Loading...
1993-09-28CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT; The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, SEFrEMBER 28, 1993 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 14, 1993, REGULAR MEETING. PG. 3321-3330 CASE//93-043: MICHELLE SEVERSON, APPLICANT FOR 4500 WILSHIRE BLVD., 4510 WILSHIRE BLVD., AND 2757 ANGLESSLY LANE. REQUEST: SUBDIVISION - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS. PG. 3331-3371 CASE//93-045: DALE & KELLE BAKALYAR, 3091 TUXEDO BLVD., LOTS 18, 19, 20 & P/21, BLOCK 1, PEMBROKE, PID//19-117-23 34 0128. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION. PG. 3372-3386 CASE//93-047: WILLETTE CONSTRUCTION, INC., 2561 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 4-13, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID//24-117-24 14 0001. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION. PG. 3387-3402 PROCLAMATION - ADULT LITERACY AWARENESS WEEK, WESTONKA ADULT BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAM - SEPTEMBER 27 - OCTOBER 3, 1993. PG. 3403 7. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. DISCUSSION: PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP/COMPOSITION. PG. 3404-3405 9. RESOLUTIONS CANCELLING LEVIES. PG. 3406-3408 3319 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. APPROVAL OF GAMES OF SKILL LICENSE - AMERICAN LEGION. PG. 3409 AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR JON SCHERVEN DOWNTOWN LOAN FROM 1984. PG. 3410-3411 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MOVING BUILDING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE MOVING OF A DETACHED GARAGE FROM 2010 SHOREWOOD LANE, TO 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE. (SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1993) PG. 3412 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 3413-3421 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS August 1993 Revenue & Expenditure Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. PG. 3422-3423 B. LMCD Mailings. PG. 3424-3460 REMINDER; Next C.O.W. meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, 1993. 3320 Mound City Council September 14. 1993 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 14, 1993, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Bruce Chamberlain, and the following interested citizens: Tom Casey, Paul Goshgarian, Neil Weber, John Royer, Greg Keller, Bernard Gaudette, and Tom Reese. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the August 24, 1993, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #93-060 - CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR "DAKOTA RAIL 2ND ADDITION" BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC,, INVOLVING LANDS SOUTH OF 2281 COMMERCE BLVD. (JOHN'S VARIETY AND PETS) AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS The Planner, Bruce Chamberlain, explained the request. The property consists of approximately 5800 square feet and will be subdivided from Dakota Rail 2nd Addition and subsequently connected to Mr. Royer's property as a single parcel. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The Planning Commission recommended no park dedication fee be charged. The Council needs to address this issue. The Planner contacted the County Assessor, Keith Rennerfeldt, and asked that he put a tax valuation on the property. He has indicated a valuation of $12,000, which would mean that a park dedication fee of $1200 would be in order if the Council chooses. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Paul Goshgarian, 5965 Lakeview Drive - stated he owns the Lynwood Apartments and would like to have the Dakota Rail property behind his property not included in this plat. He asked that the lines be kept straight. Councilmember Jensen stated this was discussed by the Planning Commission at their first meeting. At the second meeting, the Planning Commissioner's who had been to the site stated that the extra property is what Mr. Royer is using now so it was left as it was proposed. Mound City Council September 14, 1993 Greg Keller, representing Mr. Royer. He stated he would like to make comments on the park dedication fee. He stated that this proposed plat is exactly the lot that was proposed in 1990 and is the same lot that Mr. Royer has been using and leasing. Mr. Keller stated that he cannot see that a park dedication fee should be charged because it is not changing in use and is not going to require services. He felt that subdivision 6 of the ordinance granting exceptions should apply, "This section shall not apply to the division of platted lots which are being combined with other existing lots to increase the lot sizes to conform to the larger size lots required by the zoning ordinance. This recognition is in recognition of the need to put undersized lots together to bring them into conformance with zoning requirements adopted after the original subdivision of properties, many of which predate any zoning regulations of the City." His reasoning is that Mr. Royer's existing lot, which probably predates the lot size requirements, is approximately 7,250 square feet. The new parcel is approximately 5,838 square feet. Both of these are substandard lots, but by combining them and making it a condition of this subdivision, it will now be a conforming lot. Thus, this should take Mr. Royer out of having to pay a park dedication fee. He suggested that perhaps the City would prefer to have Mr. Royer take the money to be charged for park dedication and pave the parking lot next summer. Mr. Keller further stated that he has reviewed the records of the 1990 subdivision of this parcels and several others were contemplated and there was no requirement of any park dedication fee at that time. Finally, Mr. Mills has told Mr. Keller that recently when there was a piece subdivided off for the Norwest Bank property, there was no park dedication fee assessed in that instance. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The City Attorney stated that he is amazed at some of the things being said here. He stated that if you look at the plat which is before you, Mr. Royer is not platting this property, Dakota Rail is. There is one piece of property and it is being divided and there is a second parcel being Lot 1, Block 1 which is being developed. The items that Mr. Keller mentioned have no relevance to the ordinance. It couldn't be any clearer, it says: 'In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses or combinations ....... there shall be a park dedication fee." This is not an optional item. It is not a variance. It is something that has to be enforced consistently or take it out of the ordinance. It relates to every piece of property. The exception that Mr. Keller is quoting talks about, "This section shall not apply to the division of platted lots .... ". This is not platted property. It has been in the railroad since the time of the Indians. The government gave this as a patent. There is no abstract on this property. Nobody has ever owned it except the railroads. The exception was written into the ordinance to encourage people with 4 or 6 lots, that were 30, 40 or 50 foot lots, to put them together and bring them into conformance with the current day ordinance. The argument that it relates to what Mr. Royer is going to spend on the parking lot or that it will not take utilities is not relevant. This has nothing to do with the ordinance or park dedication. The City Attorney stated that in the earlier years (1960's), the idea of the development of land and asking people to make a park dedication was something that was very controversial. Every property owner in the United States said, "If you require that, you are taking my land, under the constitution you have to pay me for it." This has gone to the United States Supreme Court, California Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court and eventually got to the Minnesota Mound City Council September 14, 1993 Supreme Court, and they have all uniformly held that requiring, in the development of land, an extraction or a dedication to the public as the Commons are, is within the power and purview of government. It serves a community purpose. The arguments that the Planning Commission uses, i.e. they're not going to use a park, etc. don't hold water. After the 1960's, there came a time when the planners and urban developers said, the only people you are hanging this particular extraction or dedication on are the people who live in the houses, but you have commercial and industrial property and they are all pan of the community. The City Attorney used the Mayor's example a few weeks ago. The Mayor has his business in another community, when there's a bond issue for parks, you pay, when there's a school, you pay. It's the same argument people use with the IRS, I don't believe in bullets therefore, I'm not going to pay my taxes. In this case you have a park dedication fee in the ordinance and if you don't like the ordinance then change it. People who are going to develop property in the community for the first time, and in Mound that is practically nothing, there is so little left. We have the railroad and one other property that is over 5 acres in size. In most developing communities, the State Legislature has recognized this as something that is very legitiment. You could ask for 10 percent of this land, but what good would that do, it would make no sense, so you ask for a cash contribution which will go into the park fund which can be used to buy a neighborhood park, to assist in developing a park, or whatever it is. That money is dedicated for that purpose. That is for the benefit of the community. The properties that are platted already are not being asked to make a dedication, i.e. Mr. Royer and other downtown properties. So what is being asked is that the railroad, which is dividing off and selling it property pay a small portion to the City park fund. You did exactly the same thing (it was discussed and voted on it) when Balboa came through here a couple of weeks ago. The City Attorney stated that Mr. Keller has made reference to the bank building. He stated that it is his understanding that there has been an admission that there was a clerical error. The thing you have to remember about 1990 is that it was the City that was subdividing the land. The City bought it and was the one that was dividing off the parcels from the railroad and we would have been in exactly the same position that Mr. Royer and Balboa are in. Instead of paying $235,000, if the railroad thought he was going to pay a park dedication he would have said that we would have to pay that on top of the $235,000. When we bought the land from the railroad, it was a part of the purchase agreement that it was a responsibility, as it is with Mr. Royer. Apparently, it was with Balboa that they have to divide it and they have to pay the fees. Mr. Mills is an excellent negotiator and as a result of that he has put the onus on Balboa and Welsh Companies and now he is putting it on Mr. Royer and three years ago he put it on the City. In the City Attorney's judgement, there is not one thing that was argued before the Planning Commission which has any relationship to the ordinance. It is the argument that somehow or another, people who are in government whether they are the Planning Commission or the Council can make these arbitrary decisions. This is what has gotten us in trouble with the Commons. It has gotten us in trouble in a hundred places where people said, 'Well, what's the difference if Joe does this, we'll let him do it.' Then there are people who come behind them, like yourselves, who spend the next fifty, hundred years trying to clean it up. If the Council does not want to charge a park fee here, don't approve the plat, go back and change the park dedication ordinance, saying you don't want to charge anything to commercial and industial property, then the City Attorney has no argument with it. This ordinance as it stands is as clear as it is going to be, it is similar to 95 % of the ordinances in the State of Minnesota, as it relates to developing communities. Mound City Council September 14, 1993 Mr. Keller stated that he prepared both the 1990 purchase agreement and the current purchase agreement and there were no park dedication fees involved then. The City Attorney stated that in 1990 Mr. Royer's parcel came in as a complete afterthought in late November and it was at that time that Mr. Mills, reluctantly agreed to pay the City $3500 to assist in the platting of this particular property, which he has never paid. Mr. Mills has additional property behind the Coast to Coast store which is going to have to be divided off. There are other properties, if he wants to sell them, he is going to have to divide them. He has known this from day one. Even with us, in the purchase agreement, he made it very clear that if there was going to be a division of property it was a pan of our contractural agreement that the City would have to do that. The City paid him $235,000, plus we had to subdivide the property. The parcel came in because Mr. Mills made a deal with Mr. Royer sometime in the middle of our subdividing process. It had nothing to do with the City's contract with Mr. Mills. It would not make any difference if God was dividing this, if you follow the ordinance, he would have to pay. The Council discussed the Planning Commission's recommendation and how they somehow decided that they did not have to apply the ordinance. The Council decided that it has nothing to do with who's involved or what's involved, the City has an ordinance on the books and if they are not going to apply it, it should be removed. They stated that they have to be consistent with everyone and treat all people the same. The Council then discussed the amount that should be charged. The County Assessor stated that $12,000 would be a fair market value for the property and 10% of that is $1200. The City Attorney pointed out that this is not a charge to Mr. Royer, it is a charge to the developer, Dakota Rail. The Council agreed that $1200 is a fair number to charge for park dedication. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-121 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR "DAKOTA RAIL 2ND ADDITION" INVOLVING LANDS OWNED BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. LOCATED SOUTH OF 2281 COMMERCE BLVD. (JOHN'S VARIETY AND PETS), AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, P & Z CASE//93-040 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAVO AND RESOLUTION//93-20, TEAL POINTE DEVELQPMENT Planner, Bruce Chamberlain, explained there are 3 pieces of information for the Council to consider tonight: A resolution determining that further conditions are warranted to the Teal Pointe residential development based on the public comment to the EAW; and Mound City Council September 14, 1993 A resolution that amends Resolution 93-20, the Preliminary Plat approval, adding 6 items; A conservation easement that was drafted by Tom Casey to assist City Staff in drafting the final conservation easements that will be put forth on this project. The Planner reviewed the items in the 2 resolutions. The Council changed the following: Resolution #1 - Items B. 1 and 3 shall read as follows: 'Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans, prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review ~md approval by the City Staff. The plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cover replacement." "There shall be no public or private docks on the shoreline of the adjacent wetland nor shall there be any dredging of the wetland to accommodate this development. Resolution #2 - Items A. 20, 22 and 23 shall read as follows: 20. "Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2, and 3, the developer shall submit a set of plans, prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for review ired approval by the City Staff. The plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory, erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and ground cover replacement." 22. "There shall be no public or private docks on the shoreline of the adjacent wetland nor shall there be any dredging of the wetland to accommodate this development. 23. "Conservation easements shall be established to guide development of the property. The City Staff shall work with the developer and representatives of the neighborhood preparing th~ easement. ,Said easement shall, at at minimum, preserve a buffer zone adjacent to the wetland consisting of existing, predominantly unaltered vegetation. Removal of vegetation other than dead, dying or diseased plants shall be prohibited. Alteration to the terrain through grading activities shall be prohibited. The City Attorney recommended that the developer have his attorney draft the conservation easement using the easement provided by Mr. Casey, which is in great detail, what the Planner has suggested and some information the City Attorney has. The City Attorney told Mr. Casey that it is not the intent of the Staff to recommend the nine page easement, which is over broad, and could create title problems for the developer and anyone who would buy the lots. The City Attorney stated that the developer's attorney is going to draw the covenants. These need to be presented to the City Staff for review and recommendation. The City Attorney stated the City would like to have an easement which the Council and anyone else who reads it can understand, but the City does not want to impede or encroach on the developer's property or emcumber it in such a way that the developer cannot sell it. Mound City Council September 14, 1993 Mr. Casey stated he would like to see #20 reviewed by the City Council because it brings it back into the public process. He then asked about the park dedication fees for this project. The Council stated that in addition to the wetlands that is being dedicated, there is a $500 per lot park dedication fee requirement which is item #6 in Resolution//93-20. Mr. Weber stated that the assessor's fair market value is under $45,000. The Council asked that plans prepared by the registered Landscape Architect be brought to the Council after review by the City Staff as an educational item. The Council discussed the requirement to have one representative from outside the development in the Homeowner's Association. The City Attorney stated he thinks the responsibility to making the appointment should be on the City Council and should be done in a general way so that the Council can find someone. There should also be escape language developed because it could happen that there is no one willing to be the representative from outside the development. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution as corrected tonight: RESOLUTION g93-122 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND AMENDING RESOLUTION 93-20; THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES FOR TEAL POINTE The vote was unanimously in favor. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution as corrected tonight: RESOLUTION//93-123 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DETERMINING THAT FURTHER CONDITIONS ARE WARRANTED TO THE TEAL POINTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON PUBLIC COMMENT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.3 PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED 1994 BUDGET The City Manager presented the proposed 1994 Budget, the preliminary levy and the suggested dates for the public hearings. The Council changed the hearing dates for December 9 and December 14 at 7:30 P.M. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: Mound City Council September 14, 1993 RESOLUTION//93-124 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1994 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,366,950; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY $1,783,620 LESS T H E HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AID (HACA) OF $494,800, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,288,820; APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1994; AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 HRA LEVY Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//93-125 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATIONS, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1994 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Bernard Gaudette commented that the Mayor and Councilmember Jessen have stated before that the Commons belong to the City of Mound, all Mound residents. The Mayor stated that is correct. 1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $577,528.81, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for August 1993. Mound City Council September 14, 1993 LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for August 1993. Tom Reese was present and spoke to the Council regarding the LMCD's current organization and operation and possible changes therein. A subcommittee was formed and their findings and conclusions are in the report. The principal criticisms are summarized as follows: (1) the board is too large to efficiently and effectively conduct its business; (2) members of the board too often reflect narrow interests of their member cities or other interest groups; (3) the board has failed to aggresively address the major environmental and other issues raised in the management plan; (4) the board is not sufficiently accountable or sensitive to the various lake constituencies; and (5) the funding mechanism used by the LMCD does not fairly allocate the cost of management to all users of the lake. The following were the conclusions of the committee: 2. 3. 4. 5. This report will be reviewed at the 3rd quarter mayor's meeting to be held at 7:00 a.m., Friday, September 24 at the Lafayette Club. It is essential that the LMCD or an entity similar to the LMCD be preserved. There is no consensus on the committee as to whether the LMCD should be reorganized. They concluded that direct elections were not necessary nor desirable. They developed two reorganization scenarios for the board's consideration. a. The new board would consist of seven members selected from seven districts. Each district would consist of one or more member cities. The districts would be created giving consideration to four factors - miles of lakeshore, proximity of the member cities within a district, population, and tax capacity. The board member from each district would be selected by the councils of the cities therein. Scenario 1: District 1, Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood & Woodland. District 2, Minnetonka. District 3, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista & Victoria. District 4, Mound. District 5, Orono. District 6, Shorewood. District 7, Spring Park, Tonka Bay & Wayzata. Scenario 2: District 1, District 2 District 3 District 4. District 5. District 6. District 7 Deephaven & Greenwood. Excelsior & Shorewood. Minnetonka & Woodland. Orono & Minnetonka Beach. Victoria & Minnetrista. Mound & Spring Park. Tonka Bay & Wayzata. Mound City Council September 14, 1993 Mr. Reese stated he favors scenario number 1 because it really doesn't change anything in Mound. His objection to ScenariO 2 is you have one horse and one rabbit, how to you allocate the council vote between Minnetonka and Woodland. He explained that nothing else would really change because they would have to go to the Legislature to make this change. There was a lot of discussion in the report about the financing, with some conclusions that perhaps a boat sticker could be sold on a regional basis. There was some talk that the 14 cities are financing the LMCD but realistically the Water Patrol is financed by Hennepin County as are all of the marker buoys and the maintenance of the shorelines and things similar. There is no major change but it does address the fact that it gets the LMCD closer to 1 person - 1 vote which has been somewhat of an irritation when you have a 600 population cities that have the same vote as 10,000 population cities giving the same impact on the ordinances, etc. that the LMCD promulgate. Mr. Reese stated that the smaller communities are against either scenario because they feel they will lose out. Memo dated August 27, 1993 from Dave Cochran, Chair, LMCD, re: Issues before LMCD Board. D. LMCD Mailings. Letter dated August 24, 1993 from Governor Arne Carlson, RE: budget restraint - holding the line on salary increases. F. Planning Commission Minutes of August 23, 1993. G. Announcement from League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) RE: 1993 Regional Meetings. REMINDER; Household Hazardous Waste Days are scheduled for Friday, September 17 and Saturday, September 18th at the Hennepin County Public Works site - Orono. REMINDER; No C.O.W. meeting Tuesday, September 21, 1993. Next C.O.W. meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, 1993. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, has done a cursory review of the Our Lady of the Lake convent building per City Council direction. He indicated that the building is structurally sound but there are a number of code items to address: egress windows in all bedrooms, new electric smoke detectors, plumbing and electrical update to current code, handrails and guardrails to code, 6" - 8" headroom to basement, new stairs to code, heating contractors to evaluate boiler system and certify to current codes, etc. 33,2"/ Mound City Council September 14, 1993 Jon Sutherland, Building Official has scheduled an open forum on a proposed Truth in the Sale of Housing Ordinance for Monday, September 27, 1993 during the Planning Commission's regular meeting, 7:30 PM, at City Hall. He has invited a group of housing evaluators experienced with this type of ordinance as it has been used in other cities. Please check your calendar to sec if you can attend to hear from these people who have worked with this type of ordinance. Letter to the Editor of the Laker and Sailor News from Bill Clark, 5549 Bartlett Blvd., RE: House of Moy. LOST LAKE STQRAGE SITE The City Manager explained that even with the current negotiations going on with Minnetrista to combine storage areas, the Staff felt that rather than spend extra money to haul away and dump unclean material at Lost Lake, that moving the material at the site and berming it made sense. Greg Skinner was present and explained that this was done just to make more room for more material and snow that will be dumped at the site this winter. It would have cost the City $2200 just for dumping fees for the material (not counting the hauling) that is in the berm. LAWSUIT UPDATE The City Attorney stated that the City was served last week with a Summons & Complaint brought by Mr. Flack of Bluebird Lane and 5 of his neighbors. The City is in the process of responding at this time. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW THE REARRANGEMENT OF LOT LINES AT LOTS 6, ?, 8, & 1/2 OF VAC. LANE, BLOCK 6, AVALON (4510 WILSHIRE BLVD.), LOTS 4 & 5, BLOCK 6t AVALON (4500 WILSHIRE BLVD.), AND LOT 3 & SELY 1/2 OF LOT 2, BLOCK 6, AVALON (2757 ANGLESSLY LANE) P&Z CASE #93-043 WHEREAS, the applicant, Michelle Severson, previous owner of 4500 Wilshire Blvd., has submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by City Code Section 330 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WHEREAS, the owners of the subject properties are as follows: Carol Stodola 4510 Wilshire Blvd. Lots 6, 7, 8, & 1/2 of Vac. Lane, Block 6, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 31 0019 (new 0138) Larry Piller 6827 Cardinal Cove Dr. 4500 Wilshire Blvd. Lots 4 & 5, Block 6, Avalon, PID $19-117-23 31 0018 (new 0137) Gordon C. Anderson 2757 Anglessly Lane Lot 3 & SEly 1/2 of 2, Block 6, Avalon PID #19-117-23 24 0014 (new 0094) WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires, for single family dwellings, a 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 request was tabled by the City Council on July 25, 1989 in order "to give the applicants time to obtain legal advice on the proper course of action to prevent title problems later", and; WHEREAS, the title issues relating to these properties appear to have been resolved based on information provided by the applicant, and; 3331 Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-043 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request in 1989 and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. Hereby accepts the described property: Parcel A 4510 Wilshire Blvd. request to subdivide the following Lots 6, 7, 8, & 1/2 of Vac. Lane, Block 6, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 31 0019 (new 0138) Parcel B 4500 Wilshire Blvd. Lots 4 & 5, Block 6, Avalon, PID $19-117-23 31 0018 (new 0137) Parcel C 2757 Anglessly Lane Lot 3 & SEly 1/2 of 2, Block 6, Avalon PID $19-117-23 24 0014 (new 0094) Does hereby approve the Minor Subdivision according to the following proposed descriptions (see Exhibits A, B, and C): Parcel A (4510 Wilshire Boulevard): Lots 5 and 6, except that part thereof lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 16 feet Northeasterly from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, to a point in the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; Lot 7; Lot $ except that part thereof lying Easterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said lot distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the Southeasterly corner of said lot to a point in the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 feet Northerly from said Southeasterly corner; all in Block 6, Avalon, AND that part of the Easterly half of Carnarvon Lane, vacated, lying Southerly of the Southwesterly extension of the northerly line of Lot 8, Block 6, Avalon. Parcel B (4500 Wilshire Boulevard):. Lots 3 and 4, except that part thereof lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point in the Easterly line of said Lot 4 distant 25 feet Southerly from the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4, to a point in the Westerly line of said Lot 3 distant 25 feet Northerly from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 3; that part of Lots 5 and 6 lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 16 feet Northeasterly from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, to a point in the 333 - Proposed Resolution Page 3 Case #93-043 Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; That part of Lot 8 lying Easterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said lot distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the Southeasterly corner of said lot to a point in the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 feet Northerly from said Southeasterly corner; All in Block 6, Avalon. Parcel C (2757 Anglessly Lane): That part of Lot 2 lying Southeasterly of a line drawn from a point in the Northeasterly line drawn from a point in the Northeasterly line of said lot distant 23.33 feet Southeasterly from the most Northerly corner of said lot to a point in the Southwesterly line of said lot distant 25.29 feet Northwesterly from the most Southerly corner of said lot; AND that part of Lots 3 and 4 lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point in the Easterly line of said Lot 4 distant 25 feet Southerly from the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4, to a point in the Westerly line of said Lot 3 distant 25 feet Northerly from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 3, all in Block 6, Avalon. 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 pay all costs for such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. 3333 Certtffcate of Survey for Carol E. StodoLa Lots 5-F, Blonk 6, Avalon Hermeptn County, Minnesota JI hereby ~ertifv ttat this is a true and correct reoresentation of a survey of tho. boundaries of: Lots 5 ._~nd 6, except that ~rt thcreof ~in[ Northeasterly of a t~ne dra~.r. f~m a ~int ~n thc Scuther!y lin~ of said Lot 5 dis~nt lb feet North~asterly ~,e Scuth,~esterly corner of said Lot ~, to a ~r.t ir. tr.e ~;crtkerly of sale Lot 6 dist-~nt 1/~, feet Southwesterly,' from %z.e crest [;nrtherly corner ~t 7; ~t S exceot that Dart thereof 1/inc ~sterly cf a line dra~ff~ f~m a In the Southerly llne of suid lot '2!s~nt 16 fact Scuth;.esterly f~m the Scuth- easterly' corner of said lot to a ~int in the ~sterly line of said lot 25 feet Northerl2,' f~ su~-~ Soutkeasterl)' corner; All in Plock 6, Avalon, A[[D that ~rt of the ~sterly half of ~rna~cn ~ne, v~c~ted, lyin~ Soutn- erlj; of the South~sterly extension of the [:ortherly line of ~t f, Piock Aw~ lcn, and the lc. cation of a~ e~sting buildings thereon, It does not pur~rt to show other fr..provements or encroachments. Scale: Date : 1" = 6-3-81 Iron m~rker Gordcn R. Coffin Reg./~',o. 6064 Land Surveyor and Planner Lon~- Z~ke, Mir_nesota Sect!f irate of Smwey for btn~a Sanford in Lots 3-6 ~nd E, ~lock 6, Av~ion Hennepin County, Kirmesota I hereby eerti.~y that this is a true and correct reoresentation of a survey cf the boundaries of:_ ~Ots 3 and 7,, except t~t ~'~ ~rt thereof lying Northerly of a line dr~ f~m a ~int in the ~sterl'g line of said ~t i dis~nt 25 feet Southerly from the ~ortheast- erly ro~er of said ~t 4, ~ ~ ~int in the kesterly line of said Lot 3 dis~nt P5 feet ~ortherly f~z the Southwesterly corner of said ~t 3; ~. T~t ~rt of ~ts 5 and 6 lying Nortaeasterly of a line d~v. frcm a ~int in the Scutherly line of szid ~t 5 dis~nt 16 feet ~rtheasterly f~m the 'South- westerly corner of said ~t 5, to a ~int in tke Northerly line cf said ~t 6 dis~nt 16 feet Southwesterly f~m the ~st Ncrtaerly co,er of said ~t 6; That p~rt of Lot 8 lying Easterly cf a line Cra',m from a point in the Southerly line of said lot distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the Soutteasterly corner of sa~d lot to a point in the Easterly line of sald lot distant 25 feet Northerly from said Southeasterly rotc. er; All in Elock 6, Avalon, and the location of all existing buiL:infs t~erecn. It _'o~s not out-crt to sho~ other improvements or encrcachrmnts. Scale: l" = 30' D~te : (~3-81 o : Iron marker Gorccn R. Coffin Re£/~,:. 6064 Land S~u~veyor a~ Planner Long Laxe, Minnesota 353 ' Certi?teat,~ of Sur%'ey Cot Gordon kndersnn ~n Lets 2-&~ Bl~ck /, .~v~lon Her. nep~,n Cc'~nty, ,~'Ann.:sota I hereby cert. ify that this is a t,rue and correct, rc,nresenta%ion o£ a survey of t,ne bouunt.~uries of %~.at part of Lc.t, 2 lying Sout.~.easterly of a Zine dr~;~ from r~ ocint in the .Northeasterly line of said lot distain% 23.~3 feet Southeasterly rrc~,: the :mst .~;ortherl2; corn, er of said lot tca point in t~.e South~esterl2,' line cf' s'~ia lot dis%ant 2f.P9 feet ~;orth~esterly £rcn %he m,D[% 3c,a~hcrl.,' corner of s~-'.J iot; AND t~t Dart o£ Lots 3 ~nd /, 1.vin.,q ];crtkerl)' of a line ,Jra~7: fro..-.: a Delhi in the ~as%erli,' line of said Lot /, distant 25 £eet Sc'~ikort;' £rc .,crtn-.astcr][,' corner of said Lot ~, %o a .ooinb in %ne 9,est-~rl)' line o£ Lc; 3 distar, t 25 feet ~crtherl" fro.-., t-~ Scut?.',esterli.' corner of ='='~ ail in ,Ulock ~, '" and t~o of . · Av~zo.,, locat.;~n '~:11 e×istin? ~ui[a. in.gs thereof, It does not .~,~-.oort tc s~.o~' other ir. prove.~ent$ or Scale: 1" = 3C' Date : 6-~-$1 o : Iron ~ar ker ~,~.,~ Surve)'or and ?la:,ner Long Lake, ~tlr~.e so %a MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 Case #93-043~. ~ichelle Severson, ~pplicant for 4500 Rilshire Blv~.~ 4510 Rilshire Blvd. m and 2757 Anqlessly Lane. SUBDIVISIOh LOT LINE ~DJUSTMENTS. Chair, Bill Meyer, noted that this item has been withdrawn from the Planning Commission agenda and it will be forwarded directly to the City Council for review. The City Planner explained that this item was previously tabled by the city Council, and therefore, will be forwarded directly back to them. This item will be reviewed by the City Council on September 28, 1993. CITY of MOUND 534~, MAYWOOE~ ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 t687 (612! 472-0600 FAX (612, 4.72 0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: Planning Commission Agenda of September 1~, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ..~~YA /~ SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Minor Subdivision Request Mechelle Severson, 201 28th St. S.W., Rochester, MN (Contract holder of 4500 Wilshire Blvd.) 55902 CASE NO. LOCATION: 93-043 4500 Wilshire Blvd., Larry Pillar (6827 Cardinal Cove Dr., Mound) Lots 4 & 5, Block 6, Avalon, PID $19-117-23 31 0018 (new 0137) 4510 Wilshire Blvd., Carol Stodola Lots 6, 7, 8, &~of Vac. Lane, Block 6, Avalon, PID ~19-117-23 31 0019 (new 0138) 2757 Anglessly Lane, Gordon C. Anderson Lot 3 & SEly 1/2 of 2, Block 6, Avalon PID #19-117-23 24 0014 (new 0094) ZONING: R-2 Two Family Residential BACKGROUND This item was before the Council in 1989 and was tabled to give the applicants time to obtain legal advice to prevent title problems. The title issues appear to have been resolved based on the information provided by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Consistent with previous staff reports, our recommendation is for approval as noted in the previously proposed resolution from Case No. 89-829. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. printed on recycled paper 3335 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7-25-89 117 July 25, 1989 CASE f89-828: ROBERT HARDING, 5238 BEABURY ROAD, LOTS 8 & 14z, BLOCK 24, WHIPPLE, PID ~25-117-24 21 0078, VARIANCE (RECOGNITION OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK~ The Building official explained the request. The Planning Com- mission recommended approval. Mr. Harding was present and agreed with the proposed resolution. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~89-86 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR LOTS 8 & 14, BLOCK 24, WHIPPLE; PID #25-117-24 21 0078 (5238 SEABURY ROAD); P & Z CASE ~89-828 Th~ vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 'CASE f89-829: STEVEN SEVERSON (4500 WILSHIRE BLVD. ) , CAROL STODOL~ (4510 WILSHIRE BLVD.), & GORDON C. ANDER- SON (2757 ANGLESSEY LANE, LOTS 3,4,5,6,7,8, SE1y 1/2 OF LOT 2, ;tND 1/2 OF ADJACENT CARNARVON LANE, BLOCK 6, AVALON, PID ~'S 19-117-23 31 0018/0019/0014, MINOR SUBDIVISION The Building Official explained that this was approved originally in 1981 but the resolution was never filed and has now expired. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The City Attorney suggested that the filing of this resolution could cause a problem with marketable title for all the persons involved if all the necessary legal documents have not be prepared and signed by all the parties holding interests in these properties. He suggested that the applicants obtain the service of an attorney to advise them of the proper course of action before this resolution is approved. MOTION made by Johnson moved, seconded by Ahrens to continue this matter to a later date to give the applicants time to obtain legal advice on the proper course of action to prevent title problems later. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~89-831: JAMES & SANDRA RUUD, 2233 LYNWOOD BLVD., LOTS 35, & PT OF 34, LYNWOLD ADDITION TO MOUND, PID ~14- 117-24 43 0045, SETBACK TO PLACE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH NO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY The Building official explained the request. mission recommended approval. The Planning Com- Proposed Resolution Case No. 89-829 RESOLUTION #89- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION LOTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 1/2 OF LOT 2, BLOCK 6, AVALON, PID #19-117-23-31 0018/0019/0014 (4500 & 4510 WILSHIRE BLVD. AND 2757 ANGLESLY LANE) P&Z CASE NO. 89-82~ WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 6, Avalon, PID #19-117-23-31 0018/0019/0014, has been submitted In the manner required For platting of 1and under City of Mound Ordinance Code, 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 require- ments contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, said request For waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, It has been determined that there are special cir- cumstances affecting said property such that the strict applica- tion 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 the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The request of the applicant For a waiver From the provi- sions of Section 330 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than Five acres, described as Follows: All of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, the Sely 1/2 of Lot 2, and that part of vacated Carnarvon Lane, Block 6, Avalon, #19-117-23-31 0018/0019/0014. Page Two Proposed Resolution Case No. 89-829 It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per the Following descriptions as shown on Exhibits A, B, & C. (surveys): Parcel A: Lots 5 and 6, except that part thereof lying Northeasterly of a line drawn From a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 16 Feet North- easterly From the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, to a point in the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16 Feet Southwesterly From the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; Lot ?; Lot 8 except that part thereof lying Easterly of a line drawn From a point tn the Southerly line of said lot distant 16 Feet Southwesterly From the Southeasterly corner of said lot to a point in the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 Feet Northerly From said Southeasterly corner; All in Block 6, Avalon, AND that part of the Easterly half of Carnarvon Lane, vacated, lying Southerly of the Southwesterly extension of the northerly line of Lot B, Block 6, Avalon. Parcel B: Lots 3 and 4, except that part thereof lying Northerly of a line drawn From a point in the Easterly line of said Lot 4 distant 25 Feet Southerly From the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4, to a point tn the Westerly line of said Lot 3 distant 25 Feet Northerly From the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 3; That part of Lots 5 and 6 lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point tn the Southerly line of said Lot 5 dis- tant 16 Feet Northeasterly From the Southwesterly cor- ner of said Lot 5, to a point in the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16 Feet Southwesterly From the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; That part of Lot 8 lying Easterly of a line drawn From a point in the Southerly line of said lot distant 16 Feet South- westerly From the Southeasterly corner of said lot to a point In the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 Feet Northerly From said Southeasterly corner; All in Block 6, Avalon. Parcel C: That part of Lot 2 lying Southeasterly of a line drawn From a point in the Northeasterly line of said lot distant 23.33 Feet Southeasterly From the most Northerly corner of said lot to a point in the South- westerly line of said lot distant 25.29 Feet Northwesterly From the most Southerly corner of said lot; AND that part of Lots 3 and 4 lying Northerly of a Page Three Pro~xDsed Resolution Case No. 89-829 line drawn From a point tn the Easterly line of said Lot 4 distant 25 Feet Southerly From the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4, to a point in the Westerly line of said Lot 3 distant 25 Feet Northerly from the South- westerly corner of said Lot 3, all in Block 6, Avalon. 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 for Filing 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. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound 5341 Naywood Road, Nound, 14N 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Applicatlon Fee: $50.00 Escrow Deposit: Zoning Sheet Completed: ' Deficient Unit Charges? Copy to City Planner: {Y%t~C.~fd Copy to Public Works: ~ Delinquent Taxes? Copy to City Engineer: Other: VARIANCE REQUIRED? P.o.e Name of Surveyor Name of Engineer LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Applicant's Name (if other than~//~%D°wner) ~%~ Address ~ ~ ~,~../ . Day Phone Day Phone Day Phone Lot Block PID No. Addition Zoning District Use of Property. Mas 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 =aken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation qiven why this is not the case. ignature of Owner Date S~gna ur,, Owner , July 25, 1993 Mr. John Suthedand City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: 4500 Wils~ire Blvd. Land Exchange Dear Mr. Suthedand: Enclosed you will find some copies of my file on 4500 Wilshire Blvd., Mound, MN. I will give you as brief of a history as possible. We purchased this property on contract for deed in Sep~ of 1982. We were informed that the property lines on 4500 Wilshire Blvd., 4510 Wilshire Blvd., and 2757 Anglessey Lane were built before the City of Mound plotted that area. When the plotting was done it created encroachments on all three properties such as 4500 Wilshire owned the other two driveways, 4510 Wilshire owned 6 inches of 4500 Wilshire's bedroom and 2757 Anglessey's comer of the house was within I inch on 4500's lot line. We were also Informed that there had been a survey done to straighten out the mess the City of Mound had created and that all that needed to be done was to file it with the City. We even had an attorney give us a title opinion and he said that it should be fine. We were young and believed in the system at that time. We later found out that the only reason this had even been started was that the properties were not saleable with all the encroachments and that is why we were offered the contract for deed. The other two parties involved in this were in no hurry to ever sell their properties and figure they will let their children worry about this after they are gone. I, however, was young and energized and knew it needed to be taken care of before we could ever re-sell our home. I was started on this and ran into numerous dead ends. I even obtained my real estate license to help wffh this. No one cared to help me with such a messed up situation. We were told by the Building Off, al that we needed letters from all with financial interest in the properties stating their consent to the land exchange. I promptly went to work and got these letters from everyone. Finally, I was able to get at least one of the other parties to a council meeting with me on July 25, 1989. We were told that "this was approved originally in 1981 but the resolution was never filed and has now expired.* The Planning Commission recommended approval." 'The City Attorney suggested that the filing of this resolution could cause a problem with maketable title for all the persons involved if all the necessary legal documents have not been prepared and signed by all the parties holding interests in these properties. He suggested that we obtain the service of an attorney to advise us of proper couse of action.' We were under the impression that if we cfid all of this that the resolution would then be filed with the City of Mound finally. We did hire attorney Roger Reed who cr~ al~ o~f the paperwork for us and advised us. When all was said and done he could not seperate tll~t:harges between the properties because of the complexity and doubling of all the paperwork. The neighbors did not want to pay if the charges were not seperated. I ended up being the only one to pay Mr. Reed which did cause hard feelings between neighbors and an attorney. ! have done everything the City of Mound has asked of us and have filed all the proper documents with Hennepin County, all the mortgage companies and all others with financial interest in any of these properties. I did stop at the City offices in December 1992 after closing on the sale of our property just to make sure they were aware and updated on what ! felt was the last I would have to do for that property. The woman at the desk said it should be fine and congratulated me on all my hard work done. To my great disappointment I received a letter from Lisa A. Brecount at First Security 'l-~tle informing me that our buyer is unable to pay his property taxes until the City of Mound receives "an updated survey, $50.00 application fee and $500.00 park ded'mation fee. As per your own offices records, the $50.00 subdivision application fee has already been paid twice to get this subdivision, the survey to straigNen out the encroachments that the City of Mound created would be exactly the same and all stakes are sffil there, and the $500.00 pad( dedication fee was not in effect when wa started all of this. It seems to me that all that really needs to be done is for someone on the city council to bang the gavel and say o.k. this is passed. I certainly would hope that there would be no one else that would have to go through this nightmare on these three properties again. Please see what you can do to expedite this matter and see if the City would take a look at this so that it doesn't become even more complicated by other things that can happen with the passage of time. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. I will be sending you additional copies from a file on this from First Security Title that we gave them at closing. If I can send you anything else to be of assistance, please contact me. '-I~echelle Rugg Severson July 1, 1993 d Mrs. Steven Severson 8th Street Southwest Rochester, MN 55902 507- z D-7770 Re: 4500 Wilshire Boulevard Land ExchanGe Our File No. 66434 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Severson Your account has been referred to our office because the City of Mound has not processed the land exchange for your sale in December of 1991.. Mr. John Sutherland, at 472-0600, of the city of Mound, is claiminG the survey they were provided was done in 1981; therefore, it needs to be updated. In addition to the survey, he claims you did not pay the $50.00 application fee and a $500.00 park dedication fee. Please contact me regardinG this matter. Your purchaser is unable to pay his property taxes until this matter is resolved. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Lisa A. Brecount Claims ManaGer ~ AB ch Corporate Office 7550 France Ave. South · Edina, MN 55435 · (612) 844-6200 · Fax (612) 844-6322, 844-6233, 844-6244 First ~'curity Title a divb, ion t,f Bt,rnt,t Really Inc. 33V7 5969526 MORTOAO'E THIS MORTGAGE ("Security Instrument") is given on .............. .D...e..c...e.~.b..t..r....[}. ................................................. 19..I1.1.... The mortp$or is ............ ~g.',/.~.#ll.~..,~.,...J[il,~,.l~[l' ..... ~.l. IllLl.~ .............................................................................. ............................................................................. ("Borrower"). This Security Instrument is ~iven to ....... ~.t;.~.v..t.ll...~., ........ umlxso~~xx.xxx=xxx.xxxx, xxx. xxx.xxx, xx~xxxz, xx.x, and whose address is .....2...0..l.....S.~....2..8..c..h.....S..t...r..e..e...c.x ..... .~ .~..~ ~.~.~. ~ ~...~.~.~.~.p..~.~... ~.~. ~.~. ................................................................................................................ ("Lender"). Borrower owes Lender thc principal sum of ..... ..,-?.~ ~..~-.~.,....,~ ~..?,.,.-,.-?.~.,,,-,.?,w,.r,~..~.~ ~. Dollars (U.S.S..,~ ~9.,,0]0.0.~).0. .......... ). This debt is evidcncod by Borrower's note dated thc same date as this Security Instrument (*'Note'*), which provides for monthly payments, with thc full debt. if not paid earlier, due and payable on ............................................................................................................ and for interest at thc yearly rate of ......... ~J1rln...(9.) ...... percent. This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (a) the repayment of thc debt evidenced by the Note. with interest, and all renewals, extensions and modifications; Co) the payment of all other sums, with interest, advanced under para&raph 7 to protect the security of this Security Instrument; and (c) the performance of Borrower's covenants and asrecmcnts under this Security Instrument and the Note. For this purlx~g, Borrower does hereby mort~afe, srant and convey to Lender, with p~wcr of sale, the foilowln$ described property Iocatod in ..................... ...... ]~.~.G lt.~.P.~, D. ................................ County, Minnesota: Lots 3 and 4, except that part thereof lying Northerly of a line drawn from point in the Easterly line of maid Lot & distant 25 feet Southerly from the Northeasterly corner of said LoC 4, to a point in the Westerly line of maid Lot 3 distant 25 feeC Northerly from the Southwesterly corner of said LoC 3; ALSO That part of Lots $ and 6 lyin$ NOrtheasterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 16 feet Northeasterly from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, Co a point in the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; ALSO That part of Loc 8 lying Easterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said loc distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the Southeasterly corner of said loc to · point in the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 feet Northerly from said Southeasterly corner; MTG REG TAX PAID All in Block 6, Avalon, Nennepin County, Minnesota. MP 18 F~9~ HENNEPIN COUNTY MINN. ~Y ~,A. PAPYRI% DEPUTY which hfl the addre~ of ................. ~.5...0..0...~,l..1...s,.h..t..r...e...~.~.y..d..: .......................................... H~.un~. ....................................... Minn~m .......... ~ ~.~.~ ............................... ("Pro~y Addr~'~ T~HER WIT~ all the improvements now or hero,er gr~t~ on the pro~y, smd ~11 ~mgn~, g~ht~ appurtenance, rents, royali~, mineral, oil and Sas ri8hts and profits, water gshts smd st~k and a)l ~xtur~ now or hereafter a part o~the pro~rty. A)I replacements and additions shall al~ ~ covgr~ by this ~udty Instrument, All o~thg ~ore&oin~ is rc~crr~ to in this Security Instrument as thc "Pro.ny." ~RROWER COVENANTS that Borrower is Iaw~u[]y sc[sgd o~ the ~tate hereby convcy~ and h~ the N~ht to mort6a&e, 6rant and convey thc Pro.fry.and that the Pro~rty is un.tumOrS, except ~or gncumbranc~ o~ r~ord. Borrower warrants and will de,end ~ener&]ly the titJg ~o the Pro~y e~&inst ell el&imm and demands, sub~t to any engumbrenc~ off.ord, THIS SECURITY [~STRUMENT combin~ uniform covenants ~or national u~ smd non-uni~o~ ~vcnsn~ with limit~ vsdetions by juri~iction to constitute ~ uniform sgcu~ty instrument corena[ r~l pro.ay. Form $0Z4 11/$) .. STANDARD FEI2tT, AL SAVINGS BANK P.O. Box 9481 Gaithersburg, Ma~and 20898-9481 January 24, 1991 S. C. Severson M.' R. Severson 201 28TH ST S.W. Rochester MN 55902 Re: SFSB Loan No. 660812 4500 Wilshire Blvd Dear Mr. and Mrs. Severson: Our office is completing the final audit on the partial/ easement release for the above-referenced account. The following items are needed for our records: (~' A copy of the recorded partial/easement release document. ( ) The original recorded Substitute of Trustee. ( ) In order to complete the file, it is imperative that we receive evidence of the document(s) having been recorded. If these item(s) cannot be forwarded, please provide us with an explanation as to why or when we can expect them. It is requested that you submit the above requirement within two weeks of this letter. Please mail all correspondence to my attention to Standard Federal Savings Bank, Department 1024, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20898-9481. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this request, please call me toll-free at 1-800-444-8443, extension 4768 or directly at 1-301-696-4768. Sincerely, Tammy Hough Partial Release Specialist MEMBER Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation REED & POND, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5424 SHORELINE DRIVE P.O. BOX 9 MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-0009 ROGER W. REED Reel Property Law Specialist* PAUL L POND Certified Civil Trial Specialist* *Certified by the Minnesota State Bar Alsoclatlon PHONE (612) 472-2222 FAX (el2) 472-2254 December 23, 1991 RICHARD N. INDRITZ LINDA ESENTHER DONALD F. NOACK, JR. KAY L. DUNN WENDY L. LEWIN Legal Asllstanls Ms. Sharon Olson First Security Title 1000 Superior Boulevard, #206 Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Ms. Olson: In connection with your File No. TI 66434, I enclose a Modification of Mortgage signed by Carol Stodola and Knutson Mortgage Corporation, a Modification of Mortgage signed by Carol Stodola and First National Bank of the Lakes, and an Affidavit from Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Anderson. I understand that except for the satisfaction of an old Anderson mortgage, which you are requesting, these enclosed documents should cure any title problems and allow you to release the escrowed funds to the Seversons. Please let me know promptly if you wish me to do anything further to expedite the release of the escrowed funds. Very truly yours, REED & POND, LTD. Roger W. Reed RWR:nr Enclosures ~,~'~: Mr. and Mrs. Steven Severson 3g 'O MODI¥ICATION OF MORTGAGE WHEREAS, Carol Stodola executed a mortgage in favor of First National Bank of the Lakes dated June 26, 1991, which mortgage was filed July 9, 1991, as Document No. 2185862 in the office of the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County, Minnesota, covering Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 6, Avalon, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the owners of adjoining land have traded property to adjust the property lines in accordance with the actual lines of occupation; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to facilitate the adjusting of said property lines; NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between Carol Stodola, single, and First National Bank of the Lakes that that certain mortgage recorded July 9, 1991 as Document No. 2185862 in the office of the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County, Minnesota, is hereby modified so that hereafter its legal description will read as follows: Lots 5 and 6 except that part thereof lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 16 feet Northeasterly from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, to a point in the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; Lot 7; Lot 8 except that part thereof lying Easterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said lot distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the Southeasterly corner of said lot to a point in the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 feet Northerly from said Southeasterly corner; Ail in Block 6, Avalon. IN WITNES~ whereof we have caused these presents to be executed this 2/~.-day of December, 1991 Carol Stod61a 1 FIRST NATIONAL~~HE LAKES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ,/ The foregoing instrument is acknowledged before me this .? /~. day of December, 1991 by Carol Stodola, single. Notary ~blic STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) [ff~li~D, ll~ NOTAI~f' PUBLIO - MINNE~3TA (~' HENNEPIN COUNTY The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 'day of December, 1991, by //~ P. ~ / 4/Z%'~f the ~ / m~' of First National Bank of' the Lakes, a national banking association, on behalf of the association. Notary/Publ ic " / This instrument was drafted by REED & POND, LTD., 5424 Shoreline Drive, P.O. Box 9, Mound, Minnesota 55364-0009. (612) 472-2222. 2 MODIFICATION OF MORTGAGE WHEREAS, on Certificate of Title No. 490690, issued May 3, 1973, to Carol Stodola appears a memorial of a mortgage dated April 30, 1973, filed May 3, 1973, as Document No. 1069117 in favor of H. and Val J. Rothschild, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, covering Lot 6, 7 and 8, Block 6, Avalon, Hennepin County, Minnesota: and WHEREAS, said mortgage has been assigned to Northland Mortgage Company, St. Paul, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Northland Mortgage Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, have changed the name of the mortgage company to Knutson Mortgage Corporation; and WHEREAS, the owner of said Lots 6, 7 and 8 is trading property with an adjoining land owner in order to adjust property lines in accordance with the actual lines of occupation; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to facilitate the adjusting of said property lines; NOW THEREFORE it is agreed by and between Carol Stodola, single, and Northland Mortgage Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, that that certain mortgage recorded May 3, 1973, as Document No. 1069117 is hereby modified that so hereafter its legal description will read as follows: Lots 5 and 6 except that part thereof lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 16 feet Northeasterly from the Southwesterly corner of said LOt 5, to a point in the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; Lot 7; Lot 8 except that part thereof lying Easterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said lot distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the Southeasterly corner of said lot to a point in the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 feet Northerly from said Southeasterly corner; Ail in Block 6, Avalon. IN WITNESS whereof we have caused these presents to be executed this ~/z; day of £~z~ ~'^t;~ z'[~ , 1~9~. /~;'{ - /~/V ~ Carol Stod61a KNUTSON MORTGAGE CORPORATION First Vice President STATE OF MINNESOTA I SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ). The foregoing i. nstrument is acknowledged before me this ?/f~'"day of iP-'(r~,]~f , 1 _9~, .by. Carol Stodola, single. . - STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument is acknowledged before me this 5th day of July , 1990, by Thomas P. Farrell .., the First Vice President of Knutson Mortgage Corporation, BloominRton , Minnesota, a corporation under the laws of Minnesota on behalf of the corporation. .:.~:. ~.-.~.. N0t~ry ~bl ic -- ~-- This instrument was drafted by REED & POND, LTD., 54'~.4.'Shoreline Drive, P.O Box 9, Mound, Minnesota 55364-0009. (612)...~72-2222. Form 116-M STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) AFFIDAVIT REGARDING SELLER Gordon Carl Anderson and Rebecca D. Anderson, being first duly sworn, on oath say(s) that: They are the person(s) named as mortgagors in the document da~ed April 28, 1966, and filed for record April 29, 1966, as Document No. 844347 and they are the persons named as owners in Certificate of Title No. 379035 issued August 25, 1964 by the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County, Minnesota, in connection with the ownership of Lot 3 and part of Lot 2, Block 6 Avalon, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said person(s) are of legal age and under no legal disability with place of business(es) respectively at and for the last ten years have resided at: 2757 Anglessly Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 Se There have been no: a. Bankruptcy, divorce or dissolution proceedings involving said person(s) during the time said persons(s) have had any interest in the premises described in the above document ("Premises"); b. Unsatisfied judgments of record against said person(s) nor any actions pending in any courts, which affect the Premises: c. Tax liens against said persons(s): except as herein stated: None Any bankruptcy, divorce or dissolution proceedings of record against parties with the same or similar names, during the time period in which the above named person(s) have had any interest in the Premises, are not against the above named person(s). Any judgments, or tax liens of record against parties with the same or similar names are not against the above named person(s). There has been no labor or materials furnished to the Premises for which payment has not been made. e Se There are no unrecorded contracts, leases, easements, or other agreements or interests relating to the Premises except as stated herein: None The said Gordon Carl Anderson is not the same person as the Gordon C. Anderson named as debtor in bankruptcy case 4- 87BK56. Affiant(s) know(s) the matters herein stated are true and make(s) this Affidavit for the purpose of inducing the passing of title tqm the Premises. Gordon Carl Anderson Rebecca D. Anderson Subscribed and sworn to me before me this Notary Pub5 ic ROGER. REED NOTARY ~. Un~ESOl'A HENNEPIN COUNTY This instrument was drafted by REED & POND, LTD., 5424 Shoreline Blvd., P. O. Box 9, Mound, MN. 55364-0009, (612) 472-2222. - 2 - dj Case No. 89-829, Steven Severs0n 0f 4500 Wllshlre BIvd.~ Carol StodOla of 4510 Wtlshire BIvd.t and Gordon Anderson 2757 Anglesl¥ Lane. Lots 3 - 8 and part of Lot 2t Block Avalon, PID. #19-117-23-31 0018/0019 & 19-117-23-24 0014. MINOR SUBDIVISION. The Ctty Planner reviewed the request for subdivision. In 1981 the same request was approved by the City, however, was never properly filed with the County. The proposed subdivision in- Planntng Commission Minutes July 10, 1989 Page Four volves realigning lot lines to allow conforming setl~acks to all structures Involved. The Building OFficial stated In her recommendation that tF all of the persons with Financial Interest cio not sign the application, staff recommends a written letter from the financial Institutions prior to the City Council hearing For the subdivision. .Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision as shown on the at- tached Exhibits At B, and C. Two of the parties Involved were present, they were Mlchelle Severson and Mrs. Gordon Anderson. They commented that they not know why the subdivision was never flied tn 1981, that they were under the Impression it wes already In effect. 5everson commented that this subdivision would actually benefit her mortgage company stnce they are creating conforming lots. Mrs. Anderson stated that she lives on Anglesey Lane and there no street stgn. 5he requested a street sign be installed label- tng!Anglesey Lane. · MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Sohns to approve s~aff recommendation for approval of the minor subdivi- sion. Staff Is also directed to erec~ a street sign for Anglesey Lane. Motion carrled unanimously. This case wtll be heard by the City Council on July Z5, 1989 3357 CASE NO. 89-829 TO: Planning Commission, A~plicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building OFFicial DATE: Planning Cc~nmlssion Agenda of July lO, l CASE NO.: 89-829 APPLICANTS: Steven Severson, Carol Stodola, and Gordon C. Anderson LOCATION: 4500 Wllshire Blvd., 4510 Wtlshtre Blvd., and 2757 Anglessey Lane LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Sei¥ 1/2 of Lot 2, and 1/2 of adjacent Carnarvon cane, Block 6, Avalon SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision EXISTING ZONING: R-3 One & Two Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: In 1981 an application was received to subdivide this property in the same manner as presently being requested, this would remove a nonconforming side yard setback For Lots 4 & 5, Block 6, Avalon. The neighbors have agreed to realign the platted lots of record to allow Parcel A: Lot 7, 8, I/2 of the vacated carnarvon Lane, and part of Lot 6 to allow a lot area of approximately 11,626 square Feet; Parcel B: part of Lot 4, and 5 and 6 with a lot area of approximately 8,236 square Feet; and Parcel C: Sely 1/2 of Lot 2, part of Lot 3, and part of Lot 4 with approximately 6,984 square Feet. The surveys that were sub- mitted at the time were never Filed with City For the legal descriptions, nor with the County. Staff suspects that there may have been mortgage companies that did not agree with the realign- ment of these lots, thereby we have suggested to the applicants that all owners with Financial Interest sign the application For the subdivision. IF all of the persons with Financial Interest cio not sign the application, staff recommends a written letter From the Financial institutions prior to the City Council hearing For the subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor realign- ment of lot lines to allow conforming setbacks For all the struc- tures as well as conforming lot sizes as shown on the attached Exhibits A, B, and C. Platting requirements is granted For the minor subdivision. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This case will be referred to the City Council on July 25, 1989. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.O3-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNE~ , . , , . PLAT PARCEL Leceti~ ~ complete legal descrlptio~ of pro~)~rt¥ tO b~ divided: 4500 Wilshtre Blvd.: PID 19-117-23-31-0018, Lots 4 & 5, Block 6, Avalon 4510 Wilshire Blvd.: PID 19-117-23-31-0019, Lots 6, 7, & 8 incl ~ adj Carnarvon Ln vacated, Block 6, Avalon 2757 Anglesey Lane: PID 19-117-Z3-24-0014, Lot 3 and Sely ~ of Lot 2, Blocl~ 6, Avalon ZO~INO ~-5 To I~.divi~d ~t foilers: All supporting documentsr such as sketch planst surveyst attachments~ etc. must be submitted In 83" X il" slze and/or lb copies plus one '8~" X I1" copy, (attKh survey ee scale drl~ving showing adjacent streets, dime~liee el' prel~led building sites, Iquara feet Itel of eech ~ew parcel designated b~ number) . ~EOUESTED FOR: Square feet APPLICANT (signature) TEL..0. This q)f~llcatiM~ must be signed by Ill I~e OWNERS ef the properly, er an explm- ation given why this ia not Ifle IlPLANNING COMMI~ION R ECOIdMENDATION: DATE COUNCIL ACTION Resolution No, DATE APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION l$ DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY DEFICIENT S,eECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION AS APPROVEO AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENT OF.TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER WITHIN I YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID. , A Ilar'Of residents end ewnors ~f prc~rty within - to r te~.LLf. J,~-l-Ltr~-rm~l~t p~~ P r,_~..~,/,_~ v~s l~. SUBJECT: tinda Sandford 4qO0 Wilshire Blvd. Mound~ Mn. q~64 CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-1155 ~-18-81 I Subdivision of Land: MESSAGE Council authorized the subdivision of land per your reoues~ bug ~h¢ resolution cannot be written unless we receive the surveyor's 1¢gal description for each parcel of property and the survey of same. We would appreciate qe~inq this by the end of the week~ so that we can 9et the resolution written and forwarded go you for filing. Mar~e Stutsman REPLY FO~M 11003 REGENT F~I~, LETTER-LIMINATOR RECIPIENT: RETAIN I~ E COPY. RETURN PINK COPY 192 May Coun¢ilmember Ulrick moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO 81-173 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION AS REQUESTED WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordiance would de- prive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: I) That the requests of Linda S. Sanford, Carol E. Stodola and Gordon C. Anderson for waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1981 - Page 2 BOARD OF APPEALS RedJvision of Land 4500 & 4510 Wilshire Boulevard and 2757 Wilshire Boulevard Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, Part of Lots 2 and 8, Block 6, Avalon LJnda Sanford, Carol Stodola and Hrs. Anderson were present. Weiland moved and Stannard seconded a motion to recommend the subdivision of land as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Note: Purpose is to straighten out lot lines by swapping property and to make legal sideyards and setbacks for all structures. 6. Street Front Variance, 5014 Bayport Road Lot 18, Block 2, J. S. Carlson Addition Mark Nielsen was present. Discussed variance requested for garage. Would also need 2 foot sideyard variance because of unique corner lot. Smith moved and Weila~d seconded a motion to table request. The vote was unanimously in favor. Note: Applicant wants to change plans for drive and will come back next r,?~.?¢:o Chairman Peterson reviewed a report which had been submitted by the Committee to study the use of public buildings. Copies of report to be sent to all Planning Commission members, with discussion of report to be scheduled at a future meeting. Hanson reported that she and Paulsen will have a booth at the Westonka Volunteer Fair on April 30th. Mayor Lindlan arrived at meeting at 8:30 P.M. Chairman and members of the Planning Cbmmission expressed their thanks to Leonard Kopp for being an advisor and ~m~ resource person and wished him great happiness in his retirement. Weiland reported on the two meetings so far of the Downtown Task Force. They are discussing 1) street lighting, 2) possible egresses off of 110 and 3) taking the whole business district into consideration. Smith moved and Hanson seconded a motion to adjourn. All in favor, so adjourned to next Planning Commission meeting on May 18, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. Attest: ) .: : x "? " for CarOl E. Stodola I ~o%~./~d , : in Lots 5-8, Block 6, Avalon ,. . . ~ It Hennepin County, Minnesota /I hereby certify that this is a true correct representation of a survey of %he boundaries of: and Lot,s 5 and 6, except that p~rt thereof lying Northeasterly of.a line draun from a' point in the 'Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 16 feet Northeasterly from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, to a point in the Northerly l~no of said Lot 6 distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the most Northerly corner of s~id Lot 6; Lot 7; Lot 8 except that part thereof lying Easterly of a line dra~ from a point in the Southerly llne of said lot distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the easterly corner of said lot to a point in the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 feet Northerly from said Southeasterly corner; ~ All in Block 6, Avalon, AND that part of the 'Easterly half of Carnarvon Lane, vacated, lying South- erly of the Southwesterly extension 0£ th~ Northerly'line of Lot S, Block 6, Ava lon, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other ~mprovements or encroachments. certificate of Survey for Linda San£ord in Lots 3-6 and 8, Block 6, Avalon Hennepin County, Minnesota N 'Z' ,?. r~orr~rof L~t ~." I'hereby certify that this 'is a true and correct representation of.a survey of the boundaries of: Lots 3 and 4, except that part thereof lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point in the Easterly line of said'Lot 4 distant 25 feet Southerly from the Northeast- · erly corner o£ said Lot 4, to a point in the Westerly line of said Lot 3 distant 25 feet Northerly from the Southwesterly corner of said'Lot 3; That part of .Lots 5 and 6 lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 16 feet Northeasterly from the South- westerly corner of' said Lot 5, to a point in the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16'feet Southwesterly from' the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; ' ' That part of Lot 8 lying Easterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southerly line of said lot distant 16 feet Southwesterly from' the Southeasterly corner of said lot to a point in the Fmsterly line of said lot distant 25 feet Northerly from said Southeasterly corner; All in Block 6, Avalon, and the location of all exls{ing buildin'gs thereon. It' does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. Scale: 1" = 30' Date : 6-3-81 o : Iron marker G°rdon'R. Coffin - Land Surveyor und Planner Long Lake, Minnesota CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I-AND SURVEYORS 8713 DU'VONT AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON. MINN. $$420 ~:~8 Survey for: JOHN D. SANFORD / .I Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 6, AVALON We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any', thereo' and all visible encroachments, 'if any, from or on said l~d. Dated this lied day , ~9~_5_. , ~ . ....._ ~, 3~ by~ Milxfie~ota Registration ~o. uu~,8 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE $ FEE OWNER PLAT PARCEL b,'~d~. 5 5,,,/z~tol ,~,.al~ A.o/~ ~ ~/~ .ocation and complete legal descr,ptioo of property to be divided: To be diwded as follows: ~ 00o (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimensio~ of proposed building sales, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. 3 From j~(~ t/ Square feet TO ~/~/~" '/ 3~ t'o ,~aa7 Reas~: ~ ~ ?O 7 37~ ~ Square feet ,PPLICANT ~~ J~~ TEL ~. ~~/ (si~atu~) This appli~ati~ most ~ si~e~ by all ~e OWN~ ~ ~ pr~e~, or a~ e~la~- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE COUNCIL ACTION Resolution No DATE ' ~"~' '* Fl ~.. APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY r~ ~ · ~" DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER. THE FILING OF THE DIVISION :' // f~--[ ;; AS APPROVED AND THE NECES~,ARY PAYMENT OF TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER A list of resi~nt~ and ~ners of pr~e~y within feet must be a~ched. 30 8 , \ ~0189 68 C 22' 25. I 30 GENERAl, ZONING INFORMAIION SI-IZ~F ~ ~1 ~~ . ~. ~.~~ , ~. ~-~ I Eximtinq Lot Width $~TBACE8 RI~UXRED t I~ t M I B W ~ ~TI M ~ B W SLOB, M S , M 8lOg, M , , W I~EAR I M S E # SO' (me&eured fro~lt O,H,#,l (frontage on in improved p~bltc street) Depth FRONT SIDEs SIDEs LA~ESHOJ~ s ACCESSORY SO' (mealured from O.II.W. I EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED BBTBACKSI $ZDls SIDEs REAAs FRONTs FRONT s ·lOll ACCESSORY BUILDXN~ #ILL T~B P~S~~I~S COn, If ORE7 YES 4500 Wllshire Blvd. Steven Se~erson 9-22-83 4510 Wilshire Blvd. Carol Stodola 4-30-73 2757 Anglessly Lane Gordon Anderson Avalon 37850 v Lots 4 & 5 Block 6 .~--~ 19-117-23 31 0018 (~OJ Ava 1 on 3785~ Lots 6-7-8-incl ½ of vac 1 Blocl 6 19-117-2 Avalon aJ~,.::., ~'~7850 Lot 3 & SEly t of Lot 2 Block 6 Survey. no P (q -il'7-Z3 oot'l .. 3 \ ,3 1 B,eUNSWlCK ¢R R I CHMOND ~ DOPCHESIER ~?s ~ UA,NCI~E STER °, (2) (I) 3l':~ 1:%; 28'?l 4 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE ~ EXISTING NONCONFOI~ING FRONT Y~R.D SETBACK TO ~I~LOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION~ 3091 TUXEDO BLVD., PART OF LOTS 18, 19, 20, ~ 21, BLOCK 1, P~ROKE, PID #19-117-23 34 0128 P&Z CASE #93-045 WHEREAS, the applicants, Dale and Kelle Bakalyar, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming setback to Tuxedo Blvd. of 22 feet, resulting in a 8 foot variance request, to allow the construction of a garage addition, and; WHEREAS, the odd shaped lot results from previous road easements taken in approximately 1969, and; WHEREAS, the proposed garage addition, with a deck above, is conforming to all setbacks, 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, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage 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 grant an $ foot variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback to allow construction of a conforming garage addition. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. Proposed Resolution page 2 Case #93-045 Se It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 24.4' x 18' garage addition with a deck on the roof. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21, except the West 85 feet of said Lots and except the Easterly 20 feet of Lots 18, 19, and 21, Block 1, Pembroke This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 Case ~93-045: Dale and Kelle Bakalyar. 3091 Tuxedo Blvd., Lots 18. 19~ 20 & D/21, Block It Pembroket PID ~19-117-23 34 0128. VARIANC~ FOR GARAGE ADDITION._ City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building officials report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming setback to Tuxedo Boulevard of 22 feet. The required setback is 30 feet resulting in a 8 foot variance request. The proposed garage addition, with a deck above, is conforming to all setbacks. The odd shaped lot results from previous road easements taken in approximately 1969. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as the proposed addition is conforming to setbacks, the lot is an odd shape, and it is impractical to relocate the existing dwelling. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the city Council on September 28, 1993. C ITY of MOUND STAFF' REPORT 53,:': MAYWOOD t::IGAE L,'OUND L;iNNESQTA55364 '687 612, ~72 0600 FAX 6~2 4720620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Planning Commission Agenda of September 14, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official 3~ Variance Request Dale and Kelle Bakalyar CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: 93-045 3091 Tuxedo Blvd., Lots 18, 19, 20, and part of Lot 21, Block 1, Pembroke, PID ~19-117-23 34 0128 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming setback to Tuxedo Blvd. of 22 feet. The required setback is 30 feet setback resulting in a 8 foot variance request. The proposed garage addition, with a deck above, is conforming to all setbacks. The odd shaped lot results from previous road easements taken in approximately 1969. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed addition as it is conforming and it is impractical to relocate the existing dwelling. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. This case printed on recycled paper revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OP HOUND 5341 Haywood Road, Mound, l~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0520 U 9 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~_.~~5 Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City E__ng.igger: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property !;_ <"~L".D ~'J. 'J., '~ Owner's Name ~.' ' ~.~ ' - '( Day Phone Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot '~. ' ' ~ '~ ~ Addition c(~' ic ~. · , ,. 5~-' Zoning District ~ [ Use of Property: Block I - ' ' .o. %4 OIZ Has an application ever been made for zoning, varian~e,_..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.): ~CC~'~ ~,*'.,~'~,~ '~' " 357 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case NO.~__ DO the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback/regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~/Q, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required Front Yard: ( N S ~0/ ft. Rear Yard: ( N S-E W ) - ft. Lake Front: ( N S E W ) ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. Lot Size: sq ft Street Frontage ft. requested VARIANCE (or existing) 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 ( ), 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? ( ( ( Please describe: C_, .... ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ) too shallow ( ) shape (~.-~other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~If yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case N 0. _~~~5 Was the hardship created by a~y other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ~,~, No (). If yes, explain e Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~-~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: inspecting, or of posti~, maintaining and removing required by law. /~ 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 such notices as may be u .J & I I, A NAME: ADDRESS: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA 1~'~-~17 SQFT X 30% = 4~.1 I I 41 "1"/~ SQ FT X 15% = '%21G,.~.,~ HOUSE: LENGTH WIDTH ~,,~ x :z~.~ X X TOTAL HOUSE ******************* GARAGE: c~:~. ¥'[" X ~' = TOTAL GARAGE ****************** DRIVEWAY: I~' X ~:~ = [O ~ ~ , [?- x [~, = DECK: ~T (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** t .o x 8,0 x '~,,o = TOTAL DECK ************* '~' TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** OTHER: X X -- TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * YES NO BY: DATE: .27 January 2'7, 1~)87 RESOLUTION NO. 87-22 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOHHENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR PART OF LOTS 18, 19, 20 AND 21, BLOCK 1, PEHBROKE, PID # 19-117-23-34 0030/0029/0028, P.C. CASE # 87-601 WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained In Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the Clty of Hound by the applicant, Timothy A. Torgrimson; 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 rights; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or Injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City.of Hound, Hinnesota: The request of the appllcant for a waiver from the provisions of Section 22,00 of the Clty Code and the request to subdivision property of less than $ acres, described as follows: Lots 18, 191 and 20, except the west 85 feet of 'said Lots and except the easterly 20 of Lots 18 and 19, Block 1, Pembroke. Also the west 85 feet of Lots 18, 19, and 20, Block 1, Pembroke. Also Lot 21, Block 1, Pem- broke; PID Numbers 19-117-23 34 0030/0029/0028. A. It ls hereby granted to permit the subdivision In the following manner as per Exhlbit A: Parcel A: Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21, except the West 85 feet of said Lots and except the Easterly 20 feet of Lots 18, 19, and 21, Block 1, Pembroke. Parcel B: The West 85 feet of Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21, Block 1, Pembroke. Be It Is hereby determined that the foregoing subdivision w111 constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with, the adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of thls reso- lution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepln County to show compliance wlth the subdivislon regulatlons of this City. This lot subdivislon is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this reso)ution. 28 January 27, 1987 The foregoing'resolution was moved by Councilmember Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councllmembers voted in the negative: none, ~ttest: City Clerk a'ncilmember Wi thhart Inoved the fdllowlng resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 80-186 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR ~.IITH TItE PLANNING COM- MISSION S GRANT 6 FOOT STREET FRONT VARIANCE WHEREAS, owners oF property described as East one-half of Lots 18, 19 & 20, Block 1, Pembroke, PID 19-117-23 34 0027 Plat 37910 Parcel 0510 have requested a 6 foot street front variance for the purpose of construct- ing a deck, and WHEREAS, this property is zoned A-1 requiring 10,000 sq. ft and they have 13,446.65 sq. ft. but ~uld be adding deck to south side of home and need 'the 6 ft. variance but the sideyard would be 44 ft well in excess of what the new zoning ordnance would call for, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has granted/approved the 6 ft street front var- iance and the Building Inspector can see no reason for denying this re- quest. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and does hereby grant the 6 foot street front variance for the purpose of'erecting a deck. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolutlon was duly seconded'by Councilmember Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof; Lovaasen, Swenson, Ulrick and Withhart, the followlng voted against the same; none, with Polston being absent, whereupon said resolution was declared pa~sed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the Acting City Clerk. .L Ma~/or Attest: Acting¢ City Clerk PROPOSED RESOLUTION ~93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ~VARIANCETO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND LAKESHORE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ~DDITION ~T 2561 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 4 THRU 13, BLOCK ?, SETON, PID #24-117-24 14 0001 P&Z CASE #93-046 WHEREAS, the applicant, Willette Construction, Inc., has applied for the following variances to allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage addition: and; Existing/ Required Proposed Variance FRONT EAST 20' 8' 1 ' O.H.W. 50' 48' 2' WHEREAS, the existing dwelling reconstruction was approved by Resolution $90-108, and at that time a garage site was not shown, and; WHEREAS, the proposed driveway will also encroach into the required 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water as required by City Code Section 350:1225, 5., and; WHEREAS, the encroachment of 2 feet into the lakeshore setback is minimized by the expansive wetland before you get to navigable water, and; WHEREAS, the need for storage space is reasonable, the proposal is minimally sized, and the location appears to be the best suited for the site with the garage door facing the side lot line, and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-2 Two 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 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. 33W7 Proposed Resolution Page 2 Casey #93-046 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 16 foot front yard setback variance and a 2 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage addition· A lakeshore setback variance is also granted for the driveway· The driveway shall be locat~d00so that the impact of the ~ncroachment is minimal.. The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420· It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 22' x 22' garage addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 4 thru 13, inclusive, Block 7, Seton. 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. & · I, il, ~A PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND LAKESHORE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ~T 2561 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 4 THRU 13, BLOCK ?, SETON, PID $24-117-24 14 0001 P&Z CASE $93-046 WHEREAS, the applicant, Willette Construction, Inc., has applied for the following variances to allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage addition: Existing/ Required Proposed FRONT EAST 20' 8' O.H.W. 50' 48' Variance- and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling reconstruction was approved by Resolution #90-108, and at that time a garage site was not shown, and; WHEREAS, the proposed driveway will also encroach into the required 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water as required by City Code Section 350:1225, 5., and; WHEREAS, the encroachment of 2 feet into the lakeshore setback is minimized by the expansive wetland before you get to navigable water, and; WHEREAS, the need for storage space is reasonable, the proposal is minimally sized, and the location appears to be the best suited for the site with the garage door facing the side lot line, and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-2 Two 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 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Casey #93-046 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: ~.. 1. The city does hereby approve a/16~foot front yard setback variance and a 2 foot lakeshor~etback variance %o allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage addition. A lakeshore setback variance is also granted for the driveway. The driveway shall be located .so__that the impact of the encroachment is minimal~~~o-,~-~ ~,,~ 2. Th~~~r~~e ~terations Set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420· It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 22' x 22' garage addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 4 thru 13, inclusive, Block 7, Seton. 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. t I I, t ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TIlE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEg BER 13, 1993 Case ~93-046~ Willette Construction, Inc., 2561 Wexford Lane, Lots 4 - 13, Block 7m Seton, PID #24-117-24 14 0001. VARIANCE FOh GARAGE ADDITION.. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building official's report. The applicant is seeking the following variances to allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage and entry addition onto the existing dwelling. Existing/ Required Proposed FRONT EAST 20' 8' O.H.W. 50' 48' Hardcover is conforming according to the applicants calculations. The existing dwelling reconstruction was approved by Resolution $90-108. The encroachment of 2 feet into the lakeshore setback is minimized by the expansive wetland before you get to navigable water. The need for storage space is reasonable. The proposal is minimally sized and the location appears to be the best suited for the site with the garage door facing the side. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval as there is an obvious need for storage space. The request is minimally sized and this is a very odd shaped lot that presents a difficulty in placing a garage without a minor encroachment. Hanus questioned if the driveway is required to meet a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. It was noted that City Code Section 350:1225, Subd. 5 requires "Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks". The Commission agreed that the proposed location of the driveway is in the best location given the layout of the lot. It was noted that when the original variance was granted for the dwelling a proposed garage site was not shown. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the inclusion of a driveway setback variance as required by City Code Section 350:1225, 5. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. Varianc%~.~ ~ CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND Mi'iNE$OTA55364 ,~2,472 F~X ;612, 472-0629 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of September 13, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~~ · Variance Request APPLICANT: Willette Construction, Inc. (Dave Willette) CASE NO. 93-046 LOCATION: 2561 Wexford Lane, Lots 4 - 13, Block 7, Seton, PID #24-117-24 14 0001 ZONING: R-2 Two Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking the following variances to allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage and entry onto the existing dwelling. Required Existing/ Proposed Variance FRONT EAST 20' 8' 16' O.H.W. 50' 48' 2' Hardcover is conforming according to the applicants calculations. The existing dwelling reconstruction was approved by Resolution #90-108. The encroachment of 2 feet into the lakeshore setback is minimized by the expansive wetland before you get to navigable water. The need for storage space is reasonable. The proposal is minimally sized and the location appears to be the best suited for the site with the garage door facing the side. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval as there is an obvious need for storage space. The request is minimally sized and this is a very odd shaped lot that presents a difficulty in placing a garage without a minor encroachment. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. This case printed on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TIlE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 Case ~93-046~ Willette Construction, Inc., 2561 Wexford Lane, Lots 4 - 13t Block ?t Setont PID ~24-117-24 14 0001. VARIANCE FOK GARAGE ADDITION,. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building official's report. The applicant is seeking the following variances to allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage and entry addition onto the existing dwelling. Existing/ Require~ ~ yariance FRONT EAST 20' 8' 16' O.H.W. 50' 48' 2' Hardcover is conforming according to the applicants calculations. The existing dwelling reconstruction was approved by Resolution t90-108. The encroachment of 2 feet into the lakeshore setback is minimized by the expansive wetland before you get to navigable water. The need for storage space is reasonable. The proposal is minimally sized and the location appears to be the best suited for the site with the garage door facing the side. Staff recommends the Planning Conumission recommend approval as there is an obvious need for storage space. The request is minimally sized and this is a very odd shaped lot that presents a difficulty in placing a garage without a minor encroachment. Hanus questioned if the driveway is required to meet a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. It was noted that City Code Section 350:1225, Subd. 5 requires "Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks". The Commission agreed that the proposed location of the driveway is in the best location given the layout of the lot. It was noted that when the original variance was granted for the dwelling a proposed garage site was not shown. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the inclusion of a driveway setback variance as required by City Code Section 350:1225, 5. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534~ MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55264 1687 ~6!2 472-0600 FAX ~6~2~ 472 0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of September 13, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~~' Variance Request Willette Construction, Inc. (Dave Willette) CASE NO. 93-046 LOCATION: 2561 Wexford Lane, Lots 4 - 13, Block 7, Seton, PID #24-117-24 14 0001 ZONING: R-2 Two Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking the following variances to allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage and entry onto the existing dwelling. Existing/ Required Proposed Variance FRONT EAST 20' 8' 16' O.H.W. 50' 48' 2' Hardcover is conforming according to the applicants calculations. The existing dwelling reconstruction was approved by Resolution #90-108. The encroachment of 2 feet into the lakeshore setback is minimized by the expansive wetland before you get to navigable water. The need for storage space is reasonable. The proposal is minimally sized and the location appears to be the best suited for the site with the garage door facing the side. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval as there is an obvious need for storage space. The request is minimally sized and this is a very odd shaped lot that presents a difficulty in placing a garage without a minor encroachment. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. This case printed on recycled paper 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND 5341 Ma~ood Road, Mound, ~ 55364, Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet C_ompleted: Copy to City Planne -r. Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~.~g~e~r: Please type or print the following information: Address of S ubjecf Property 9 Owner' s Name Owner's Address ~)'~F~"- ~~ .~-'~-~-'"~..~1~' ~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 7 Addition ,~-~'~ PID NoN~'I/'7-~ /~ 0~0~ 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.): 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. ~ ~0~ 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), N~ ~. 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~) Side Yard: (~S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) z o ft. Z ' ft. /2 ' ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ~--0' ft. ~3~ ft. ~_' ft. .~~_ ' ft. /,or ft. ~--~ ft. ft. ft. - ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it 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 ( ) 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 interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. q~~~ 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? 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. ~licant's Signature Date Date ~ CARRI_CK LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ROAD Lots 4 thru 13, inclusive, Block 7, SETON, according to the recorded plat (: u,,;,,,/,,',,',d') - thereof, Hennepin County, 6ENERAL NOTES CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY CATt4E/ZI/q~ MOvNACH PrepareQ fo~ '. ~=o :..: ~ 4 ROAD CARRI_CK _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 4 thru ~3, inclusive, Block 7, SETON, accordin~ to the recorded Plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. o Denote* iron m~x~ument · *' Denolee cross chi.tied in concrele g959.7 Penotoe exitting Ipot elevation ~ Denotes ~o~sed .pot elevation ~ Deflolel .ur,ace drainage Da~hed c~l~ line~ denotel proposed features Solid confer line~ deflole~ existing featurel 2540 Oaniele Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55:~56 Ph; 475-1453 GENERAL NOTES Proposed top of foundation elevation Propoeedbasement floor elevation Proposed garage floor elevation = BENCHMARKt ] hlrlby Ce,I fy thai Ihll lurvly, ~t,3n or wal prepared by me or under my direct lupefvilion end thai [ am · duly Reglttered ~fld under the IG~thl Slolo of Minnesolt FILl RO. q,o !o¢ .4 NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS SQ FT X 15% = HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: LENGTH WIDTH ~ ~/ ~ ~o ; _?~o X = TOTAL HOUSE ******************* ~~x =.~- a. X = TOTAL GARAGE ****************** · /~ x ~© __ TOTAL DRIVEWAY DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100~) OTHER: ~~''/''' TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** ~ x _~--' = ~2~ TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * · · · · · . ~YES___NO I t 178 September 12, 1990 RESOLUTION %90-108 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD & SIDB YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOTS 4 - 13m BLOCK 7m SETONm PID %24-117-24-14 0001 (2561 WEXFORD LANE) P&Z CASE NO. 90-933 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a 7.8 foot side yard setback and recognize an existing front yard setback of 13.3 feet, to allow the re-construction of a single family dwelling for Lots 4 - 13, Block 7, Seton, PID #24-117-24- 14 0001, and~ WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-3 Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 50 foot lakeshore setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 30 foot front yard setback, and; WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful,' nonconforming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval due to practical difficulty and topography to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by. the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby authorize the 16.7 foot front yard setback variance and the 2.2 foot side yard setback variance for the property located at Lots 4 - 13, Block 7, Seton, PID %24-117-24-14 0001 (2561 Wexford Lane). The City Council authorizes the setback violations and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) 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 alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owner reasonable use of his land: 179 September 12, 1990 ae To remove the existing structure down to the first floor foundation and reconstruct the dwelling, with modifications, 13.3 feet from the front property line, and 7.8 feet from the (north) side property line. b. Upon the following conditions: l) The 8.3' x 7.5' shed be removed from the property, and 2) The new structure will meet all current building code requirements. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 4 - 13, Block 7, Seton, PID #24-117-24-14 0001. 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. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution ,was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. ~ayor Attest: City Clerk UI:,NI',RAI, I, ONING LNfUI~NLX/'ION 511EEI' SB~B&CKS RBQUIRI~DI rnofl'r, N . I V ~_~0! FRO~T t ,IDB, / ~SHO~; SO' (MIg~ fc~ O,H,W.I BXZSTZNG FReT; N S g W SlOBs ~ S SIDEs N S g NO~ ?., I· TH~ C~FOPJ4ING? YES 8-B FRONT s · IDEs N S E if REARs N S g LREESHOR~: $0' (melBur~ frcx~ O,H.if, I A~¢ESSOR¥ BUZLDI~ / SIDE: # · E W gILL THE PROPOSED INPROV~NTS CONFORJql YES PROCLAMATION ADULT LITERACY AWARENESS WEEK WESTONKA ADULT BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAM SEPTEMBER 27-OCTOBER 3, 1993 WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: The social and economic consequences of illiteracy are far- reaching and affect the entire state of Minnesota; and The future requires a work force that has learned how to learn: by the year 2000 65% of jobs will require education beyond high school, and only 4% of new jobs can be filled by people with the lowest skills; and Eleven percent of Mound's adult population age 19 and older do not have a high school degree: one in five Minnesotans cannot read this proclamation; in the U.S. there are over an estimated 30 million adults who cannot read and write; and The influx of refugees and immigrants has raised the need for English as a Second Language classes by more than 100 % since 1990; and Learning is a lifelong activity, necessary to function successfully at home, at work and in relationships, beginning in infancy, fostered by literate parents, and continuous throughout a lifetime of change and growth; and Adult learners bring with them life experiences, needs for child care, easy access to sites, free or Iow cost classes, and a yearning to participate more fully in and not merely be clients of a rapidly changing society; and The Westonka Community Education Adult Basic Education Program offers free, personalized classes which develop reading, writing, math or English language skills; preparation for the GED or a high school diploma with free child care, parent education at convenient locations in Mound and surrounding communities; and It is important to recognize participants in adult basic education programs: students, instructors, volunteers, and taxpayers; and Westonka citizens would like to join other local, state and national groups in the celebration ol Adult Literacy Month; NOW THEREFORE, I, Skip Johnson, Mayor of the City of Mound, do hereby proclaim the week of September 27 to October 3, 1993, to be: ADULT LITERACY AWARENESS WEEK and urge all citizens of the City of Mound to promote literacy in their area by either attending classes themselves, or referring Individuals to classes; and by eliminating barriers which may prevent adults in the community from achieving their learning goals. SIGNED Skip Johnson, Mayor City of Mound Mound City Code Section 255:00 Section 255 - Park and 0 en S ace ~dviso Commission Section 255:00. Establis_hment of Commission~ city Park and Open Space Advisory Commission for the City of Mound is hereby established. (ORD. #39-1990 - 1-29-90) Section 255:05. C~omposition~ The Park and Open Space Advisory Commission shall consist of nine members. Eight members shall be appointed by the City Council and may be removed by a four-fifths vote of the Council; the Council shall select one member of the Council to serve on the Commission from among the Councilmembers, the said Councilmember to be appointed for one year, commencing in January of each year; the City Manager and the Park Director shall be members of the Commission ex-officio and without vote. On the terms of the members first appointed, two shall expire December 31, 1989; three shall expire December 31, 1990; and three shall expire December 31, 1991. Their successors shall be appointed for terms of three years. Both the original and successive appointees shall hold their offices until their successors are appointed and qualified. The term of ex-officio members shall correspond with their respective office tenures. Vacancies during the term shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member before entering upon the discharge of his or her duties shall take an oath that he or she will faithfully discharge the duties of his or her office. All members shall serve without compensation but may be reimbursed for actual expenses if funds therefor are provided in the adopted budget of the Park Department. (ORD. #36-1989, 10-30-89) (ORD. #39-1990 - 1-29-90) Section 255~0. Organization, Meetinas, etc,. The Commission shall elect a chairperson from among its appointed members for a term of one year with a limit of two consecutive terms as Chairperson; and the Commission may create and fill such other offices as it may determine. The Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month. It shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which record shall be a public record. Section 255:~5. Duties. It shall be the duty of the Commission to meet from time to time with the City Manager, the City Council, and the Park Director to consider matters pertaining to docks, recreation programs, parks and open spaces in the City as shall be referred to the Commission by the City Council, City Manager, the Park Director, or as members of the Commission deem proper. (ORD. #39-1990 - 1-29-90) 1-29-90 Section 255:20 Mound City code The public policy of the City of Mound is to strive to: a) present and future residents of the city an unpolluted environment; b) provide access to lakes and streams in the community; and c) provide parks which afford natural beauty as well as recreational enjoyment. It is understood that the Commission is advisory to the City Council and is created pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City council by Minnesota Statutes, Laws of 1987, Section 412.621, Subdivision 1. · ' n orts to be ]%4v~sor~ The CommlsSlO Section 255:20.. . /Rep.(_~ recommendations shall be m.ade, to thee_ re orts, conclus ions, ai,u . P . Park Director as may be requested, or ~u council, Manage.r., an_d_ the Commission deems appropriate ln_~_he any or all..of t_n_e~m,~t under consideration...Its re_p_o~r~ti light of the m_~ --~-~-'^ns are purely advisory, anu .~,.~= ~.~l~q~om . and recommenu~u~ ....... ~-~ ~ ~ h the council. final determlnas~_u- "."- --.-~_= :_ ,,,eru way posslDle Dy ~ne rc~ It shall be aided an~ assls.~e~ x,, ~. z . , ._ Director, who shall be appoInted by the C~ty Manager. (ORD #10 1988 - 1-26-88) 1-29-90 RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF 1984 IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,658.00 WHEREAS, there is a Resolution #84-118 filed with the Hennepin County Auditor directing a levy of $13,658.00 for General Obligation Improvements Bonds of 1984; and WHEREAS, it appears that there will be sufficient funds to cover the principal and interest due in 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to make the levy of $13,658.00 for 1994 taxes payable for the General Obligations Improvements Bonds of 1984. 3 to6 RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GFaNERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,552.00 WHEREAS, there is a Resolution//80-223 with the Hennepin County Auditor directing a levy of $4,552.00 for General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980; and WHEREAS, it appears that there will be sufficient funds to cover the principal and interest due in 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to make the levy of $4,552.00 for 1994 taxes payable for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980. RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1978 IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,173.00 WHEREAS, there is a Resolution #78-302 with the Hennepin County Auditor directing a levy of $15,173.00 for General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1978; and WHEREAS, it appears that there will be sufficient funds to cover the principal and interest due in 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to make the levy of $15,173.00 for 1994 taxes payable for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1978. ..$25·O0/each Annual Fee Original Renewal 1~:~/3 ~ ~ License Yr. to 4-30-? 7, Not Transferable: Person or Premises CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 LICENSE APPLICATION G~J4E8 OF SKILL Mound Business: Mound Address: r"~'CA~! LEGI0~ ~C~T ~798 Bus Phone: 517-~.77-958~ Applicant Name: KAR=~! LATTERNE~ Applicant Date of Birth:9/~/'~'0 Driver's Lic. ~: t-~ '6~ 3C? 739 Home Address: ~79~ SM~T~T0!,]N 9D city: EXCEL$~0R Company Name: AME~!CA~! LE§IO~! ~OST ~29~ Co. Phone: Company Address: )797 ,Y!LSNI~E 9tv~ City: Company Officials: 1..(?~f~ WY ~y~_~_5 (First) (Middle) '(F_~rst) (Middle) 3. (~irst) (Middle) Home Phone: L7~-793~ Social Sec. #: ~75-~C-557~ Zip: 5~33~ ~q6~ Zip: .... (Last) (Date of Birth) cz_//_ (La~)/~j~;:/ (Date of Birth) (Last) (Date of Birth) Type of Business: Does anyone other than above have a financial interest in the business? ~) O (If yes, please list others having a financial interest on back of this application, giving full name, address, telephone number and date of birth.) Description of Games of Skill for which license is required: Number Description Fee / DAP, T vmC.UT-"E $25·00 Each ~_ SiRnatur~ of Ap~lic-ant pepartmeBt Approval/Denial (Submit memo if denied) Approved Denied Police Dept. Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. Adm. September 28, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93- RF~OLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR JON A. SCHERVEN, 2271/2269 COMMERCE BLVD. WHEREAS, on February 23, 1984, .Ion A. Scherven obtained a loan from the Downtown Loan Fund to improve the appearance of his building; and WHEREAS, this mortgage was filed in Hennepin County on ,iune 7, 1984, as Document Number 4896610; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 1993, Mr. Scherven paid this mortgage off and is now requested a Satisfaction of Mortgage. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Satisfaction of Mortgage for Jon A. Scherven, 2271/2269 Commerce Blvd. SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE 8¥ Corporation or Partnership Satisfaction Of Mortgage Date: September 28 ,19 9~ Form No. 51- M Mdler Deco, Co .M~nneipoh~lO 3 A6i M renal, ora Undor m Convc) Ilncml~ Blanks I 19R61 (reserved for recording data) THAT CERTAIN MORTGAGE owned by the undersigned, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation , the ~t~e~ Minneso~, ~ ~ __ ..,~c~dated February 23 ,19 8__4, under, th, e~lawso°,f.~,c~.v~~~ g~...~a'- ~ c~,,,f:~'~"~r. City Manager of the execu~eooy -a~p uun.~.., ..-~- and ............... _ City of Mound , as Mortgagor, tu Jon A. Scherven for 2271/2269 Corette Blvd. , as Mortgagee, and filed for record June 7 ,19 84, as Document Number 4896610 ~f~vvvvvvvvvvvvvv¥t~sr~vvvvvvvv,~vv,~v~), in the Office of the (County Recorder) ( ~AxixB ~ ~.y.,i.z.,~.x,i,x ,~A ...................................................................... (l~gl~~RJ~ of Hennepin County, Minnesota, is, with the indebtedness thereby secured, fully paid and satisfied. CITY OF MOUND By Its MAYOR By CITY M~NAGgR STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by S~lP JOHNSON _. and the M~kYOR . ,. and of THE CITY OF MOUND under the laws of THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THIS IN~RUMENT WAS D~ED BY INAME AND ADDEE~{: FRANCENE C. CLARK/LEISINGER CITY CLERK CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, biN. 55364 28TH day of SEPTEMBER ,19~=~., EDWARD J. SHUKLE. JR ...... , on behalf of the ~ITY M~2qAGER ,,aM~q. MUNICIPAL ~ITY OF MOUND CORPORATIO,N SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) CITY of MOUND 5341 M~'YWQOD POAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 !612 472-0609 FAX 612,472 0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 93-040 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MOVING BUILDING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE MOVING OF A DETACHED GARAGE FROM 2010 SHOREWOOD LANEt TO 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 12, 1993 to consider a request by Marvin Nelson for a Moving Building Permit to move a detached garage, 24' x 36', from 2010 Shorewood Lane, to 2025 Shorewood Lane (across the street). City Code Section 300:25, Subd. 3, requires the City Council to determine if the structure will be of the same general character and appearance as other buildings or structures in the vicinity. All setback requirements are proposed to be conforming. The subject property, 2025 Shorewood Lane, is legally described as: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Ffah~ene C. Clark, City C~erk Mailed to property owners within 350' by October 1, 1993. Published in "The Laker" September 27, 1993. BILLS ......... September 28, 1993 BATCH 3092 Total Bills $100,757.30 $100,757.30 I ~r h, I I.,- o Z o~ ~n Z Z LU Z h- Z Z ! 0000000000 IJllJJJJll 0000000000 ~00~~ I I I I I I I I I I 0 Z Z et, Z o ,4, o ,Y 0 Z · ,( 0 o -r 0 o ao ~,' ~ 0 0,, Z 0,. ao z o ooo ! ! ~0 ! ! ~00 ',.I o Oo o · .~ ~-e o I I i I I ~ ,,-I ~ o Z l-- I a Z b Jcl: O0 Z 0 ? C~ ! Z n,, Z U.J:D ,~ U,,. ~ .. · .............. ~ ............ 0 O0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 0 ~ O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 ~ O~ Z O' O' O~ CO --I "~ Z UJ aO N Z :D G~ I-,, ..J U~ ~. 0 t~ o o oooo z ~o0~ o~ o 0 o oo0~ oo0 o~ ,4' o Oo ,,4' ! 0 o oo oo 0 I o o o 0 Z · z 0 0 o 0~ o¢ O~ o¢ C) Z n,,. 0 "3 Z L~I :::) I,.- ,,-.., ::3 Z Z o~ IIIIlll IIIIIII ~000~0 n,,. z o o o0o 0~0~ oo oO t~ I- ~-Z xc~ Z O~ Z O. 0 oO ii o o oooo 0oo ooo~ III II ooo Oo ~0o III II 0000 0 0000 0 0oo Z (..) · O0 O0 O0 ! ! 0 0 0 ! I 3: I ~- Z ,< ~,,- ,_1-1 I o Z uJ ZC~ 0 o z O, Z O, Z I Z 0 C~ ,< ! ~'v 0 O, Z O. 0O O, .( (~: 0 G. ~) Z CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT AUG. 1993 66.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments AUG. 1993 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,21 7,590 3,828 556,841 (660,749) 45.73% 3,260 242 10,246 6,986 314.29% 69,500 5,986 46,622 (22,878) 67.08% 860,500 0 427,207 (433,293) 49.65% 48,750 669 7,402 (41,348) 15.18% 65,000 4,040 33,101 (31,899) 50.92% 58,500 221 15,259 (43,241) 26.08% 12,390 1,167 10,164 (2,226) 82.03% TOTAL REVENUE 21335,490 16,153 1,106,842 (1.228.648) 47.39% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 244,200 12,199 209,848 (34,352) 85.93% 113,550 3,345 68,135 (45,415) 60.00% 1,200,000 112,863 874,934 (325,066) 72.91% 350,000 37,045 224,190 (125,810) 64.05% 650,000 67,762 443,726 (206,274) 68.27% 4,200 0 3,675 (525) 87.50% 73,280 340 70,779 (2,501) 96.59% 09/17/93 rev-93 G.B. CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT AUG. 1993 66.67% AUG. 1993 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 57,500 7,140 40,367 17,133 70.20% Promotions 2,000 (183) 1,641 359 82.05% Cable TV 1,380 0 711 669 51.52% City ManagerlClerk 170,380 12,643 109,760 60,620 64.42% Elections 2,140 58 2,196 (56) 102.62% Assessing 46,550 2 46,931 (381) 100.82% Finance 145,900 10,867 92,403 53,497 63.33% Computer 24,000 754 18,164 5,836 75.68% Legal 79,000 5,488 60,346 18,654 76.39% Police 779,200 53,311 476,523 302,677 61.16% Civil Defense 4,000 360 2,615 1,385 65.38% PlanningJl nspectio ns 138,440 9,582 81,720 56,720 59.03% Streets 406,750 33,712 236,587 170,163 58.17% Shop & Stores 17,100 913 3,575 13,525 20.91% City Property 97,160 6,401 62,960 34,200 64.80% Parks 174,340 10,822 115,749 58,591 66.39% Summer Recreation 33,100 5,982 5,982 27,118 18.07% Contingencies 10,000 0 1,090 8,910 10.90% Transfers 136,840 10,244. 81,947 54,893 59.89% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,325,780. 168.096 1,441,267 884,513 61.97% Area Fire Service Fund 244,200 21,1 91 180,807 63,393 74.04% Recycling Fund 99,350 8,698 99,398 (48) 100.05% Liquor Fund 194,620 12,401 132,230 62,390 67.94% Water Fund 358,190 37,969 234,427 123,763 65.45% Sewer Fund 761,350 97,217 598,265 163,085 78.58% Cemetery Fund 4,790 417 2,757 2,033 57.56% Docks Fund 55,440 3,323 32,467 22,973 58.56% exp-93 09/17/93 G.B. 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Notice and Agenda 5:30 pm, Wednesday, September 22, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Meeting report review of 8/25/93 per enclosed copy; Board member reports on responses from mayors, city councils, concerning the Administrative Subcommittee memorandum of 8/22/93 on LMCD organization as mailed to all city officials; Preliminary staff analysis of registered watercraft in seven county metro area for possible boat registration surcharge (boat sticker) to fund metro lake management needs. Discussion of a proposed October board workshop to evaluate content and city responses to 8/22 memorandum Preparation for and discussion of 3rd Quarter Mayors Meeting scheduled for 7:00 am, Friday, September 24, LaFayette Club; * Board members requested to confirm attendance, or regrets, concerninq this meeting. 4. Additional business recommended by the committee; 5. Next meeting and adjournment; BOARD MEMBER NOTICE: Please confirm your attendance OR REGRETS, 473-7033. Thank you. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Report 5:30 PM, Wednesday, August 25, 1993 Tonka Bay city Hall Present: Committee chair Scott Carlson-Minnetrista; Dave Cochran-Greenwood; Bob Slocum-Woodland; Tom Reese-Mound; George Owen-Victoria; Bill Johnstone-Minnetonka; Jim Grathwol-Excelsior; Bob Rascop-Shorewood; Bert Foster- Deephaven; Gene Strommen, Executive Director; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician. 7/28/93 MEETING REPORT: The committee accepted the meeting report of 7/28/93, and forwarded it to the Board for approval. FEE STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE: Carlson reviewed the discussion at the 8/3/93 Fee Study Subcommittee meeting per the action report submitted. A summary report of recommendations made by the Fee Study Subcommittee will be prepared by staff. The ,,envelope concept" for regulating multiple dock density and dock configuration was referred to the Water Structures committee. STAGGERED BOARD MEMBER TERMS: The 8/17/93 proposal for staggering Board member terms was reviewed and accepted for presentation at the Board meeting. SUBCOMMITTEE ON LMCD ORGANIZATION: The 8/22/93 Administrative Subcommittee memorandum to the Administrative Committee prepared by Bill Johnstone was distributed and read by committee members. FUNDING: Johnstone offered his initial observation that the cities will continue to be a source of LMCD funding. The issue of broader based funding was reviewed. The feasibility of a Lake Minnetonka or metro-wide boat sticker to incorporate a boat user fee was discussed. Johnstone said he sees two main issues with this funding source: 1) persuading the legislature to approve a metropolitan boat sticker registration fee, 2) determining how to allocate the revenue. Carlson recommended concept approval of Johnstone's memorandum on LMCD organization and that it be distributed to the cities. All Board members are asked to meet with their city councils in September, which would be followed by a Board workshop in October. This memorandum will also be the main topic of discussion at the next mayors meeting. The 3rd quarter mayors meeting date was set for 7:00 AM, Friday, 9/24/93. Administrative Committee Meeting Report, 8/25/93, Page 2 BOARD MEMBER ALTERNATES: The request from the cities of Spring Park, Excelsior and Wayzata, that alternates have voting power when a regular LMCD board member is absent, was discussed. It was pointed out that the Enabling Act for the LMCD does not provide for an alternate. Concern was expressed that Board members do more than cast votes on city issues. They are also involved in drafting laws. An alternate likely would not have been involved in previous correspondence and discussion. The committee recommended to the Board that an opinion be prepared by the LMCD attorney regarding alternate board members, to be reviewed at the mayors meeting. MUNICIPAL MILFOIL CONTRIBUTIONS: The City of Spring Park letter questioning whether or not the milfoil portion of the budget was a voluntary contribution by the cities was discussed. Strommen advised that the milfoil funding by the cities was always considered voluntary and is identified in the budget separately as the city's contribution. This will be clarified at the mayors meeting. The word "voluntary" was recommended to be added before contribution on future budgets. The committee also recommended an executive summary on the management plan be prepared, with background on the LMCD's responsibilities, for distribution to the cities. (Pages 1 and 2 of the Management Plan contain the Executive Summary. The executive director has also prepared an LMCD background piece for cities, distributed to the Tonka Bay council in early August.) I E'I SEP 2 0 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM - Public Hearing 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 22, 1993 Tonka Bay city Hall 4901 Manitou Rd (County Rd 19) 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARING Floeder side Setback Variance Application, Halsteds Bay, Mound 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Cochran READING OF MINUTES - 8/25/93 Board Meeting ~UBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda (5 minute limit) 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. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock * A. Approval of minutes, 9/11/93 meeting B. Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Dock Length Variance Application, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay; recommending approyal of 9/11/93 site plan with conditions on lighting and canopies * C. cosentino Dock Length Variance Application, 20640 Linwood Road, Deephaven, Lower Lake South; recommending approval of Findings and Order denying dock length variance. D. Unrestricted watercraft at multiple docks; recommending approval of staff proposal, as amended, for code amendments. * E. Additional business 1) Chapman Place Marina Variance application refund . LAKE USE AND RECREATION, chair Foster * A. Approval of minutes, 9/13/93 meeting B. Decibel Level ordinance Amendment, third reading; changing the decibel level limit on Lake Minnetonka from 82 to 80 decibels3~ LMCD Board of Directors, Agenda, 9/22/93, Pg. 2 * C. Special Events - recommending approval of: 1) Deposit Refunds of $100 each a) Wednesday Evening Bassin', 6/2/93 - 8/4/93 b) Bell Industries Dealer Fishing Tournament, 8/25/93 c) Minnetonka Challenge 5-Mile Swim, 8/7/93 & 8/23/93 2) Application Refund for Lake Minnetonka Ice Fishing Contest De Proposed Code Amendment to Sect. 1.06, Subd. 5 Fees, recommending that license application fees be non-refundable. E. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report F. Additional business ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Rascop 1) Progress on Environment Survey response 2) October meeting date and priority for city participation Be Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Report of 9/17/93 meeting and recommendations (handout) 4. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson * A. Report of 8/25/93 meeting B. Attorney opinion on voting alternates for LMCD Board members Ce Board member reports on cities response to Administrative Conunittee Memorandum of 8/22/93 * FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. August Statement of Cash Transactions B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. Personnel report, completion of probationary period for clerk B. Meeting Schedule review UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Election of officers, per Nominating Committee recommendation NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 9/16/93 ,k · REC'O SEP 0 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 PM., Wednesday, August 25, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran at 8:00 PM. ROLL CALL Members Present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Wm. Johnstone, Minnetonka; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Treasurer, Minne- trista; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; George C. Owen, Victoria; Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also Present: Charles LeFe- vere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park. Orono was without an appointed director. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS cochran announced that the Board will adjourn the meeting at 9 PM to enter into executive session to discuss the appeal of a court case. Any business not completed by that time will be continued after the executive session. READING OF MINUTES Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the minutes of the 7/28/93 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from persons in attendance on sub- jects not on the agenda. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Reese for Chair Babcock A. Approval of Minutes Reese moved, Foster seconded,to approve the Water Structures Committee minutes of 8/14/93 as submitted. Motion carried unani- mously. B. Cosentino Dock Length Variance Application, 20640 Lin- wood Road, Deephaven, Lower Lake South The Board received a recommendation from the committee to deny a variance application for a 200' dock at the subject property and to allow the applicant 90 days to bring the dock into compliance with the Code. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 25, 1993 MOTION: Foster moved, Carlson seconded, to accept the committee recommendation and to direct the attorney to prepare the Findings and Order denying a variance for a 200' dock at 20640 Linwood Road, Deephaven, the applicant to be allowed 90 days to bring the dock into compliance with the Code. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Stocks Side Setback Variance, Mound, Halsteds Bay Reese reviewed the Board actions of 7/28/93 in granting a side setback variance to Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, with conditions in the Order based on 20' of shore- line. Among the conditions was the requirement that only one boat or watercraft may be stored at the dock and such watercraft may not have a beam of more than 7 feet. Stocks subsequently submitted a survey showing the shoreline at 21.39' Stocks appeared before the Water Structures Committee on 8/14/93 asking that the Order be amended to allow an 8' wide boat. The committee vote on a motion to approve the change was 2 ayes, 2 nays. The Stocks request was forwarded to the Board without a recommendation. Foster spoke in favor of amending the Order as he views the change as a technical correction. Foster said it has not been the policy of the District to design docks or tell people what boat to put on their docks. He believes Stocks should be limited to one boat. Thibault said the 7' boat width was inserted in the Order by staff because the 20' shoreline measurement at that time would limit the boat width. MOTION: Foster moved. Penn seconded, to amend the Order granting the Stocks a variance by having condition #2 changed to read "Only one boat or watercraft may be stored at the dock" DISCUSSION: Markus objected to the change because there is the possibility, through the use of a shore station, to store a 30' long boat on the 20'wide lot, and still meet the side setbacks. Slocum said he agrees there should be limitations on the boat size. At the same time he does not believe it would be possible to put a 30' boat there. Johnstone said the Stocks are agreeable to an 8' boat width limitation. Carlson said the District has to limit the size of the boats on lots as small as this one. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Foster and Penn agreed to amend the motion to have #2 of the Order read "Only one boat or watercraft may be stored at the dock and such watercraft may not have a beam of more than 8 feet. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop, Carlson, Markus and Bloom voting nay. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 25~ 1993 D. Bean's Greenwood Marina, Greenwood, St. Albans Bay The Board received a recommendation from the committee to deny a new license application from Bean's Greenwood Marina to relocate three tie-on slips, one of which is outside of the 100' limitation. MOTION: Reese moved, Carlson seconded, to deny a new license application from Bean's Greenwood Marina to relocate three tie-on slips, one of which is outside of the 100' limitation. DISCUSSION: Foster asked how the District would proceed if the denial is upheld and the applicant does not comply. LeFevere said the procedure would be to issue a citation and then proceed with prosecution. He said this usually results in compliance. The executive director noted that none of the docks have been moved. It is a case of boats being stored in different locations than shown on the site plan. Cochran raised the issue that the tie-on slip #109 is on the inside of other grandfathered slips which are outside of the 100' Carlson said it is important for the District to enforce its ordinances. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster A. Approval of Minutes. Cochran moved, Johnstone seconded, to approve the minutes of the 8/16/93 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Decibel Level ordinance Amendment MOTION: Foster moved, Slocum seconded, to approve the second reading of An Ordinance Relating to the Decibel Limits of Marine Engines or Motor Boats on Lake Minnetonka; Amending LMCD Code Section 3.01, Subdivision 17, reducing the decibel level to 80 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC Douglas Franzen, attorney for the National Marine Manufac- turers Association (NMMA), said they have an interest in the pro- posed change but do not agree with it. The NMMA does not think the district will accomplish its goal to reduce motorboat noise with this change. He gave as reasons: 1) It is important to have a consistent standard throughout the State of Minnesota. 2) The human ear cannot tell the difference between 80 and 82 deci- bels. Franzen said the District is really trying to address boats with 90 or above decibel readings and this ordinance is not the answer. The NMMA wants to find solutions to the problem. :.5 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 25, 1993 Cochran said that in his judgment this change gives a signal to boaters and is movement in the right direction. Cochran agreed that he cannot tell the difference between 80 and 82 decibels but there are many boats on the Lake that cannot be heard. That proves that manufacturers can build and sell quiet boats. Franzen said that is a serious challenge to the industry. The difficulty is in manufacturing a boat which will perform in the Gulf of Mexico to meet the same standards as those set for Lake Minnetonka. He believes there are many boat owners on Lake Minnetonka who purchase boats for use in both locations. He does not know the answer to that challenge. Franzen pledged the cooperation of the NMMA in giving tech- nical assistance to the District. The NMMA has no interest in boatsoperating at 90 decibels and above. Foster said the committee held a noise level test on the Lake with the cooperation of the Water Patrol and the Pollution Control Agency. He said the District wants the noisy boats off the Lake. The District was successful in changing the decibel level for personal watercraft and this change can be accom- plished. C. Public Officials Lake Tour Foster said the Public Officials Lake Tour was a Success . MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, to move the date of the Public Officials take Tour from the first Saturday in August to the second Saturday in August. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Special Events MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, approval of a $100 deposit refund for the Westonka MDA Bass Tournament, 7/25/93. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report The Board received a report of significant activity on Lake Minnetonka since 7/19/93 as follows: ACCIDENTS: I Water Craft Fire 3 Property Damage Accidents 3 Personal Injury Accidents CRIMINAL: 10 Thefts from Watercraft 2 Thefts of Watercraft 3 Vandalism to Watercraft 1 Theft of Watercraft and Vandalism BWI'S: 1 Result of an accident 1 Result of speed MISC. As a result of Minimum Wake Restriction: 53 Citations have been issued 17 Written Warnings 380 Verbal Warnings August 25, 1993 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Water Patrol reported on the activity by Sheriff Depu- ties under the LHCD overtime contract, 7/23/93 through 8/8/93. Ten licensed deputies worked 90 hours at an overtime rate of $32.68 per hour. The contract allowed 100 hours to be worked, but 10 hours were canceled due to poor weather. There were 225 high water minimum wake enforcement activities and 9 other activ- ities for a total of 234 incidents. Penn asked if there will be discussion to make some of the minimum wake restrictions long term. There have been many re- quests to continue the restrictions on into the next boating season. Foster said that would be discussed by the committee during the winter. Reese reported on his trip with the Water Patrol while on He found the patrol. He said the experience was rewarding. deputies to be very professional and he gained an insight into their duties. He recommends all Board members do the same. 3. ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, chair Rascop MOTION: cochran moved, Carlson seconded, to appoint Robert Rascop as Chair of the Environment Committee. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop abstaining. Rascop submitted minutes of the Environment Committee meet- ing of 8/24/93. Rascop said Dick Osgood is organizing the work schedule to be followed. The stakeholder list was amended and approved as a mailing list for the stakeholder survey. The survey was re- viewed, amended and approved for distribution to the stakehold- ers. The executive director said the survey will be mailed to approximately 350 individuals representing 50 to 60 organiza- tions. The returns should give a good reading as the goals and objectives are set up. B. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Penn moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the report of the 8/20/93 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force as submitted. Motion carried unanimously- Penn expressed appreciation to the executive director and Todd Grams for their service during the harvesting season. Penn said harvesting has been completed for the season. A full report will be submitted at the next meeting. Penn called attention to the meeting report of John Evans, Freshwater Aquatics, regarding a milfoil pulling technique for mechanical aquatic plant control. The executive director said one harvester will be left in the water for the purpose of testing to see how it can be con- verted to pulling milfoil. The possibility of using both cutting and pulling in the future will be considered- LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 25, 1993 Cochran said it is important to observe that pulling is not going to eliminate milfoil. Foster thought pulling might elimi- nate the need for a second cutting. {Second cutting is done on about 10% of the bays harvested.} Reese said the MnDNR has con- cerns about pulling native vegetation along with milfoil. Bloom asked if the 1993 report will show a comparison of the effect of harvesting in various areas. The executive director said there can be a comparison of areas in the same general prox- imity. {No comparative data are presently being maintained. That would entail a detailed technical data recording program which is not included in the annual program.} Penn called attention to the proposed test of Garlon on the Lake in 1994. He said the SONAR tests in field enclosures in St. Albans Bay are still under way. There will be an evaluation by the DNR in the coming months. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Carlson moved. Rascop seconded, approval of the Adminis- trative Committee meeting report of 7/28/93 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Fee Study Committee The Board received a report of the Fee Study Committee meeting of 8/3/93. There will be further discussion at future meetings. C. Staggered Terms of Board Members Carlson submitted a report regarding staggered terms for Board members. He said the report supports three year terms, with some terms voluntarily shortened to start the staggered term process. MOTION: Carlson moved, Cochran seconded, to approve the proposal for staggered terms for Board members as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Request Regarding Board Alternate Voting Members Carlson reported three cities have asked for consideration of a change in the LMCD By-laws to allow alternates to the ap- pointed Board members for voting purposes. MOTION: Carlson moved, Foster seconded, to have the LMCD attor- ney draft an opinion as to the LMCD by-laws being amended to allow alternate voting members. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Carlson said such an action would require a change in the enabling act by the legislature. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 25, 1993 E. City Contributions to the Milfoil Program Carlson said the City of Spring Park has asked for a clari- fication of the voluntary contribution to the milfoil program. When the budget is sent to the cities it indicates the levy from the cities and a separate item of the cities' contribution to the milfoil program. This may not make it clear that the contribu- tion to the milfoil harvesting program is a voluntary one. It should be made clear that the contribution is voluntary and that should the cities decline to contribute, there will be a reduc- tion in milfoil harvesting. Carlson said the City of Shorewood has approved that portion of the 1994 budget, noting in a resolution that the contribution is voluntary. Foster said the LMCD staff should be instructed that, in the future, the words "voluntary contribution" be used so there is no misunderstanding. F. Subcommittee on LMCD Organization The Board received a memorandum from Bill Johnstone report- ing the discussion and conclusions of the Subcommittee on LMCD Organization. The Administrative Committee is recommending that this draft of the discussion be submitted to each Board member's city for discussion. These discussions would then be considered at a work session in early October. If a Board member wants assistance in the presentation, the Administrative Committee will make that help available. MOTION: Carlson moved. Cochran seconded, to accept the concept draft on LMCD organization and present it to the cities for discussion. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. FINANCIAL REPORTS A. Carlson moved, Reese seconded, to approve the July Statement of Cash Transactions as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Carlson moved, Reese seconded, to approve payment of Vouchers from June in the amount of $8,388.60, Checks 9283 and 9284 and payroll checks 1070 through 1083, and payment of Vouch- ers in the amount of $61,640.59, checks 9350 through 9407 and payroll checks 1111 - 1136. Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen The executive director submitted the LMCD meeting schedule for September, 1993. The quarterly meeting with the Mayors, 7 AM, Friday, 9/24/93 is to be added. The Excelsior Park Tavern Charter Boat trip scheduled for 10:30 AM sunday, 9/12/93 is to be added. Johnstone asked about the status of the EPT charter trip. He was informed it is a social function, notice is given to meet the Open Meeting Law. There will be no LMCD business transacted. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 25, 1993 UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Nominating Committee Slate of Officers MOTION: Carlson moved, Bloom seconded, to accept the nomi- nating committee's recommended slate of candidates for Board officer positions: Chair Bill $ohnstone, Minnetonka Vice Chair Tom Penn, Tonka Bay Secretary Doug Babcock, Spring Park Treasurer Bob Rascop, Shorewood VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop abstaining. Carlson called for any further nominations. Slocum moved, Bloom seconded, to nominate Bert Foster. Deephaven, for the position of Chair. Foster declined the nomination stating the demands of his new business as a deterrent to giving full service to the Dis- trict. Carlson announced nomination will be held open to the Sep- tember Board meeting at which time the election will be held. The newly elected officers will take their seats at the October Board meeting. NEW BUSINESS At 9 PM Chair Cochran declared the Board in Executive Ses- sion regarding Howard Kelsey Page v. Commissioner of Natural Re- sources Implied Consent Litigation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM. David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock. Secretary 3 REC'O SEP 0 1993 DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Meeting: Water Structures Committee 7:30 AM.. Saturday, September 11, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock. Chair, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 1. Michael Revier, 2691 Ethel Ave., Orono, Carmans Bay At the 8/14/93 meeting, the committee received the report and Findings of the Public Hearing held on 7/28/93 regarding a variance application from Michael Revier. The variance is for an adjusted dock use area due to the converging lot lines of the site. At the 8/14/93 meeting, the committee voted to have the applicant work with staff and the other parties involved to draw the dock and boat locations into the dock use area proposed by staff, staying as far away from the north line as possible. The application was referred to the next committee meeting for an expanded opinion from LeFevere in response to the letters submit- ted by Runkles, 2684 Casco Point Road, opposing the variance. Revier submitted a revised site survey with the 929.4' shoreline indicated, showing he has 26' of shoreline and neighbor to the south, Gordon Amundson, has 15' of shoreline. Babcock reported that he, Cochran, and Thibault met with Counsel LeFevere on 9/10/93 to discuss the application. LeFevere suggested the neighbors, Revier, Amundson and Runkle, try to solve the problem through the use of a mediator. Babcock added that the LMCD Board can make a decision but a better solution would be to have the neighbors reach a mutually satisfactory agreement. Revier said they have tried that on their own with no suc- cess. He said the problem cannot be resolved without the in- volvement of the LMCD and they would like to have a decision made as soon as possible. He said it seemed to him that everyone was happy with the LMCD staff proposal except Runkle. Babcock explained that the suggested mediation service is available through Hennepin County and/or other government agen- cies, at no cost. The LMCD would like to see that approach used. with all the involved parties returning to the committee with a proposal. Babcock said he believes there is enough shoreline between the Revier and Amundson property to support a joint dock. Babcock said the committee understands Revier's position. It also understands that Runkle contends the dock would encroach on his property which is now under water. Revier responded that Runkle has to prove that he owns the property under the water (below the 929.4' shoreline). WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 11, 1993 Babcock said he believes both parties' contentions have merit after his review of the comments of LeFevere and the Run- kles' attorney. If the suggested mediation is not followed it is possible that both parties will lose. The Runkles may wind up with a dock encroaching on what they believe to be their proper- ty. The Reviers and Amundsons may have limitations imposed on both properties' dock use areas which will not allow them to retain boats of the current sizes they desire. MOTION: Foster moved, Babcock seconded, to table the discussion of the Revier variance application, recommending the interested parties contact a professional mediator. The committee will consider any recommendation which would be forthcoming. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Runkle said his attorney has indicated that would be satis- factory. Babcock addressed the parties present by stating the commit- tee is not trying to put them off. Because of the season of the year there are several months to work on a solution. He said the parties could proceed on their own or contact the LMCD staff for assistance. Reese said the tabling motion precluded discussion and he wanted to make some comments. He favored the staff plan. Eighty percent of the people were in favor of it. Babcock said there were several reasons to table. One was that the new survey was not received from Revier until 9/11 and there was no opportunity for the staff to review it. Secondly, LeFevere recommended the use of a mediation service. There also is the question of allowing a dock across the Runkles' extended side site lines, even if platted below the 929.4' shoreline. Babcock said time should be taken to find a solution agreeable to all parties. Babcock said he, personally, is concerned about whether the small shoreline involved can support a 26' long boat. Foster agreed that the mediation service is an excellent way of trying to solve the problem. 2. Excel Marina, 141Minnetonka Blvd., Excelsior, St. Albans Bay MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded, to table to the next committee meeting the discussion of the Public Hearing held on the Excel Marina new multiple dock license application at the applicant's request to amend the site plan and resolve open issues with the City of Excelsior. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The executive director said there will be a revised set of Findings on the Public Hearing. He asked the members to save the material they were furnished for this meeting. 3. Gideons Point ltomeowners Assn., Tonka Bay, Gideons Bay The committee received the Public Hearing report and find- ings for a dock length variance application for the Gideons Point Homeowners Association on Lots 1 through 5. Babcock reported a revised site plan was received from the applicant on 9/10. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 11, 1993 The executive director said the revised site plan is a alternate proposal to the one discussed at the Public Hearing. Penn said he, the executive director and Mr. May, owner of Lot 2, met at the site to look at the impact of this variance on the sight lines. Penn said after a careful review of the site he does not believe granting this variance will have negative impacts on the Lake. It will allow two homeowners to have access to the Lake, and have no negative impact on the neighbors to the west. He believes this Penn addressed the dock over the wetlands. situation should not be looked at any differently than other docks over wetlands. There are many precedents. Wartman has 20" 24" agreed to put the dock in over the wetlands to above the 929.4' elevation. The wetland dock will be hidden from view. Cattails will be cut, not pulled, to construct the dock under criteria required by the DNR. Penn said the revised plan is for 120' dock with a 40' setback from Pearl Street. There will be some removal of cat- tails for boat access to the 120' dock under DNR permit. That will give the applicant less than 4' of water depth but he is willing to live with it. The dock could be cut back to 100' but that would require removing more cattails. The 120' length is compatible with other docks in the area. Justin Holl, 30 Pearl Street. reviewed a previous plan which called for an 80' setback from Pearl Street. That was a plan which all of the neighbors agreed upon, the City of Tonka Bay approved, and the LMCD denied. This plan puts the dock 40' closer to his property. He said they have asked all along that any impact should be on the homeowners association. He asked for reconsideration of the plan with the 80' setback. Foster said denial of the previous plan by the Board was partially because some Board members objected to the dock over the wetlands. Foster could favor the previous plan with the 80' setback. Babcock said it is important to make the point that docks over wetlands have been provided when there is no other shoreline available. In this case the homeowners association has control over the entire development shoreline and could provide access to the lake for Lots I and 2 without going through the wetlands. Penn said he does not feel the 40' is objectionable. He pointed out that Pearl Street is 40' wide, therefore giving an 80' distance to the next property outside of the Association. Penn said objecting to a canopy on a dock is not realistic on a lake such as Minnetonka. Reese said he does riot believe the District should allow docks over wetlands. As an example he mentioned the properties on the south shore of Seton Lake. Those properties are separated from the Lake by a wetland, over which very lengthy docks could be built to give access. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 11, 1993 Babcock said his observation over the years is that putting a dock over a wetland is not necessarily detrimental to the environment. However, he said, it would not be desirable to have 400' long docks every 50' on the Lake. In those cases the set- backs would enter the picture. That is not the case in the Gideons' Point application as they are within their dock use area. Babcock said setbacks on docks over 100' in length could be a subject for discussion by the committee. Gerry Holl said Lots 3, 4 and 5 have already removed cat- tails without a permit. She asked that the District save this remaining wetland to help purify the water in the bay. She reiterated the suggestion of Mayor Haug of Tonka Bay that the dock be placed on Lot 3. She added that when the Lake level goes down they will not be able to get boats in or out at the proposed 120' dock for Lots I and 2. Wartman said the association has had a MnDNR permit to remove cattails and they are not raping the land. He said they are not proposing a large multiple dock and are trying to compro- mise to get 4' of water from the 929.4' elevation. He said the cattails to be removed have grown in since the original platting of the property, as well as a bog of cattails that floated in from across the bay. He said to move the dock over to Lots 3 and 4 would result in the removal of more cattails. Babcock clarified that the required setback for the dock, according to LMCD Code, is 40' Foster questioned what will happen when the lake level is at 926.5' He wondered if the dock would then have to be moved out another 100' He said he is not uncomfortable with this plan but believes it will create an unworkable dock. The executive director said he took water depths at the end of the dock on Lot 4. There is 3.5' of depth at 929.5' eleva- tion. He said there is no gain in water depth by moving the Lot 1 and 2 dock to the east. Babcock said the District does not declare a low wate.r condition until the lake level reaches 928.0. At that point the property owner can extend the dock to reach navigable water. Babcock agreed that in this case there may be a depth problem at a lake level below 928.0' Penn said he does not believe a hand driven dock over wet- lands will impact the lake. The amount of vegetation to be re- moved will be spotty. Going to a 120' dock vs. a 100' dock will lessen the amount of vegetation to be removed. Jan Gloudman, 40 Gideons Point Road, questioned how the District could even consider putting a dock in front of their property, Lots 3 and 4. Babcock answered that the property owners in the subdivision assigned all of the dock rights to the Association when the property was platted. Gloudman responded that they will not allow access across their property to get to any dock permitted by the District on their property. Babcock said the District is aware of that situation. Justin Holl said there are two channels leading into the lagoon on the other side of Pearl Street. Because of the pre- vailing winds the channels fill up about every ten years and have to be dredged. He asked that the dock be moved further away from those channels. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 11, 1993 MOTION: Penn moved, Foster seconded, to recommend to the Board acceptance of the 9/11/93 site plan as submitted by Wartman with the conditions previously agreed ,to (May 29, 1993) regarding lighting and color of canopies. DISCUSSION: Penn said he believes the owner of Lot 2, Mr. May, is agreeable to the conditions. Grathwol said he was disturbed by the mention of the proper- ties on Seton Lake. He is disappointed that the Board has not come to grips with the wetlands issue. It is his hope the Chair will keep the Board focused on wetlands. In response to a question from Jerry Holl, the executive director explained the jog in the (lock over the wetlands is for the purpose of breaking up an uninterrupted sight line of dock length. VOTE: Motion carried, Reese and Babcock voting nay. 4. Judith and Louis Cosentino, 20640 Linwood Road, Deephaven, Lower Lake South MOTION: Foster moved. Reese seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of the Findings and Order denying a dock length variance for Louis and Judith Cosentino as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5. Unrestricted Watercraft Storage at Multiple Docks The committee received a report from staff regarding storage of unrestricted watercraft at multiple docks, with revision to Item 2 on page 2. Babcock said there are several issues before the committee for discussion. One is that there are discrepancies on how unre- stricted boats are counted for purposes of determining density at multiple dock licenses. There is also a discrepancy on how slides and other unrestricted watercraft stored on land are counted at multiple dock locations. The current Code considers unrestricted watercraft the same as restricted watercraft in some cases and not in others. Another issue is, as an example, the Wayzata Yacht Club providing facilities for the Lake Minnetonka Sailing School's unrestricted watercraft for educational purposes. The WYC li- cense does not include these boats and the Code does not allow that additional boat density at the WYC site. The staff report recommends that an exemption be granted for unrestricted water- craft at multiple dock locations which are provided as a required amenity and for educational purposes. Foster said he believes unrestricted watercraft do not have an impact on the Lake. He would like to see non-powered, unre- stricted watercraft not counted anywhere for licensing purposes. He would like to get out of the business of counting the low impact watercraft. This report says they are to be counted at commercial marinas unless for amenity or educational purposes. Babcock said there are three classes of unrestricted water- craft under 16' in length. There are the human powered water- craft, the wind powered watercraft and motorized unrestricted watercraft, lie views that the wind powered watercraft do have an WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 11~ 1993 impact on the Lake. The small x-boats take up as much space as the larger sailboats, tie is not concerned about the human pow- ered watercraft but is concerned about the wind powered and motorized unrestricted watercraft. The proposal is that unrestricted watercraft will not be counted at single or multiple family residential sites. They will be counted at commercial sites with exemptions for water- craft available for public rental or educational purposes. The executive director recommended that the District not count unrestricted watercraft which are stored away from the shore. Foster was excused. Grathwol said he favors the under 16' length, under 10 hp definition but has a concern about defining a canoe. There are canoes larger than 16'. Babcock said it is difficult to define every type of watercraft. Thibault and the executive director wondered if there were a large number of non-motorized canoes over 16' Grathwol said the problem is in deciding whether the watercraft is a canoe or not. Babcock suggested exempting all watercraft under 20' which are human powered. Grathwol said sticking to the 16' under 10 hp rule is difficult to circumvent and easier to enforce. Grathwol was excused. Babcock said another concern is a top level count of the exempted watercraft at a commercial location. His thought is there could be a limitation of l:lO'of shoreline as a policy. This would put a density limit on exempt boats as well as on restricted watercraft. This would allow as many unrestricted watercraft for public use as there are permitted restricted watercraft. Thibauit pointed out that some of tile commercial marinas already have a density of less than 1:10' In response to a comment from Reese. Babcock said this does not open up the storage of an unlimited number of watercraft at any location. The exemptions will have to be approved by the Board. If the unrestricted watercraft is there for the use of a private person it will be counted toward density. Babcock reviewed the proposed changes as: 1) At residential, non-commercial properties unrestricted watercraft are not counted even when a multiple dock license is involved. 2) At commercial locations unrestricted watercraft will be counted for density purposes except when exempted by the Board because they are provided for public rental or educational pur- poses. There would be a limitation to the number of exempted unre- stricted watercraft at the commercial locations. Thibault suggested the commercial location must have a 1:10' density before it can add any more exempted unrestricted water- craft. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 11, 1993 Babcock said the educational exemption should be allowed at existing sites. He does not believe there should be a limitation on density because that would eliminate grandfathered sites from having an educational program. Babcock said he does not want to discourage operators from making watercraft available to the public. Penn was excused. Thibault said there should be a definition of "educational" to define what type of situations would be considered as for educational purposes, i.e., sailing school, vs. boats owned by a university sailing club. 6. Lake Lighting Reese brought up the subject of lighting around the lake. He has observed an explosion in the number of undesirable lights on and around the Lake. He suggested bringing Northern States Power in to explain to them their installation of lights in violation of the Code. Babcock said the District has no control over the lighting on land. Reese suggested asking the cities to add lighting restrictions to the Shoreland Rules. The executive director said that was presented to the Technical Review Commit- tee. None of the cities adopted it. Reese said there must be a way to specify the right kind of shielded lighting. Slocum suggested trying to connect light on the shoreline with dock safety. Babcock suggested bringing the original ordinance back for consideration and get a reading from the cities as to their interest. There is the possibility of prohibiting a dock if the lighting is offensive and does not meet LMCD standards. This has been before the Board a number of times and has not been ap- proved. Babcock suggested adding a sunset clause to the ordinance. This would solve the problem of the individual who has had con- siderable expense in installing a security light. Reese was excused. 5. Unrestricted Watercraft (Cont'd.) Babcock returned to the discussion of unrestricted water- craft. He said he understood it was agreed to add to the defini- tion of unrestricted watercraft, those that are human-powered and under 20' in length. Unrestricted watercraft at residential sites will not be counted but will be counted at commercial facilities. Unrestricted watercraft used for public rental and public educational purposes at non-residential commercial sites may be exempt by Board action. He proposed an upper count of 1:15' for the number of exempt unrestricted watercraft a commercial location can have. Recapping Babcock said: 1) Human powercd watercraft under 20' should be considered unrestricted watercraft. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE September 11, 1993 2) Unrestricted watercraft shall not be counted at non- commercial locations. 3) Unrestricted watercraft are to be counted at commercial sites. 4) Unrestricted watercraft provided for public rental or educational purposes at a commercial facility may be exempted by Board action up to a maximum density of one unrestricted water- craft per 15' of shoreline. 5) Unrestricted watercraft are not to be counted for densi- ty purposes if stored clearly separate and non-contiguous to the docks and the Lake. Thibault said the staff will re-word the report and submit to the Board. 7. Babcock introduced a discussion of the "Envelope concept" for multiple dock licenses. He said the concept would affect marinas or non-conforming locations with a density greater than 1:50' He believes this concept already exists in the code in that non- conforming locations can re-configure within the dock use area as long as the number of slips does not increase. There was a discussion among the two remaining committee members, Thibault and the executive director. Any further dis- cussion was delayed until a more representative number of commit- tee members are present. 7. Adjournment Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 10 AM FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen. Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair UKAF-I LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meet ing: 5:30 PM., Monday, September 13, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, LMCD Office Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach: James Grathwol, Excelsior; Thomas Reese, Mound. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 1. Decibel Level Ordinance Amendment The executive director introduced Kathleen Lamb, represent- ing the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA). She was present to comment on the decibel level ordinance amendment, changing the limit to 80 decibels. Lamb said the matter of decibels is an issue that has been with recreational boating from the start and one that the NMMA has been working on steadily. The NMMA has developed a model noise ordinance which uses a different method of testing than that used in the LMCD test. The NMMA has a ten minute video tape on noise which she left with the committee. Lamb said she realized this was the third reading of the LMCD ordinance. Lamb said the NMMA is a trade association of manufacturers. It is important from its view point that decibel level standards be consistent within the State. It is her under- standing that the MnDNR prefers a single standard for the State. La,nb said she looked at the result of the tests the LMCD sponsored in May. She thought the test should have included a broader base of boat types than the four boats tested to find out where the problem areas are. Bloom also said the primary purpose of the test was to hear what 82 decibels sounds like vs. higher decibels, rather than to test a type of boat. By hearing an 82 decibel sound and an 84 decibel sound, it allowed the observers to know what those sounds were like. Bloom said it is interesting to know that there is a difference between an 80 decibel boat and an 84 decibel boat as they passed by the test site. The testing was conducted with a light wind and there was not a lot of reflected noise from build- ings. Bloom said he felt he had a good sense of the difference in various sound levels. All measurements were made by the MnDNR Motorboat Noise Measurement Procedures (MBN-1 and MBN-3). Lamb said it is her understanding that the District wants to get at the problem boat user. In her mind it is an enforcement problem. She does not understand what different enforcement procedures are going to be used to enforce the 80 decibels. Foster said the District has an ordinance that says personal watercraft should be at 79 decibels. The personal watercraft association did not have a problem with the 79 decibels. The committee determined that the problem with noisy personal water- craft came from modified exhaust pipes or eliminating the muf- fling system. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE September 13, 1993 Foster said Lake Minnetonka, with 1,500 to 2,000 boats on the lake in a peak use time, has a fully developed lakeshore. The LMCD decided it was not unreasonable to limit personal water- craft to 79 decibels. The question was raised as to why are there noisy boats and quiet boats. Foster observed that above water exhaust pipes come muffled. The question then was how to get compliance with th~ 82 decibels. If the watercraft has not been unmuffled there should be no problem, Foster added. Foster said the next issue he plans to bring up is how to get the dealers to not sell straight pipes. Foster said by adopting the ordinance amendment the District feels it is responding to the lake users, not only property owners. Bloom said he believes the manufacturers have the ability to build the boats at a lower decibel level. Lamb asked if there has been an effort to beef up enforce- merit. Bloom said the problem is there are not enough funds to fully patrol the lake. Lamb said she will mail the NMMA model noise ordinance and a proposed amendment regarding testing. Foster explained the MNDNR law allows 82 decibels at 50' distance with full throttle pass-by speed. (MBN-I Test). An additional test was developed, comparable to the pass-by test, where the decibel meter is 4' aft of the transom and 4' above the water with the motor idling. (MBN-3 Test). These tests are what is being used for enforcement now. Bloom agreed it would be nice to have a uniform decibel standard throughout the State. He said the LMCD has been more progressive than the State in taking the lead on certain things such as water skiing observer rules, the BWI law, and the person- al watercraft registrations and decibel ratings, tie would like to see the manufacturers bring their boats into compliance with the LMCD standards. Lamb said the NMMA would like to provide technical expertise to aid the LMCD if needed. Grathwol said he endorses the idea. lle feels cooperation between the interested parties is better than taking a hard position. Bloom asked Lamb for more information on how they measure decibels. Foster asked the committee what can be done about dealers selling boats that operate at 95 decibels. The executive direc- tor mentioned an experience he had when a local dealer was demon- strating a high powered boat well into the 90 decibel range. He said it sounded like an airplane taking off at full power. The executive director added that the District cannot regulate sales. Foster suggested writing a letter to boat dealers explaining the new ordinance, requesting cooperation in not selling boats which do not meet the ordinance criteria. Bloom said any letter should be held off until after the third reading of the ordi- [lance . 3 LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE September 13, 1993 Lamb thanked the committee for the courtesy extended to Doug Franzen at the Board meeting and to herself. She said she would like to participate in any ongoing discussions the District might have. She will check with the NMMA Washington headquarters for information on how noise problems are handled in Michigan and California, the two states with larger boat populations than Minnesota. The committee made no further recommendation regarding the proposed decibel ordinance. 2. Discussion re Boater Courtesy Brochure and Wake Control Julia Rossini, Colmnander, Minnetonka Power Squadron (MPS) and Tom Rossini, Past Commander, MPS, were present to participate in the discussion of the boater courtesy brochure and wake con- trOl'the executive director distributed copies of the Boat and Water Safety Education Program brochure developed by Thibault through the assistance of the MPS, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the MnDNR, the Water Patrol, LMCD Prosecutor Tallen and the probation officers. This is a program to be used by the courts, in selected cases, for people convicted of Boating While Intoxicated. The prosecutor or probation officer has the option of requiring the completion of the program in lieu of a portion of a fine or jail time. The Water Patrol and the MnDNR will participate with the MPS in the presentation of the program. This is a full Saturday program and is in addition to an evening Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) impact panel. Julia Rossini said there were major revisions to the origi- nal program. The original program called for participation in the MPS eight week water safety course. The probation officers thought that was too rigorous a program. As a result, an 80 minute video was prepared along with a test based on the MPS test but with selected questions, to confirm that the participant had paid attention to the video. Sgt. Chandler of the Water Patrol is developing the test. The cost to the participant is $70. Tom Rossini said that if the participant does not pass the test the person administering the test can give the option of re- watching the video and retaking the test or going back to court. Bloom asked if there is consideration given to someone who, for some reason, does not have the mental capacity to take the test. The Rossinis said that would be taken into consideration in the sentencing and in the presentation of the test. The executive director said this program meets a Management Plan objective. The executive director thanked the MPS for its assistance during the "minimum wake" period by radio advice on the emergen- cy ordinance. Julia Rossini said most of the com~nents they received were that it was the small boats, particularly those going through the channel at the MPS headquarters, that were wake violators. The MPS observation is that most boaters complied. Tom Rossini said the MPS could have done a better job of reaching the small boater through other means. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE September 13, 1993 Bloom asked why a minimum wake sign was not placed at the Arcola Bridge. The executive director said it was a matter of limited time and resources to sign the bridges. Marinas and public accesses received 600' wake restriction signs. Tom Rossini reported the National Coast Guard has a new regulation that boats under 16' must have wearable life jackets. It is also looking at requiring children under 12 or 13 years of age to wear the jackets whenever in a boat. Wakes Control Explorations Foster said the committee is trying to promote a more perma- nent control on wakes. Foster would like to see a brochure and public relations program regarding the control of wakes developed over the winter. Foster asked the Rossinis for input from the MPS. Grathwol mentioned the "confused seas" which develop in the area of Big Island and Excelsior Bay. He said it is not just the initial wake that interferes with boating. Tom Rossini said that is the result of many boats going in different directions. Rossini said wakes are something they should talk about in the MPS classes. Julia Rossini said there are many people who just are not aware of the wake being created in getting up on plane. She said in Colorado they refer to a "flat wake" rather than "no wake". Bloom said he prefers the terminology "closed throttle" (5 mph). Foster asked the MPS representatives if they would be will- ing to work with the District during the next months to come. Tom Rossini said the MPS is concerned about the boats approaching a channel "plowing" so the only thing that can be seen is the underside of the boat. That creates a wake for everyone and also makes it difficult for the driver to see where the boat is going. Tom Reese said another concern is boats towing thc new toys. Part of that fun is jumping wakes. Reese believes that should be dealt with somehow. Bloom said it should be high-lighted that wakes are a problem and give examples of the dangers and results, such as shoreline erosion. Tom Rossini said one ~akc area dcvclopcd a vidco presenta- tion shown at launching areas which stresses the "rules of the road" It continuously runs from dawn to dark. He suggested making application for a matching grant from Boat U.S. Foundation to develop such a program for Lake Minnetonka. Rossini said the MPS will give the LMCD assistance. 3. Special Events MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of the following: A. Deposit Refunds ~ $100 each: l) Wednesday Evening Bassin', Wednesday Evening 6/2 - 8/4/93, Sunday 6/13/93 and Saturday 7/10/93. 2) Bell Industries Dealer Fishing Tournament. 8/25/93 3) Minnetonka Challenge 5-Mile Swim, 8/7/93 & 8/23/93 B. Application fee refund of $100 for Lake Minnetonka Ice Fishing Contest - event application withdrawn. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE September 13, 1993 4. Proposed Code Amendment - Non-Refundability of License Appli- cation Fees The committee received a report from the executive director regarding the application refund for an event which was canceled. The report pointed out that time is spent by staff in preliminary work on an application. When it is canceled or withdrawn the Code is not specific as to application fees being retained for the staff time spent on it. MOTION: Bloom moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend to the Board a Code amendment to Section 1.06, Subd. 5 Fees, to specify non-refundability of license application fees. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Grathwol suggested giving consideration to creating a file of the minor housekeeping-type Code changes for enactment once a year. The executive director said that could create a problem when immediate action on an item may be needed, as in the current case. 5. Water Patrol Report The Water Patrol did not furnish an activity report. Grathwol asked if there were any comments regarding the Board action not to pursue an appeal of the BWI check point case. Bloom said the Board action seems to have been correct in view of the recent court action which ruled against DWI check points. 6. Additional Business A. Water Skiing for Hire The executive director distributed a report on a proposed water ski and towing "For Hire" service for the 1994 season. The committee concurred with the staff recommendation to forward information on the application when received to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, MN DNR Safety and Education Divi- sion and state watercraft for hire inspectors. B. Snowmobile Tours The executive director said a special event proposal is coming to rent snowmobiles on the Lake. C. LMLOA Comment Nan Woodburn, Deephaven, was present as an observer for the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owner Association. She asked about the different types of decibel testing. Foster explained the proce- dure. Adjournment Chair Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 6:50 PM See Page 6 for signatures LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE FOR THE COMMITTEE: September 13, 1993 Eugene Strommen. Executive Director Bert Foster. Chair & Rf.[:'B SEP 2, 0 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING ROBERT & BARBARA FLOEDER SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION Robert J. and Barbara M. Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, Mound, on Halsteds Bay, have submitted an application for a side setback variance. The Floeder lot, platted 12/74, has 20.6' of shoreline. The request is to reduce the side setback requirement from 10' to 5', to permit installation of a dock and a boat. The Floeders purchased this property 10/27/77, with a dock in place. The dock was included in the Bill of Sale, copy attached. A dock has been installed every year since with no complaints from the adjacent neighbors. The LMCD Code Sect. 2.01, Subd. 2, b), requires 10' side setbacks, so the Floeder's lot does not have any dock use area, unless the neighbors agree to waive the setback requirements. The Floeder's would like a variance so they can have a dock use area without it being contingent on neighbors approval. The Floeder's lot is in the same development and is the mirror image of the Stocks' property, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound. The Stocks were granted a variance for 5' side setbacks with certain conditions imposed at the 7/28/93 Board meeting, with an amendment 8/25/93. A copy of the Stocks' order is attached for reference. PLEASE KEEP THIS PUBLIC HEARING PACKET FOR USE AT THE WATER STRUCTURE8 COMMITTEE MEETING REVIEW OR YOU ARE WELCOME TO RETURN TO STAFF TO HOLD FOR YOU. THANKS!! 9/15/93 ORDER On the basis of the foregoing, it is ordered that the variance requested be granted subject to the following conditions and limitations. 1. The dock constructed at the site may be no more than 40 feet in length, and must be a single straight dock with no "L", "T", etc. The dock may be no more than 3 feet in width. 2. Only one boat or watercraft may be stored at the dock, and such watercraft may not have a beam of more than 8 feet. 3. No canopy may be constructed in conjunction with the dock. 4. The dock and boat storage shall be so constructed, located, and maintained that a 5 foot setback shall be maintained on each side of the subject parcel. The variance provided for herein shall grant no vested rights to the use of Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulation by the District to assure the public of reasonable and equitable access to the lake. By order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District this 28th day of July, 1993, as amended August 25, 1993. Euge~rte R. St~ommen Executive Director CLL55199 LKllO-4 4 Robert J Floeder Barbara M. Floeder 3027 Bluffs In Mound Mn 55364 472-6571 Aug 10 1993 Lake Minnetonka Conservatffon District 900 East Wayzata 81vd Suite 160 Wayzata Mn 55391 Dear Si r. This Letter is written as a attachment to Application for a Variance to LMCD Code regarding dock setback of 10 feet.. We are requesting a variance for the 5 foot setback from the 10 foot setback code. This request is for lot ~3 the Bluffs addition which has a 20.6 deeded frontage on Lake Minnetonka Halstad bay (see Plat map attached "A"). We purchased this property Oct 2? 1977 with a dock in place. (see Bill of Sale attached "C"). We have had a dock at this locatffon every year since the date of purchase and were unaware of a setback requirement. We also assume that a dock has been fin place each year since the house was built 1974. We thought if we stayed within our property boundarfies that we were within the 'law. We have had no objections from property owners of adjacent lots durfing our ownership. Barbara and I are of retfirement age and planting to sell the property in the upcoming year 1994 or 1995. WE stand to loose a substantial property value if we were to sell without some kind of docking rights which we believe we had at the · time of purchase and through out the years. We belive the variance and the findings recently granted to Thomas and Roma Stocks for property ~14 (see plat Map "A") will also apply to our request. (see attachment D ) and would accept restrictions as stated in the findings if the board approves. We Thank you for your consideration and looking forward for your approval. Thank You: "A" Plat Map "8" Lot Survey "C" Bill of Sale "D" Findings & Variance "Stocks" Barbara M F!oeder AUG 1 t 1993 L.M.C.D. "E" Photos of '994 docks "F" Drawing of the current Dock and abutting properties docks .~ ,Address Labels AUG 1 11993 L..M.C.D. 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 In accordance with LMCD Code §1.07, where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from the requirements of the Code or may require a variance from what is otherwise permitted by the Code, provided that such variance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the purposes of this ordinance, the public health, safety, and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by the public or riparian owners. The following application, when completed, shall be filed with the Executive Director of the District along with surveys, photos, and such other information as required: Prin~ or type proPer~y'o~e~'s name ' Phone; if no answer, call: ~oper~y o~er's address Bus~ness/Organization name (if different from applicant) Contact person (if different from owner) Phone; if no answer, call' Street address of property to which variance applies (if different) Phone Property located in the City of Riparian to LMCD bay/area(s)_~4.Z:.Mf- '~/~2Z~/~ z~zx~_~) ~z/- Number(s) Type of variance applied for ...~'/c'c~7 ~'~-.7" ~C/~ /zY' Z~A/'~c~ ~- '~-..~z State practical difficulties and hardships causing variance to be required: v/ 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 m be verified by checking with Hennepin County property description offices, 348-32~ 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. & Variance Application Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 2 ( Name ) Documents listed below are required; check that they are attached: Locator map. County plat / _ Certified land survey ~. Photos, where helpful_ ./. Address labels Scaled drawing showing present dockage Scaled drawing showing proposed dockage 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. FEE CALCULATION Application fee .......................................................... $ 2 5 0 Add deposit (refundable, depending upon full compliance with the Code and extend of administrative, inspection and legal services required) .......... + 2 5 0 TOTAL FEE ENCLOSED (this fee is for processing of the application and does not entitle the applicant to a variance) ......................... $ 5 0 0 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 deter, m~ne whether or n~ the Code of the reasonable times to investigate and to ~~ District is being complied with. Authorized s ignaturej-'~/,"' ~ '~--~/I/ ,//~' - Date Please return this application and attachments to: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., #160 Wayzata MN 55391 Phone: (612) 473-7033 8/92 I 1 (6) (,5) OuILO! A ~ (~8) '".'" a. I?° ~8' (3) 16 04 ~§ I, G4 (Z6) ~ I 09 IZ5 to ~(17) AUG 1 1 1993 LM.C.D. JOHN J. RYAN CO. 1595 SELBY AVENUE, ST. PAUL 5~104 __FEET PLAT OF SURVEY TE LEI:q4ONE: 646-68S8 AUG 1 11993 L,.M.C.O. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ! bareby eertJfy that on .,~'- .4'1 19 '~8 this survey, plan. or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Re.stewed Land ; d~ ~n and t~t I am a du~ ~ Land Su~ ~ ................. ~~~~~, BILL OF SALE ~nob~ ~lll ~n b~ tI)~c ~)r~cnt~, ~t oon Ohlgren and Lisa K. Ohlc o[U~¢fir~t~rt,~:~i~r=tio:~o[~;~°[ One an~ .... valuable..considecat]on Drapes ~hrouDhout; Stove; Gas BBQ; /~ Garage door openers; ~ Dock; All now on premises known as 3027 Bluffs Lane, Mound, and legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, The Bluffs. AUG 1 ) t~ Wrs ~ ~ assig~o, For~ver. ~t~ thy said par~].~5., of tho first ~ for ..~ ~r's and ad,~ini~trators, ~vcnat~t ..... and agree....., to and wit~ th~ sai~ ~rt ~,eS ............ of t Chnttels ar~ l'erwna~ l'ro~rt~, an~ l~.ave g~ rEght W sc~ tlw sa.W as ~forvsa~; tha~ th om~ the ~d /~trt. J.~.. of tl~ ~r~ part wil~ warrant ant~ defend tIw ~a~ ~ wl~l~ or an~ ~rt tl~r~f~ ~J~ ~ ~n~mbr~, Lf any, hercLnl~for~ ~ntioncd. ......................................................................................................... ) o,~ t~,~ .......... 2.Z.t..~ ................................................... ,~a~ o/ ............... .O..c..t..o...b..e..r.. ............... ] ................... , .~. ~..~.o.7...7...., ~/o,-~ me, ,~ ........................... N...o...~..a..r.y.....P..u..b..1...i...C ................................................................... ~[l~[n, am~l~ ]~o~ ,~a['~ ~'ou, nt&t~ pcr$on~[~,l appcartc~ Jon Ohlgren and Lisa K. Ohlgren, husband and wife, . to ~n¢ kTww~ to b~ tho persor~.....5. d. tscribed ir~ and wino e.~ecuted th~ for~,~otn~, instr~rn~n~, an~ aelcnow- led~,eg that ..... ~b~e..,,v. ...... exeetcted the same as.....t.he.J..r.. .....................free act and deed, 3fy com~ni~slo~ empires ............................................................... ,19 ............ 3N ,o LEAF DROP OFF A'$ ~ LOCATED BEHIND MINNETRIST ' ~ CITY HALL ~~ ON COUNTY ROAD 110 WEST OF MOUND CURRENT HOURS: OCTOBER 2 - 31 MONDAY, TUESDAY, FRIDAY: WEDNESDAY & THURSDAY: SATURDAY: SUNDAY: 7 AM - 3 PM 7 AM - 7 PM 10 AM - 5 PM 12 PM - 5 PM CALL 472-0603 FOR HOURS AFTER OCTOBER 31st LEAVES MUST BE DEBAGGED -"-~" THIS LEAF DISPOSAL IS FREE CO~pOST ~ cr~ o~ MINNETRISTA ~clr Cou ~/T~ Iio CITY OF MOUND BRUSH DROP OFF SITE THE CITY OF MOUND HAS OPENED A BRUSH DROP OFF SITE AT THE CITY PROPERTY LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD 15 NEXT TO SUPERAMERICA ITEMS ACCEPTED: BRUSH, TREE LIMBS UP TO 12" IN DIAMETER, DISCARDED LUMBER AND PALLETTS THE COST: $3 PER CUBIC YARD $1 MINIMUM CHARGE THE HOURS: SATURDAYS and SUNDAYS THRU OCT. 2 - 31 10 AM TO 4 PM THIS MATERIAL WILL BE CHIPPED UP AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FREE OF CHARGE AT A LATER TIME THE SITE WILL BE SUPERVISED - NO DUMPING QUESTIONS - CALL 472-0603 CITY OF MOUND SPECIAL DAY SATURDAY- OCTOBER 16. 1993 - 8 AM to 4 PM AT THE LOST LAKE AREA ON COUNTY ROAD 15 BETWEEN SUPERAMERICA AND THE POST OFFICE MATTRESS: FURNITURE: CARPET: TIRES: APPLIANCES: SCRAP METAL: ELECTRONICS.'.. PHONE BOOKS: BATTERIES: NEW BINS: BRUSH: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE ACCEPTED: CLOTHING, SMALL WORKING APPLIANCES, GAMES DOMESTIC ITEMS (PANS, DISHES, ETC.), HARDWARE TOOLS, LAMPS...** THERE IS NO CHARGE ** THERE IS A CHARGE BY SIZE: CRIB $3, SINGLE $5, DOUBLE $6, QUEEN $7, KING $8 CHAIRS $3, RECLINERS $5, LOVESEAT COUCH $6, SOFA $10, HIDE-A-BED SOFA $15 50 CENTS PER SQUARE YARO (Jute back only, no foam padding) $1 EACH, $1.50 WITH RIM $7 EACH this includes washers, dryers, stoves, furnaces, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers...$15 for AIR CONDITIONERS SWING SETS, LAWN FURNITURE, GRILLS, BICYCLES, AUTO PARTS, SPRINGS, PIPE, METAL WINDOW FRAMES, AUTO BATTERIES, ETC. ** NO CHARGE ** $4 EACH TELEVISIONS, STEREOS, VCRS, VACUUM CLEANERS, COMPUTERS; No charge for: Telephones, Radios, Camcorders, Tape Players, _This includes rechar.qeable and ~ordless appliances A CONTAINER WILL BE PROVIDED AT NO CHARGE HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES ** FREE ** IF YOU BRING IN YOUR BROKEN RECYCLING BIN, WE WILL REPLACE IT OR YOU MAY PURCHASE NEW ONES FOR $6 $3 PER CUBIC YARD, $9 A TRUCK LOAD UP TO 12" IN DIAMETER, INCLUDES DOCK SECTIONS, AND SCRAP WOOD (BRUSH PILE WILL BE OPEN WEEKENDS THROUGH OCTOBER) THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL NOT. BE ACCEPTED: Household plastics, plastic toys, styrofoam, insulation, window glass, rope, hazardous waste (paint, oil, thinners, etc.) cans, glass, newspaper, cardboard, garbage, leaves, foam rubber, construction waste, carpet padding. ANY QUESTIONS, CALL CITY HALL AT 472-0603 CITY of MOUND Z 534~ U~AYWOOD ~OAD MOUND. M',d,;ESOTA 55364 ~'2 472 0600 FAX F_,~,~, 472-00,20 September 23, 1993 TO: pL~MNING COIO;ISSION ~I FROH; ED 8HUKLE, CITY I~N~AGER BUBJECT; PARK DEDICATION FEE' At the City Council meeting of September 14, 1993, a public hearing was held on the consideration of a preliminary and final plat request for Dakota Rail, 2nd Addition by Dakota Rail, Inc. involving land south of 2281 Commerce Blvd. (John's Variety and Pets) and north of the railroad tracks. Most of the discussion involving this issue dealt with the Park Dedication fee that is required by Section 330:120, subd. 1-6, of the Mound City Code. Enclosed is a cbpy of that section of the City Code for reference. As you recall, this matter came before the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of August 9, 1993. The Planning Commission voted 6 to I to not charge the Park Dedication Fee to this plat. A resolution was prepared to that effect and presented at the September 14 Council meeting. The staff presented the request dealing with the plat. The planner indicated that the Planning Commission recommended not to charge a Park Dgdication fee. Prior to the City Council, the planner contacted the county assessor, Keith Rennerfeldt, and asked that he look at a market value on the proposed property for platting. He indicated that a valuation of $12,000 would be appropriate, which would mean that a Park Dedication fee of $1200 (10% per the ordinance) would be in order if the Council was to approve a Park Dedication fee. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Greg Keller, representing Mr. John Royer who is purchasing the property from Dakota Rail, presented some comments.on the Park Dedication fee. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes from that portion of the meeting indicating the discussion that occurred. The city Council then asked the city attorney to provide his comments and react to Mr. Keller's comments. Please refer to the minutes as to what Curt Pearson, City Attorney, stated with regard to this matter. The City Attorney presented the matter as it is clearly stated within Section 330:120; that is, Park Dedication fees are required in these instances when land is being platted. pnnled on recycled peper They are required of the party developing or platting the property. In other words, Dakota Rail, who is the applicant is responsible for providing a Park Dedication fee. The point that Mr. Pearson makes in the minutes is that there is an ordinance that clearly states that a Park Dedication fee must be charged. If the City Council wishes to not charge a fee, then they must not approve this plat. They would have to go back and change the Park Dedication Ordinance to remove the fee and then there would be no requirement for charging this fee. I was directed to write this memorandum to you by the City Council indicating the rationale for the Council's decision to require a Park Dedication fee, which they did in this case. The City Council wanted me to make it clear to the Planning Commission that you cannot vary from this ordinance. It is specific and clear. The Planning Commission's action of August 9th, puts the City Council in a very awkward position in trying to enforce its ordinances. Although, the Planning Commission is an advisory body and can only make recommendations to the City Council, your action had been deemed to be inappropriate in this case. The issue has nothing to do with who the parties are applying for the platting of the property. The ordinance must be applied consistently to everyone. As the city attorney states within the minutes: "... there is not one thing that was argued before the Planning Commission which has any relationship to the ordinance. It is the argument that somehow or another some people who are in government, whether they are the Planning Commission or the Council, can make these arbitrary decisions. This is what has gotten us in trouble with the commons. It has gotten us in trouble in a hundred places where people said, 'Well, what's the difference if Joe does this, we'll let him do it'. Then there are people who come behind them like yourselves who spend the next 50, 100 years trying to clean it Up..o,.te In summary, the Code of Ordinances is there fo~ a reason. Certainly within the Code there are opportunities for variances; we have them all of the time. However, when it comes to Park Dedication fees, nothing can be more specific than what is stated within that ordinance. In the future when plat applications are made to the City, the Planning Commission will again be asked to review the plat. The Park Dedication fee, unless it is removed from the City Code, will still be in effect. It is the Planning Commission's responsibility and obligation to follow the code. Please recognize this in your future deliberations with regard to this matter. enclosures ES:is MINUTES OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 Those present were: chair Bill Meyer, Commissioners Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, city Council Representative Liz Jensen, city Planner Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Mueller was absent. The following people were also in attendance: Dennis and Jody Emery, Dale Bakalyar, Dave Willette, and Joyce Nelson. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of August 23, 1993 were presented for approval. Johnson noted a correction on page 4, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line, should read as follows: ". · · he has no other information disputing that the law does not apply,". MOTION made by weiland, seoonded by Hanus to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 23, 1993 as amende4. Motion oarrie4 unanimously. ~ilshire Blvd. and 2757 An less1 Lane. SUBDIVISION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS- chair. Bill Mever, noted that this item has been withdrawn from the Planning CommiSsion agenda and it will be forwarded directly to the City Council for review. The city Planner explained that this item was previously tabled by the City Council, and therefore, will be forwarded directly back to them. This item will be reviewed by the City Council on September 28, 1993. Dennis and Jod Emer 2426 Commerce Blvd. Lots 16 ~ ...... Dxn #23-117-24 11 0002. VARIANCE FOR & 17 AuditOrS ~UDa. ~ot ADDITION. city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building official's report. The applicants are seeking a variance to allow expansion of an existing nonconforming dwelling. This property is located in the B-1 Zone, where according to our ordinance, residential uses are not permitted. Adjacent to this property on the south side is a business use and to the north is another single family dwelling. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1993 There are no setback requirements listed for residential uses in the B-1 Zone as they are not allowed. The proposed expansion consists of a front porch remodel and a 12' x 24' two story addition including a basement on the lakeside of the home. It appears the setback to the Ordinary High Water would be conforming. Based on the policy statement as reflected in the City Code for the B-1 zone, residential uses are not allowed unless the Planning Commission and City Council feels that this policy needs to be reassessed, then a recommendation of denial is warranted. Action to substantially improve or prolong a nonconforming use is not consistent with this policy that has been in effect for some time. If a recommendation from the Planning Commission is made for denial, it should include the following findings of fact: It is the intent of the Mound Zoning Ordinance to: Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the City. Recognize the unique character and to promote and encourage business use in the B-1 Zoning District. Promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and public areas. 4. Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Voss questioned how long the house has been there; the applicant's noted the house was constructed in the late 1890's. The City Planner agreed that it is safe to assume that. the house existed prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance. Hanus confirmed that the house could be reroofed or resided without a variance. Koegler commented that the structure is a grandfathered use and can exist in its present form. Clapsaddle commented that he feels, due to the lack of direction for the B-1 zone in Mound, the house should be allowed to be improved. Clapsaddle expressed a concern in regards to parking, he would like all the vehicles owned by the occupants to be parked on their property, not on the street. The applicants stated that they have always parked on their property, that it is the business next door that parks on the street in front of their house. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1993 There was concern expressed that the addition at the rear of the house will not meet the 50 foot setback requirement. Liz expressed a concern about the structure being in the flood zone. It was noted that the Building official will need to address these issues at time of building permit application. MOTION made by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance to allow the improvements, as requested, contingent upon the followlng: The owners are hereby advised that the existing use is not conforming for the zone in which it is located· Staff is to verify that appropriate off-street residential parking is provided. And, due to the following findings of fact: The structure and use on this property were existing when the city Code was developed. The structure has potential to be converted to a business use. This structure is not necessarily noncondusive to a business use. Motion seconded by Michael· The motion failed 4 to 4. Those in favor were: Hanus, Meyer, Johnson and Jensen. Those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Weiland, Voss and Michael. The following Commissioners voiced their reasons for voting in opposition: Weiland: It would be okay to remodel the existing, but he is not in favor of enlarging the existing building. Voss: He fails to see a hardship, and is in favor of staff's reason for a recommendation of denial. Clapsaddle: He also does not see a hardship, however, he is not concerned about the residential use in a commercial zone. He stated that what will determine the conversion to a commercial use is economics and that the structure is conducive to a commercial use. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1993 Meyer, who was in favor of the variance, stated that given the downtown conditions, if people are not allowed to improve their properties in this area he would expect to see degradation. Meyer feels it would be in the best interest of the city to have homes looking better in this area. This request will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. Case ~93-045~ Dale and Kelle BakalYar, 3091 Tuxedo Blvd., Lots 18, 19~ 20 & D/21, Block 1, Pembroke, PID ~19-117-23 34 0128. VARIANC~ FOR GARAGE ADDITION- City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building officials report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming setback to Tuxedo Boulevard of 22 feet. The required setback is 30 feet resulting in a 8 foot variance request. The proposed garage addition, with a deck above, is conforming to all setbacks. The odd shaped lot results from previous road easements taken in approximately 1969. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as the proposed addition is conforming to setbacks, the lot is an odd shape, and it is impractical to relocate the existing dwelling. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. Case ~93-046:. Willette Construction, Inc., 2561 Wexford Lane, Lots 4 - 13, Block 7~ Seton, PID ~24-117-24 14 0001. VARIANCE FO~ GARAGE ADDITION.. city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building official's report. The applicant is seeking the following variances to allow construction of a 22' x 22' garage and entry addition onto the existing dwelling. Existing/ ~ Proposed Variance FRONT EAST 20' 8' 16' O.H.W. 50' 48' 2' Hardcover is conforming according to the applicants calculations. The existing dwelling reconstruction was approved by Resolution #90-108. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1993 The encroachment of 2 feet into the lakeshore setback is minimized by the expansive wetland before you get to navigable water. The need for storage space is reasonable. The proposal is minimally sized and the location appears to be the best suited for the site with the garage door facing the side. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval as there is an obvious need for storage space. The request is minimally sized and this is a very odd shaped lot that presents a difficulty in placing a garage without a minor encroachment. Hanus questioned if the driveway is required to meet a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. It was noted that City Code Section 350:1225, Subd. 5 requires "Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks". The Commission agreed that the proposed location of the driveway is in the best location given the layout of the lot. It was noted that when the original variance was granted for the dwelling a proposed garage site was not shown. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the inclusion of a driveway setback variance as required by city Code Section 350:1225, $, Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. Case ~93-047:.. Marvin Nelson, 2025 Shorewood Lane, Lots 5 & 6,. Block 8, Shad~wood Point, PID #18-117-23 32 0012. MOVING BUILDINH PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE - PUBLIC HE/~RING. city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building officials report. The applicant is seeking an after-the-fact permit in order to allow the moving of a detached garage onto their property. Resolution #93-93 approved a variance allowing the construction of a new garage the same size and in the same location as the existing moved building. Staff has inspected the newly poured concrete slab and also the proposed garage. The slab is properly constructed and the garage can easily be modified to conform to the existing building code. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requirement for a Moving Building Permit to allow the after the fact moving of a garage with the following conditions: The building be modified to be in conformance with the current building code as required by the Building official. SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT I 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 FIRE PREVENTION UEEK MONTHLY OCTOBER REPORTS :3-9 ARE DUE I0 II 12 *C~TY 13 14 15 16 COUNCIL SPEC:IfiL PLANNING MEETS PARK RECYCLING COMMISSION 7:30 PM COMMISSION DRY AT MEETS MEETS LOST LAKE 7:30 PM 7 PM 8 AM - 4 PM COLUMBUS D#Y SEE FLIER! e 18 19 STAFF !~'0 21 22 23 MEETS l:30 ECONOMIC DEVELOP. COMMITTEE COMMISSION OF THE MEETS 7 NM ldHOLE MEETS 7:30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 **CITY PLANNING COUNCIL COMMISSION MEETS 7:30 PM 7130 PM _._. FULL MOON 31 SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER S M T W T f $ S M T W T f $ 19 2~) 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 ~$ ~b 27 HflLLObJEEN OCTOBER 12, 1993 - CITY COUNCIL - PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MOVING BUILDING PERMIT TO ~LLOld THE MOVING OF' A DETACHED GARAGE FROM 2010 SHOREldOOD LANE TO 2025 SHOREUOOO LANE es=OCTOBER 26, t993 - CITY COUNCIL - PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIRL ASSESSMENTS; CBD, UNPAID MOldING & UTILITY. BRUSH DROP OFF - Saturdays and Sundays in October, Lost Lake site, there is a fee, see flier. LEAF DROP OFF. City of Minnetrista, in October, call 472-0603 for hours, this is free, must unbag your leaves.