pplicant' s Stgnat:ure 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. ~ ~ Ce. rtiFi~t~ of ~urvey [or I)~ILJ¢:I L. Sinner of Lot R, BJn~:k I, LLnden l!eiohts [lennep[n C(')unty, M[nnen(;ta Existino Leoal Description [Jot ~, Block 1, Linden }{eigbts. This survey shows the location 0£ ail ~xistiuq hui]dinos ~ and a proposed aarage in relation to the abov~ described ~. property. It does not nu~port to show an}, other improve- ;'meats or encroachments. · : Iron marker found o,~ : Iron marker set ,~t~l-~) : Existing elevation .'~ Datum: Mean Sea Level ~ Bea.rings shown are to an ass~m~cd d~tum. ~~~,~ ...... ~r~ vision. ~dth~tlm~adui),re~i~tvr~EivilEn~,inevr ant l.~n~ Surveyor under ~ ........ ~z ~ b PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ~ VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT LOTS 11 TO 16, BLOCK 9, MOUND BAY PARK, PID #23-117-24 14 0027, 5656 BARTLETT BLVD. PaS CASE NUMBER 92-044 WHEREAS, Jeffrey Ritenour has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming 11.5' front yard setback resulting in an 18.5' setback variance to allow construction of a conforming deck, and; WHEREAS, A variance was approved by the City Council on March 26, 1991, Resolution #91-43 to allow improvements to the subject dwelling and all conditions have been adhered to, 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, 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, All other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing an existing nonconforming 11.5' front yard setback to allow construction of a conforming deck. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 12' x 10' deck at the rear of the house. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-044 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots Lb to ~6, Block 9, Mound Bay Park. ~4 0027. PID #25-~7-24 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. e The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. HINUTES OF A HEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 1992 CASE ~92-044~. JEFFREY RITENOUR, 5656 BARTLETT BLVD., LOTS 11 - 16, BLOCK 9, MOUND BAY PARK, PID ~23-117-24 14 0027. VARIANCE (deck). Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a conforming 10' x 12' deck. The required variance results from the existing 11.5' front yard setback which is 18.5' short of the required 30' setback. Including the proposed deck, impervious lot coverage will be 11%. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance for the new deck is consistent with past action by the City of Mound. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the recognition of the front yard variance for the purpose of constructing the proposed deck. The applicant was not present. The Commission wished to commend the owners on the improvements made to the property. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council will review this request on August 25, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 29, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Jeffrey Ritenour CASE NUMBER: 92-044 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30y LOCATION: 5656 Bartlett Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential B A C KG R O UND: The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a conforming deck that measures 10' x 12'. The required variance results from the existing 11.5 foot front yard setback which is 18.5 feet short of the required 30 foot setback. This property received a variance for remodeling in .1991. Since that time, the floor elevation of the home has been raised and the house has been improved extensively. A garage, which was approved as part of the overall improvement project, will be constructed in the near future. COMMENT: The deck is logically viewed as a continuation of the improvement of this property. The proposed deck conforms to all setback provisions. Upon completion of all improvements, impervious lot coverage will be approximately 11%. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Ritenour Varlance July 29, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested variance for the new deck is consistent with past actions by the City of Mound. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the recognition of the front yard variance for the purpose of constructing the proposed deck. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CX?Y OP NOUND 534~ Nal~aood Road, Nound, ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: $-Z5 Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~ Owner's Address Applicant's Name Address Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: - Copy to City Engineer: eeel®eeeeeeeeee'eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Please t2pe or p~int ~he ~ollowing in~o~mation: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name l~q~ ~(~UO~{C- Day Phone l (ie other than owner) Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots Addition Zoning District Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional permit,, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~) yes, ( ) no. ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resol(~tion number(s) provide copies of resolutions. use If and 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration of stories, type of use, etc.): (size, number Variance Application ~e 2 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: (N_~E W ) Rear Yard: (~)S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E~)) Side Yard: ~ N S~.W}~ Lot Size: l ,9~ ~ Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ( ft. ft. ft. ~-- ft. ft. ft. -~ ft. ft. ft. a/O-~ ft. ft. ft. ~-- ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. '"~ ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil (~<) existing ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~). If yes, explain rev£sed 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 ~.Q~0~ 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date GOLDEN V~LL ; ?-20-92 5:02PM ; 6125411347e 4?2:3~14;# 1 ~ ,~ 6 LCI:~,ZR 2 ~ 4 DLOi;KIH6 2 ~r 6 I~HO JOI CO~¢RCTC FOOT e 16, o,c, 2 ~ $ Rlrl JOI6T I I0'-0" x' 12'-0" I'RAMII'IG, PLAM ~ENT BV:MEND,~D$ {304..DEN UI:W_L ~ ?-20-92 5:03PM ; 612541-13474 4?2 3814~# 2 ~ 4 X4 POST J . ,--'"'" ~/4"X 8 RAIL CAP /-- I x :{ PICKETS ~ 8 ON CEN?ER, MAX iI ..... ~ ' · 1. I X I I?A,4 1'hEADS -~:,.. I" ~'FAIRCAS! ANGLE MAN. SIDE STAIR ELEVATION DETAIT. (D3) ~ X ~ JOISTS {~ 18' O.C, BEAM BOLTING DETAIL (Gl) ~ ' PERSPECTIVE OF STAIRS DETAIL (E3:) ~ / 61 March 26, 1991 RESOLUTION #91-43 RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5656 B]tRTLETT BLVD., LOTS 11 TO 16, BLOCK 9, MOUND BAY PARK, PID #23-117-24 14 0027~ P & ~ CASE %91-005 WHEREAS, Jeffrey & Roxanne Ritenour have purchased property located at 5656 Bartlett Blvd. and said property needs substantial renovation and improvements; and WHEREAS, the structure is located 11 1/2 feet at its nearest point to Bartlett Blvd. and the ordinance requires a 30 foot setback in the front yard, but the side and rear yard set- backs meet code; and WHEREAS, Section 300:15, Subd. 9a. of the City Code prohibits construction lower than 933.5 MSL, 1929 datum, and this basement was constructed in approximately 1910 at 931.55 and is 1.9 feet below the required elevation; and WHEREAS, the requested variances have been reviewed by the Planning Commission who have recommended by a 5-2 vote that the variance not be granted because the basement elevation is too low to meet Section 300:15, Subd. 9 a. of the Code; and WHEREAS, the applicants have advised the City Council that they are willing to raise the basement floor to meet the minimum elevation if the variances are granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City. Council of the. City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The existing location of the house requires an 18.5 foot variance to the front yard setback from the street. Said variance is granted so the home can remain 11.5 feet from the street. The applicant is authorized to construct an attached garage as set forth on the survey marked "Revised 3/5/91". The applicant shall obtain all necessary building per- mits and may proceed based on their representation and conditioned upon their raising the finished floor of the basement to an elevation a minimum of not less than 933.5 MSL, 1929'datum. The applicant shall be subject to the following 7 con- ditions as set forth in the Building Official's report to the Planning Commission which are listed items 1-7 as follows: 62 March 26, 1991 The entire rim joist sill plate area be exposed for proper inspection and any areas found to be in poor condition be replaced with material approved by the current building code. The existing wall cavities be properly filled with approved insulation as best as can be reasonably accomplished. A heat loss calculation by a qualified mechanical contractor be submitted to verify the furnace in- stalled or to be installed, is properly sized. The central heating plant has been recently replaced; that the applicant verify a permit has been issued, or obtain the required permit. The furnace to be thoroughly inspected and checked for proper operation by a qualified mechanical con- tractor who will complete a house heating test record form as supplied by the building official· That all structural .modifications be properly designed and installed. That all other aspects of the building that are modified be brought into compliance with current code as required by the building official. Also suggested by staff, that the thickness and condition of existing concrete floor be checked, and if it was not sound, or 3-1/2 inches thick, it' would be removed and replaced and a draintile sys- tem, sump basket and pump be installed. De The applicant shall also redo the sewer and water con- nections to the new basement floor at his own expense. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the Sewer and Water Dept. as set forth in a memo from Greg Skin- ner to Jon Sutherland, dated 3/12/91. The applicant is authorized to raise the structure elevation to make the basement useable. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. 63 March 26, 1991 The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk g~77 00~ ooo/ NO. 560 /3, CONDOMINIUM 646176 Certificateof Survey for RobertU. Commerford Jn Lots 3 and 4, Block 22, Shadywood Point Hennepin County, Minnesota / RECEIVED AUG 2 4 1992 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Existing Legal Description Lot 3 and the Northerly 5.2 feet of the Westerly 53 feet of Lot 4, Block 22, Shadywood Point. This survey shows the location of the boundaries of the above described property and the location of a proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other im- provements or encroachments. m : Iron marker found [~.~--~s~-_: Existing elevation Zo~X,e~=~oo~t~.~ /~~: Proposed elevation PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT LOT 3 AND THE NORTHERLY 5.Z FEET OF THE WESTERLY 53 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 22, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0130 1580 HERON LANE, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-046 WHEREAS, Robert Wold has applied for setback and street frontage variances to allow construction of a new dwelling on a vacant lot, as follows: Proposed Required Variance Front Yard ,~w~, 20' 1~' ;9 Rear Yard ~w~0' 15' ~ ~' Lot Depth 53' 80' 27' Street Frontage 13' 40' 27' WHEREAS, The proposed dwelling results in the following lot coverage figures including the driveway: 1) 2) 3) 43% with the deck @ 100% impermeable surface. 41% with the deck at 50% of impermeable surface. 39% when the deck is excluded. WHEREAS, The positioning of the proposed dwelling on the lot will allow a 24" maple tree to remain, and takes into consideration that the house on adjacent lot 2 is only 3 feet from the property line, and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks for, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, Adjacent to this parcel is park property known as Pebble Beach Commons and also a 40' wide unimproved Heron Lane that constitutes substantial green space, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does , hereby approve a ~.' front yard setback variance, a f~rear yard setback variance, a 27' lot depth variance, and a 27' street frontage variance to allow construction of a new dwelling upon the following conditions: PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-046 ae Tree removal including trimming on commons property is expressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the City of Mound. B. Construction of any physical improvements on commons property is expressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the City of Mound. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a new single family dwelling with an attached garage and a deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 3 and the Northerly 5.2 feet of the Westerly 53 feet of Lot 4, Block 22, Shad~wood Point. PID #X3-Xl?-24 11 0130. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINU?E8 OF A MEE?IN~ ON THE aO~qD A~VZSoRy PLAh~ZNQ CO~ZSSZON AUGUST 10, 1992 CASS ~92-046~ ~OBERT WOLDf 1580 HERON LANE, LOT 3 & P/LOT 4, BLOCK 22e 8HADYWOOD pOIlq~f PIP ~3-117-24 11 0~30, VARIANCB construction). The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a new home on a vacant lot. The lot was created in a subdivision approved by the City of Mound in 1981. This case was heard at the June 8, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to table the request to allow the original applicant time to discuss an alternate plan which would require less hardcover. The new application results in the following variance requests: Proposed Reauired Variance Front Yard 4' 20' 16' Rear Yard 9' 15' 6' Lot Depth 53' 80' 27' Street Frontage 13' 40' 27' The proposed dwelling results in the following lot coverage figures including the driveway:. 1) 3) 43% with the deck @ 100% impermeable surface. 41% with the deck at 50% of impermeable surface. 39% when the deck is excluded. The maximum lot coverage being considered by the Planning Commission at this point is 30%. Staff's position is that reasonable use of the property can be obtained with lot covered somewhere between 30% and 40% due to the fact that this property abuts substantial green space on two sides. In addition, the Planning Commission, within the scope of the Zoning Code modifications, has discussed the possibility of reducing the setback to the right-of-way and considering it a side yard. The Commission reviewed the proposed setbacks versus the required. Dan Hessberg, representative for the applicant, commented on the reasons for proposed location of the structure stating that this location will save a 24' maple tree, and take into consideration that the house on adjacent lot 2 is only 3 feet from the property line. The commission questioned the accuracy of City Planner's calculations relating to hardcover, and they compared the size of the new proposed dwelling verses the original proposal. Clapsaddle commented that the revised location is an improvement from the original request. MOTION made by Clapsaddl®, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including tho following conditions: Tree removal including trimming on commons property is expressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the City of Mound. 20 Construction of any physical improvements on commons property is e~pressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the City of Mound. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council will review this request on August 25, 1992. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534' MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 ':687 6~2~ 472 '~55 ~-~X 0'2 472 062f DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND August 10, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Robert Wold 92-046 1580 Heron Lane Lot 3 & Dart of Lot 4. Block 22 Shadywood Point PID #13-117-24 11 0130 ' R-2 Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a new home on a vacant lot. The lot was created in a subdivision approved by the City of Mound in 1981. This case was heard at the June 8, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to table the request to allow the original applicant time to discuss an alternate plan which would require less hardcover. ~ The new application results in the following variance requests: Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 4' 20' 16' Rear Yard 9' 15' 6' Lot Depth 53' 80' 27' Street Frontage 13' 40' 27' The proposed dwelling results in the following lot coverage figures including the driveway: 1) 43% with the deck @ 100% impermeable surface. 2) 41% with the deck at 50% of impermeable surface. 3) 39% when the deck is excluded. printed on recycled paper Staff Report - August 10, 1992 1580 Heron Lane Page 2 RECOMMENDATION The maximum lot coverage being considered by the Planning Commission at this point is 30%. Staff's position is that reasonable use of the property can be obtained with lot covered somewhere between 30% and 40% due to the fact that this property abuts substantial green space on two sides. In addition, the Planning Commission, within the scope of the Zoning Code modifications, has discussed the possibility of reducing the setback to the right-of-way and considering it a side yard. This case will be heard by the Planning Commission on August 10, 1992, and by the City Council on August 25, 1992. JS:pj revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OP MOUND 5341 Naywood Road, Nound, MN 55364 Phone= 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 CITY OF MOUND Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: 7_ I! Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. qO~""~ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeleeeeee/eseeeel®eeeee,eeeeeeeeeeeleeeeeeeeeee Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name~ Day Phone Owner's Address /~O ~-~/ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ~O~~ Address /O//~ ~~O~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block PIp No. 1~1t7-,,~¥-/I-0130 Zoning District Use of Property: ~'D~A~T/d~ /~6~,. S/A;6~ F~mlLy Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~no. If l~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): revised 4/2/92 Variance Application ~age 2 Case No. Do the existi~w~tructures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regul~6ns for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~}. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: requested (or existing) required ft. ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. .sq ft sq ft VARIANCE Street_ F_ronSage ~F-~ ft ~ ft.. ~ AOI" ~"~7-~ · ' ~ ft. 3. Does the present use of ~he property conform to all re~ations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? * ( ) too narrow ( ) too small (&-~too shallow Please describe: ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing (~.~shape ( ) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interest~ in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (~, No (). If yes, explain ~ev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any ~he~r~man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~,J-. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: 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. Certificate of Survey for RobertU. CommerforU in Lots 3 and 4, Block 22, Shadywood Point Hennepin County, Minnesota RECEIVED JUL 3 0 1~S2 Existing Legal Description Lot 3 and the f~ortherly 5.2 feet of the )~esterly UOUNDP~NNiNG&INSP. 53 feet of Lot 4, Block 22, Shadywood Point. This survey shows the location of the boundarxes of the above described property and the location of a proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other im- provements or encroachments. e : Iron marker fou~o ~.~,--~--: Existing elevation yo/~,r.. ~o~y~.~ ~,---{~D--: Proposed elevation ~Z MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June S, 1992 CASE ~92-027~ ROBERT COMMERFORD, 1580 HERON LANE, LOT 3 & PART OF 4, BLOCK 22m SHADYWOOD ~OINTm PID ~13-117-24 11 0130. VARIANC~ - new sinqle family dwellinq, The City Planner, Mark Ko.gl.r, reviewed the.applicant's request for a variance to construct a new home on a vacant lot. The lot .was created in a subdivision approved by the City of Mound in 1981. Placement of the new home, as proposed, results in the following variance requests: Front Yard (Heron) Rear Yard Lot Depth Street Frontage Proposed ~ Variance 15' 20' 5' 9.67' 15' 5.33' 53' 80' 27' i"~ ~ 27' 40' The footprint of the proposed structure, combined with the driveway and walkway to the front door results in a lot coverage of approximately 49%. Mound is currently considering a somewhat more lenient cover restriction of 30% which could be in place by December of 1992. In addition, construction of the proposed home will result in the virtual clear cutting of a number of mature trees. Regardless of the house plan, the City of Mound will need to grant variances to allow construction of a home on this lot. If the Commission feels that the proposed plan is consistent with the intent of shoreland rules and municipal ordinances, the requested variances should be approved. If the Commission finds that the proposed structure is inconsistent with the intent of shoreland rules and municipal ordinances, the request could be tabled to allow the applicant time to investigate other housing plans or the variances could b~ denied. If the Planning Commission approves the requested. Variances, the following conditions should be included in the motion. Tree removal including trimming on commons property is expressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the City of Mound. Construction of any physical improvements on commons property is expressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the City of Mound. Hanus and Voss both commented on the large footprint of the proposed dwelling and the amount of excessive hardcover proposed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus to table the request to allow time for the applicant to discuss an alternate plan which would require less hardcover. Motion carried unanimously. Certificate of Survey for RobertU. Commerford in Lots 3 and 4. Block 22, Shadywood Point Hennepin County, Minnesota RECEIVED JUt 2 ? ~ MOUND PLANNING & INSP. I oPOSRL / Existing Legal Description Lot 3 and the ~ortheriy 5.2 feet oF the Westerly 53 feet of Lot 4, Block 22. Shadywood Point. This survey shows the location of the boundaries of the above described property and the location of a proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other im- provements or encroachments. · : Iron marker found · ' ~-~/,~: Proposed elevateD ?'I CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 f612, ,:72.1155 FAX (612 472 DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND August 24, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~~ Variance Request Don Bonnicksen 92-050 2539 Emerald Drive Lots 6 & 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit B R-1 Single Family Residential This property has been the subject of several variance requests in the past as noted by the attached resolutions from 1988, 1989 and 1990. The nonconforming garage shown on the survey adjacent to Ruby Lane has been removed. The new request consists of adding a three season porch on top of the existing deck and does not further encroach on any of the required setbacks. The required front yard setback to Emerald Drive is 30' and the existing setback is 24.2' resulting in a 5.8' variance request to recognize the existing dwelling. COMMENTS The proposed porch would enhance the use of the property without any further encroachments. Lot coverage in this case is below the 30 percent presently being considered in the context of the zoning code modifications. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 24.2' to the required 30' to allow the construction of a conforming 10' x 12' three season porch at the rear of the dwelling. This case will be heard by the Planning Commission on August 24, 1992, and by the City Council on August 25, 1992. The abutting property owners have been notified. ~ ff q ~ ~ printed on recycled paper revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION C~TY OF MOUND 534! Ma~ood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: '~/~--~ City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 CaseNo. ~~ 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_ ~-~ ~/7~c[~_ ~f(~ Owner,s Name ~e%~bl~__~ Day Phone Owner's Address ~A% ~/~ef~ ~¢<~_ Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) O6CA ~o~m/~%e~ ss ~-~-C2> ~=%~cc~7~ff-- ~, Day Phone V SC I T ON: Lot ~W ~ Block Addition ~! ~. ~V-~[] ~b PID Zoning District ~- ~ Use of Property: %~a~ ~_ ~'C',' Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~ yes, ( ) no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No.~__ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setba~k/egulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (4, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, 10t area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N s~W ) ~ ft. ~.~_ ft. ~ ft. Rear Yard: ( N W ) ft. - ft. ft. Lake Front: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft ft. Lot Size: ' ft. Street Frontage sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it .is located? Yes ( ), No (~-~. If no, specify each non-conforming use ._. ~o~ -~ cD~ \-~& ~__ 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 (~J, No (). If yes, explain rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. e Was the hardship created by any ~.er man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No . If yes, explain 0 Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vari~ce 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 by law. Applicant's Signature,, RECEIVED NOV 15 1;90 Certl¢lcate of Survey for Bonnicksen Builders of Lots 6 and ?, Block 6, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B Hennepin Count.v, Minnesota I hereby cerLify that this the boundaries of Lots 6 and 7, Block 6, SHIRL[Y HII. LS UNIT B, and tl~e lucat~un of any existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to $1~ow any other Improve. merits or encroachments, S a true and correct Scale : 1" = 30' Date : 6-20-88 o : Iron marker COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg Lic. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors and Planner's Long Lake, Minnesota I _ [2 November 27, 1990 RESOLUTION #90-139 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION #88-179, WES OLSEN, 2539 EMERALD DRIVE WHEREAS, the current owner of the property, legally described as Lots 6 & 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit B, PI0 #24- 117-24 12 0041 & 0042, has requested an extension of Resolution #90-139 which was granted to the prior owner$ WHEREAS, the current owner is requesting the extension to allow construction of an addition onto the existing dwelling as approved In Resolution #90-139; WHEREAS, the prior owner, nor the current owner has c~- plated the variance requirements in Resolution #B8-179 For garage removal and did not File the variance as required by Mound Ordinancel WHEREAS, the current owner previously requested an extension of Resolution #88-179 Including an amendment that the garage be allowed to remain, however the request was denied per Resolution #89-1481 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the extension of Resolution #B8-179, upon the following conditions= This variance is granted For the Following legally described property= Lots 6 & 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit B, PID #24-117-24 12 0041 & 0042. The applicant sobmlt a cash bond tn the a~:>unt of $3,000 to Insure removal of the nonconforming garage· The conditions of the bond are subject to review by the City Attorney· Tax parcels 0040 (Lot 6) and 0041 (Lot 7) be combined. This Resolution shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute· The property owner shall have the responsibility of Filing this Resolution, and Resolution #88-179, with Hennepln County and paying all costs for such recording· Proof of Filing these documents must be sub- mitred to the Ctty Clerk· 241 November 27, 1990 The Foregoing resolution was moved by Councllmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The Following Councllmembers voted In. the affirmative: Ah- tens. Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The Following Councllmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Cie 284 November 28, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 89-148 RESOLUTION DENYING THE EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION %88-179, WES OLSEN, 2539 EMERALD DRIVE WHERBAS~ the current owner of property, legally described as Lot 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B"; PID t24-117- 24 12 0041 (2§39 Emerald Drive), has requested an extension of Resolution t88-179 which was granted to the prior owner; and WHEREAS, the prior owner did not complete the variance requirements in Resolutio~ #88-179, for garage removal and did not file the variance as required by Mound ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOhVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby deny the extension of Resolution t88-179. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Johnson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk ~ovem. ber 29, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88-179 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORHING STRUCTURE 'TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR LOT 7, BLOCK 6, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "B'; P.I.D. NO. 24'117-24-12 0041 (2S39 EKERALD DRIVE) P & ~ CASE NO. 88-736 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks of 24.2 feet to Emerald Drive and 21.9 feet to the unimproved 10' alley way for the prin- cipal building, a 4.3' setback for the accessory building and an under sized lot of 6,500 square feet +/- to allow structural repairs to a nonconforming 600 square foot dwelling on Lot 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B"; P.I.D. No. 24-117-24-12 0041; and . WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an Single Fa=ily Zoning district, which according to the. City Code requires a 30' front yard abuttiSg the street front, and a 20' stree= front setback for the accessory building, and a 10,000 square foot lot size, and a minimum 840 square foot dwelling floor area, and WHEREAS, Sect'ion 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful noncon- forming residential unit when the alteration will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the num- ber of units, and WHEREAS, the Planning CommissiOn has reviewed the request and does recommend approval with modifications to the ap- plication. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, the City of Mound, as follows: That the City does hereby authorize the existing non- conforming principal structure setback to the street frontage at 2539 Emerald Drive, P.I.D. No. 24-117-24-12 0041 with a 24.2' and a 21.9' setback to the street fronts for the principal building, a 4.3' setback to the street front for ~he accessory building, and a 600 square foot dwelling size. The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback and lot area violation and authorizes the addi- tion setforth below pursuant to Section 23.404, Sub division (8) with the clear and express understanding 1 327 November 2~ 1~88 that the use remains as a lawful nonconforming use sub- ject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Sec- tion 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential unit will be improved by authorizing the following al- terations to a nonconforming use property to afford the owner reasonable use of the parcel: to raise the house approximately 24" above the present basement top of block, install new roof trusses, and remodel the inte- rior of the structure to be brought up to the minimum current building code standards· Upon the conditions as follows= No building permit will be issued until the ap- plicant submits proof of ownership for Lots 7 and ~ 6, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B" to bring the lot.area to 11,600. ~quare feet +/-, . . be The nonconforming accessory building will be removed or relocated with conforming setbacks to the property lines. The applicant may continue to add onto 'the struc- ture with a future addition upon the condition that the addition meet all current zoning or- dinance requirements within one year of this variance approval· This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 6 and 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B"; P.I.D. No. 24-117-24-12 0041. This variance shall be recorded with the County Re- corder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. . The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building structure shall not be occupied until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Abel. November 29, :1988 The fol~towing Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Abel, Sensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following none, Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest = City Clerk West Lake Steno Service, Inc. 5545 SHORELINE BOULEVARD - MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-5353 August 18, 1992 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Attention: Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager Re: CBD Parking Program Gentlemen: I have your letter of August 10, 1992. You may take our letter of August 10, 1992, addressed to the Mayor and City Council as our request to be removed from the CBD parking program unless you know of some reason that would prevent us from being removed. As stated in our August 10, 1992, letter, we have adequate parking according to the Parking Code. Also we do not have a varia_nce for parking and we have not leased any parking space to the City. ,.~L.~hnson CLJ/lma cc: Mayor and City Council TELEPHONE ANSWERING AND COMPLETE SECRETARIAL SERVICES ~ C'~_., 7 ~ RESOLUTION NO, 92- RESOLUTION AUTHORI~N~ THE NAYOR XND C~TY ]~LNAOER TO EXECUTE THE ~992 NUNICIPXL RECYCLIN~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute the 1992 Municipal Recycling Grant Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Mound (Contract #A03852). The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk AUG 24 '92 O3:2BPM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS P.2x3 Telephone 612/476-~010 ~12/476-8532 FAX August 2/4, 1992 Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. E~ward J. Shukle. Jr., City Manager City of Mound 53~1 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 5536~ SUBJECT: City of Mound 1992 Lift Station Improvements Payment Request No. 2 MYRA #9868 Dear E~: Enclosed is Gridor's Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through August 14, 1992, on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $92,69~.~8. We have reviewed this request, find that it is ~n order and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosures An Equal ODl:)ortunlt¥ Employer AUG ~4 '9~ 03:23PM MCCOMBS FRAMK ROOS P.3z3 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 4'17 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 5,540 I- 1309 Phone: [6,12] 348-6846 FAX: [6'12] 348-8,532 August 7, 1992 Ms. Joyce Nelson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Ms. Nelson: Enclosed are two copies of the Municipal Recycling Grant Agreement for 1992 between Hennepin County and the City of Mound. We apologize for the delay in getting the agreement to you. Please have both copies signed by the proper City officials and returned as quickly as possible to avoid any delay in receiving your mid-year payment from the County. An executed copy of the agreement will be forwarded to you when all signatures are obtained. Please submit a resolution passed by your City Council authorizing submittal of your Grant Application if you have not done so previously. If you have any questions, please call me at 348-6358. Sincerely, · Kroening ~ Planner, Recycling Unit k:\corrXitrocnin~dcutll~-:mf Enclosures HENNEPIN COUNTY an ~qual opportunity ~mploy~r Contract No. A03852 1992 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GP~ANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter called the "County", through its Department of Environmental Management, A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the CITY OF MOUND, hereinafter called the "City", 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mnnesota 55364. ' WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County Board, by Resolution No. 92-6-508, on the twenty-third day of June, authorized funding for the City of Mound to use for its Recycling Program from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, and WHEREAS, said Recycling Program is consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 115A.02 and 115.03, as amended by the Laws of Minnesota 1988, Chapter 685, and Minnesota Statutes 473.801; the Metropolitan Council's Solid Waste. Management Development Guide/Policy Plan; Hennepin County's Solid Waste Master Plan; and Hennepin County's source separation/recycling policies. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: SERVICES TO THE PERFORMED. The City will operate its (curbside, drop-off) Recycling Program as more fully described in Attachment A incorporated and made part of this Agreement. In addition to the services as referred to above, the City agrees to: (1) The City will identify the County as a project co-sponsor in ~ll publicity materials and presentations. This statement shall visually and/or verbally be as prominent as the City's name. Equal type size must be used when giving the County credit on promotional materials. All promotional materials printed for distribution shall include the statement, "...this program is 80% funded by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners." Where feasible, all publicity materials should make use of the "Hennepin Recycles" logo. The City will provide the County with a minimum of three copies of all printed promotional materials on a quarterly basis. (2) The City will submit a completed mid-year report by July 15, 1992. The County will provide the City with the mid-year report form. The mid-year report will serve as the basis for reimbursement of municipal expenses for the period of January 1, 1992, through June 30, 1992. HCA Form Number 110 Rev. 09/91 Page 1 (3) (4) The City must submit a completed final report for the calendar year 1992 by February 28, ]993. The County will provide the City with the final report form. The final report will serve as the basis for reimbursement of municipal expenses for the calendar year. (5) The City must submit one copy of each agreement the City has with any company it contracts with for services to collect, process and/or market the recyclable materials. (6) The City must not charge its residents through property tax or utility fees or any other method for that portion of the costs of its recycling program reimbursed by the County. The City must establish a separate accounting mechanism such as a project number, activity number, cost center or fund that will separate recycling revenues and expenditures from all other municipal activities including solid waste and yard waste. The City must measure participation of its residents in the recycling program in May and October using the measurement methods specified by the County. The participation rates must be submitted with the mid-year and final reports. (7) The City must adopt a Solid Waste Source Reduction Plan and a Recycled Paper Procurement Policy (which meets County requirements), an ordinance requiring property owners to provide recycling opportunities at multi-housing if such housing exists in the City; and have a recycling program for all municipal buildings for at least three types of recyclable materials in accordance with state law. TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT This Agreement shall commence on January ], 1992, and terminate on December 31, 1992. COMPENSATION ae In consideration of the services as described above and contained in the attached 1992 Hennepin County Grant application, the County agrees to pay the City a sum not to exceed $67,057.00 for collection services, equipment costs, labor, promotion, administration, and development and operating costs of drop-off recycling centers. Funds will be disbursed (1) upon receipt and approval of the semiannual and final written report (2) in accordance with the table below and upon verification of recovered tonnages; and (3) after final termination of net program expenditures. Page 2 MOUND Reimbursement Schedule .year 1992 Total Solid Waste Materials (Tons) Recovered 3,868 Funding Assistance Net Proqram Costs) 0 - 464 0% 465 - 542 40% 453 - 619 50% 620 - 696 60% 697+ 70% Ce The City will receive an additional 10 percent of net program costs upon receipt and approval of the final written report, if comprehensive procurement and specification policies for publicly funded construction or remodeling projects which give equal or preferential consideration to materials with recycled content was adopted by July 1, 1991. de Payment to the City will be made as provided by law for payments of claims against the County. 4. LIABILITY, INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCES The City, subject to the limitations of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the County, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgements, or expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission including, without limitation, professional errors or omissions of the City, its agents, officers, employees, or contractors in the performance of the services provided by this Agreement; and against all loss by reason of the failure of the parties to fully perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. be The City shall by separate policy or under its self-insurance program maintain and keep in force at all times during the term of this Agreement. or any renewal thereof the following insurance coverages: (1) Single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial general liability insurance policy of an amount not less than $600,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $600,000 for damages arising from death and/or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $600,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. (2) A single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella automobile liability policy, if applicable, covering owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles used regularly in the provision of services under this Agreement in an amount not less than $600,000 per accident for property damage, $200,000 for death and bodily injuries and/or damages of any one person, and $600,000 for total bodily injuries and/or damages arising from any one occurrence. page 3 Ce Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, the City shall furnish the County with certificates of insurance evidencing the above-required coverage. The City shall require that each of its subcontractors, while performing services in the operation of the City's Curbside Drop-Off Recycling Program furnish proof of its automobile and general liability insurance policies in the following manner: (1) A single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $500,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $500,000 for damages arising from death and/or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $500,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. (2) A single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella automobile liability insurance policy covering agency-owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles used regularly in the provision of services, in an amount of not less than $500,000 per accident for property damage, $250,000 for death or bodily injury and/or damages to any one person, and $500,000 for total bodily injuries and/or damages arising from any one accident. NON-ASSIGNMENT OF SERVICES The provisions of this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred without the prior written approval of the County. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR sublet, or It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended, or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto, or as constituting the City as the agent, representative, or employee of the County for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. The parties are to be and shall remain independent. with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The City represents that it has, or will secure at its own expenses, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the City or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the terms of this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the County, and shall not be considered employees of the County, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the workers' compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the City, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees, shall in no way be the responsibility of the County; and the City shall defend, indemnify, and hold the County, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all such claims Page e Be ge 10. ]1. regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require, nor be entitled to, any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the County including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, and PERA. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The City agrees to comply with all State statutes, regulations, and ordinances pertaining to solid waste management and recycling including, but not limited to, the applicable provisions in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 115A, and 473.01 now in force or hereafter enacted. ~TA PRIVACY All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated for any purposes by the activities of the City in the performance of the provisions of this contract is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other statutory provisions governing data privacy, the Minnesota Rules implementing such Act now in force or hereafter adopted, as well as Federal regulations on data privacy. MERGER AND MODIFICATION It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any material alteration or modification of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed by both parties. CANCELLATION This Agreement may be cancelled by either party upon thirtY (30) days' written notice. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the Department of Environmental Management so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Carl Michaud, Recycling Program Manager, shall manage this contract on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and City. Page 5 The City, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 19 , and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Approved as to legality, form, and execution COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA Assistant County Attorney Date: By: Chairman of Its County Board Date: And: Associate County Administrator Date: ATTEST: Date: Clerk of the County Board CITY OF MOUND By: Its Mayor Date: ATTEST: Title: k: ~cont r.ct/c I fy/mound :mr HCA Form Number 110 Rev. Og/9! Page 1992 HI::NNI--HIN (.;(,,)UN I Y ~HAN i AI-'I-'LIL, P. I Municip., Source-Separated Recyclables. ,ogram January I - December 31, 1992 MOUND City . (Please Type) RECEIVED Please procide a brief description of .,~our city's recycling program within the space below. Required Attachement$: o Executed copies of contracts for collection, processing, and marketing of recyclables collected curbside and at drop-off centers. o Itemized bm,ak, down of any information presented in summary fon'n on this application. o A passed resolution from your City Counc~ approving submittal of this application. T~is appflcation wlfl not be consk~ered complete without the documentation required above. The average participation rate for 1990 was h8%, for =he first 9 months we have averaged 56%. We noticed an increase in participation with the addition of plastLc bottles also in September we added magazines and catalogues. Our Westonka 'Dollars are still a big hit with the community. Our pot doesn't get too large before we get a w~nner. i'his Spring we will be trying some:hing ney. for our community. We are going co have a Spring Clean-up Day. The residents viii be able to dispose of tires, brush, appliances, scrap metal and household iteas. If we have a good response and there is a need ye might have one in the Fall, also. Recyc!ed Paper · PAGE 1 3Ol/., ~u~i'H°usino Total Tons A. Residential Source-~parated Collections Curbside Drop-Off ...~.EWSPAPER ,53, ,5 53 UMINUM CANS 31 · § 8 39.5 BI-METAL CANS 32 GLASS ]82 CARDBOARD 32 32 PLASTIC ! 5 , ? ] 5.7 HOUSEHOLD ITEMS !0 ]o OFFICE PAPER ~ - SCRAP METAL ! 5 USED APPLIANCES 3 OTHER (LIST) ]~_~.~ 7 .:. i:.;~:?.i:::::;:-.~::;~: <: ::~--~ :::::~ ~;i:::i::;:;!~.::iF :::.. ~.'.< ~:::: ::: ~.~:;~:;: ×;: .'.: .:.~...-~. ~ ~:::;:::::.:!~ ~ ~' :: :.~::::.~::<:: :::.~..:::.: ~.':::.-..::::-:: . ::.: ;:::. ~;?;.:.:;..:.:..;:.-~-~:.:..:;..<:~::::;<. · :.~ ~:-~:-~..:.~ ~; '"i~.~-.~.~::?-~:'-:£~:~.r'-~:.~.~ ~.~?~.>:~...~:~:::~:~:::::~:::~...~:~:~:~::::~:::~:;:..~ .~.:. <.. ~j~.~i:~, o,,~.~..-~,...~.:.~.~..-,..~,.,--?~.-.~ ............. ~::.,.~.~ ........ o~..i,[ecvcIina,.~...~.~[~... _ ........ ,,,... ~.. ,, .... ~!.,.~ ~.,.:~...?.~.~,....~:~ ....... ~ ....... ~..:~.~ .......... . ..................... ,? ............ .-.~.~..: ..................... ,, ........................ o ................................. ................. o ................................................................................... ; ..................................................... < .......................... × .................................. :..-..-~-~:.'::. q,. '-:-HA~':-W~ ~A'[.-~.~;.:-:-?~.<~' ~.~.~'~i~i~:~:.~-~-~ B. Other Materials Collected " OTHER (LIST) A. Recycling Program Administration Recycttng Coordinator 520 i$ 8,232 Tale To~il Houm ' ' ' Temporal7 [ [ 6 986 O0 Tree To~ ~ B. Apartment Recycllng Program Administration F,.,,A~,~ Tale To~/Houm ~ ~, Tee Tatal ~ Recycled Paper PAGE 2 C. Recyclables Collection (1~...cipal Crews) A. Vehicles & Trailers ve~c~ ___ne~p~* uo. # o~ Vehic~ # ~' Vehic~ NOTE: Please list ali activities, brochures, video tapes and advertisements to be produced, distributed or pdrded, and submit thru4 copies of all promotional materials (except video tapes) on a quarterly ~/esconka Dollar~ 2. 600 $ ~: 600 Special Clean-Up l~a7 A,O00 $ 30~ Bt ochu r e A, 000 $ :~O& $ A. Locati,on~ 1 Celecled OTHER (specify): Ma~ NEWS l-] CX:;C [] METALCANS [] G~ 0 PLASTIC BOTTLES [] OIL ri I C~ec~d OTHE~ (~ec~/):. I B. Operating Costs of Drop-Off Centers- (list location and itemlze expenses) Special Clean-uo Day (sPrin~ & Fall) " Recycled Paper' PAGE 3 A. Contract Payment Knucson Servtces Sa'ne Day Reluse a Re<::. C~le~n v., U "o ~ Co~lec~on Fre<~ency Weet~[y 66,239 ~;:~:;~.::.< .:*:.:.'-;<-;.:.x:i::+..:*, .:.'-:~:>.'<<. ::.::*:-.'::*:.:< <-..:~'.'-. !-:.>~-:.:-:*:*:-;.:.. <..'.:-:.- · *:' :- -:~*:-: :';-:-:': ~x.?:-:-:..- -.*:...;.> .:*. ;.::: :'- ~::;... :.:~::~ ~); :~'::Z:"-~ 7: ~':~::': '~:~'~ Other (Describe)''-' ~...:?~.. ::.::?:-: .:~:~.~.. :,:: :..::.~:.~;'~F~::!:~i:~:~!~i;!~!~iK'"~&'~)'~!:'~i':'ii~i':~';~::~ . . · ..... .... ....... ~.:..~;...:~...~....- ~ ~ 500 25 $ 600 ' 3,000 CiTYSHARE $ 2.875 COUNTY SHARE $ t 25 Recycled Paper PAGE 4 3o/?. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DIRECTING THaT A PL~,N BE PREPARED ON NATURE CONSERVATION~F.~S BY THE CITY PL~.L'NER AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $2500 WHEREAS, the Parks and Open Space Commission has been working on a Nature Conservation Area study for nearly two years; and WHEREAS, the Parks determined that they cannot professional assistance; and and Open proceed any Space Commission has further without some WHEREAS, the City Planner has been contacted with regard to professional assistance that he could provide to the Parks and Open Space Commission on this subject; and WHEREAS, a proposal dated August 17, 1992 regarding the development of a plan was reviewed by the Mound city Council at its August 18, 1992 Committee of the Whole meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council consensus was to proceed with a plan not to exceed $2500 per the City Planner's proposal. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound City Council authorizes a plan to be prepared by the City Planner per his proposal of August 17, 1992 in an amount not to exceed $2500; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to sign a contract with the City Planner for this plan with the cost of the plan to be paid for out of the Park Dedication Fund and that the plan will be prepared within the next several months and presented to the Parks and Open Space Commission and the City Council in a timely manner. The following councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk O20 AUG 24 '92 OB:2BPM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. P.2/3 15050 23rd Avenue Nort½, Plymouth, Minnesota 5-~447 1992 Telephone 612/476-6010 ~12/476..-8532 FAX Engineers Planners $ur~eyo~ Mr. P~ward J. Shukle. Jr.. City ManaEer City of Mound 53~1 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 5536/~ SUBJECT: City of Mound 1992 Lift Station Improvements Payment Request No. 2 MFRA #9868 Dear F.d: Enclosed ia Gridor's Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through August 14, 1992, on the subject project. The amount of this pa~ent request is $92,695.~8. We have reviewed this request, find that it is in order and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor, If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Very truly yours, McC0MBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pr¥ Enclosures An EQual OoDortumlty Emoloye~ AUG 24 '92 OB:ZaPM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS P.3/3 Hoisin~on Koe~er Group Inc. mil August 17, 1992 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 1 Dear Ed: As a follow-up to our meeting last Friday, I have reviewed the information on Nature Conservation Areas (NCA) and offer the following comments. It is my understanding that the Park Commission conceived the idea of designating Nature Conservation Areas. Most of the work that has been completed to date has been accomplished by that group. They formulated a definition for NCA's which essentially defines them as areas whose primary purpose is to conserve native flora and fauna. The Park Commission is presently completing an inventory of all identified areas (255 parcels). To date, one parcel has been officially designated as a Nature Conservation Area by the City Council. Both you and Tom Casey indicated that the Park Commission is seeking assistance in completing a Nature Conservation Areas plan. The content of such a plan has not been defined. Based on the information that I reviewed, it seems that a plan needs to generally include the following: Work with the Park Commission to establish the Plan's purpose, content and format. Refine the definition of Nature Conservation Areas to further identify their purpose. 3. Complete the inventory of all NCA sites (Park Commission). Establish NCA parameters - type of site, size, location, relationship to surrounding land uses, vegetation, etc. For example, under type of'site, parcels may be suitable for 1) natural areas only, 2) passive natural areas accommodating picnicking, trails, etc., or 3) natural areas suitable for more active uses such as lake access trails. $. Assess quality of inventoried sites. Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis. Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612~ 8~5-~1 fi0 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. August 17, 1992 Page Two 6. Establish appropriate maintenance standards. Assess fiscal and policy impacts - tax implications and maintenance costs. List recommended NCA sites. Identify annual administrative and maintenance costs for the program as well as accompanying potential funding sources. The above information should not be viewed as a definitive work program for the preparation of the NCA plan. It is solely based on my initial reaction to our meeting and the cursory review of the material that you assembled. To the best of my knowledge, no other community has enacted this type of program, hence, no prototype exists. Based on the preliminary work program identified above, I would estimate the cost of assembling the Nature Conservation Plan as ranging from $1500 - $2500 depending on the final work program and the amount of work that could be completed by members of the Park Commission. If you need any additional information or have any further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, R. Mark Koegler, RLA Vice President RMK:dbm August 28, 1990 He recommended that the Council accept the preliminary engineering report and set September 12, 1990, for a public hearing on this project. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~90-I02 RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS OF CED PARKING LOTS FOR THE CITY OF MOUND AND CALLING A HEARING ON SUCH IMPROVEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 1990 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.B RESOLUTION APPROVING A LE~Y NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR TN~ PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING TaE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO TN~ PROVISIONS OF NSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMEN~ AUTHORITY OF T~E CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1991 The City Manager explained that the HRA has asked that the City levy an amount not to exceed $24,000 to defray the cost of operation at Indian Knoll Manor, 2020 Commerce Blvd. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90-103 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1991 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ____-~1.9 DISCUSSION~ NATURE CONSERVATION AREA~ The City Manager reviewed the City Attorney's letters regarding the resolution and ordinance for nature conservation areas as proposed by Tom Casey. The City Attorney recommended that the Council not adopt such a program until it is well thought out both from the standpoint of goals and the financial implications imposed upon public and private properties. Councilmember Jessen stated that the Park & Open Space Commission will be discussing this issue at their September 13, 1990, meeting. 134 August 28, 1990 ~Tom Casey was present and stated that he would like the Council to tell the Park & Open Space Commission if they are in favor of nature conservation areas. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to table until such time as the Park & Open Space Commission forwards, to the Council, their recommendations regarding~ 1) definition, potential locations and restrictions for nature conservation areas as per their Minutes of August 9, 1990; also their recommendations reqarding how to maintain these nature conservation areas as a neighborhood asset; and their overall view on how these nature conservation areas fitwith other open space. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 LICENSE RENEWALS MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to renew the On- Sale Beer License of Mound Lanes, 2545 Cypress Lane contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being turned in. License period 7/1/90 to 6/30/91. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on tho pre-list in tho amount of $280,206.42, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADD-ON ITEMS 1.12 DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE - PHILLIPPI PROPERTY The City Engineer explained the background of these parcels. Mr. Phillippi started to put in a new driveway on parcel (0118) to one of the two structures on parcel (0059) without,a permit. He is recommending that Mr. Phillippi be granted a driveway permit with the following conditions: 1. Combine parcels (0059) and (0118). Provide signed easement documents. Note: the City should have proof that it is recorded. New drawing of proposed driveway with sufficient information. NENOI~.NDUM DATE: August 3, 1992 TO: Phyllis Jessen FROM: Jim Fackler SUBJECT: Monuments As you requested, I reviewed my memorandum dated March 4, 1992 to the City Manager on prioritizing monument placements, and further evaluated the high priority sites. Out of the 37 sites listed in the memo as high priority, I have chosen 20 sites that I feel are greatly needed to inform the public and abutting home owners as to access or property lines. These areas are noted below: PHELP____~SBAY 1. WEST END OF ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 1 2. AMHURST & ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 3 3. DEVON & ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 3 4. ROANOKE & ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 3 5. ROANOKE POINT 1 PHELP_____~SBAY ABERDEEN & ISLAND VIEW DRIVE BLACK LAKE 7. NORTH END OF EXCELSIOR BLVD. 2 8. SOUTH END OF EXCELSIOR BLVD. 2 .HARRISONS BAY 9. AVOCET LANE SOUTH 1 10. CANARY LANE SOUTH 1 11. EAGLE LANE SOUTH 1 12. GULL LANE SOUTH 1 WEST ARM BAY 13. PEBBLE BEACH 4 14. GULL LANE NORTH 1 15. EAGLE LANE NORTH 1 16. CANARY LANE NORTH 1 17. AVOCET LANE NORTH 1 18. WOODLAND POINT 1 19. WOODLAND ROAD AND BLUEBIRD LANE 3 20. WAWONASSA SOUTH 1 33 ~ OF MONUMENTS/POSTS printed on recycled paper CIT ' IOL'ND NEMOI~DUN DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 4, 1992 Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~~ PRIORITIZED MONUMENT INSTALLATION AND COSTS On the attached map I have noted 37 high priority sites and 16 low priority sites for monument installation. I determined the high priority sites by those areas where a commons property line is shared between the city and the private owner running parallel to the shoreline. The monuments would be placed at the corner so as to provide a visual object denoting a public access site while showing the corner location of public and private lands. The cost for these monuments, I feel, should come from the docks program because all of the sites are areas where the city has dock locations. Currently, there is $1,000 in the docks budget under maintenance supplies that could be used, and the additional $300 - $500 to complete all the recommended monuments could come from the dock fund balance. I would prefer to do all of the installation this year. All of the monuments could be made during the spring when mowing and beaches are not a factor in our time schedule. Then through the spring, summer and fall the installation of the monuments could be filler projects for the parks crew. JF:pj printed on tecycled paper CIT' ' ()i" 5 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 29, 1992 Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director Public Land Monuments - Information for COW Meeting -'~I have marked 50 sites in the attached map where I would recommen .>'~/placing monuments denoting public lands. Most of ~=oo pu~uu~, very zew.are placed at corner irons on the lake side of shared City and private boundary lines. The monument itself would be constructed out of a smooth 6" x 6" treated timber, colored to lo~k like Cedar. The City logo would be ~ttached to the slanted portion on top and a number routed on the front for identification. I feel that the use of a logo will feel less intrusive to the adjoining property owner, and that it will become easily distinguishable as City property. The number on the front will allow us to direct someone to a specific location. The cost of the monuments, excluding labor, would be as follows: 6#X6"X8' Cedar Wood $14.00 Sack-crete 6.25 12" Nails 2.00 Logo Tag 1.00 TOTAL PER MONUMENT $23.25 The 50 sites would take 56 monuments at a cost of $1,302.00. If the approval to go ahead with the installation is given and funds secured, this project would be done throughout the spring, summer and fall. JF:pj printed on recycled paper 7 ~cccss -if-. F'ron-I- ,.Side.. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-048 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT LOCATED AT 2615 HALSTEAD LANE, LOT lv BLOCK lv WOODCREST OF MOUND~ PID #23-117-24 23 0022 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22, 1992 to consider the vacation of a street easement at 2615 Halstead Lane, Lot 1, Block 1, Woodcrest of Mound. The legal description of the street easement requested to be vacated is as follows: Beginning at a point in the West Line of the East 480 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being 59 feet South, measured along said West line, from the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North along said West line 59 feet to the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along said North line 684 feet; thence South at right angles 69 feet; thence Easterly to the point of beginning. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker" August 31, 1992 and September 7, 1992. Mailed to property owners within 350' by August 1, 1992. Posted by August 1, 1992. printed on recycled paper FOR AUGUST 25, 1992, COUNCIL MEETING NEW LICENSE APPLICATION Tree Removal - License Period 9-1-92 to 4-1-93 The Tree-Stump Company 13677 Dan Patch Drive Savage, MN. 55378 447-6187 BILLS, August 25, 1992 BATCH 2082 TOTAL BILLS $100,228.98 $100,228.98 ~o~? 0 ~Z C~ Z Z C: 0 r~ z 0 Z 0 0 r- ,< 2: --I I Z rtl L~ ~Z Z I r- ,-4 f~ Z ,o ~ · ~'"* ~ I.-* I I I ' I I O0 I~ Z Z C:: -"~ -,4 I'"* 0 I O0 0 c.... ~... ZZ I 0 z 0 I I f~ oO 0 I I I ,< Z -4 r' ~000~0~0o000~ 0 IIIlllllllllllll I Jllllllllllllllll I 00~00000000000~0 ~ 0 Z ,< 0 ,./, .-!, ~ tA 0 m f' '-4 :it ,- Z 0 r~ 2: IIII :503'-I '-4 Z: I I'" '~ I 0 ,,'11-' '13 '13 ~n' ~J ,< p'l Z ,,,d r- I Z I, I o Z I ;o < Z 0 -4 .4 ;El-' I"'" ',< I z 0 --4 0 zr- i u~ r- r~ I o oo Z -.4 0 *-4 0 ,-4 -.4 Z --4 -.4 rrt Z 0 r- Z '0 -q I ~' ~"t ,,-~ C~ 0 O0 I GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND DOCKS FUND RECYCLING FUND CEMETERY FUND BUDGET CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT JULY 1992 JULY YTD REVENUE 58.3% PER CENT REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1188250 589943 593661 594589 49.96% 820900 362??9 419372 401528 51.09% 3260 25 3104 156 95.21% 69500 8514 51787 17713 74.51~ 41250 959 8762 38488 21.24% 75000 8151 35356 39644 47.14% 10000 1624 10401 -401 104.01% 51850 325 4126 47124 8.05% 8859410 9?8380 1186569 1138841 49.86% 221600 29258 180445 41155 81.43% 1180000 116658 654187 525813 55.44% 350000 42658 199468 150532 56.99~ 650000 58?08 365553 88444? 56.84% 71000 230 71065 -65 100.09% 118730 3731 25044 93686 21.09% 3200 800 3980 -780 124.38% CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES JULY 1992 58.3K GENERAL FUND Council Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets Shop ~ Stores City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers GENERAL FUND TOTAL Area Fire Service Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Recycling Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund BUDGET JULY YTD EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE PER CENT EXPENDED 67280 3070 39410 27870 58.58~ 1380 0 848 532 61.45% 166790 13478 95787 71063 57.39~ 14800 168 3745 11055 25.30% 46860 19 866 45994 ¢*.58% 147090 10381 80312 66778 54.60% 31000 6?6 21398 9602 69.03K 83950 2595 29191 54759 34.77~ 74489(* 59960 44?038 89?858 60.01~ 3350 0 1086 2264 32.42% 1270(,0 12872 83860 43140 66.03~ 408900 34890 889684 173816 57.01% 20180 1046 7532 12648 37.32% 90150 4641 52158 37992 57.86% 132990 12709 ?0920 62070 53.33% 31610 0 9894 81716 31.30K 20000 1323 8301 11699 41.51~ 119730 9397 65783 53947 54.94% 2251350 1004197 166625 1247153 55.40% 821600 14838 107310 114290 48.43% 178920 12774 105753 73167 59.11% 353060 2496? 217749 135311 61.67~ 971190 84012 437721 533469 45.0?% 100900 39 53238 47662 4230 655 2360 1870 46850 2801 28655 18195 61.16~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLanNING COH~flSSION AUGUST 10t 1992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Michael Mueller was absent. The following people were also in attendance: Vern Christiansen, Dan Sinner, Joseph and Mary Fleischhacker, Robert Wold, Barry Reoh, and Dan Hessberg. The Planning Commission Minutes of July 27, 1992 were presented for approval. Hanus referred to the last paragraph on page one of the minutes and corrected the sentence as follows: ". . . there is a need for visibility from the ~e~ south." Johnson noted a correction on page five, within the second motion, that Johnson was not present at the meeting and should be deleted as voting. MOTION made by Weiland, the Planning Commission carried unanimously. seconded by ~ohnson to approve Minutes as amended. Motion ~ASE #92-0425 VERNON CHRISTIRNSEN, 5096 & 5098 SHORELINE BLVD., ~OT 3 & 2 50' OF LOT 2t KOHN~N'S ADDITION TO MOUNDt PID ~3-~7-2! 43 0042 & 0043. VARIRNCE Cne~ detached qaraqe). Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's Report. The applicant is proposing to construct a conforming detached garage and is seeking recognition of an existing nonconforming 26.1' side yard setback to the duplex which is 3.9' short of the required 30' setback. The existing impervious surface, including the existing duplex with tuckunder garages, driveways and a 10' x 16' storage building, equates to 34% of the total lot area. Upon completion of the new garage and the additional driveway, the total amount of impervious cover will rise to 41%. Upon adoption of the proposed zoning code provisions, all structures exceeding 30% of the lot area will be come nonconforming. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission feels that the amount of impervious cover is acceptable, a variance could be granted. If the amount of impervious lot coverage is deemed to be too high, consideration could be given to either reducing the size of the garage or denying the variance. The Commission's decision on this matter may set a precedent for future cases that occur until the zoning code modifications and shoreland ordinance are adopted. Planning Commission Minutes August 10v 1992 If the Planning Commission approves a motion granting a variance for the construction of the proposed detached garage (regardless of size), the motion should include the condition that the two existing tax parcels be combined into one parcel. The commission pondered the idea of removing the shed. It was determined that removal of the shed would only reduce the amount of impervious surface by about 1%. Meyer questioned if the proposed zoning code modifications require the same percentage of lot coverage for two family homes in the R-3 zone. Meyer commented that the garage will help eliminate exterior storage. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance upon the condition that the two existing tax parcels be combined into one parcel. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on August 25, 1992. CASE ~92-043: DAN 8INNERt 5053 WREN ROAD, LOT 8, BLOCK 1, LINDE~ HEIGHTS, PID ~13-117-24 13 0037. VARIANCE (qaraqe addition). Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's Report. The applicant is proposing to construct a conforming addition consisting of a third garage stall, and is seeking recognition of an existing nonconforming 5.4' side yard setback, .6' short of the required 6' setback. The lot presently contains 38% of impervious surface to the total lot area. Upon completion of the new garage and additional driveway, the total mount of impervious cover will rise to 45%. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission feels the amount of impervious cover is acceptable, a variance could be granted. If the amount of impervious lot coverage is deemed to be too high, the variance should be denied. The Commission's decision on this matter may set a precedent for future cases that occur until the zoning code modifications and shoreland ordinance are adopted. The Building Official noted that the subject property is adjacent to an unbuildable parcel owned by the City of Mound which is approximately 7,000 square feet which provides for open space. The commission discussed with the applicant the possibility of purchasing a portion of the adjoining property owned by the City of Mound. The applicant commented that he is willing to purchase a portion of the parcel to make his lot conforming. 3o3 Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 HOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variance. The Planning Commission recognizes the unbuildable open space adjacent to the subject property, action carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on August 25, 1992. CASE ~92-044: JEFFREY RITENOUR, 5656 BARTLETT BLVD., LOTS 11 - 16, BLOCK 9, MOUND BAY PARK, PID ~23-117-24 14 0027. VARIANCE (deck). Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a conforming 10' x 12' deck. The required variance results from the existing 11.5' front yard setback which is 18.5' short of the required 30' setback. Including the proposed deck, impervious lot coverage will be 11%. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance for the new deck is consistent with past action by the City of Mound. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the recognition of the front yard variance for the purpose of constructing the proposed deck. The applicant was not present. The Commission wished to commend the owners on the improvements made to the property. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council will review this request on August 25, 1992. CASE ~92-046= ROBERT WOLD, 1580 HERON LANE, LOT'3 & P/LOT 4, BLOCK 22, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~13-117-24 11 0130. VARIANCE (new construction). The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a new home on a vacant lot. The lot was created in a subdivision approved by the City of Mound in 1981. This case was heard at the June 8, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to table the request to allow the original applicant time to discuss an alternate plan which would require less hardcover. The new application results in the following variance requests: Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 4' 20' 16' Rear Yard 9' 15' 6' Lot Depth 53' 80' 27' Street Frontage 13' 40' 27' Plannfn9 Commission Minutes August 10~ 1992 The proposed dwelling results in the following lot coverage figures including the driveway: l) 2) 3) 43% with the deck @ 100% impermeable surface. 41% with the deck at 50% of impermeable surface. 39% when the deck is excluded. The maximum lot coverage being considered by the Planning Commission at this point is 30%. Staff's position is that reasonable use of the property can be obtained with lot covered somewhere between 30% and 40% due to the fact that this property abuts substantial green space on two sides. In addition, the Planning Commission, within the scope of the Zoning Code modifications, has discussed the possibility of reducing the setback to the right-of-way and considering it a side yard. The Commission reviewed the proposed setbacks versus the required. Dan Hessberg, representative for the applicant, commented on the reasons for proposed location of the structure stating that this location will save a 24' maple tree, and take into consideration that the house on adjacent lot 2 is only 3 feet from the property line. The commission questioned the accuracy of City Planner's calculations relating to hardcover, and they compared the size of the new proposed dwelling verses the original proposal. Clapsaddle commented that the revised location is an improvement from the original request. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the following conditions: Tree removal including tramming on commons property is expressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the City of Mound. 0 Construction of any physical improvements on commons property is expressly prohibited without issuance of permits from the City of Mound. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~92-047~ JOSEPH & MARY FLEISCHHACKER, 5601 BARTLETT BLVD., p/GOVT LOT 1, SECTION 23, PID ~23-117-24 14 0001. VARIANCE {addition). Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed his report. 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'. 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 1992 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. Staff recommended approval as the addition to allow 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. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council will review this request on August 11, 1992. CONTINUED REVIEW OF SHOREL~-ND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE - FIRST DRAFT A majority of the commissioner's did not bring their draft of the ordinance with them for review, and taking into consideration that the City Planner and Michael Mueller were not present, the commission discussed tabling discussion. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to table discussion on the first draft of the Shoreland Management Ordinance until the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. TRUTH IN HOUSING UPDATE. The Secretary, Peggy James, handed out updated copies of the Evaluator's Guide and Zoning Guide as revised by the subcommittee. These documents are for future review. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT. Council Representative, Liz Jensen, reviewed the lengthy minutes of the July 28, 1992 City Council meeting which included a public hearing on the proposed rental housing maintenance ordinance. Jensen also reviewed the agenda for the August 11, 1992 meeting. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting at 9=10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 5 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WILDLIFE BUREAU Illustrations by Ned Smith ~eneral The Canada goose (Branta canadensis) is one of Connecticut's most conspicuous birds. It is easily recognized by its black head, bill., and neck that contrast strikingly with its pale 8ray breast. A distinct white cheek patch that covers the throat is a characteristic field mark. The birds are 8ray brown to dark brown on the back and wings, and white on the belly; they have black rump and tail feathers which are separated by a narrow but distinct band of white feathers. Flocks of geese travel in long strings, flying in V- formations. Their raucous honking can be heard for miles. There are many different subspecies or races of Canada geese which vary greatly in size, however, most birds in Connecticut weigh from 6 to 13 pounds. Range and Habitat in Connecticut Canada geese occur statewide. During the spring and summer breeding'season they can be found in traditional nesting areas such as marshes and isolated lakes and rivers. Less desirable locations such as golf courses, park ponds, and reservoirs may also be used. In fall and winter, geese are also found throughout the state until inland fres'hwater areas freeze up; then the birds concentrate in the coastal region. Throughout the year, the highest numbers of geese are'found in Fairfield County. Since Connecticut winter waterfowl suryeys began in the 1940's, Canada goose numbers have steadily increased. In the 1950's the average mid-winter count was 138, in the 1960's it was 358, and in the 1970's it was up to 2,543. In 1984, 6,600 birds were recorded. This phenomenal increase is apparently due to the species' adaptation to man's landscaping practices. Canada geese seem to be moving into every area of the state which has the right combination of water, cover, and grazing areas. The increase in this type of habitat, with hundreds of new ponds and lakeside lavns since the 1950's, seems to be proportionate to the increased numbers of geese, lc should be noted that year- round resident geese breeding in the state are distinct from migratory populations that nest in the northern Canadian provinces. Many breeding birds in the state are probably descendents of 'live decoy" goose flocks released in the 1930's then their use vas outlaved. Private individuals or groups have also released geese since then vhich have probably contributed to the present population. Habits In the spring, the Canada goose is one of our earliest nesters. They may begin defending nest territories in Hatch and nesting in early April. Yearlings generally do not attempt to nest. About 1/3 of the 2 year-old birds do nest, as do most of the 3 year- olds. Canada geese are monogamous and pairs mate for life. They utilize a treat variety of nest structures such as islands, man- made structures, muskrat and beaver lodges, and shoreline edges. Regardless of the location, nest site requirements include proximity to tater, cover for the nest, and an exposed vier for the incubating.bird. Usually & to 7 eggs are laid and incubated by the female vhile the male stands guard a short distance army. Incubation lasts about 25 to 30 days. Nesting success and gosling survival is generally high. Most nest losses are caused by flooding, desertion, and predation. Eg2 predators include skunks, foxes, dogs, and herrin8 gulls. Young goslings may be preyed upon by snapping turtles and gulls. Canada geese graze on grasses and clovers and consume cultivated grains, especially during migration. The availability and quality of agricultural foods and green forage viii determine the locations of primary concentrations of geese. Bemefits The resonant calls from flocks of migrating geese have long been a velcome harbinger of autumn to outdoor enthusiasts. Observing the Canada goose is undoubtedly a source of enjoyment for many state residents. Hunters also enjoy the challenge of bagging a bird as vary as the Canada goose. hnagement of Nuisances Unfortunately, the challenge to many state residents today is keeping nuisance Canada geese off their lawns, ponds, golf courses, and even svimming pools. In Connecticut, complaints of nuisance geese are on the rise, especially during the summer and fall. Geese can litter an area vith molted feathers and foul reservoirs, golf courses, parks, and laths vith their droppings. Algal blooms can result in water bodies over-~ertilized by goose droppings. The noise caused by the flocks and odor from the droppings may annoy residents. Geese can also damage cranberry bogs, winter cover crops and pasture areas. ' Resident geese sometimes serve as decoys, attracting migrant waterfowl. This can lead to crowded conditions and encourage the spread of diseases through the wild population. Further complicating the situation in Connecticut, is the feeding of geese by the public. Geese fed nutritionally-deficient food, such as bread, may be more susceptible to disease. There are no easy solutions to nuisance goose problems. Where hunting is feasible, it is an effective management tool. Hunting can reduce nuisance problems, provide recreation to sportsmen, and utilize a surplus wildlife resource. Unfortunately, many nuisance goose problems occur in urban and suburban areas where hunting is not a viable option. In some cases, geese can be' rounded up during the flightless, molting period in July and transported to other areas. The Wildlife Bureau has cooperated with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for many years, trapping and transporting nuisance geese. This is a short-term solution and experience has shown that it is not solving the problem. A variety of "scare" tactics have been developed for controlling the depredation of agricultural crops. Hany of these methods are also applicable to golf courses, lawns, and other areas. Such techniques include: Scarecrows -- Scarecrows are a traditional method of controlling bird damage to crops, gardens, and lawns. They are most effective if used in large numbers, at least one for every 10 to 15 acres. A portion of the sc. arecrow must move in the wind because moving objects frighten geese more than stationary objects. Also, it is an absolute necessity to move the scarecrows every 2 or 3 days so the geese do not beco=e used to them. Dogs -- Some landowners have used dogs to effectively keep geese out of an area. A free-ranging dog trained to chase birds as soon as they land is quite effective. LiRhts -- Aircraft and other emergency-type strobe lights have been used with limited success. Flashing should be extended to 1 or 2 minute intervals. The lights should be moved every 2 or 3 days. Balloons -- Most waterfowl are wary of an object that not only moves but is elevated above their heads. Helium-filled balloons staked in open fields or over water are very effective if frequently moved and maintained. The balloons should be inflated to approximately 2 feet in diameter. They should be suspended about 50 to 75 feet off the ground using 50- pound test (or stronger) monofilament line. Automatic Exploders -- If geese are found in the' same areas day after day, automatic exploders can successfully repel them. The exploders are usually powered by propane, LP gas, or acetylene and make a noise louder than a shotgun blast. The blast timing, intensity, and period can be adjusted. Locations of exploders should be changed every 2 or 3 days. Use of exploders should be limited to. areas where the noise will not bother people, only geese. Bird control shells -- The use of a 12-gau8e shotgun loaded with special bird-control shotgun shells may be used to protect certain areas from geese. By moving from field to field with the geese and firing these ,"cracker shells" the geese can be scared off. Conclusion Though wild migrating geese are certainly an asset to Connecticut's environment, the increasing numbers of resident geese are becoming more and more of a liability. Beyond protecting their personal property from nuisance geese, Connecticut citizens can help remedy this problem by not feeding geese and discouraging others from doing so. Wild waterfowl are better off left alone. Sources of Equipment Lights The Huge Co. 7625 Page Boulevard St. Louis, HO 63133 Automatic Exploders Alexander-Tagg Industries, Inc. 395 Jacksonville Road Warminster, PA 1897& Balloons ~illotson Rubber Co. 1187 Highland Avenue Needham, HA 02192 Reed-Joseph International Co. P.O. Box 894 Greenville, MS 38701 Bird Control Shells Marshall Hyde, Inc. Port Huron, MI 48060 Further Infor~tiou: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4 Whalley Street Hadley, MA 01035 \\~k~J'.. The Technical Assistance Informational Series is 75% ~~J funded by Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration -- the ~Pittman-Robertson (P-R) Program. The F-R Program provides funding through an excise tax on the sale of sporting firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. The remaining 25% of the funding is matched by the Connecticut Wildlife Bureau. 1/85 Wildlife Bureau Informational Series No. TA-S-5 FAxth, NRPA could facilitate the develop- ment of a guide to enhance agency and pro- fessional public visibility with some case stud- ies to serve as examples. ' And finally, we need to take the job of de- fining the mission of our Association very seriously. As we define ourselves, we define the very message that we are trying to send to our public. Hopefully, our mission will be defined in terms of why we exist rather than how we deliver our services. Resolution of the "public visibility" issue is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. It will take considerable leadership and an effort by the entire membership to successfully address. However, the important first step has been taken in the form of recognizing the problem. The rest is up to us. Implementing Public Visibility Todd Kemp, Intern Northern Arizona University While holding an interview with the City of Phoenix, AZ Aquatic Supervisor, Rebecca Dunderman, I was told about the success of Phoenix's public visibility campaign. BUDDY BEAR is their big white polar bear wearing pink polka-dot swim trunks and serves as the agency mascot. Rebecca informed me that the key to implementing public visibility centers around having an established logo or mascot. BUDDY BEAR is found On all staffpaperwork, flyers, pos'ters, t-shirts, and billboards. Also, a slogan can further enhance the message presented by a logo or mascot. Phoenix Aquatic Center has gone with "Service with a Smile". Please submit your agency logo, slogan, or mascot idea to the PIN network at the North- east Service Center, 1800 Silas Deane High- way, Suite 1, Rocky Hill, CT. 06067. -- Going for the Gold m Shared Strategies of Successful Public Park and Recreation Systems Just what is it that makes public park and rec- reation departments or districts successful? A recent study of National Gold Medal Award recipients attempts to answer that question. If you're interested in receiving an overview of this study, please request a copy by writing: Ellen O'Sullivan Recreation and Leisure Studies Dept. Southern Connecticut State University 501 Crescent Street New Haven, CT 06515 5 From the April Issue: GOOSE POOP .! SOLUTIONS Members shared a common concern for this topic as presented by Larry Crowley (Danvers, MA) in the April issue of KYC. Larry recently called to thank the APRS Forum for highlighting his concerns. His favorite response involved a method of controlling Canadian geese which was offered by Bill McKenney (Belmont, MA) who has created the "Goose Busters Patrol" by "permitting" over thirty dog owners to "patrol" specific parks with their dogs to discourage the Canada geese from resting too long. Normally, dogs are restricted from park access, but the Pat~l seems to be working quite effectively. To receive a detailed listing ofcomments received by the FORUM, please call the NRPA Northeas~ ~~: Center at (203) 721-1055. M E T R O P O L I TAN T R A N S I T C O M M 560-6th Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411-4398 612/349-7400 I S S I O N August 17, 1992 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 To whom it may concern: I am writing you regarding the upcoming changes to MTC bus service in the City of Mound. These changes are scheduled to take effect Saturday, September 26, 1992 as part of the completion of 1-394. I have included a map of the new Route 75 Express with this letter. The main points are as follows: Route 75 will be the only Mound bus route. It will replace Route 51 completely. There will be a slight increase in bus service going thru downtown Mound but a major increase in service to the southwest corner of the city. Route 75M,S will serve the southwestern part of the city Monday thru Saturday. This means that there will be more buses using the County Road 110 to Garden Lane to Evergreen to Westedge Blvd. loop. Currently this loop sees four trips per day. There will be 14 trips per weekday and 8 trips per Saturday serving the area beginning this fall. Currently there are 16 weekday and 7 Saturday buses traveling the Three Points Blvd.to Heron St. to Jennings to Gull loop. There will be 18 weekday and 8 Saturday buses (Route 75E,N,T) serving this area of Mound. New pocket schedules for Route 75 should be available by the third week of September from MTC. Thank you for communicating these changes to the citizens of the City of Mound. Questions? Please call me at 349-7773. Sincerelyl..,, '$ohn Dillery ~ Transit Planner Service Planning and Scheduling Section - MTC Minneapolis 75 Downtown ESM TWN Rt. 74 Co. Rd. 84 Orono ~ommMce Btvd. Perk MOUND M TR O P O L I TAN TRANSIT C O M M I SS I 560-6th Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411-439§ 612/349-7400 MEMORANDUM To: 1-394 Communications File From: John Dillery, Transit Planner Date: June 29, 1992 Subject: 1-394 Service Improvements Proposed for Fall. 1992, For the Fall of 1992, the 1-394 service proposal moves ahead. This phase will bring the largest expansion of service in the corridor to-date, timed t0 coincide with the completion of most of the transit elements of 1-394. The goals of this proposal are; 1) Increase Ridership. 2) Use the 1-394 Express Lane effectively to provide fast. reliable trips between each of the Park & Rides and Transit Centers and Minneao91i~. 3) Use the Transit Centers effectively to orovide direct trips betw~erl suburbs located in the 1-394 Corridor, 4) Keep it simpl~, Most 1-394 Corridor bus routes will be re-oriented to the two major Transit Centers on 1-394 located at Plymouth Road and at Louisiana Avenue. At Transit Centers, crosstown local bus routes connect with express bus service to and from Minneapolis. Route 75-Express is this key trunk route for the entire 1-394 corridor. New Route 75-Express will connect downtown Minneapolis, the Louisiana Ave. Transit Center, Ridgedale Shopping Center, the Plymouth Road Transit Center, Wayzata, Orono, Spring Park, and Mound. :~ Please see Route 75 map. Service will be provided all day, evenings and on weekends. This route must run very reliably, as all the suburban bus routes will connect with it at one of the two Transit Centers. This is why Route 75 must run on 1-394 and the Express Lanes for most of the distance between Wayzata and Minneapolis. Route 75 and the routes eonnectin~ with it at the transit centers must be scheduled on comoatible freauenc[es For this proposal, the base freauencies are 30. 60. or 1-20 minute~ an~l i~- ~ak hours are 10 or 15 or 30 minute, depending on the route. Louisiana Ave. Transit Center is the busiest transfer point and is also the site of a 90 ear Park & Ride lot. Initially, two suburban bus routes, 61 o N .30,;3 (ex-S1) and 63 would meet at the Transit Center for timed connections with an eastbound and a westbound Route '/5 Express. These suburban routes would be extended to downtown Minneapolis via the Express Lane during the peak periods. See the Map of MTC Routes: Timed Transfer at Louisiana Ave. Transit Center. Plymouth Road Transit Center includes a 110 car Park & Ride lot. Route 71, 74 and 75 Expresses will provide service to Minneapolis via the 1-394 Express Lane. New Routes 61 and 63 use the Transit Center as a terminal. MTC service east of Louisiana Avenue now provided bv Route 9 will be re-designed to provide better coverage of the neighborl~oods and offer good connections with the suburban routes at Louisiana Ave. Transit Center. This will require that the frequency of service be adjusted to be compatible with the other routes New Route 9 will serve Glenwood Ave. and Cedar Lake Rd.. Route 34 is replaced by a new branch of Route 9. A new extension of Route $ would replace Route 9 in the Bryn Mawr area. One branch provides service to West 26th Street. A new branch serves the South Frontage Rd. of 1-394 out to the Louisiana Ave. Transit Center. A new peak hour express route, #59 would serve the east end of Cedar Lake Rd. and the new Vernon Avenue Park & Ride. Route 19E would be replaced by new Route 58 Express. map. See Route 58 The 1-394 Park and Ride lots are designed to allow easy access to fast express bus service between the suburbs and Minneapolis. This September, park & rides would be matched to express bus routes as shown below: 1-394 PARK & RIDE LOTS: MTC EXPRESS ROUTES: Wayzata, Barry & Wayzata Blvd. Plymouth Rd. Transit Center County Road 73 General Mills Boulevard Louisiana Ave. Transit Center Vernon Avenue 74, 75-(except E) 71, 74-(except L) and 75-(except E) 73, 75-S,T,W 61 (ex-S1) 61, 63, 75-(except E) 59 A second, major bus service improvement is proposed for the Spring of 1993 in the 1-394 corridor. Additional routes would be re-oriented to the transit centers and more peak period express service from the more distant communities would follow 1-394. File: 1-394 9-92 main points(I-394 Memo) Downtown Minnempolll 75 ESM TWN Eft: 09/26/92 Orono Park ~1).o, MOUND ~v~. 14wy. 101 Wlyl, ltl [Ill'Il · RId~ Rt. Ti 0o. P.d. lO Iliodl iUUlll UMOiUMOQ MINUTF~ OF A 1VI~ETING OF TI-IE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 1992 Present were: Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Tom Casey, Shirley Andersen, Marilyn Byrnes, Mo Mueller, and Carolyn Schmidt, City Manager Ed Shukle, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy James. Joy Eischeid and Council Representative Andrea Ahrens were absent and excused. MINUTES It was noted that the count on the motion on Page 7 should be 4 to 2, not 5 to 2. Also, the time of adjournment was written as 12:08 p.m., and should be corrected to read 12:08 a.m. MOTION made by Skoglund,.seconded by Casey to ap rove the Park and Open Space Commission Mi-,,+oo ~- ..... P ~mended. Motion carried unanimo~[~ v. ,u,y ,, 1992 as DETERIO~TION OF ST~TFORD COLONS SHORELINE. HE Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed his memorandum which listed areas that need riprapping or other such improvements priority of those Dro4ects. ~ ........ . and the '- J --"=~= ~£~ ~lve ro'e ' already been nro~osed t^ ~ ........ P ]cEs which have ~ ~ u ~= uomp~e~e~ in 1993 at an estimated cost of $21,110. In comparison, the cost to riprap Stratford Lane is approximately $45,000. Asleson confirmed that the $21,110 for the 1993 projects will be paid for by the Dock Fund. Fackler noted that all of these areas have commons docks on them. Schmidt questioned staff if the Stratford Lane riprapping project would deem a higher priority if the cost was not a factor. Fackler stated that it is possible, and confirmed that the project will be more expensive in the future. Steve Kirshbaum emphasized the need for the riprap and stated that if it is not done soon the public land will erode away and the shoreline will become privately owned. Fackler estimated the number of docks that would benefit from each project. Casey asked the City Manager to explain why the contingency fund cannot be used for this project. The City Manager commented that this type of expenditure is designed for the dock fund, the dock fund has a positive balance, and it would not be applicable from an accounting standpoint to use monies from the general fund for this type of expenditure. The general fund is a reserve fund for expenditures that are not anticipated and not put into accounting. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 13, 1992 At the end of the year the general fund is used to balance out each department's overages, so at this time it cannot be determined what the balance of the general fund will be at the end of the year. The Commission explored different ways to obtain monies to pay for the riprapping projects. Casey commented that the Park Commission should have input on the use of the contingency fund and know the balance. MOTION made by &sleson, seconded by Mueller that the Stratford Lane riprap project be made a priority in 1994, or sooner if funds become av&ilable. Casey commented that he his not convinced that the City is doing all they can to fund these projects. The longer we take to care for our public land, the harder it will be. Casey added that this land provides a benefit for the public beyond the dock holders. MOTION carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Asleson, Skoglund, Schmidt, and Mueller. Byrnes, Anderson and Casey were opposed. REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING ON DOCK FEES. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, schedules as follows: reviewed the optional dock fee ae Charge the same fees as 1991 and 1992. Have the non-abutting dock holders pay only. All dock holders pay the same fee, regardless of size of dock. Fackler asked the Park Commission to consider the ramifications of changing the current system. He stated that the current system works good and there have been very few problems considering the number of people paying dock fees. Asleson disputed option c. as he believes it would cause more problems. He commented that option b. is intriguing, however feels a large opposition would arise from the nonabutting dock holders which constitutes a majority. He is reluctant to change the current fee schedule. It was noted that the dock fees were raised for four consecutive years, and for the last two years there has been no increase. Schmidt suggested that due to inflation the dock fees should increase. In addition, if dock fees were increased, it could help pay for riprap projects. Fackler emphasized that the Dock Fund has had a positive balance only since 1991, prior to that it was in the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 13, 1992 negative. What is enough for a fund balance? MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Asleson to recommend that the dock fees remain the same as in 1991 and 1992. Motion carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Asleson, Anderson, Casey and Skoglund. Schmidt and Mueller were opposed. Casey questioned if this motion includes determination of the Senior's fees. Casey is not in favor of granting seniors a reduced rate. Staff noted that if the seniors paid the same rate as the non-seniors it would amount to a difference of approximately $3,100. Anderson commented that the privilege should not be taken away for such a small amount of money. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Mueller to remove the senior discount. Motion failed 2 to 5. Those in favor were Casey and Mueller. Those opposed were Byrnes, Asleson, Anderson, Skoglund and Schmidt. Byrnes commented that LMCD fees should be collected by all Lake Minnetonka dock users, not just Mound's commons dock holders. Skoglund commented that the Lake Minnetonka Homeowners Association thinks Mound is one big marina. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Schmidt to recommend to Tom Reese that the LMCD fee apply to all watercraft users on Lake Minnetonka. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Asleson, Anderson, Schmidt, Casey and Mueller. Skoglund opposed. REVIEW CAPITAL OUTLAY.FOR PROPOSED 1993 BUDGET. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the items proposed for capital outlay. The Commission did not have any specific comments. NATURE CONSERVATION AREA UPDATE. The City Manager informed the Commission that all information pertaining to nature conservation areas has been compiled and a copy distributed to the City Planner. A meeting has been scheduled with Tom Casey, the City Planner and the City Manager for tomorrow morning, Friday, August 14 at 8:30 a.m. to discuss the general purpose of the plan and apprise the City Planner of the Commission's ideas. The Commission offered ideas to be relayed to the City Planner by Tom Casey. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes August 13, 1992 city Manager' s Report. The City Manager commented that he reviewed with Chair Skoglund the possibility of the Park and Open Space Commission implementing Work Rules such that the Planning Commission has. These work rules can designate meeting times which may help shorten the meetings. It was determined that the Planning Commission Work Rules will be reviewed and considered at the next Park and Open Space Commission meeting. Park Director's Report. Jim reviewed current activities within the Parks Department. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Casey to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 9:38 p.m, Motion carried unanimously. 4 Action Report: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Water Structures Committee Meeting: 7:30 a.m. Saturday, August 15, 1992 Norwest Bank Building. Wayzata. Room 135 The meetino~ was called to order by Chair Babcock at 7:30 a.m. Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Deephaven: James Grathwol, Excelsior: David Cochran, Greenwood: Scott Carlson, Minnetrista: JoEllen tiurr, Orono: Robert Rascop, Shorewood: Duane Markus, Wayzata: Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also Present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Techni- cian. 1. Multiple Dock Licenses: A. North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay. Orono Renewal with Minor Change. Currently North Shore Drive Marina (North Shore) is licensed for 81 storage slips, 6 transient slips and 6 service slips for a total of 93 slips in the water, plus 72 rack storage on land for a total of 165 Boat Storage Units (BSU). The LMCD staff has recommended a minor change to make the 8 lagoon slips transient to service the rack storage and to allow North Shore to use 4 of the lakeward slips as service slips as needed. The committee was copied on a letter from the City of Orono to the owners of North Shore regarding various discrepancies and deficiencies at the marina. Included was the difference between the 72 rack storage slips licensed by LMCD and a stipulation of settlement of litigation between Orono and North Shore limiting North Shore to 20 boats "dry stacked". It appears the LMCD was not aware of the 1977 settlement until this year. The letter from Orono also pointed out a difference between the LMCD licens- ing of 165 BSU and Orono licensing for a total density of 151 boats. Thibault submitted a detailed memo, dated 8/6/92, with the copy of the Orono letter to North Shore, summarizing the history of how the boat density discrepancies occurred. DISCUSSION: A number of issues were raised during the discus- sion. Hurr ob,jected to the LMCD issuing a license when an appli- cant has a conflict with a city. Carlson stated he objects to granting a license that is different than a city license. Foster suggested issuing the license to North Shore recognizing Orono's position limiting the dry stack to 20 boats for in and out use. Babcock said he feels that if there is a discrepancy between the city and the applicant, that they work it out. The city can then come forward and inform the LMCD of what agreement or decision has been reached. - continued WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 15, 1992 MOTION: lturr moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of an amended Multiple Dock License for North Shore Drive Marina speci- fying the 8 slips in the lagoon be reserved for transient use, four slips of the remaining 85 to be used for service as needed, with no more than 81 slips to be used for rental, with the con- tingency that North Shore Drive Marina be in compliance with all City of Orono code requirements. DISCUSSION: Babcock wanted to know how the LMCD will handle this license if the applicant doesn't comply with the city's require- ment. Grathwol suggested that the motion be forwarded to the attorney and staff to see if there are any alternatives that the LMCD would have in this type of situation. VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock and Slocum voting nay. B. Shorewood Yacht Club, Gideon's Bay, Shorewood Renewal without change MOTION: Rascop moved, Grathwo[ seconded, to recommend approval of a Multiple Dock License renewal for Shorewood Yacht Club, the late fee having been paid. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay, Woodland Renewal with Minor Change. MOTION: Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval of a Multiple Dock License for the Methodist Lakeside Assembly with the change allowed by Ordinance 116, trading 5 moorings from its District Mooring Area for 5 boat lifts next to the dock, per site plan dated 2/3/92. Also, recommending Methodist Lakeside Assembly be allowed to increase the dock length from 60' to a maximum of 100' depending on water depth, and movin~ 3 slips from docks on t~e west to the main dock, subject to the east setback of 30' being met. DISCUSSION: The Methodist Lakeside Assembly I) istrict Moorin~ Area is reduced from 7 moorings to 2 moorings, llurr asked if a survey wil I be provided. Thibault said because the docks are seasonal, none was requested, but there is a survey of the property on file. Thibault will check with the Water Patrol regarding the location of the swimming platforms. VOTE:: Motion carried unanimously. D. Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 2, Wayzata Bay. Wayzata New Site Plan Thibault submitted a memo dated 8/6/92 explaining the two Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC) sites. Included was an update on the WYC zoning status with the City of Wayzata. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 15, 1992 Don Blazer was present to represent the WYC. Blazer said the W¥C is making application for a new site plan to accommodate the Lake Minnetonka Sailing School (LMSS). The LMSS uses the site for an open-to-the-public, non-profit children's sailing school. The proposed dock on the island is not for WYC use. Blazer explained the original construction of the make-ready dock was in error and it has been re-built in conformance with the site plan. Babcock added that the previously approved site plan showed a dock, 84'long x 24'wide. The new application is for a 40'long x 6' wide dock. Markus questioned the storage of the LMSS prams on the island. He also asked about the existence of a conflict of interest when a member of the WYC votes on an issue involving the W¥C. MOTION: Cochran moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval of a new site plan for the Wayzata Yacht Club Site 2, replacing the proposed platform shown on the 11/5/86 site plan with a seasonal dock, 6' x 40' VOTE: Motion carried, Markus voting nay. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Rascop asked about the deed restriction and if the LMSS is considered compatible with the property's residen- tial zoning. Blazer reviewed the history of the site explaining that the use of the site has not changed. A brief summary of the City of Wayzata's position is explained in Thibault's memo of 8/6/92. Ee St. ^lban's Bay Marina, St. Alban's Bay, Excelsior New owner - Bell Waterfront Corporation The committee received a letter dated 7/29/92 from Steven M. Bell, representing St. Alban's Bay Marina/Bell Waterfront Corpo- ration (The Marina). The letter detailed the amenities which have been offered with the application for a Special Density License and Multiple Dock License. A letter from Gregory With- ers, City Manager, dated 8/14/92, was distributed which indicated the City of Excelsior will require a Conditional Use Permit for the property before some of the amenities can be provided. Withers pointed out that the City Code may not allow the amenity for renting fishing boats. He also stated the Marina's new lease of shoreland from the City of Excelsior has just begun to be discussed. Steven Bell stated they will provide more specifics on the amenities and are close to completion of the lease. Grathwol cautioned that care be taken in reviewing the amenities. The lease and Conditional Use Permit should be in place before any action is considered. He noted that storage of the fishing boats on land is prohibited by the City of Excelsior. At the same time, fishing boats stored in the water will have to be counted, exceeding the number of boats the LMCD will license. Grathwol expressed optimism in finding a solution to the problem with the boat rentals. - continued WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 15, 1992 Carlson said the City of Excelsior should take action before there is anything more than conceptual approval by the LMCD. Foster suggested the LMCD work with the City of Excelsior to obtain the maximum benefit for the Lake. Babcock. noting this is a new license, urged care in issuing it so the renewal process will flow smoothly in future years. There was no action required. Staff was directed to confirm to Bell that further review of the Special Density and Multiple Dock Licenses is subject to: 1. The lease being completed with the City of Excelsior 2. A Conditional Use Permit for the property being executed 3. The amenities being reviewed. 2. Subcommittee Report on Study of Non-Restricted Watercraft and Off-Lake Storage at Multiple Docks. The committee received a report of the 8/13/92 sub-committee meeting at which they reviewed unrestricted watercraft and off- lake storage at.multiple docks. Attached were the recommenda- tions including a proposed definition of unrestricted watercraft. how the Boat Storage Units would be calculated for Multiple Dock Licenses and Special Density Licenses and the proposed Watercraft Storage Unit calculation for Multiple Dock Licenses. DISCUSSION: Grathwol said he could foresee a problem with the definition of a canoe and human powered watercraft because a motor can be attached in a short period of time. Rascop suggest- ed using the DNR definition of a canoe. The DNR definition states that if a motor can be attached it must be licensed. Babcock said that in certain cases tile LMCD may want to exempt from density unrestricted watercraft that are available to the public, even though a Special Density License is not a part of that Multiple Dock License. He suggested this be determined on a case to case basis. Hurt said there would have to be stand- ards established. The committee asked staff to prepare several examples of the recommendations applied to actual circumstances. No action was taken at this time. Grathwol and Markus were excused. 3. Draft Ordinance "relating to the effect on licenses or fail- ure to construct licensed docks within a specified time" The committee received a letter, dated 7/27/92, from Charles LeFevere addressing the question of whether certain licenses should be lost by reason of nonconstruction of (locking facili- ties. In the letter LeFevere raised a number of questions based on whether future permits or permits issued in the past should be considered, what type of licenses would be effected, and the circumstances under which the rights would be lost. LeFevere submitted a proposed Ordinance for discussion. DISCUSSION: Babcock indicated concern about Special Density Multiple Dock licenses that were not constructed following ap- proval. The possibility exists that construction would be made WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 15, 1992 at some time in the future when there would be a change in the amenity requirement in the Code. He would like to see the Code require construction in a given period of time or a new license application would be required. Babcock would want tile Ordinance to apply only to new licenses. Foster suggested a two year period for construction. Rascop would like to see this time limit applied to all permanent docks. Cochran pointed out that the Management Plan deals with eventual- ly bringing grandfathered docks into conformance with the Code. Babcock suggested starting with Special Density Licenses, then proceeding to variances and ultimately going back to Multiple Dock Licenses. Hurr would want to look at all the issues, wheth- er commercial or residential. Hurt questioned whether a Special Density License as part of a Multiple Dock License is subject to annual renewal. MOTION: Babcock moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance as prepared by LeFevere. starting with Special Density Licenses. DISCUSSION: Carlson said he would not be comfortable to recom- mend approval without further thought. Carlson suggested a sub- committee to look at all of the Multiple Dock licensin~ proce- dures, including grandfathering. Foster wondered about re- codifying the Ordinances. Hurr responded that is very expensive. Carlson recommended making it policy to require construction within a period of time rather than adding one more Ordinance. VOTE: Motion failed, Slocum and Babcock voting aye. This subject is to be placed on the next committee meeting agenda. A sub-committee will be appointed to study the various possibilities including use of a Resolution rather than Ordinance amendment. 4. Review of Permanent Dock Definition Thibault presented a memo, dated 8/7/92, comparing the LMCD definition of a permanent dock with the DNR definition. The staff suggests the LMCD adopt a code amendment using the DNR definition of a permanent dock as any dock other than a seasonal dock along with the DNR definition of a seasonal dock. Thibault included a memo from Ceil Strauss, DNR Area Hydrologist, explain- ing "mechanized means" MOTION: Rascop moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend preparation of a draft Code amendment adopting the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources definition of a permanent (lock and seasonal dock. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Annual Inventory of Docks with 3 or more restricted water- craft. Thibault presented the annual inventory of docks with 3 or more restricted watercraft, counted the month of July, 1992. Eight-four of the two hundred nine docks with three or more watercraft had personal watercraft included in the count. WATER STRUC'FURES COMMIT'FEE August 15, 1992 Thibault said it appears that many of the three or four boats at a dock are owned by non-lakeshore residents. From time to time complaints are received from commercial marinas regard- ing advertisements for dockage at residential property, llurr suggested the Board give the staff some direction as to how to handle complaints. It was suggested the property owner be given ten days during which they are to remove the extra boat(s) with extensions to a maximum of thirty days. Babcock said there are some instances where the problems can be worked out with the neighbors. 6. Bennepin Regional Park Carlson reported the Minnetrista City Council will have a special meeting on 8/19/92 to discuss the Hennepin Parks plan for boat access at the regional park. The city has a special concern with the plan for 120 slips in addition to the 60-70 car-trailer parking spots, 4 multiple docks, a boat ramp and two fishing piers. These improvements are proposed for 2,000 feet of non-contiguous shoreline which is on two bays. Part of the park plan has been changed'because 18 acres has been granted as a life estate to a private party. Babcock said the Regional Park plan raises several questions. There is a question as to what kind of licensing the LMCD will require. He said there needs to be a clarification of how the shoreline is to be counted to arrive at a density of 1:50' Carlson added there is also concern about the steep location of the boat ramp access. Cochran said it is important, as a first step, for the LMCD to get a clarification of its jurisdiction. He suggested a review by LMCD counsel. Hurr said her experience with Hennepin Parks has been positive and she would be surprised if they did not cooperate with the community. Carlson said he has broached the subject for the information of the committee. He would prefer letting the City of Minnetris- ta continue its discussions before the LMCD gets involved. As an aside, Cochran said the City of Greenwood is contem- plating allowing outlots to become part of the legal description of an off shore lot. 7. Lost Lake Channel Thibault reported the City of blound has discussed several plans to develop the Lost Lake Channel area. She said there is a question of the effect on surrounding wetlands and wildlife. Mound has nothing immediately planned, but expects the site to be a commercial development. Cochran said historically Lost Lake Channel was deeper and wider. At one time the channel was used by street car boats. He said the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, at that time. con- sidered this a public use with a limited encroachment into the wetlands. Rascop added that at one time the area was considered for a car-trailer parking area. He said it would be an ideal access site for fishing boats. Rascop suggested looking at the 1984 task force report. There was no action requested or taken. £ WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 15, 1992 8.LMCD Policy and DNR Position on Docks Placed over Wetlands Thibault reported that the DNR and the Watershed District prefer seasonal {locks being built over wetlands rather than dredging or filling. Their feeling is that hand constructed docks are less disturbing to the wetlands. There was no action. 9. Additional Business A. Orono's Styrofoam Ordinance Hurr reported the City of Orono has adopted an Ordinance prohibiting the use of styrofoam in dock construction anti requir- ing the removal of existing styrofoam docks within two years. She feels two years is too short a period of time for removal of existing docks. She would favor a five year period. She also questions Orono's right to regulate dock construction. Cochran said.he believes Orono is ~oing in the right direc- tion. He would not recommend the LMCD prohibit ;t specific product, instead, develop a performance standard, because there is always another product being invented. Babcock asked that copies of the Orono ordinance be forward- ed to the committee for the next meeting. B. Lake Use and Recreation Committee Invitation Foster invited members of the Water Structures Committee to attend the Lake Use and Recreation committee meeting, 4:30 p.m.. Monday, August 17, at which there will be a discussion of the decibel rating for boats. The plan is to bring in boat manufac- turers and follow the procedures used in developing the decibel rating on personal watercraft. 10. Adjournment Chair Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE Eugene Strommen Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: 4:30 p.m., Monday, August 17, 1902 Norwest Bank, Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven: James Grath- wol, Excelsior: David Cochran, Greenwood: Michael Bloom, Minne- tonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista: Thomas Reese, Mound: Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Techni- cian. The meeting was called to order by Chair Foster at 4:30 p.m. 1. Slow Buoys - Halsted Bay near King's Point Access Foster asked committee members for their opinions as to whether a public hearing should be called to consider a request for slow buoys in Halsted's Bay near the King's Point access. Reese said he does not see enough traffic in the area to warrant slow buoys. Carlson said the main problem is early morning traffic which travels too close to shore and is loud. ltis concern is that if the noise cannot be controlled~ that access will be closed when the regional park opens. He would like to see that access maintained to spread the traffic throughout a larger area. If the residents can be shown the LMCD can control the noise the residents may be more cooperative in keeping the access open. Foster said the LMCD has a slow shorezone 150' from shore. The residents in the area want the buoys moved out further. He suggested there could be more enforcement of the speed in the 150' zone. Bloom said he feels the better method of control is enforcement of the current ordinances. Grathwol said he would favor a public hearing. He would like to see the early morning boaters, who are apparently the problem, encouraged to attend a public hearing. Cochran said he is sympathetic to the residents but the nature of the area is such that the sound will still travel. Cochran said this is a problem all over the Lake. He suggested a change to extend the night speed limit to 9 a.m. Also the sound should be checked with the decibel meter. John Borry, 3409 Kings Point Road, originator of the peti- tion for slow buoys, said the traffic and noise has been building up. The noise is not the biggest problem. The speed at which they leave the access area creates wakes which erode the shore- line. His suggestion is to set the slow buoys between the ends of the two points. Chair Foster ordered a Public Hearing to invite comments on the addition of slow buoys in Halsted's Bay near the King's Point access. Thibault said the hearing would probably be scheduled for the September Board meeting. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE 2. Special Events August 17, 1992 A. Deposit Refunds Foster moved, Reese seconded to recommend approval of the following special event deposit refunds of $100 each, all stipu- lations having been met: * MN WI Pro Am Bass Tournament 5/31/92 * Wednesday Evening Bass Tournaments, 6/3/92 through 8/12/92 Motion carried unanimously. B. Special Event Renewal, Don Shelby US Invitational Bass Tournament, 9/11/92 - 9/13/92. Thibault reported the tournament is planned for an extra day, 9/10/92, and will include a parachute jump on Sunday 9/13. She submitted additional stipulations to handle the parachute jump. Rascop asked if the fish will be released in the same location as caught. Thibault will check with the applicant and advise Rascop. The committee had no objection to the renewal with the extra day and with the added stipulations for the parachute jump. The committee discussed the bungee jumping at the Excelsior Park Tavern in Excelsior because it takes place over and into the Lake. Grathwol reported the City of Excelsior has monitored it closely because of the parking problems arid the availability of liquor at the tavern. They have not had any unfavorable comments. Cochran suggested the committee look into any liability the District might have if it falls under the LMCD .jurisdiction. It was suggested this be checked with LeFevere and the LMCD insur- ance carrier. 3. Lights at the Narrows Channel. In a 8/4/92 memo, Denis Bailey. Hennepin County Lake Im- provements, reports 100 watt green lights can be added near the top of the existing pole at each end of the Narrows Channel to better identify the channel location. The lights would be donat- ed by the signal shop of DOT. The bulbs would last about one year. Installation would be done through Hennepin County and would cost less than $600. Northern States Power will charge a minimum of $9.40 per month for each light. Chandler said the lights should not be used during the winter months as it might encourage snowmobilers to use the channel. MOTION: Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend i'nstalla- tion of the lights as outlined in Denis Bailey's memo of 8/4/92, the lights to be operated only during the boating season. Thanks are to be expressed to Hennepin County for its cooperation. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE 4. Decibel Levels on Lake Minnetonka August 17, 1992 The committee received a memo from Executive Director Eugene Strommen report lng the progress on a study to chan~e watercraft decibel limits from 82 to 79. Foster reported the executive director has not had a response from the National Marine Manufac- turer's Association. Foster suggested a sub-committee of the Lake Use and Recrea- tion Committee to proceed, in an orderly manner, toward the goal of reducing tire decibel level to 79. Bloom and Cochran volun- teered to serve with Foster on the sub-committee. Foster sug- gested adding a representative from the Water Patrol, LblCD staff, and a representative from the noise pollution control area. 5. Charter Boats at the City of Excelsior Docks The committee received a copy of the 7/23/92 letter the executive director sent to licensed charter boat operators con- cerning the air and noise pollution caused by the charter boats at the Excelsior City docks. Cochran said he has talked to one of the residents who initiated the complaint and the resident feels the letter might be having a positive effect. 6. Goals and Objectives Foster reported work continues on developing and implement- ing the Goals and Objectives of the committee. Reese expressed a lack of confidence in tile reporting from Biocentric Inc. Grathwol acknowledged that there may be a need for more direction to the contractor. It was suggested there should be more detail about the weather on the days the survey are taken. There should be more concentration on peak times. Thibault was asked to provide the full report for the committee members. Reese suggested providing Biocentric Inc. with a format for reporting. Rascop indicated he has confidence that the final product will meet LMCD requirements. The consistency of the lake level over the summer was noted. This is partially because the cool weather has deterred evapora- tion. 7. BWI Education Program The committee received a report dated 8/12/92 on tire progress being made to develop a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) program for convicted Boating While Intoxicated offenders. A brochure will be prepared explaining the LMCD BWI preven- tion program, consisting of a specialized MADD panel and the Power Squadron classes. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE 8. Water Patrol Report August 17, 1992 Sgt. Chandler reported: * There was a fatal drowning in Gray's Bay. The victim's body has not been found. The search for the victim consisted of the use of sonar and diving. * There have been 47 alcohol related arrests on the Lake. This is down from last year. * There was one I vandalism report and 13 thefts from boats. It appears many victims of thefts do not report, them. Most of the thefts involve electronic equipment. * One adult and 3 juveniles involved in thefts have been arrested. The Water Patrol was successful in an apprehension as a result of surveillance. In response to a comment from Grathwol regarding the prob- lems in Halsted's Bay, Chandler said the Water Patrol can station a boat at that location in the morning hours to observe any speed violations. ' 9. Adjournment Chair Foster declared the meetin~ adjourned at 5:40 p.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT AU@ 2 4 PUBLIC HEARING August 26, 1992 Chapman Place Marina Cooks Bay, Mound DOCK LENGTH VARIANCE APPLICATION Vince McClellan, Hinnetonka Dock Service is the operator of Chapman Place Marina, 2670 Commerce Blvd, Hound. He has submitted a variance application for the marina docks for an additional 26' in length for a total distance into the lake of 155'. The hardship is shallow water in this area which makes the shore slips unusable if the water level is below . . 929.4' elevation. . In 1989, Chapman Place was granted an amended multiple dock license for 27 boat storage units in the configuration approved 2/22/89, with a total dock length of 129'. The boat density of 1:5' and the dock length beyond 100' were apparently grandfathered in. At the time the license was granted in 1989, the water level was around 926' elevation and a temporary low water variance was granted for a 145' extension for a total dock length of 274'. The low water variance was renewed in subsequent years, until the 1992 season when the water level returned to above 929.4'. This season is the first that the docks were placed at the licensed dock length of 129'. The applicant has encountered two difficulties with the dock length and configuration that were approved in 1989. The first is that the shoreline at Chapman Place was redone and rip rap was added making it impossible to attach slips #1-6 to shore. It is necessary to add a dock walkway parallel to shore to access these six slips. This moves the shore slips out about 8', affecting the maneuvering area for slips 7-12. Secondly, the applicant has discovered that at the 929.4' water elevation, there is barely enough water depth for sllps #2?, and 1-6. If the water level drops below 929.4', there is not enough water depth. The applicant has applled for a 26' extension which would bring the total dock length to 155' into the lake. Attached is a copy of the site plan showing the water depths measured by the administrative technician and the applicant on 4/16/92, at 929.69' elevation with the proposed walkway. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District LMCD Fee # ~ ~/~/~' (for LMCD use) VARIANCE Because this form is to be copied, please use black ink or type. APPLICATION: VARIANCE to the LMCD CODE (Name of Owner~ (Owner's street address, city, zip) (Street address of property to which varianc~a~plies, city, zip) Property located in the City of ~. ~[~¢I_ Riparian to LMCD area(s) C, {'"fl~t~ ' Variance applied for O0~K I~'~.?~-'~--')~/%{'~t/',~'~¢c Practical difficulties requiring variance= ~<~\O,x/ What hardships: Y~)'"~- · Phone; if no answer, call: Number(s) 3 Please submit names and mailing addresses of owners of abutting sites and owners of other affected sites, such sites being within 500' of your location. Such owners may be verified by checking with Hennepin County property description offices, 348-3271~ which will provide actual mailing labels at a cost of $1.00 per tax parcel. This service usually takes three days, and you must have your tax parcel identification number ready when calling for this assistance. Required documents are attached: Locator map. ~/ County plat ~-- Land survey. ~ Photos, where helpful Address labels ~' Scaled drawing showing present dockage ~ Scaled drawing showing proposed dockage t-_ Scaled drawing of docks on abutting properties Scaled drawing of other affected dockage (as needed) Absence of significant data requested above could result in a processing delay. (more) Variance Application Lake M~nnetonka Conservation Distract Total variance application fee enclosed ......................................... $500 This fee is for processing of the application and does not entitle the applicant to a variance. I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct statements, and I understand that any variance granted may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD Code. I agree to reimburse the District for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of the amount of the application fee. I consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter the premises involved at all reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being complied with. Authorized signature / .ease return this application and attachments to: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., #160 Wayzata MN 55391 Phone: (612) 473-7033 12/91 FEB 14 1989 LM.C.O. Subject to the Order of 2-22-89 Revised Dock Plan meetlng 20' set back requirements beyond 100' point per Dock Committee resolution of 2/11/89 meeting. I n-" I~J 7 © I · IJ.IJ Jl, lO ' 0 E X H Z B Z T That pa.--~ of Subdivision 2 of Lo~ 1, Pla~ of Sub<~lvie~on Two (2) Thcee (3) & rou~.. (4) of Lo~ 1, Sec. 23..T. ~17 N. R. 24 W described as followsl Commencing at a poin~ in ~he ~s~erlF · ~n~ o~ ~e Avenu~ ~s shown on ~he pla~ o~ ~ound Bay Park, a~ a ~in~ ~00 ~e~ Southerly ~ong said Line from its ln~e~sag~lon with ~he Southerly line off Chap~n Avenue., ~ow. as Chap~ Placet thence Easterly par~lel wi~h ~he Sou~he~lF Line o~ C~pman Avenue a.tdist~ce of 135 ~hance SoutherLy p~lel wi~h the ~ste~lF ~ine o~ Avenue ~o ~he ~e Shore~ ~hence Westerly along said Sho~e line ~o i~s in~e~e~lon ,i~h the ~s~e~iy line o~ ~a Avenue ex~end~ ~hence No~heri7 ~ong the line o~ ~ke Avenue a~ended ~o ~he ~in~ o~ begi~lng. FEB 14 1989 LM.CoO. Revised Dock Plan meeting 20' set back requirements beyond 100' point per Dock Committee resolution of 2/11/89 meeting. Subject to the Order of 2-22-89 / qql -,,~7 D I I Lake Minnetonka Conservation District To .' Lake Minnetonka Sun/Sailor for Excelsior, Minnetonka Wayzata, and Westonka editions FAX: 896-4754 to Meridel Hedblom From~ Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director 473-7033 Date: 8-5-92 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE DOCK LENGTH VARIANCE CHAPliN PLACE f~RINA The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing at Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901Manitou Rd, Tonka Bay, 7 pm Wed, August 26, 1992 for a dock length variance application from Minnetonka Dock Services, Inc. for Chapman Place Marina docks, 2670 Commerce Blvd, Mound, on Cooks Bay, Lake Minnetonka. The applicant, Vince McClellan, requests an additional 26 feet, for a total dock length of 155 feet into the Lake. Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 22, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chair Reese. ROLL CALL Members Present: Thomas Reese. Vice Chair. Mound; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol. Excelsior; Wm. A. Johnstone, Minneton- ka; Scott Carlson, Treasurer, Minnetrista; JoEllen Hurt, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay; George C. Owen, Victoria; Duane Mar- kus, Wayzata; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Robert Pierce, Eurasian Water Milfoil Evaluator; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Michael Bloom, Minnetonka Beach. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS A sign up sheet was distributed for Board members to indi- cate the number in their party for the August I Public Officials Lake Tour. READING OF MINUTES Hurr moved, Owen seconded, to approve the minutes of 6/24/92 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public regarding items not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve Item 4.C of the agenda under Lake Use and Recreation Committee, Special Event Deposit Refunds of $100 each to: 1) Jimmy Rodgers Celebrity Fishing Tournament, 6/9/92, event was canceled. 2) Minnetonka Crossing, Windsurfing Event, 6/13/92 3) Minnesolar '92, Solar Boat Regatta, 6/20/92 4) Mound City Days, Water Ski Show & Fireworks Display, 6/21/92 5) IN Bass Tournament, Bass fishing Tournament, 6/28/92 Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRi':CTORS COMMITTEE REPORTS July 22, 1992 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Babcock moved. Hurt seconded, to approve the minutes of Water Structures Committee meeting of 7/11/92 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Be Orono. Big Island Inc., Lower Lake South, Mahpiyata Island, MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the Public Hearing Report Findings. and to grant a new multiple dock license to Big Island, Inc. for 14 boat storage units at its site on Matt- piyata Island, Orono. Lower Lake South. DISCUSSION: Hurr asked if the dock license has been approved by the City of Orono. Tom Judd, representing the applicant, re- sponded that the conditional use permit has been approved and he believes the dock license will follow. .Responding to a question from Babcock, Thibault said the maximum width dimension for a slip length category in the Watercraft Storage Units definition was used on the slip size report to determine the Watercral't Storage Units to be charged. ~OTE:. Motion carried unanimously. Rascop arrived during the following discussion. C. Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Multiple Dock License Renewal. MOTION: Babcock moved. Johnstone seconded, to approve a multiple dock license renewal without change for Lakeside Marina, subject to receipt of an as-built survey. Motion withdrawn after discus- sion. DISCUSSION: The Board discussed the procedures used in granting a license subject to a stipulation. In the Lakeside Marina instance the as-built was requested in 199l following a reconfig- uration of the docks which had been extended under a temporary low water variance. To date the survey has not been received. Hurt. Carlson and Owen spoke against issuing the license without the as-built survey. LeFevere said it is not permissible to build the docks without the license. It follows that it is not possible to do the survey until the docks are built. In this case the docks are in place. LeFevere said the best leverage the Board has is to advise the applicant that the license will not be issued without the as-bUilt survey and the Board will authorize legal action after a certain date. MOTION: Babcock moved, Johnstone seconded, to approve a multiple dock license for Lakeside Marina if an as-built survey is re- ceived by August 10, 1992. If the as-built survey is not re- ceived by that date the Board will proceed to prosecute Lakeside Marina for operating without a license. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 22, 1992 D. Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 2, Wayzata Bay, Wayzata. MOTION: Babcock moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the revised site plan dated 6/18/92, adding a make ready dock on the south side of the island, for Wayzata Yacht Club - Site 2, subject to there being a valid Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with the City of Wayzata, and no boat storage at the new dock. DISCUSSION: Rascop asked if there has been a response from the City of Wayzata regarding a CUP for Site 2. Markus responded by raising three points with reference to WYC activities. 1) He asked for an opinion from LeFevere regarding the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of Board members who are also members of the WYC. He based his question on the Sailing School being a for profit operation of the Club. 2) He submitted a communication from the City of Wayzata indicatino there is no CUP between the City and the WYC for Site #0~. Markus distributed pictures showing Sailino~ School prams stored on the island. 3) He also distributed pictures showing the WYC has paved a driveway on Site 1, which abuts the Lake. He stated the driveway drains directly into the Lake. He stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has not received an application for a permit for the blacktopping. Markus will ask the Wayzata City Council to have the driveway torn up and the property restored to its original gravel condition. Thibault reported slue has talked to Tom Young, City of Wayzata. He stated the City does not have a CUP on Site 2. The current use is not in compliance with the residential zoning, although it has a grandfathered status and may continue as long as it is not expanded. Young also stated the sailing school is not to store its prams on the island. Thibault noted the Site Plan shows the sailing school prams stored on land by the drive- way. Foster said the WYC has a CUP for the property at Site 1. They do not have one for the westerly property. Site 2, and they do not need one. The use is in conformance with the City of Wayzata zoning laws. Hurt said she would like to see that infor- mation in writing from the City of Wayzata. ~9~jQ~i Burr moved, Rascop seconded, to table the request of the Wayzata Yacht Club for approval of a revised site plan. to re- refer the matter to the Water Structures Committee. A request is to be made to the City of Wayzata for a clarification of the zoning and uses of the Wayzata Yacht Club property, in writing. VOTE: Motion carried, 8 ayes, Babcock, Carlson, Foster and Markus voting nay. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Carlson said he would like to see a site plan with all of the Wayzata Yacht Club parcels detailed as to Site 1 and Site 2, what CUP applies to each site, what activities are allowed on the property, with an in depth look at the histo- ry. Markus was informed the subject of a conflict of interest is not a part of the Water Structures Committee activities. The matter can be brought up under New Business. Rascop asked for a report on the blacktopping mentioned by Markus. LMCD BOARD OF I) IRECTORS E. Variance Application Fee July 22, 1992 Babcock said he has heard from several people who need residential dock length variances that the $5o0 fee is excessive. The committee has recommended changing the $500 application fee to $250 plus a $250 escrow fee to cover additional costs incurred over the application fee. 'rile executive director said the additional $250 is to cover legal fees and staff time spent in excess of the $250 fee in processing the application, lie added that LeFevere has advised there is no provision in the Code for an "escrow" and it is recommended the word "deposit" be substituted for "escrow" in the committee recommendation. MOTION: Babcock moved, Reese seconded, to Amend Resolution #76 to change the $500 variance application fee to $250 plus a $250 deposit for additional costs incurred over and above the applica- tion fee. VOTE[ Motion carried unanimously. F. Expanded Sales at Gas Docks Babcock explained that the State Uniform Fire Code prohibits the sale of merchandise near a gas dock. The feeling of the committee was that if sales cannot be made within 100' of a dispensing unit, there would be no advantage in enlarging the dock for additional sales. MOTION Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to deny tile request of Minnetonka Boat Works to sell merchandise from the gas dock. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Rascop moved, Carlson seconded, to send a letter to Minnetonka Boats advising them of the State Uniform Fire Code and copies to the other marinas that sell gas. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Deicing Procedures MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the recom- mendation of the Water Structures Committee and direct the LMCD Counsel to draft a Code amendment to accomplish the following: 1) The Executive Director to issue deicing license renew- als where there were no violations and a full deposit refund was made the previous year, 2) The Executive Director to issue new deicing licenses and renewals which had violations the previous year. both subject to Board approval, 3) Waiving the requirement for a deicing license after March 15. such deicing operations to prominently display "thin Ice" signs. DISCUSSION: Responding to a question from Hurr, Sgt. Chandler said the Water Patrol is in agreement with the proposed Code change. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 22, 1992 H. Bean's Greenwood Marina, St. Alban's Bay, Greenwood MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the Findings and Order denying a length variance to build additional dockage beyonci 100' at Bean's Greenwood Marina. DISCUSSION: Rascop asked if slip #84 is grandfathered at greater than 100' Babcock responded that it is grandfathered, tturr stated she could not see how it could be because the docks were rebuilt. VOTE: Motion carried, Hurt and Owen voting nay. I. Deposit Refund, Permanent Dock Application. MOTION: Babcock moved, Hurt seconded, to approve a $100 deposit refund to Stephen Garthwaite. Carsons Bay, Deephaven VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. J. Meeting Date Change Babcock announced the next Water Structure Committee meeting will be 8/15/92, one week later than usual. 2. ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurt A. Minutes Hurt moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the minutes of the 7/14/92 Environment Committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. Lake Monitoring Subcommittee Hurt reported that following the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association decision to not commit $1,000 to the Lake Monitoring program, she has received a pledge of $1,000 from Tonka Bay Marina to proceed with the program. She said the LMCD will proceed to obtain the volunteers to do the monitoring. C. Subcommittee Response to S.tI. 12 Relocation Hurr submitted a copy of the letter sent to the Minnesota Department of Transportation containing the LMCD comments on the Highway 12 corridor development plans. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Owen seconded, to ratify the letter, dated July 14, 1992, from the LMCD to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, signed by Hurt, and containing the comments of the Environment Committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Styrofoam Control MOTION: Hurr moved, Babcock seconded, to support the recommenda- tions of the Environment Committee that all water structures be governed under the proposed Orono Styrofoam Control ordinance. Further to support the recommendation of one date for eventual compliance, such 1/1/95. This information to be conveyed to the City of Orono by letter. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRF, CTORS July 22, 1992 Gabriel Jabbour. Orono Councilmember. reported the City of Orono has accepted the LMCD recommendations. E. Eurasian Water I~ilfoil Task Force Progress, Chair Penn 1} Operations Progress Penn reported 175 acres of milfoil have been harvested as of 7/21/92. lie submitted a summary report dated 7/21/92 which will be made a part of the file. Penn said. according to the executive director and Robert Pierce. the harvesting is proceed- ing satisfactorily. The crew is doing a good job in cleaning up an area before they move to other locations. There continue to be equipment problems and major expenses in getting the equipment back into operation. There will be a need for a major maintenance overhaul of the equipment at the season's end. 2) New Infestations Penn reported there are new EWM infestations in Christmas Lake and Long Lake. Both areas have made inquiries of the LbtCD and representatives have been invited to the Task Force meetings. 3) Hennepin County Funding Penn reported there is $150,000 of funding support for control of EWM from Hennepin County through the Hennepin County Conservation District. The LMCD will be applying for approxi- mately $75,000. A meeting with all of the organizations who have an interest in funding is scheduled for July 29. 4) The next meeting of the Task Force is 7/24/92. Owen asked about the reasons for the equipment problems. Penn said there was not as much maintenance done at the end of the 1991 season as might have been done. There is also a lot of strain on the equipment. Inexperienced operators contribute to some of the problems. Penn added he hopes the program can retain some of tile crew next year. Babcock won(lered al)out (Ioing mainte- nance now and harvest ing later in the season. The cxecut Jvc director said problems are being taken care of. such as hoses and belts, as they occur. Penn added there will be a recap of the whole program with Pierce, including an cutline of how things can be improved next year. Carlson asked about the Hennepin County Funding in view of the recent approval of the 1992/93 budget. He suggested review- ing the costs to the cities if tile funds are forthcoming this fall. L~CD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 22, 1992 3. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol 1) Grathwol report- ed the Legislative Commission on ~linnesota Resources (LCMR) has recommended $944,000 for the Maxwell Bay access, exclusively. It will require legislative approval. That is about one-half of what is estimated to develop it. The Task Force has not approved a public access at ~laxwell Bay. tturr said there is still the possibility that the money could be transferred to another com- parable site. {If that is the Lake Access Task Force recommenda- tion. I 2) The Standards and Data subcommittees met 7/15 and will meet again on 8/12 at 7:30 p.m. A full meeting of the Task Force is planned in September to hear the sub-committee recommenda- tions. 3) Car-Trailer Parking Space Update - Grathwol discussed "soft" numbers showing that the initial April, 1992 survey of 433 spaces, plus a potential of 100 additional street parking spaces, 50 new spaces at Maxwell Bay, an additional 30 spaces in Deepha- ven, and 50 spaces elsewhere on the southshore, offers the poten- tial of 663 car-trailer parking spaces to date. Consideration also has to be given to the potential losses at i'helps Bay, Kin~s Point and Gray's Bay accesses resulting from agreements made with ~innetrista for the parking spaces to be provided at the Regional Park and with ~innetonka for the changes at the Gray's Bay Cause- way. Rascop suggested commending the responsible governing unit for the clean-up and installation of satellites at Kings Point. Carlson said he does not believe there has been an effort put forth by all of the cities to supply car-trailer parking spaces. He would like to see the access and parking spread around the Lake. Gabriel Jabbour asked that car parking spaces for smaller car-top boats which do not require a trailer be included in the count. 4. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster A. Foster moved, Penn seconded, to approve the minutes of the 7/20/92 meeting of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Foster extended an invitation from Nan Woodburn to the Board to attend an event on Tuesday. July 28, 1992 at the Lafay- ette Club. The purpose is to raise funds for the ~innesota Transportation ~useum for restoration of the Streetcar Steamboat MINNEHAItA. C. Foster reported the Committee has received a petition to add Slow Buoys to Halsted's Bay near the King's Point access. The committee took no action on the petition. Committee members are to view the site and the matter will be on a future agenda. D. Foster reported the Water Patrol is testing more noisy boats. The committee has discussed the decibel ratings and the feeling is that 82 decibels is too high. The committee will investigate the possibility of reducing the rating to 79 deci- bels, the same as is now required by the LMCD Code for personal watercraft. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 22, 1992 E. Foster submitted a progress report from Biocentric, [tlc. on the Lake Minnetonka Boat Density study. F. ilennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report Sgt. Chandler distributed pictures taken at the BWI check point. The check point and saturation program was more success- ful than they had anticipated. Chandler had nothing to add to the report given at the comalittee meeting. A written report was distributed and made part of the file. G. Special Event License - Fireworks Display MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve a Special Event License for John M. Morrison, 2550 Cedar Ridge Road, Wayza- ta, for a fireworks display on 9/26/92, subject to the stipula- tions prepared by staff. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. FINANCIAL REPORTS A. Carlson submitted the June statement of cash transac- tions. He noted all cities are current on their payments. Carlson called attention to $12,143 received in donations during June to tile Save the Lake Fund and toward EWM. The EWM expendi- tures in June were small but will increase in July. The Fund Balances increased in all accounts. B. Vouchers for Payment MOTION: Carlson moved, Babcock seconded, to approve payment of bills in the amount of $35.190.24, adding the following to the list submitted: Check #8689 Minnesota Unemployment Compensation Fund .71 8690 P.E.R.A 397.58 8691 Insurance ~{)~ For a Total Of $35,612.53 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT A. The executive director introduced Robert Pierce. Pierce and Mike Freeberg, EWM Project Supervisor, are reviewing the initial 22 days of harvesting records to help improve productivi- ty. B. The executive director called attention to a letter from Steven Tallen, Prosecuting Attorney, informing the Board he has entered into a partnership with Philip Carruthers. C. The August meeting schedule was distributed. Attention was called to the Water Structures Committee meeting date change to 8/15 and the Milfoil Task Force meeting date change to 8/28. The new director of Ecological Service of the DNR will attend the 8/28 meeting to discuss a University of Florida DNR evaluation done late Summer, 1992. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 22, 1992 D. The aquatic plant inventory on St. Alban's Bay is com- pleted. The LMCD is waiting for more information on the environ- mental factors in using Sonar for a whole-bay treatment, espe- cially the effect on fish habitat. E. Staff Report - Joan blansk has taken her vacation in July. The executive director will take a one week vacation in August. Bookkeeper Muriel Stewart is planning to retire in Octo- ber. OTIIER A. Hurt expressed appreciation to the South Lake blinnetonka Public Safety Department, Orono police and State Patrol for their assistance to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol during the BWI checkpoint. B. Conflict of Interest Hurt said she believes everyone should have a copy of the Conflict of Interest report approved by the Board. It should be circulated and placed on the next Board agenda. Markus said it was his opinion that, when there was a monetary involvement, each activity is to be decided on a individual case. TION. INFORMAL DISCUSSION, SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERA- Grathwol expressed concern for Water Structures Committee Chair Babcock, recognizing his efforts to resolve committee recommendations which can be accepted by the Board without a great deal of further Board deliberations. Grathwol added that he does not intend that a Board member or others should be re- stricted in discussing committee recommendations, however. He does recognize that there is a divergence of opinion among Board members on how LMCD Code requirements are to be applied or en- forced. Grathwol believes the Board would benefit by resolving these differences. Grathwol also senses that the staff could use more direction from the Board. He does think it is the Board's responsibility to afford support to staff so they may carry out the Board's direction. This direction must also be consistent. He further recommended that the Board study LMCD enforcement policy, asking that it be put on a future agenda. Owen said he is used to working with firm policies and does not fully understand accepting non-compliance. Rascop agreed with Owen's comments. He said if the District does not operate in an even handed manner, a mixed message is sent to the public. Slocum said it is important to retain a balance in LMCD actions and there is an advantage to using a light hand rather than a club. Markus said in his experience a Board of Directors always gives direction to staff. He does not believe the executive director and Thibault are given needed direction. He would like - continued LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 22, 1992 to grant the executive director more power. He feels the Dis- trict should be run like a business. Foster sees one problem is that the Ordinances are not clear. He would like to see the Ordinances cleaned up so there is consistency. He supports the staff trying to get voluntary compliance from applicants. Bab- cock said he believes the type of action taken should depend upon the degree of severity of the violation. D. Channel Drive, Greenwood Grathwol reported he has reviewed a copy of an Administra- tive Law Judge's findings and recommendations on a hearing re- garding dredging and dockage on Channel Drive, St. Alban's Bay, in Greenwood. A report will follow a response from the DNR Commissioner. ADJOURNMENT Babcock moved, Owen seconded, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary J o LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM - Public Hearing 7:30 PM - Regular meeting Wednesday, August 26, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901Manitou Road (County Rd 19) 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARING Chapman Place Marina, Cooks Bay, Mound - Dock Length Variance application 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS READING OF MINUTES - 7/22/92 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance not on agenda CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda and considered as a specific item. From: Lake Use & Recreation Committee, Chair Foster ~ A. Special Events, Deposit Refunds at $100 each: 1) MN WI Pro Am Bass Tournament, 5/31/92 2) Wednesday Evening Bas Tournaments, 6/3/92 - 8/12/92 3) Westonka MDA Brighter Light Bass Open, 8/16/92 COMMITTEE REPORTS WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 8/15/92 B. Multiple Dock License renewals - recommending approval: 1) Wayzata Yacht Club-Site 2, Wayzata Bay, Wayzata; as amended with a new site plan replacing the platform on the island with a seasonal dock 6' wide x 40' long, (noting that no boat storage is allowed at this dock) 2) North Shore Drive Marlna, Maxwell Bay, Orono; as amended with the 8 lagoon slips transient, 4 of the remaining 85 slips for service as needed, contingent on the applicant being in compliance with Orono's code requirements Board Agenda, 8/26/92, Page 2 3) Shorewood Yacht Club, Gideons Bay, Shorewood; without change 4) Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay, Woodland: as amended trading 5 moorings from the District Mooring Area (DMA) for 5 boat lifts at the dock per site plan dated 2/3/92, amending the length from 60' to lO0' and moving 3 slips from docks on the west to the main dock subject to the east setback of 30' being met, (and amending the DMA from 7 moorings to 2). Permanent Dock Definition; recommending preparation of a code amendment adopting the MN DNR definitions for permanent dock and seasonal dock Additional Business recommended by committee ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurt A. Water Quality Monitoring study progress B. Eurasian Water MilfoiI Task Force, Chair Penn l) Harvest report through season's close C. Additional business recommended by committee LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol A. Data Gathering Sub-committee, information only B. Standards Sub-committee, information only C. Supplemental Recommendations, information only D. Additional business recommended by committee LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, meeting of 8/17/92 B. Lights at Narrows Channel; recommending installation of green lights through Hennepin County Lake Improvements per 8/4/92 memo, expressing thanks to Hennepin County for its cooperation C. Hennepln County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report D. Additional business recommended by committee FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. July Statement of Cash Transactions B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Conflict of Interest Policy Statement application to on-going circumstances NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment of Nominating Committee ADJOURNMENT